Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Removal of Reformulated Gasoline Oxygen Content Requirement, 26691-26702 [06-4252]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–4199 Filed 5–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0170; FRL–8167–5]
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Removal of Reformulated
Gasoline Oxygen Content Requirement
we received adverse comment and
address the adverse comments in a
subsequent final rule based on a parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking also
published on February 22, 2006. We
received adverse comment on the
amendments to remove the oxygen
content standard in the direct final rule.
As a result, in a separate action we are
withdrawing those amendments from
the direct final rule. This final action
addresses the adverse comments we
received and finalizes the removal of the
oxygen content standard and associated
compliance requirements from the RFG
regulations.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
DATES:
SUMMARY: In the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (Energy Policy Act), Congress
amended section 211(k) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to remove the oxygen content
requirement for reformulated gasoline
(RFG). On February 22, 2006, EPA
published a direct final rule to amend
regulations to remove the oxygen
content standard and associated
compliance requirements from the RFG
regulations. We stated in the direct final
rule that if EPA received adverse
comment, we would publish a timely
withdrawal of the provisions on which
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0170. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
AGENCY:
This final rule is effective on
May 5, 2006.
ADDRESSES:
Category
NAICS codes a
Industry .............................................................................................
Industry .............................................................................................
Industry .............................................................................................
a North
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marilyn Bennett, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (6406J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343–9624; fax number:
(202) 343–2803; e-mail address:
Bennett.marilyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by this
action include those involved with the
production and importation of
reformulated gasoline motor fuel.
Regulated categories and entities
affected by this action include:
Examples of potentially
regulated parties
SIC codes b
324110
422710
422720
484220
484230
26691
2911
5171
5172
4212
4213
Petroleum Refiners, Importers.
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.
Gasoline Carriers.
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
b Standard
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could be potentially regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
entity is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria of part 80, subparts
D, E and F of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have any
question regarding applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the
person in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
B. Outline of This Preamble
I. General Information
II. Direct Final Rule/Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
III. Response to Comments and Discussion
IV. Conclusion
V. Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
II. Direct Final Rule/Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
In the Energy Policy Act, Congress
amended section 211(k) of the CAA to
remove the 2.0 weight percent oxygen
content requirement for RFG.1 Congress
specified that the effective date for the
removal of the oxygen content
requirement in the CAA is 270 days
from enactment of the Energy Policy Act
for gasoline sold in all states except
California.2 To be consistent with the
1 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109–
58 (HR6), section 1504(a), 119 STAT 594, 1076–
1077 (2005).
2 Congress removed the oxygen content
requirement in CAA section 211(k) for California
gasoline effective upon enactment of the Energy
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
current CAA section 211(k), on February
22, 2006, EPA published a direct final
rule designed to remove the oxygen
content standard and associated
compliance requirements from the RFG
regulations in 40 CFR part 80, effective
on May 5, 2006 (270 days from
enactment of the Energy Policy Act).3 71
Policy Act. In a direct final rule published on
February 22, 2006, EPA removed the oxygen
content requirement from the RFG regulations for
California gasoline, effective April 24, 2006. 71 FR
8965. Thus, this rule does not address California
requirements.
3 The direct final rule also amended the
regulations at 40 CFR part 80 to revise a prohibition
against commingling ethanol-blended VOCcontrolled RFG with non-ethanol-blended VOCcontrolled RFG, and implemented a provision of the
Energy Policy Act which allows retailers to
commingle ethanol-blended RFG with non-ethanolblended RFG under certain limited circumstances.
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109–58
(HR6), section 1513, 119 STAT 594, 1088–1090
(2005). We did not receive adverse comment on the
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
Continued
08MYR1
26692
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
FR 8973. We stated in the direct final
rule that if EPA received adverse
comment, we would publish a timely
withdrawal of the provisions on which
we received adverse comment and
address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on a parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking also
published on February 22, 2006. We
received adverse comment on the
removal of the oxygen content standard
in the direct final rule. As a result, in
a separate action we are withdrawing
those amendments from the direct final
rule. This final action addresses the
adverse comments we received and
finalizes the amendments which remove
the oxygen content standard and
associated compliance requirements
from the RFG regulations in 40 CFR part
80.
As discussed below, Congress
considered the issue of lead-time
regarding the transition to an RFG
program that does not mandate an
oxygen requirement, and specifically
determined that 270 days from
enactment of the Energy Policy Act
provides an appropriate amount of leadtime. We believe it is appropriate to
effect the removal of the oxygen content
standard from the RFG regulations in a
manner that is consistent with Congress’
clear determination regarding lead-time.
Therefore, this final rule is effective
May 5, 2006. Although the
Administrative Procedures Act
generally requires that publication of a
rule in the Federal Register take place
thirty days before its effective date, this
requirement is not applicable where, as
here, a rule relieves a restriction.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
III. Response to Comments and
Discussion
We received adverse comments on the
direct final rule from three parties. Two
of the parties stated that the removal of
the RFG oxygen content requirement
will result in the discontinued use of
MTBE because refiners believe that the
oxygen requirement provides a legal
defense in leaking underground storage
tank lawsuits involving MTBE. These
commenters believe that refiners will
attempt to replace MTBE with ethanol
to meet the RFG performance standards,
but argue that supplies of ethanol are
inadequate to provide the volumes
needed to replace MTBE in 2006. The
commenters acknowledge that Congress
eliminated the oxygen content
requirement to provide refiners with
greater flexibility to make RFG;
amendments to the commingling prohibition or on
the retailer commingling provisions during the 30day comment period. The effective date for those
amendments and provisions is May 5, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
nevertheless, they believe that an abrupt
shift from MTBE-blended RFG to
ethanol-blended RFG will cause a
shortage in gasoline supplies, higher
gasoline prices, and distribution
problems relating to rail, barge and
terminal availability. These commenters
also believe that the removal of the
oxygen content requirement will result
in an increase in aggregate ozonecausing emissions, since, relative to
MTBE-blended RFG, ethanol-blended
RFG has a higher Reid Vapor Pressure
causing VOC emissions to increase, and
yields higher emissions of air toxics,
NOX and VOC emissions associated
with permeation. To mitigate the
impacts of removing the oxygen content
standard, these commenters urge EPA to
issue a transition rule. The commenters
suggest that in developing such a
transition rule, EPA should examine the
dynamics of gasoline production and
assess any adverse impacts on gasoline
supplies and cost, determine the
feasibility of transporting increased
quantities of ethanol and ascertain
whether an adequate delivery
infrastructure exists to prevent gasoline
shortfalls, and quantify the effect of
additional permeation emissions and
take these into account. They believe
that the transition rule should expressly
preempt future state common law
product defect claims regarding EPAapproved fuels or fuel additives and
affirm that MTBE is not a defective
product. They also believe that EPA
should increase the RFG VOC reduction
requirement to address backsliding that
they believe will occur if MTBE-blended
RFG is replaced with ethanol-blended
RFG or non-oxygenated RFG. One of the
commenters believes that EPA should
include a VOC control season oxygen
content standard under its CAA 211(c)
authority.
EPA believes that it should revise the
RFG regulations in a way that is
consistent with Congress’ decision in
enacting the Energy Policy Act
provisions to repeal the oxygenate
requirement for RFG. During the course
of its consideration and final action to
approve the Energy Policy Act, Congress
specifically determined that there
should not be an oxygen content
requirement in the RFG provisions in
section 211(k) of the CAA, and
determined how much lead-time should
be provided for the transition to a
program where the CAA did not
mandate an oxygen content standard. In
the legislative provisions it drafted and
approved on this matter, Congress
explicitly struck all oxygenate content
requirements for RFG from the CAA and
provided precise applicability dates for
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the removal of this requirement in
California and the rest of the United
States. Given Congress’ clear decision
that the oxygen content mandate is
removed from the RFG provisions in the
CAA in California as of August 8, 2005
and in all other states as of May 5, 2006,
EPA believes that it is appropriate to
revise the RFG regulations in a manner
that conforms to this specific decision
by Congress. As discussed below, EPA
does not believe that the current
circumstances warrant any different
course of action. In fact, it is notable
that Congress had before it many of the
issues involving MTBE that are raised
by the commenters, yet it did not act to
condition removal of the oxygenate
requirement based on any finding or
interpretation by EPA with respect to
these matters.
With respect to comments received
with regard to promulgation of a
transition rule to mitigate the impacts of
removing the oxygen content
requirement, EPA adopted the RFG
regulations, including the oxygen
content requirement, in 1994. EPA
noted that it was adopting the
regulations pursuant to its authority
under section 211(k) of the CAA, and
explained that it was also appropriate to
issue the regulations under section
211(c)’s general authority to regulate
fuels and fuel additives. EPA issued the
RFG rules under both parts of section
211 for a limited reason, so that the
express preemption provision in section
211(c)(4)(A) would apply to the federal
fuel program issued under section
211(k). See 59 FR 7716, 7809 (February
16, 1994). Now that Congress has
amended section 211(k) to remove the
oxygen content requirement, it is fully
consistent with Congress’ decision and
with the reasoning of EPA’s prior
rulemaking to remove this requirement
from the current RFG regulations.
We believe that delaying the removal
of the oxygen content requirement from
the RFG regulations and issuing a
transition rule is likely to be more
disruptive to the production and
distribution of RFG than removal by
May 5 of the oxygen requirement from
the regulations. It is not likely to
provide solutions to the concerns raised
by commenters. First, because of the
refiner liability concerns discussed
above, and Congress’ removal of the
oxygen content requirement from
section 211(k) of the CAA and related
adoption of a renewable fuels mandate
in the Energy Policy Act, the shift from
MTBE-blended RFG to ethanol-blended
RFG will likely occur regardless of
when EPA removes the RFG oxygen
content requirement from the
regulations. It is therefore uncertain
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
whether there would be any significant
difference in MTBE use even if EPA
were to adopt a transition rule. In fact,
major suppliers for months have been
planning and investing in a transition
away from MTBE and to ethanol before
the 2006 summer driving season and
they have in many, perhaps most cases,
already completed that transition.4
Second, some refiners and distributors
have indicated that uncertainty is of the
greatest concern to the RFG production
and distribution industry, and have
urged EPA to finalize the removal of the
oxygen requirement from the
regulations as soon as possible. These
refiners and distributors believe that
certainty regarding the effective date of
the removal of the oxygen requirement
is needed by refiners and distributors to
minimize potential supply impacts. No
refiners or other parties in the
distribution system have indicated that
the immediate removal of the oxygen
requirement would cause additional
supply or distribution problems, or
would solve or reduce any difficulties in
making the transition. Many assumed
that Congress’s May 5 date was a certain
date for elimination of the oxygen
content requirement.5 A transitional
delay in this program would create more
uncertainty for those planning on May
5 as the certain date and could clearly
disrupt potential plans for gasoline
manufacturers who were considering
the use of non-oxygenated RFG. EPA
believes that, if anything, delaying the
removal would disrupt the production
and distribution of RFG and would not
solve or alleviate any of the economic or
supply concerns raised by commenters.
Last, with regard to the commenters’ air
quality concerns, the removal of the
oxygen content requirement from the
regulations does not change any of the
emissions performance standards that
RFG must meet. To the extent the
commenters are raising concerns about
the underlying emissions performance
standards for RFG, we believe that this
§ 80.2(ii) ..............................................................
§ 80.41(e) and (f) 10 .............................................
§ 80.41(o) ............................................................
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
§ 80.41(q) ............................................................
4 Memorandum to Docket from Chris McKenna
(April 24, 2006); Energy Information
Administration, ‘‘Eliminating MTBE in Gasoline in
2006’’ (February 22, 2006).
5 Letter to William Wehrum, USEPA, from
Edward Murphy, American Petroleum Institute,
Bob Slaughter, National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association, Gregory M. Scott, Society of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
rulemaking is not the appropriate action
in which to address these concerns. We
intend to conduct a broad analysis of
the impact of ethanol-blended gasoline
on air quality in the context of a
separate rulemaking to implement the
renewable fuels mandate in the Energy
Policy Act. In addition Congress
mandated that within two years of
enactment of the Energy Policy Act, that
EPA conduct a study of the effects on
public health related to substitutes
(such as ethanol) for MTBE in gasoline.
See amended CAA section 211(b)(4).
EPA believes it is not appropriate to try
to resolve the questions raised by
commenters prior to the development of
the information expected through these
analyses, and that EPA should not delay
removal of the oxygen content
requirement for the reasons described
above. For these reasons, we believe that
the benefits of finalizing the removal of
the oxygen requirement from the
regulations and the likely adverse
impact of a transition rule clearly
outweigh the uncertain benefits of a
transition rule.
A third commenter expressed concern
that use of non-oxygenated RFG may
result in increased air toxics and other
harmful air pollutants. This commenter
believes that the rule removing the
oxygen content requirement should
require non-oxygenated RFG to
maintain the air quality benefits derived
from the oxygen requirement. The
commenter is particularly concerned
that over-compliance with the air toxics
standards may not be maintained with
the introduction of non-oxygenated
RFG.
First, we note that, although refiners
will have the flexibility to produce RFG
without oxygen, they nevertheless must
meet all other standards and
requirements for RFG, including the
VOC, NOX and toxics emissions
performance standards. In addition, the
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule
imposes baseline requirements designed
to maintain 1998–2000 levels of over-
26693
compliance with the toxics emissions
performance standards.6 We believe,
and discussions with refiners confirm,
that many, probably the vast majority of
refiners and importers will continue to
use oxygenates in order to meet these
standards. In the Energy Policy Act,
Congress considered the need for even
more stringent controls on air toxics,
and addressed this need by requiring
EPA to revise the baseline years for
toxics compliance.7 Finally, EPA
recently proposed additional controls
on benzene and other air toxics, which
we believe will meet or exceed the
additional controls mandated by the
Energy Policy Act.8 We believe that
these controls are appropriate and will
ensure that there will be no loss in air
quality benefits resulting from the
removal of the RFG oxygen content
requirement. In summary, first,
Congress considered the need for
increased toxics controls in association
with other measures in the Energy
Policy Act and EPA will defer to the
decisions made by Congress and,
second, EPA has already proposed other
methods of controlling toxics under its
authority in section 211 of the Clean Air
Act.
IV. Conclusion
EPA concludes that it is appropriate
to remove the oxygen content
requirement from the RFG regulations at
this time. This is consistent with
Congress’ recent decision on this issue,
and a delay in making this change to the
RFG regulations would not be
appropriate under current
circumstances.
V. Action
This action finalizes, as proposed, the
amendments to 40 CFR part 80 which
remove the oxygen content standard and
associated compliance requirements
from the RFG regulations. The affected
sections are listed in the following
table: 9
Removes oxygen in the definition of ‘‘reformulated gasoline credit.’’ With the removal of the
oxygen standard, there is no basis for the generation of oxygen credits.
Removes the per-gallon and averaged oxygen standards for Phase II Complex Model RFG.
Removes the provisions relating to oxygen survey failures. With the removal of the oxygen
standard, oxygen surveys will no longer be needed.
Removes reference to § 80.41(o). Also removes reference to oxygenate blenders since oxygenate blenders were subject only to adjusted standards in the case of an oxygen survey
failure and not any other survey failure.
Independent Gasoline Marketers Association, John
Eichberger, National Association of Convenience
Stores, Joe Sparano, Western Petroleum
Association, dated December 9, 2005.
6 66 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001).
7 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109–
58 (HR6), § 1504(b), 119 STAT, 1077–1078 (2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8 71
FR 15804 (March 29, 2006).
final action also lifts a stay, previously
published on November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60715),
which was in effect regarding § 80.65(d)(2)(vi) and
§ 80.129(a), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), and (d)(3)(v). The
stay is no longer appropriate in light of today’s
amendments to these sections.
9 This
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
26694
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
§ 80.65 heading ..................................................
§ 80.65(c) ............................................................
§ 80.65(d) ............................................................
§ 80.65(h) ............................................................
§ 80.67(a) ............................................................
§ 80.67(b) ............................................................
§ 80.67(f) .............................................................
§ 80.67(g) ............................................................
§ 80.67(h) ............................................................
§ 80.68(a) and (b) ...............................................
§ 80.68(c) ............................................................
§ 80.73 ................................................................
§ 80.74(c) ............................................................
§ 80.74(d) ............................................................
§ 80.75 heading and paragraph (a) ....................
§ 80.75(f) .............................................................
§ 80.75(h) ............................................................
§ 80.75(i) .............................................................
§ 80.75(l) .............................................................
§ 80.75(m) ...........................................................
§ 80.75(n) ............................................................
§ 80.76(a) ............................................................
§ 80.77(g) ............................................................
§ 80.77(i) .............................................................
§ 80.78(a) ............................................................
§ 80.79 ................................................................
§ 80.81(b) ............................................................
§ 80.125(a), (c) and (d) .......................................
§ 80.126(b) ..........................................................
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
§ 80.128(e) ..........................................................
§ 80.129 ..............................................................
§ 80.130(a) ..........................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Removes oxygenate blenders from the heading since oxygenate blenders were only responsible for demonstrating compliance with the oxygen standard which has been removed.
Removes requirements relating to compliance with the oxygen standard which have been removed.
Removes the designation requirement relating to oxygen content, removes the RBOB designation categories of ‘‘any oxygenate’’ and ‘‘ether only,’’ and adds a requirement for RBOB to
be designated regarding the type and amount of oxygenate required to be added.
Removes the requirement for oxygenate blenders to comply with the audit requirements under
subpart F since they will no longer be required to demonstrate compliance with the oxygen
standard.
Removes the option to comply with the oxygen standard on average for oxygenate blenders
since there no longer is an oxygen standard. Also removes provisions for refiners and importers to use gasoline that exceeds the average standard for oxygen to offset gasoline
which does not achieve the average standard for oxygen.
Removes requirements relating to oxygenate blenders who meet the oxygen standard on average, since there no longer is an oxygen standard.
Removes requirements relating to compliance with the oxygen standard on average since
there no longer is an oxygen standard.
Removes requirements relating to compliance calculations for meeting the oxygen standard on
average, since there no longer is an oxygen standard. Also removes requirements relating
to the generation and use of oxygen credits. Specifies two compliance calculation options
for average xygen content for 2006.
Removes requirements relating to the transfer of oxygen credits.
Removes references to oxygenate blenders since, with the removal of the requirement for oxygen survey, they are no longer subject to survey requirements. Also removes reference to
oxygen regarding consequences of a failure to conduct a required survey.
Removes general survey requirements relating to oxygen surveys.
Clarifies the applicability of this section to oxygenate blenders.
Removes recordkeeping requirements for oxygenate blenders who comply with the oxygen
standard on average, since they no longer will be required to demonstrate compliance with
an oxygen standard. Also removes reference to ‘‘types’’ of credits, since there now is only
one type of credit (i.e., benzene.)
Revises this paragraph to clarify recordkeeping requirements for oxygenate blenders.
Removes reporting requirements for oxygenate blenders since they no longer will be required
to demonstrate compliance with an oxygen standard.
Removes requirement for submitting oxygen averaging reports since there no longer is a requirement to comply with the oxygen standard.
Removes credit transfer report requirements for oxygen credits, since oxygen credits will no
longer be generated.
Removes requirement for oxygenate blenders to submit a report identifying each covered area
that was supplied with averaged RFG, since they no longer will be required to demonstrate
compliance with an oxygen standard.
Removes reporting requirement for oxygenate blenders who comply with the oxygen standard
on a per-gallon basis, since they are no longer required to demonstrate compliance with an
oxygen standard.
Removes requirement for oxygenate blenders to submit a report of the audit required under
§ 80.65(h), since oxygenate blenders will no longer be required to comply with the audit requirement.
Removes requirement for oxygenate blenders to have reports signed and certified, since they
no longer will be required to submit reports under this section.
Clarifies registration requirements for oxygenate blenders.
Removes product transfer documentation requirement for oxygen content.
Removes requirement for RBOB to be identified on product transfer documents as suitable for
blending with ‘‘any-oxygenate,’’ ‘‘ether-only,’’ since these categories have been removed.
Removes the prohibition against producing and marketing RFG that does not meet the oxygen
minimum standard since the oxygen standard has been removed. Also removes requirements to meet the oxygen minimum standard during transition from RBOB to RFG in a storage tank. (Today’s rule also removes the provision in § 80.78(a)(1) regarding compliance
with the maximum oxygen standard in § 80.41 for simple model RFG. See footnote 3.)
Removes quality assurance requirement to test for compliance with the oxygen standard.
Removes exemptions for California gasoline survey and independent analysis requirements for
oxygenate blenders since they are no longer subject to these requirements.
Removes attest engagement auditor requirements for(c) and (d) oxygenate blenders, since
they are no longer required to conduct attest engagement audits.
Revises attest engagement definition of credit trading records to remove reference to oxygen
credits.
Removes reference to RBOB designations of‘‘any-oxygenate’’ and ‘‘ether-only’’ with regard to
refiner and importer contracts with downstream oxygenate blenders, since these designations have been removed from the regulations.
Removes and reserves this section which provided for alternative attest engagement procedures for oxygenate blenders, since they are no longer required to conduct attest audits.
Removes requirement for a certified public accountant or an internal auditor certified by the Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc. to issue an attest engagement report to blenders, since they
are no longer required to conduct attest audits. Removes requirement for blenders to
providea copy of the auditor’s report to EPA.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
§ 80.133(h) ..........................................................
§ 80.134 ..............................................................
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Today’s rule also modifies the
provisions for downstream oxygenate
blending in § 80.69. Under the current
regulations, some refiners and importers
produce or import a product called
‘‘reformulated gasoline blendstock for
oxygenate blending,’’ or RBOB, which is
gasoline that becomes RFG upon the
addition of an oxygenate. The refiner or
importer of the RBOB determines the
type(s) and amount (or range of
amounts) of oxygenate that must be
added to the RBOB. The RBOB is then
transported to an oxygenate blender
downstream from the refiner or importer
who adds the type and amount of
oxygenate designated for the RBOB by
the refiner or importer. The RBOB
refiner or importer includes the
designated amount of oxygenate in its
emissions performance compliance
calculations for the RBOB; however, it
is the oxygenate blender who actually
adds the oxygenate to the RBOB to
comply with the 2.0 weight percent
oxygen standard for the RFG that is
produced by blending oxygenate into
the RBOB. The regulations require
oxygenate blenders to conduct testing
for oxygen content to ensure that each
batch of RFG complies with the oxygen
standard. With the removal of the
oxygen standard, the current
requirement for oxygenate blenders to
conduct testing to ensure compliance
with the oxygen standard will no longer
be necessary. Accordingly, the
provisions for oxygenate blenders in
§ 80.69 have been modified to remove
the requirement for oxygenate blenders
to test RFG for compliance with the
oxygen standard.
Although there will no longer be an
oxygen content requirement for RFG, we
believe that many refiners and importers
will want to continue to include
oxygenate blended downstream in their
emissions performance compliance
calculations. As a result, the category of
RBOB is being retained and RBOB
refiners and importers will continue to
be required to comply with the contract
and quality assurance (QA) oversight
10 The regulations also include oxygen minimum
standards for simple model RFG and Phase I
complex Model RFG, and an oxygen maximum
standard for simple model RFG. See §§ 80.41(a)
through (d), and (g). These standards are no longer
in effect and today’s rule does not modify the
regulations to remove these standards or
compliance requirements relating to these
standards, except where such requirements are
included in provisions requiring other changes in
today’s rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
26695
Removes references to ‘‘any-oxygenate’’ and ‘‘ether-only’’ RBOB under § 80.69(a)(8) since this
section has been removed.
Removes this section which provides attest procedures for oxygenate blenders since they are
no longer required to conduct attest audits.
requirements in § 80.69.11 Because
oxygenate blenders will no longer be
conducting testing to ensure compliance
with the oxygen standard, we believe
that RBOB refiner or importer
compliance with the contract and QA
oversight requirements will be
necessary for RBOB designated to be
blended with any amount of oxygenate,
including an amount of oxygenate that
would result in RFG containing 2.0
weight percent (or less) oxygen. As a
result, the generic categories of
oxygenate in § 80.69(a)(8) are eliminated
by today’s rule and RBOB refiners and
importers will be required to comply
with the contract and QA oversight
requirements in § 80.69 for any RBOB
produced or imported. This approach is
consistent with the oversight
requirements in § 80.101(d)(4) for
refiners and importers of conventional
gasoline who wish to include oxygen
added downstream from the refinery or
importer in anti-dumping emissions
compliance calculations.
Although oxygenate blenders will no
longer be subject to the oxygen standard
and associated testing requirements, we
believe that the current requirements for
oxygenate blenders to be registered with
EPA, to add the specific type(s) and
amount (or range of amounts) of
oxygenate designated for the RBOB, and
to maintain records of their blending
operation continue to be necessary in
order to ensure compliance with, and
facilitate enforcement of, the emissions
performance standards for the RFG
produced by blending oxygenate with
RBOB downstream. As a result, these
oxygenate blender requirements are
being retained.
The effective date for the removal of
the oxygen requirement will occur
during 2006. As a result, refiners,
11 EPA intends to promulgate a rule which will
allow RBOB refiners and importers to use an
alternative method of quality assurance (QA)
oversight of downstream oxygenate blenders in lieu
of the contract and QA requirements in
§§ 80.69(a)(6) and (a)(7). This alternative method
consists of a QA sampling and testing survey
program carried out by an independent surveyor
pursuant to a survey plan approved by EPA. EPA
is currently allowing use of this alternative QA
method under a grant of enforcement discretion that
is scheduled to expire when the rule is
promulgated, or December 31, 2007, whichever is
earlier. See Letter to Edward H. Murphy,
Downstream General Manager, American Petroleum
Institute, dated December 22, 2005, from Grant Y.
Nakayama, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
importers and oxygenate blenders will
be subject to the oxygen standard for the
months in 2006 prior to the effective
date of this rule. The current regulations
allow parties to demonstrate compliance
either on a per-gallon basis or on an
annual average basis. Since the oxygen
content standard is being removed
during an annual averaging period, EPA
has modified the regulations to reflect
this change and to clarify how parties
would demonstrate compliance with the
average oxygen content standard for
2006. Parties may demonstrate
compliance based on the average oxygen
content of RFG during the months prior
to the effective date for the removal of
the oxygen content requirement. In
addition, any refiner, importer or
oxygenate blender may demonstrate
compliance based on all of the
oxygenated RFG it produces or imports
during 2006. This means a refiner or
importer has two options to show
compliance with the average oxygen
content standard for 2006. The first
option looks only at the RFG produced
or imported from January 1, 2006
through the effective date of this rule.
During this time period, the per-gallon
minimum was in place for RFG, so all
of the RFG would have been
oxygenated. The refiner or importer
would be in compliance if they could
show that they meet the 2.1% average
standard based on the volume and
oxygen content of all of the RFG
produced or imported during this time
period. The second option looks at the
RFG produced or imported from January
1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.
Since there is no per gallon minimum
for oxygen content starting from the
effective date of this rule, some but not
necessarily all of the RFG produced
during the year would have been
oxygenated. The refiner or importer
would be in compliance if they could
show that they meet the 2.1% average
standard based on the RFG volume and
oxygen content of all of the oxygenated
RFG produced or imported during this
time period, i.e., the entire year. Any
non-oxygenated RFG produced or
imported after the effective date of the
rule may be excluded from compliance
calculations.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
26696
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
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.
It has been determined that this direct
final rule does not satisfy the criteria
stated above. As a result, this rule is not
a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 and
is therefore not subject to OMB review.
Today’s final rule removes certain
requirements applicable to refiners,
importers and oxygenate blenders of
RFG. As such this rule is expected to
reduce overall compliance costs for all
refiners, importers and oxygenate
blenders.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. This rule
will have the effect of reducing the
burdens on certain regulated parties
under the reformulated gasoline
regulations. All parties currently subject
to the requirement to submit an annual
oxygen averaging report will no longer
be required to submit such report.
Oxygenate blenders currently subject to
the following requirements will no
longer be subject to these requirements
and associated burdens: RFG batch
reports, RFG annual reports, RFG survey
reports, and RFG attest engagement
reports. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has previously approved
the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations at
40 CFR part 80 under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2060–0277, EPA ICR
number 1591. A copy of the OMB
approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) may be obtained from
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling (202) 566–1672.
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 in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
EPA has determined that it is not
necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with
this rule.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s regulations at 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 rule on small entities,
EPA has concluded that this action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. In determining whether a rule
has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analyses is to
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
identify and address regulatory
alternatives ‘‘which minimize any
significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.’’ 5
U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency
may conclude that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, or
otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the
rule.
This final rule removes certain
requirements applicable to all refiners,
importers and oxygenate blenders of
RFG, including small business refiners,
importers and oxygenate blenders.
Specifically, this rule removes the
burden on refiners, importers and
oxygenate blenders to comply with the
RFG oxygen requirement and associated
compliance requirements. Although in
certain situations some refiners and
importers, including some small refiners
and importers, may be required to
conduct some additional oversight of
oxygenate blenders, we believe that the
burden of any additional oversight will
be of minor significance compared to
the relief from the burden of complying
with the oxygen requirement. We have
therefore concluded that today’s final
rule will relieve regulatory burden for
all small entities subject to the RFG
regulations.
D. 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 costeffective 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
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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 final 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 that will result in
expenditures of $100 million or more.
This rule affects gasoline refiners,
importers and oxygenate blenders by
removing the oxygen content
requirement for RFG and associated
compliance requirements. As a result,
this rule will have the overall effect of
reducing the burden of the RFG
regulations on these regulated parties.
Therefore, the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to
this action.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
E. 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
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 final 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. This rule
removes the oxygen standard for RFG.
The requirements of the rule will be
enforced by the Federal government at
the national level. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
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 final 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 rule applies to gasoline refiners
and importers who supply RFG, and to
other parties downstream in the
gasoline distribution system. Today’s
action contains certain modifications to
the federal requirements for RFG, and
does not impose any enforceable duties
on communities of Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
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
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 the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This final rule
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26697
is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically
significant and does not establish an
environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Acts That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This final 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. This rule
eliminates the oxygen content
requirement for RFG and associated
compliance requirements. This change
will have the effect of reducing burdens
on suppliers of RFG, which, in turn,
may have a positive effect on gasoline
supplies. RFG refiners and blenders may
continue to use oxygenates at their
discretion where and when it is most
economical to do so. With the
implementation of the renewable fuels
standard also contained in the Energy
Act, the blending of ethanol, in
particular, into gasoline is expected to
increase considerably, not decrease.
Therefore, despite this action to remove
the oxygenate mandate in RFG, when
viewed in the context of companion
energy legislation, overall use of
oxygenates is expected to increase in the
future.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
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 final rule does not establish new
technical standards within the meaning
of the NTTAA. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
26698
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A ‘‘major rule’’
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(a).
Dated: May 2, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
K. Clean Air Act Section 307(d)
This rule is subject to section 307(d)
of the CAA. Section 307(d)(7)(B)
provides that ‘‘[o]nly an objection to a
rule or procedure which was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment (including any
public hearing) may be raised during
judicial review.’’ This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to
convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA
that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration to
the EPA should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Director of the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
§ 80.2
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
The statutory authority for the actions
in today’s direct final rule comes from
section 211 and 301(a) of the CAA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Fuel additives,
gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
I
40 CFR part 80 is amended as follows:
PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS
AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and
7601(a)).
2. The stay on § 80.65(d)(2)(vi) and
§ 80.129(a), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), and
(d)(3)(v), published on November 28,
1994 (59 FR 60715) is lifted.
I
Subpart A—[Amended]
3. Section 80.2 is amended by revising
paragraph (ii) to read as follows:
I
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) Reformulated gasoline credit
means the unit of measure for the paper
transfer of benzene content resulting
from reformulated gasoline which
contains less than 0.95 volume percent
benzene.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—[Amended]
4. Section 80.41 is amended by:
a. In the table in paragraph (e),
removing the entry
‘‘Oxygen content (percent, by weight)
(does not apply to gasoline subject
to the provisions in § 80.81) * * *
≥2.0 ;’’
I b. In the table in paragraph (f),
removing the entry
‘‘Oxygen content (percent by weight)
(does not apply to gasoline subject
to the provisions in § 80.81):
Standard * * * ≥2.1
Per-Gallon Minimum ≥1.5’’
I b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(o); and
I c. Revising paragraph (q) heading and
introductory text and (q)(1) to read as
follows:
I
I
§ 80.41 Standards and requirements for
compliance.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(q) Refineries and importers subject to
adjusted standards. Standards for
average compliance that are adjusted to
be more or less stringent by operation of
paragraphs (k), (l) (m) or (n) of this
section apply to average reformulated
gasoline produced at each refinery or
imported by each importer as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(1) Adjusted standards for a covered
area apply to averaged reformulated
gasoline that is produced at a refinery if:
(i) Any averaged reformulated
gasoline from that refinery supplied the
covered area during any year a survey
was conducted which gave rise to a
standards adjustment; or
(ii) Any averaged reformulated
gasoline from that refinery supplies the
covered area during any year that the
standards are more stringent than the
initial standards; unless
(iii) The refiner is able to show that
the volume of averaged reformulated
gasoline from a refinery that supplied
the covered area during any years under
paragraphs (q)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section
was less than one percent of the
reformulated gasoline produced at the
refinery during that year, or 100,000
barrels, whichever is less.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 80.65 is amended by:
a. Revising the heading;
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and
(c)(3), removing paragraph (c)(1)(iii) and
removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2);
I c. Removing and reserving
(d)(2)(v)(D); revising paragraph (d)(2)(vi)
and (d)(3); and
I d. Revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
I
I
I
§ 80.65 General requirements for refiners
and importers.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Those standards and requirements
it designated under paragraph (d) of this
section for average compliance on an
average basis over the applicable
averaging period.
(2) [Reserved]
(3)(i) For each averaging period, and
separately for each parameter that may
be met either per-gallon or on average,
any refiner shall designate for each
refinery, or any importer shall designate
its gasoline or RBOB as being subject to
the standard applicable to that
parameter on either a per-gallon or
average basis. For any specific averaging
period and parameter all batches of
gasoline or RBOB shall be designated as
being subject to the per-gallon standard,
or all batches of gasoline and RBOB
shall be designated as being subject to
the average standard. For any specific
averaging period and parameter a refiner
for a refinery, or any importer may not
designate certain batches as being
subject to the per-gallon standard and
others as being subject to the average
standard.
(ii) In the event any refiner for a
refinery, or any importer fails to meet
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of
this section and for a specific averaging
period and parameter designates certain
batches as being subject to the pergallon standard and others as being
subject to the average, all batches
produced or imported during the
averaging period that were designated as
being subject to the average standard
shall, ab initio, be redesignated as being
subject to the per-gallon standard. This
redesignation shall apply regardless of
whether the batches in question met or
failed to meet the per-gallon standard
for the parameter in question.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(D) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) In the case of RBOB, the gasoline
must be designated as RBOB and the
designation must include the type(s)
and amount(s) of oxygenate required to
be blended with the RBOB.
(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 or
importer 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–
543321–95–000002, etc.)
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Compliance audits. Any refiner
and importer of any reformulated
gasoline or RBOB shall have the
reformulated gasoline and RBOB it
produced or imported during each
calendar year audited for compliance
with the requirements of this subpart D,
in accordance with the requirements of
subpart F, at the conclusion of each
calendar year.
*
*
*
*
*
I 6. Section 80.67 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2)(i)(A);
I b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(3);
I c. Removing and reserving paragraph
(f);
I d. Revising paragraphs (g)
introductory text, (g)(3), (g)(5)
introductory text, (g)(6) introductory
text, removing and reserving paragraphs
(g)(5)(i) and (g)(6)(i); adding paragraph
(g)(7); and
I e. Revising paragraphs (h)(1)
introductory text, (h)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(v) and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
(h)(3)(ii), and removing paragraphs
(h)(1)(vi), (h)(1)(vii) and (h)(1)(viii), to
read as follows:
§ 80.67
Compliance on average
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) Any refiner or importer that
complies with the compliance survey
requirements of § 80.68 has the option
of meeting the standards specified in
§ 80.41 for average compliance in
addition to the option of meeting the
standards specified in § 80.41 for pergallon compliance; any refiner or
importer that does not comply with the
survey requirements must meet the
standards specified in § 80.41 for pergallon compliance, and does not have
the option of meeting standards on
average.
(2)(i)(A) A refiner or importer that
produces or imports reformulated
gasoline that exceeds the average
standard for benzene (but not for other
parameters that have average standards)
may use such gasoline to offset
reformulated gasoline which does not
achieve this average standard, but only
if the reformulated gasoline that does
not achieve this average standard is sold
to ultimate consumers in the same
covered area as was the reformulated
gasoline which exceeds the average
standard; provided that:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(f) [Reserved]
(g) Compliance calculation. To
determine compliance with the
averaged standards in § 80.41, any
refiner for each of its refineries at which
averaged reformulated gasoline or RBOB
is produced, and any importer that
imports averaged reformulated gasoline
or RBOB shall, for each averaging period
and for each portion of gasoline for
which standards must be separately
achieved, and for each relevant
standard, calculate:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) For the VOC, NOX, and toxics
emissions performance standards, the
actual totals must be equal to or greater
than the compliance totals to achieve
compliance.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) If the actual total for the benzene
standard is greater than the compliance
total, credits for this parameter must be
obtained from another refiner or
importer in order to achieve
compliance:
(i) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26699
(6) If the actual total for the benzene
standard is less than the compliance
totals, credits for this parameter are
generated.
(i) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(7) In 2006 only, compliance with the
oxygen standards in § 80.41 may be
based on the volume and oxygen
content of all reformulated gasoline
produced or imported during the period
January 1, 2006, through May 5, 2006 or
the volume and oxygen content of all
oxygenated reformulated gasoline
produced or imported during the 2006
annual averaging period (January 1
through December 31).
(h) * * *
(1) Compliance with the averaged
standards specified in § 80.41 for
benzene (but for no other standards or
requirements) may be achieved through
the transfer of benzene credits provided
that:
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) The credits are transferred, either
through inter-company or intracompany transfers, directly from the
refiner or importer that creates the
credits to the refiner or importer that
uses the credits to achieve compliance;
and
(v) Benzene credits are not used to
achieve compliance with the maximum
benzene content standards in § 80.41.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(ii) No refiner or importer may create,
report, or transfer improperly created
credits; and
*
*
*
*
*
I 7. Section 80.68 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(3), (b) introductory text,
(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(i), and
(c)(13)(v)(L), and removing and
reserving paragraph (c)(12) to read as
follows:
§ 80.68
Compliance surveys.
(a) Compliance survey option 1. In
order to satisfy the compliance survey
requirements, any refiner or importer
shall properly conduct a program of
compliance surveys in accordance with
a survey program plan which has been
approved by the Administrator of EPA
in each covered area which is supplied
with any gasoline for which compliance
is achieved on average that is produced
by that refinery or imported by that
importer. Such approval shall be based
upon the survey program plan meeting
the following criteria:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) In the event that any refiner or
importer fails to properly carry out an
approved survey program, the refiner or
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
26700
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
importer shall achieve compliance with
all applicable standards on a per-gallon
basis for the calendar year in which the
failure occurs, and may not achieve
compliance with any standard on an
average basis during this calendar year.
This requirement to achieve compliance
per-gallon shall apply ab initio to the
beginning of any calendar year in which
the failure occurs, regardless of when
during the year the failure occurs.
(b) Compliance survey option 2. A
refiner or importer shall be deemed to
have satisfied the compliance survey
requirements described in paragraph (a)
of this section if a comprehensive
program of surveys is properly
conducted in accordance with a survey
program plan which has been approved
by the Administrator of EPA. Such
approval shall be based upon the survey
program plan meeting the following
criteria:
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(i) Each refiner or importer who
supplied any reformulated gasoline or
RBOB to the covered area and who has
not satisfied the survey requirements
described in paragraph (a) of this
section shall be deemed to have failed
to carry out an approved survey
program; and
(ii) The covered area will be deemed
to have failed surveys for VOC and NOX
emissions performance, and survey
series for benzene and toxic and NOX
emissions performance.
(c) * * *
(3)(i) A VOC survey and a NOX survey
shall consist of any survey conducted
during the period June 1 through
September 15;
(ii) A sample of gasoline taken at a
retail outlet or wholesale purchaserconsumer facility that has within the
past 30 days commingled ethanol
blended reformulated gasoline with
non-ethanol blended reformulated
gasoline in accordance with the
provisions in § 80.78(a)(8) shall not be
used in a VOC survey required under
this section.
(4)(i) A toxics and benzene survey
series shall consist of all surveys
conducted in a single covered area
during a single calendar year.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) [Reserved]
(13) * * *
(v) * * *
(L) The average toxics emissions
reduction percentage for simple model
samples and the percentage for complex
model samples, the average benzene
percentage, and for each survey
conducted during the period June 1
through September 15, the average VOC
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
emissions reduction percentage for
simple model samples and the
percentage for complex model samples,
and the average NOX emissions
reduction percentage for all complex
model samples;
*
*
*
*
*
I 8. Section 80.69 is amended by:
I a. Revising paragraphs (a)(6)(ii) and
(iii), (a)(10) introductory text, removing
and reserving paragraphs (a)(8) and
(a)(9), and removing paragraph (a)(6)(iv);
I b. Revising paragraph (b);
I c. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c);
I d. Revising paragraph (d); and
I e. Revising paragraph (e), to read as
follows:
§ 80.69 Requirements for downstream
oxygenate blending.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) Allow the refiner or importer to
conduct the quality assurance sampling
and testing required under this
paragraph (a); and
(iii) Stop selling any gasoline found
not to comply with the standards under
which the RBOB was produced or
imported.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) [Reserved]
(9) [Reserved]
(10) Specify in the product transfer
documentation for the RBOB each
oxygenate type or types and amount or
range of amounts which, if blended with
the RBOB will result in reformulated
gasoline which:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Requirements for oxygenate
blenders. For all RBOB received by any
oxygenate blender, the oxygenate
blender shall:
(1) Add oxygenate of the type(s) and
amount (or within the range of amounts)
specified in the product transfer
documents for the RBOB; and
(2) Meet the recordkeeping
requirements specified in § 80.74.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Requirements for distributors
dispensing RBOB into trucks for
blending. Any distributor who
dispenses any RBOB into any truck
which delivers gasoline to retail outlets
or wholesale purchase-consumer
facilities, shall for such RBOB so
dispensed:
(1) Transfer the RBOB only to an
oxygenate blender who has registered
with the Administrator or EPA as such;
and
(2) Obtain from the oxygenate blender
the oxygenate blender’s EPA registration
number.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(e) Additional requirements for
oxygenate blenders who blend
oxygenate in trucks. Any oxygenate
blender who obtains any RBOB in any
gasoline delivery truck shall on each
occasion it obtains RBOB from a
distributor, supply the distributor with
the oxygenate blender’s EPA registration
number.
I 9. Section 80.73 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 80.73 Inability to produce conforming
gasoline in extraordinary circumstances.
In appropriate extreme and unusual
circumstances (e.g., natural disaster or
Act of God) which are clearly outside
the control of the refiner, importer, or
oxygenate blender and which could not
have been avoided by the exercise of
prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA
may permit a refiner, importer, or
oxygenate blender, for a brief period, to
distribute gasoline which does not meet
the requirements for reformulated
gasoline, or does not contain the type(s)
and amount(s) of oxygenate required
under § 80.69(b)(1), if:
*
*
*
*
*
I 10. Section 80.74 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) introductory text,
(c)(2), and (d) introductory text to read
as follows:
§ 80.74
Recordkeeping requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Refiners and importers of averaged
gasoline. In addition to other
requirements of this section, any refiner
or importer who produces or imports
any reformulated gasoline for which
compliance with one or more applicable
standard is determined on an average
shall maintain records containing the
following information:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) For any credits bought, sold,
traded or transferred pursuant to
§ 80.67(h), the dates of the transactions,
the names and EPA registration
numbers of the parties involved, and the
number of credits transferred.
(d) Oxygenate blenders. Any
oxygenate blender who blends any
oxygenate with any RBOB shall, for
each occasion such blending occurs,
maintain records containing the
following:
*
*
*
*
*
I 11. Section 80.75 is amended as
follows:
I a. By revising the introductory text;
I b. By revising paragraph (a)
introductory text and removing and
reserving paragraph (a)(2);
I c. By removing and reserving
paragraph (f); and
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
d. By revising paragraphs (h), (i), (l),
(m), and (n)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
I
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
§ 80.75
Reporting requirements.
Any refiner or importer shall report as
specified in this section, and shall
report such other information as the
Administrator may require.
(a) Quarterly reports for reformulated
gasoline. Any refiner or importer that
produces or imports any reformulated
gasoline or RBOB shall submit quarterly
reports to the Administrator for each
refinery at which such reformulated
gasoline or RBOB was produced and for
all such reformulated gasoline or RBOB
imported by each importer.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(vii) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(f) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Credit transfer reports. As an
additional part of the fourth quarterly
report required by this section, any
refiner or importer shall, for each
refinery or importer, supply the
following information for any benzene
credits that are transferred from or to
another refinery or importer:
(1) The names, EPA-assigned
registration numbers and facility
identification numbers of the transferor
and transferee of the credits;
(2) The number(s) of credits that were
transferred; and
(3) The date(s) of the transaction(s).
(i) Covered areas of gasoline use
report. Any refiner that produced any
reformulated gasoline that was to meet
any reformulated gasoline standard on
average (‘‘averaged reformulated
gasoline’’) shall, for each refinery at
which such averaged reformulated
gasoline was produced submit to the
Administrator, with the fourth quarterly
report, a report that contains the
identity of each covered area that was
supplied with any averaged
reformulated gasoline produced at each
refinery during the previous year.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Reports for per-gallon compliance
gasoline. In the case of reformulated
gasoline or RBOB for which compliance
with each of the standards set forth in
§ 80.41 is achieved on a per-gallon basis,
the refiner or importer shall submit to
the Administrator, by the last day of
February of each year beginning in
1996, a report of the volume of each
designated reformulated gasoline or
RBOB produced or imported during the
previous calendar year for which
compliance is achieved on a per-gallon
basis, and a statement that each gallon
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
of this reformulated gasoline or RBOB
met the applicable standards.
(m) Reports of compliance audits.
Any refiner or importer shall cause to be
submitted to the Administrator, by May
31 of each year, the report of the
compliance audit required by § 80.65(h).
(n) * * *
(2) Signed and certified as correct by
the owner or a responsible corporate
officer of the refiner or importer.
*
*
*
*
*
I 12. Section 80.76 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 80.76 Registration of refiners, importers
or oxygenate blenders.
(a) Registration with the
Administrator of EPA is required for any
refiner and importer that produces or
imports any reformulated gasoline or
RBOB, and any oxygenate blender that
blends oxygenate into RBOB.
*
*
*
*
*
I 13. Section 80.77 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) and revising paragraph (i)(2) to
read as follows:
§ 80.77
Product transfer documentation.
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(2) The oxygenate type(s) and
amount(s) that are intended for blending
with the RBOB;
*
*
*
*
*
I 14. Section 80.78 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) and revising paragraph
(a)(11)(iv) to read as follows:
26701
maximum and/or minimum standards
for benzene, RVP, or VOC emission
performance are met.
*
*
*
*
*
I 16. Section 80.81 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) to
read as follows:
§ 80.81 Enforcement exemptions for
California gasoline.
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) Any refiner or importer of
gasoline that is sold, intended for sale,
or made available for sale as a motor
fuel in the State of California is, with
regard to such gasoline, exempt from the
compliance survey provisions contained
in § 80.68.
(2) Any refiner or importer of
California gasoline is, with regard to
such gasoline, exempt from the
independent analysis requirements
contained in § 80.65(f).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart F—[Amended]
17. Section 80.125 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)
introductory text, to read as follows:
I
*
§ 80.125
§ 80.78 Controls and prohibitions on
reformulated gasoline.
(a) Any refiner and importer subject to
the requirements of this subpart F shall
engage an independent certified public
accountant, or firm of such accountants
(hereinafter referred to in this subpart F
as ‘‘CPA’’), to perform an agreed-upon
procedures attestation engagement of
the underlying documentation that
forms the basis of the reports required
by §§ 80.75 and 80.105.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The CPA may complete the
requirements of this subpart F with the
assistance of internal auditors who are
employees or agents of the refiner or
importer, so long as such assistance is
in accordance with the Statements on
Standards for Attestation Engagements.
(d) Notwithstanding the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section, any
refiner or importer may satisfy the
requirements of this subpart F if the
requirements of this subpart F are
completed by an auditor who is an
employee of the refiner or importer,
provided that such employee:
*
*
*
*
*
I 18. Section 80.126 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(11) * * *
(iv) When transitioning from RBOB to
reformulated gasoline, the reformulated
gasoline must meet all applicable
standards that apply at the terminal
subsequent to any oxygenate blending;
*
*
*
*
*
I 15. Section 80.79 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 80.79 Liability for violations of the
prohibited activities.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Of a periodic sampling and testing
program to determine if the applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 80.126
Attest engagements.
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Credit Trading Records. Credit
trading records shall include worksheets
and EPA reports showing actual and
complying totals for benzene; credit
calculation worksheets; contracts; letter
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
26702
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
agreements; and invoices and other
documentation evidencing the transfer
of credits.
*
*
*
*
*
I 19. Section 80.128 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 80.128 Alternative agreed upon
procedures for refiners and importers.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) Determine that the requisite
contract was in place with the
downstream blender designating the
required blending procedures;
*
*
*
*
*
§ 80.129
[Removed]
20. Section 80.129 is removed and
reserved.
I 21. Section 80.130 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
§ 80.130
Agreed upon procedures reports.
(a) Reports. (1) The CPA or CIA shall
issue to the refiner or importer a report
summarizing the procedures performed
in the findings in accordance with the
attest engagement or internal audit
performed in compliance with this
subpart.
(2) The refiner or importer shall
provide a copy of the auditor’s report to
the EPA within the time specified in
§ 80.75(m).
*
*
*
*
*
I 22. Section 80.133 is amended by
revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 80.133 Agreed upon procedures for
refiners and importers.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) Obtain from the refiner or importer
the oxygenate type and volume, and
oxygen volume required to be hand
blended with the RBOB, in accordance
with § 80.69(a)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Perform the following procedures
for each batch report included in
paragraph (h)(4)(i)(B) of this section:
(i) Obtain and inspect a copy of the
executed contract with the downstream
oxygenate blender (or with an
intermediate owner), and confirm that
the contract:
(A) Was in effect at the time of the
corresponding RBOB transfer; and
(B) Allowed the company to sample
and test the reformulated gasoline made
by the blender.
(ii) Obtain a listing of RBOB blended
by downstream oxygenate blenders and
the refinery’s or importer’s oversight test
results, and select a representative
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 May 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
sample, in accordance with the
guidelines in § 80.127, from the listing
of test results and for each test selected
perform the following:
(A) Obtain the laboratory analysis for
the batch, and agree the type of
oxygenate used and the oxygenate
content appearing in the laboratory
analysis to the instructions stated on the
product transfer documents
corresponding to a RBOB receipt
immediately preceding the laboratory
analysis and used in producing the
reformulated gasoline batch selected
within the acceptable ranges set forth at
§ 80.65(e)(2)(i);
(B) Calculate the frequency of
sampling and testing or the volume
blended between the test selected and
the next test; and
(C) Agree the frequency of sampling
and testing or the volume blended
between the test selected and the next
test to the sampling and testing
frequency rates stated in § 80.69(a)(7).
*
*
*
*
*
§ 80.134
[Removed]
Effective beginning at 0001 hours
May 10, 2006, through 2400 hours May
24, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed and
final Dynamic Area Management (DAM)
rules, Environmental Assessments
(EAs), Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting
summaries, and progress reports on
implementation of the ALWTRP may
also be obtained by writing Diane
Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region,
One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast
Region, 978–281–9300 x6503; or Kristy
Long, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, 301–713–2322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Electronic Access
Several of the background documents
for the ALWTRP and the take reduction
planning process can be downloaded
from the ALWTRP Web site at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/.
Background
The ALWTRP was developed
[FR Doc. 06–4252 Filed 5–5–06; 8:45 am]
pursuant to section 118 of the Marine
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to
reduce the incidental mortality and
serious injury of three endangered
species of whales (right, fin, and
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
humpback) due to incidental interaction
with commercial fishing activities. In
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
addition, the measures identified in the
Administration
ALWTRP would provide conservation
benefits to a fourth species (minke),
50 CFR Part 229
which are neither listed as endangered
nor threatened under the Endangered
[Docket No. 030221039–6155–31; I.D.
Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP,
042606G]
implemented through regulations
codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
combination of fishing gear
to Commercial Fishing Operations;
modifications and time/area closures to
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
reduce the risk of whales becoming
Plan (ALWTRP)
entangled in commercial fishing gear
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
(and potentially suffering serious injury
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
or mortality as a result).
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
On January 9, 2002, NMFS published
Commerce.
the final rule to implement the
ALWTRP’s DAM program (67 FR 1133).
ACTION: Temporary rule.
On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended
the regulations by publishing a final
SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator
rule, which specifically identified gear
for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces
modifications that may be allowed in a
temporary restrictions consistent with
DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM
the requirements of the ALWTRP’s
program provides specific authority for
implementing regulations. These
regulations apply to lobster trap/pot and NMFS to restrict temporarily on an
expedited basis the use of lobster trap/
anchored gillnet fishermen in an area
pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in
totaling approximately 1,615 to 1,881
nm2 (5,539 to 6,452 km2), east of Boston, areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right
whales. Under the DAM program,
MA, for 15 days. The purpose of this
NMFS may: (1) require the removal of
action is to provide protection to an
all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet
aggregation of northern right whales
fishing gear for a 15–day period; (2)
(right whales).
I
23. Section 80.134 is removed.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08MYR1.SGM
08MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26691-26702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4252]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0170; FRL-8167-5]
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Removal of Reformulated
Gasoline Oxygen Content Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Policy Act), Congress
amended section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to remove the oxygen
content requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG). On February 22,
2006, EPA published a direct final rule to amend regulations to remove
the oxygen content standard and associated compliance requirements from
the RFG regulations. We stated in the direct final rule that if EPA
received adverse comment, we would publish a timely withdrawal of the
provisions on which we received adverse comment and address the adverse
comments in a subsequent final rule based on a parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking also published on February 22, 2006. We received
adverse comment on the amendments to remove the oxygen content standard
in the direct final rule. As a result, in a separate action we are
withdrawing those amendments from the direct final rule. This final
action addresses the adverse comments we received and finalizes the
removal of the oxygen content standard and associated compliance
requirements from the RFG regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 5, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0170. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Bennett, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality
(6406J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9624; fax
number: (202) 343-2803; e-mail address: Bennett.marilyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved
with the production and importation of reformulated gasoline motor
fuel. Regulated categories and entities affected by this action
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS codes a SIC codes b Examples of potentially regulated parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refiners, Importers.
Industry..................... 422710 5171 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.
422720 5172
Industry..................... 484220 4212 Gasoline Carriers.
484230 4213
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria of part 80, subparts D, E and F of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any question regarding
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
B. Outline of This Preamble
I. General Information
II. Direct Final Rule/Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Response to Comments and Discussion
IV. Conclusion
V. Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
II. Direct Final Rule/Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the Energy Policy Act, Congress amended section 211(k) of the
CAA to remove the 2.0 weight percent oxygen content requirement for
RFG.\1\ Congress specified that the effective date for the removal of
the oxygen content requirement in the CAA is 270 days from enactment of
the Energy Policy Act for gasoline sold in all states except
California.\2\ To be consistent with the current CAA section 211(k), on
February 22, 2006, EPA published a direct final rule designed to remove
the oxygen content standard and associated compliance requirements from
the RFG regulations in 40 CFR part 80, effective on May 5, 2006 (270
days from enactment of the Energy Policy Act).\3\ 71
[[Page 26692]]
FR 8973. We stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received
adverse comment, we would publish a timely withdrawal of the provisions
on which we received adverse comment and address all public comments in
a subsequent final rule based on a parallel notice of proposed
rulemaking also published on February 22, 2006. We received adverse
comment on the removal of the oxygen content standard in the direct
final rule. As a result, in a separate action we are withdrawing those
amendments from the direct final rule. This final action addresses the
adverse comments we received and finalizes the amendments which remove
the oxygen content standard and associated compliance requirements from
the RFG regulations in 40 CFR part 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58 (HR6),
section 1504(a), 119 STAT 594, 1076-1077 (2005).
\2\ Congress removed the oxygen content requirement in CAA
section 211(k) for California gasoline effective upon enactment of
the Energy Policy Act. In a direct final rule published on February
22, 2006, EPA removed the oxygen content requirement from the RFG
regulations for California gasoline, effective April 24, 2006. 71 FR
8965. Thus, this rule does not address California requirements.
\3\ The direct final rule also amended the regulations at 40 CFR
part 80 to revise a prohibition against commingling ethanol-blended
VOC-controlled RFG with non-ethanol-blended VOC-controlled RFG, and
implemented a provision of the Energy Policy Act which allows
retailers to commingle ethanol-blended RFG with non-ethanol-blended
RFG under certain limited circumstances. Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Public Law 109-58 (HR6), section 1513, 119 STAT 594, 1088-1090
(2005). We did not receive adverse comment on the amendments to the
commingling prohibition or on the retailer commingling provisions
during the 30-day comment period. The effective date for those
amendments and provisions is May 5, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, Congress considered the issue of lead-time
regarding the transition to an RFG program that does not mandate an
oxygen requirement, and specifically determined that 270 days from
enactment of the Energy Policy Act provides an appropriate amount of
lead-time. We believe it is appropriate to effect the removal of the
oxygen content standard from the RFG regulations in a manner that is
consistent with Congress' clear determination regarding lead-time.
Therefore, this final rule is effective May 5, 2006. Although the
Administrative Procedures Act generally requires that publication of a
rule in the Federal Register take place thirty days before its
effective date, this requirement is not applicable where, as here, a
rule relieves a restriction.
III. Response to Comments and Discussion
We received adverse comments on the direct final rule from three
parties. Two of the parties stated that the removal of the RFG oxygen
content requirement will result in the discontinued use of MTBE because
refiners believe that the oxygen requirement provides a legal defense
in leaking underground storage tank lawsuits involving MTBE. These
commenters believe that refiners will attempt to replace MTBE with
ethanol to meet the RFG performance standards, but argue that supplies
of ethanol are inadequate to provide the volumes needed to replace MTBE
in 2006. The commenters acknowledge that Congress eliminated the oxygen
content requirement to provide refiners with greater flexibility to
make RFG; nevertheless, they believe that an abrupt shift from MTBE-
blended RFG to ethanol-blended RFG will cause a shortage in gasoline
supplies, higher gasoline prices, and distribution problems relating to
rail, barge and terminal availability. These commenters also believe
that the removal of the oxygen content requirement will result in an
increase in aggregate ozone-causing emissions, since, relative to MTBE-
blended RFG, ethanol-blended RFG has a higher Reid Vapor Pressure
causing VOC emissions to increase, and yields higher emissions of air
toxics, NOX and VOC emissions associated with permeation. To
mitigate the impacts of removing the oxygen content standard, these
commenters urge EPA to issue a transition rule. The commenters suggest
that in developing such a transition rule, EPA should examine the
dynamics of gasoline production and assess any adverse impacts on
gasoline supplies and cost, determine the feasibility of transporting
increased quantities of ethanol and ascertain whether an adequate
delivery infrastructure exists to prevent gasoline shortfalls, and
quantify the effect of additional permeation emissions and take these
into account. They believe that the transition rule should expressly
preempt future state common law product defect claims regarding EPA-
approved fuels or fuel additives and affirm that MTBE is not a
defective product. They also believe that EPA should increase the RFG
VOC reduction requirement to address backsliding that they believe will
occur if MTBE-blended RFG is replaced with ethanol-blended RFG or non-
oxygenated RFG. One of the commenters believes that EPA should include
a VOC control season oxygen content standard under its CAA 211(c)
authority.
EPA believes that it should revise the RFG regulations in a way
that is consistent with Congress' decision in enacting the Energy
Policy Act provisions to repeal the oxygenate requirement for RFG.
During the course of its consideration and final action to approve the
Energy Policy Act, Congress specifically determined that there should
not be an oxygen content requirement in the RFG provisions in section
211(k) of the CAA, and determined how much lead-time should be provided
for the transition to a program where the CAA did not mandate an oxygen
content standard. In the legislative provisions it drafted and approved
on this matter, Congress explicitly struck all oxygenate content
requirements for RFG from the CAA and provided precise applicability
dates for the removal of this requirement in California and the rest of
the United States. Given Congress' clear decision that the oxygen
content mandate is removed from the RFG provisions in the CAA in
California as of August 8, 2005 and in all other states as of May 5,
2006, EPA believes that it is appropriate to revise the RFG regulations
in a manner that conforms to this specific decision by Congress. As
discussed below, EPA does not believe that the current circumstances
warrant any different course of action. In fact, it is notable that
Congress had before it many of the issues involving MTBE that are
raised by the commenters, yet it did not act to condition removal of
the oxygenate requirement based on any finding or interpretation by EPA
with respect to these matters.
With respect to comments received with regard to promulgation of a
transition rule to mitigate the impacts of removing the oxygen content
requirement, EPA adopted the RFG regulations, including the oxygen
content requirement, in 1994. EPA noted that it was adopting the
regulations pursuant to its authority under section 211(k) of the CAA,
and explained that it was also appropriate to issue the regulations
under section 211(c)'s general authority to regulate fuels and fuel
additives. EPA issued the RFG rules under both parts of section 211 for
a limited reason, so that the express preemption provision in section
211(c)(4)(A) would apply to the federal fuel program issued under
section 211(k). See 59 FR 7716, 7809 (February 16, 1994). Now that
Congress has amended section 211(k) to remove the oxygen content
requirement, it is fully consistent with Congress' decision and with
the reasoning of EPA's prior rulemaking to remove this requirement from
the current RFG regulations.
We believe that delaying the removal of the oxygen content
requirement from the RFG regulations and issuing a transition rule is
likely to be more disruptive to the production and distribution of RFG
than removal by May 5 of the oxygen requirement from the regulations.
It is not likely to provide solutions to the concerns raised by
commenters. First, because of the refiner liability concerns discussed
above, and Congress' removal of the oxygen content requirement from
section 211(k) of the CAA and related adoption of a renewable fuels
mandate in the Energy Policy Act, the shift from MTBE-blended RFG to
ethanol-blended RFG will likely occur regardless of when EPA removes
the RFG oxygen content requirement from the regulations. It is
therefore uncertain
[[Page 26693]]
whether there would be any significant difference in MTBE use even if
EPA were to adopt a transition rule. In fact, major suppliers for
months have been planning and investing in a transition away from MTBE
and to ethanol before the 2006 summer driving season and they have in
many, perhaps most cases, already completed that transition.\4\ Second,
some refiners and distributors have indicated that uncertainty is of
the greatest concern to the RFG production and distribution industry,
and have urged EPA to finalize the removal of the oxygen requirement
from the regulations as soon as possible. These refiners and
distributors believe that certainty regarding the effective date of the
removal of the oxygen requirement is needed by refiners and
distributors to minimize potential supply impacts. No refiners or other
parties in the distribution system have indicated that the immediate
removal of the oxygen requirement would cause additional supply or
distribution problems, or would solve or reduce any difficulties in
making the transition. Many assumed that Congress's May 5 date was a
certain date for elimination of the oxygen content requirement.\5\ A
transitional delay in this program would create more uncertainty for
those planning on May 5 as the certain date and could clearly disrupt
potential plans for gasoline manufacturers who were considering the use
of non-oxygenated RFG. EPA believes that, if anything, delaying the
removal would disrupt the production and distribution of RFG and would
not solve or alleviate any of the economic or supply concerns raised by
commenters. Last, with regard to the commenters' air quality concerns,
the removal of the oxygen content requirement from the regulations does
not change any of the emissions performance standards that RFG must
meet. To the extent the commenters are raising concerns about the
underlying emissions performance standards for RFG, we believe that
this rulemaking is not the appropriate action in which to address these
concerns. We intend to conduct a broad analysis of the impact of
ethanol-blended gasoline on air quality in the context of a separate
rulemaking to implement the renewable fuels mandate in the Energy
Policy Act. In addition Congress mandated that within two years of
enactment of the Energy Policy Act, that EPA conduct a study of the
effects on public health related to substitutes (such as ethanol) for
MTBE in gasoline. See amended CAA section 211(b)(4). EPA believes it is
not appropriate to try to resolve the questions raised by commenters
prior to the development of the information expected through these
analyses, and that EPA should not delay removal of the oxygen content
requirement for the reasons described above. For these reasons, we
believe that the benefits of finalizing the removal of the oxygen
requirement from the regulations and the likely adverse impact of a
transition rule clearly outweigh the uncertain benefits of a transition
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Memorandum to Docket from Chris McKenna (April 24, 2006);
Energy Information Administration, ``Eliminating MTBE in Gasoline in
2006'' (February 22, 2006).
\5\ Letter to William Wehrum, USEPA, from Edward Murphy,
American Petroleum Institute, Bob Slaughter, National Petrochemical
and Refiners Association, Gregory M. Scott, Society of Independent
Gasoline Marketers Association, John Eichberger, National
Association of Convenience Stores, Joe Sparano, Western Petroleum
Association, dated December 9, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third commenter expressed concern that use of non-oxygenated RFG
may result in increased air toxics and other harmful air pollutants.
This commenter believes that the rule removing the oxygen content
requirement should require non-oxygenated RFG to maintain the air
quality benefits derived from the oxygen requirement. The commenter is
particularly concerned that over-compliance with the air toxics
standards may not be maintained with the introduction of non-oxygenated
RFG.
First, we note that, although refiners will have the flexibility to
produce RFG without oxygen, they nevertheless must meet all other
standards and requirements for RFG, including the VOC, NOX
and toxics emissions performance standards. In addition, the Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule imposes baseline requirements designed to
maintain 1998-2000 levels of over-compliance with the toxics emissions
performance standards.\6\ We believe, and discussions with refiners
confirm, that many, probably the vast majority of refiners and
importers will continue to use oxygenates in order to meet these
standards. In the Energy Policy Act, Congress considered the need for
even more stringent controls on air toxics, and addressed this need by
requiring EPA to revise the baseline years for toxics compliance.\7\
Finally, EPA recently proposed additional controls on benzene and other
air toxics, which we believe will meet or exceed the additional
controls mandated by the Energy Policy Act.\8\ We believe that these
controls are appropriate and will ensure that there will be no loss in
air quality benefits resulting from the removal of the RFG oxygen
content requirement. In summary, first, Congress considered the need
for increased toxics controls in association with other measures in the
Energy Policy Act and EPA will defer to the decisions made by Congress
and, second, EPA has already proposed other methods of controlling
toxics under its authority in section 211 of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 66 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001).
\7\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58 (HR6),
Sec. 1504(b), 119 STAT, 1077-1078 (2005).
\8\ 71 FR 15804 (March 29, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
EPA concludes that it is appropriate to remove the oxygen content
requirement from the RFG regulations at this time. This is consistent
with Congress' recent decision on this issue, and a delay in making
this change to the RFG regulations would not be appropriate under
current circumstances.
V. Action
This action finalizes, as proposed, the amendments to 40 CFR part
80 which remove the oxygen content standard and associated compliance
requirements from the RFG regulations. The affected sections are listed
in the following table: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This final action also lifts a stay, previously published on
November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60715), which was in effect regarding Sec.
80.65(d)(2)(vi) and Sec. 80.129(a), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), and
(d)(3)(v). The stay is no longer appropriate in light of today's
amendments to these sections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 80.2(ii).............. Removes oxygen in the definition of
``reformulated gasoline credit.'' With
the removal of the oxygen standard,
there is no basis for the generation of
oxygen credits.
Sec. 80.41(e) and (f) \10\. Removes the per-gallon and averaged
oxygen standards for Phase II Complex
Model RFG.
Sec. 80.41(o).............. Removes the provisions relating to oxygen
survey failures. With the removal of the
oxygen standard, oxygen surveys will no
longer be needed.
Sec. 80.41(q).............. Removes reference to Sec. 80.41(o).
Also removes reference to oxygenate
blenders since oxygenate blenders were
subject only to adjusted standards in
the case of an oxygen survey failure and
not any other survey failure.
[[Page 26694]]
Sec. 80.65 heading......... Removes oxygenate blenders from the
heading since oxygenate blenders were
only responsible for demonstrating
compliance with the oxygen standard
which has been removed.
Sec. 80.65(c).............. Removes requirements relating to
compliance with the oxygen standard
which have been removed.
Sec. 80.65(d).............. Removes the designation requirement
relating to oxygen content, removes the
RBOB designation categories of ``any
oxygenate'' and ``ether only,'' and adds
a requirement for RBOB to be designated
regarding the type and amount of
oxygenate required to be added.
Sec. 80.65(h).............. Removes the requirement for oxygenate
blenders to comply with the audit
requirements under subpart F since they
will no longer be required to
demonstrate compliance with the oxygen
standard.
Sec. 80.67(a).............. Removes the option to comply with the
oxygen standard on average for oxygenate
blenders since there no longer is an
oxygen standard. Also removes provisions
for refiners and importers to use
gasoline that exceeds the average
standard for oxygen to offset gasoline
which does not achieve the average
standard for oxygen.
Sec. 80.67(b).............. Removes requirements relating to
oxygenate blenders who meet the oxygen
standard on average, since there no
longer is an oxygen standard.
Sec. 80.67(f).............. Removes requirements relating to
compliance with the oxygen standard on
average since there no longer is an
oxygen standard.
Sec. 80.67(g).............. Removes requirements relating to
compliance calculations for meeting the
oxygen standard on average, since there
no longer is an oxygen standard. Also
removes requirements relating to the
generation and use of oxygen credits.
Specifies two compliance calculation
options for average xygen content for
2006.
Sec. 80.67(h).............. Removes requirements relating to the
transfer of oxygen credits.
Sec. 80.68(a) and (b)...... Removes references to oxygenate blenders
since, with the removal of the
requirement for oxygen survey, they are
no longer subject to survey
requirements. Also removes reference to
oxygen regarding consequences of a
failure to conduct a required survey.
Sec. 80.68(c).............. Removes general survey requirements
relating to oxygen surveys.
Sec. 80.73................. Clarifies the applicability of this
section to oxygenate blenders.
Sec. 80.74(c).............. Removes recordkeeping requirements for
oxygenate blenders who comply with the
oxygen standard on average, since they
no longer will be required to
demonstrate compliance with an oxygen
standard. Also removes reference to
``types'' of credits, since there now is
only one type of credit (i.e., benzene.)
Sec. 80.74(d).............. Revises this paragraph to clarify
recordkeeping requirements for oxygenate
blenders.
Sec. 80.75 heading and Removes reporting requirements for
paragraph (a). oxygenate blenders since they no longer
will be required to demonstrate
compliance with an oxygen standard.
Sec. 80.75(f).............. Removes requirement for submitting oxygen
averaging reports since there no longer
is a requirement to comply with the
oxygen standard.
Sec. 80.75(h).............. Removes credit transfer report
requirements for oxygen credits, since
oxygen credits will no longer be
generated.
Sec. 80.75(i).............. Removes requirement for oxygenate
blenders to submit a report identifying
each covered area that was supplied with
averaged RFG, since they no longer will
be required to demonstrate compliance
with an oxygen standard.
Sec. 80.75(l).............. Removes reporting requirement for
oxygenate blenders who comply with the
oxygen standard on a per-gallon basis,
since they are no longer required to
demonstrate compliance with an oxygen
standard.
Sec. 80.75(m).............. Removes requirement for oxygenate
blenders to submit a report of the audit
required under Sec. 80.65(h), since
oxygenate blenders will no longer be
required to comply with the audit
requirement.
Sec. 80.75(n).............. Removes requirement for oxygenate
blenders to have reports signed and
certified, since they no longer will be
required to submit reports under this
section.
Sec. 80.76(a).............. Clarifies registration requirements for
oxygenate blenders.
Sec. 80.77(g).............. Removes product transfer documentation
requirement for oxygen content.
Sec. 80.77(i).............. Removes requirement for RBOB to be
identified on product transfer documents
as suitable for blending with ``any-
oxygenate,'' ``ether-only,'' since these
categories have been removed.
Sec. 80.78(a).............. Removes the prohibition against producing
and marketing RFG that does not meet the
oxygen minimum standard since the oxygen
standard has been removed. Also removes
requirements to meet the oxygen minimum
standard during transition from RBOB to
RFG in a storage tank. (Today's rule
also removes the provision in Sec.
80.78(a)(1) regarding compliance with
the maximum oxygen standard in Sec.
80.41 for simple model RFG. See footnote
3.)
Sec. 80.79................. Removes quality assurance requirement to
test for compliance with the oxygen
standard.
Sec. 80.81(b).............. Removes exemptions for California
gasoline survey and independent analysis
requirements for oxygenate blenders
since they are no longer subject to
these requirements.
Sec. 80.125(a), (c) and (d) Removes attest engagement auditor
requirements for(c) and (d) oxygenate
blenders, since they are no longer
required to conduct attest engagement
audits.
Sec. 80.126(b)............. Revises attest engagement definition of
credit trading records to remove
reference to oxygen credits.
Sec. 80.128(e)............. Removes reference to RBOB designations
of``any-oxygenate'' and ``ether-only''
with regard to refiner and importer
contracts with downstream oxygenate
blenders, since these designations have
been removed from the regulations.
Sec. 80.129................ Removes and reserves this section which
provided for alternative attest
engagement procedures for oxygenate
blenders, since they are no longer
required to conduct attest audits.
Sec. 80.130(a)............. Removes requirement for a certified
public accountant or an internal auditor
certified by the Institute of Internal
Auditors, Inc. to issue an attest
engagement report to blenders, since
they are no longer required to conduct
attest audits. Removes requirement for
blenders to providea copy of the
auditor's report to EPA.
[[Page 26695]]
Sec. 80.133(h)............. Removes references to ``any-oxygenate''
and ``ether-only'' RBOB under Sec.
80.69(a)(8) since this section has been
removed.
Sec. 80.134................ Removes this section which provides
attest procedures for oxygenate blenders
since they are no longer required to
conduct attest audits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's rule also modifies the provisions for downstream oxygenate
blending in Sec. 80.69. Under the current regulations, some refiners
and importers produce or import a product called ``reformulated
gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending,'' or RBOB, which is
gasoline that becomes RFG upon the addition of an oxygenate. The
refiner or importer of the RBOB determines the type(s) and amount (or
range of amounts) of oxygenate that must be added to the RBOB. The RBOB
is then transported to an oxygenate blender downstream from the refiner
or importer who adds the type and amount of oxygenate designated for
the RBOB by the refiner or importer. The RBOB refiner or importer
includes the designated amount of oxygenate in its emissions
performance compliance calculations for the RBOB; however, it is the
oxygenate blender who actually adds the oxygenate to the RBOB to comply
with the 2.0 weight percent oxygen standard for the RFG that is
produced by blending oxygenate into the RBOB. The regulations require
oxygenate blenders to conduct testing for oxygen content to ensure that
each batch of RFG complies with the oxygen standard. With the removal
of the oxygen standard, the current requirement for oxygenate blenders
to conduct testing to ensure compliance with the oxygen standard will
no longer be necessary. Accordingly, the provisions for oxygenate
blenders in Sec. 80.69 have been modified to remove the requirement
for oxygenate blenders to test RFG for compliance with the oxygen
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The regulations also include oxygen minimum standards for
simple model RFG and Phase I complex Model RFG, and an oxygen
maximum standard for simple model RFG. See Sec. Sec. 80.41(a)
through (d), and (g). These standards are no longer in effect and
today's rule does not modify the regulations to remove these
standards or compliance requirements relating to these standards,
except where such requirements are included in provisions requiring
other changes in today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there will no longer be an oxygen content requirement for
RFG, we believe that many refiners and importers will want to continue
to include oxygenate blended downstream in their emissions performance
compliance calculations. As a result, the category of RBOB is being
retained and RBOB refiners and importers will continue to be required
to comply with the contract and quality assurance (QA) oversight
requirements in Sec. 80.69.\11\ Because oxygenate blenders will no
longer be conducting testing to ensure compliance with the oxygen
standard, we believe that RBOB refiner or importer compliance with the
contract and QA oversight requirements will be necessary for RBOB
designated to be blended with any amount of oxygenate, including an
amount of oxygenate that would result in RFG containing 2.0 weight
percent (or less) oxygen. As a result, the generic categories of
oxygenate in Sec. 80.69(a)(8) are eliminated by today's rule and RBOB
refiners and importers will be required to comply with the contract and
QA oversight requirements in Sec. 80.69 for any RBOB produced or
imported. This approach is consistent with the oversight requirements
in Sec. 80.101(d)(4) for refiners and importers of conventional
gasoline who wish to include oxygen added downstream from the refinery
or importer in anti-dumping emissions compliance calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA intends to promulgate a rule which will allow RBOB
refiners and importers to use an alternative method of quality
assurance (QA) oversight of downstream oxygenate blenders in lieu of
the contract and QA requirements in Sec. Sec. 80.69(a)(6) and
(a)(7). This alternative method consists of a QA sampling and
testing survey program carried out by an independent surveyor
pursuant to a survey plan approved by EPA. EPA is currently allowing
use of this alternative QA method under a grant of enforcement
discretion that is scheduled to expire when the rule is promulgated,
or December 31, 2007, whichever is earlier. See Letter to Edward H.
Murphy, Downstream General Manager, American Petroleum Institute,
dated December 22, 2005, from Grant Y. Nakayama, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although oxygenate blenders will no longer be subject to the oxygen
standard and associated testing requirements, we believe that the
current requirements for oxygenate blenders to be registered with EPA,
to add the specific type(s) and amount (or range of amounts) of
oxygenate designated for the RBOB, and to maintain records of their
blending operation continue to be necessary in order to ensure
compliance with, and facilitate enforcement of, the emissions
performance standards for the RFG produced by blending oxygenate with
RBOB downstream. As a result, these oxygenate blender requirements are
being retained.
The effective date for the removal of the oxygen requirement will
occur during 2006. As a result, refiners, importers and oxygenate
blenders will be subject to the oxygen standard for the months in 2006
prior to the effective date of this rule. The current regulations allow
parties to demonstrate compliance either on a per-gallon basis or on an
annual average basis. Since the oxygen content standard is being
removed during an annual averaging period, EPA has modified the
regulations to reflect this change and to clarify how parties would
demonstrate compliance with the average oxygen content standard for
2006. Parties may demonstrate compliance based on the average oxygen
content of RFG during the months prior to the effective date for the
removal of the oxygen content requirement. In addition, any refiner,
importer or oxygenate blender may demonstrate compliance based on all
of the oxygenated RFG it produces or imports during 2006. This means a
refiner or importer has two options to show compliance with the average
oxygen content standard for 2006. The first option looks only at the
RFG produced or imported from January 1, 2006 through the effective
date of this rule. During this time period, the per-gallon minimum was
in place for RFG, so all of the RFG would have been oxygenated. The
refiner or importer would be in compliance if they could show that they
meet the 2.1% average standard based on the volume and oxygen content
of all of the RFG produced or imported during this time period. The
second option looks at the RFG produced or imported from January 1,
2006 through December 31, 2006. Since there is no per gallon minimum
for oxygen content starting from the effective date of this rule, some
but not necessarily all of the RFG produced during the year would have
been oxygenated. The refiner or importer would be in compliance if they
could show that they meet the 2.1% average standard based on the RFG
volume and oxygen content of all of the oxygenated RFG produced or
imported during this time period, i.e., the entire year. Any non-
oxygenated RFG produced or imported after the effective date of the
rule may be excluded from compliance calculations.
[[Page 26696]]
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
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.
It has been determined that this direct final rule does not satisfy
the criteria stated above. As a result, this rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Today's final rule
removes certain requirements applicable to refiners, importers and
oxygenate blenders of RFG. As such this rule is expected to reduce
overall compliance costs for all refiners, importers and oxygenate
blenders.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This rule will have the effect of reducing the burdens on certain
regulated parties under the reformulated gasoline regulations. All
parties currently subject to the requirement to submit an annual oxygen
averaging report will no longer be required to submit such report.
Oxygenate blenders currently subject to the following requirements will
no longer be subject to these requirements and associated burdens: RFG
batch reports, RFG annual reports, RFG survey reports, and RFG attest
engagement reports. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 80 under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0277, EPA ICR number 1591. A copy of the OMB
approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this rule.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 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 rule on small
entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
This final rule removes certain requirements applicable to all
refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders of RFG, including small
business refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders. Specifically, this
rule removes the burden on refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders
to comply with the RFG oxygen requirement and associated compliance
requirements. Although in certain situations some refiners and
importers, including some small refiners and importers, may be required
to conduct some additional oversight of oxygenate blenders, we believe
that the burden of any additional oversight will be of minor
significance compared to the relief from the burden of complying with
the oxygen requirement. We have therefore concluded that today's final
rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities subject to
the RFG regulations.
D. 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
[[Page 26697]]
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 final 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 that will result in
expenditures of $100 million or more. This rule affects gasoline
refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders by removing the oxygen
content requirement for RFG and associated compliance requirements. As
a result, this rule will have the overall effect of reducing the burden
of the RFG regulations on these regulated parties. Therefore, the
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
E. 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 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 final 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. This rule removes the oxygen
standard for RFG. The requirements of the rule will be enforced by the
Federal government at the national level. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
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 final 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 rule applies to gasoline refiners and importers who supply RFG,
and to other parties downstream in the gasoline distribution system.
Today's action contains certain modifications to the federal
requirements for RFG, and does not impose any enforceable duties on
communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
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 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 the Order has the potential to influence
the regulation. This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant and does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Acts That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This final 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. This rule eliminates the oxygen content requirement for RFG and
associated compliance requirements. This change will have the effect of
reducing burdens on suppliers of RFG, which, in turn, may have a
positive effect on gasoline supplies. RFG refiners and blenders may
continue to use oxygenates at their discretion where and when it is
most economical to do so. With the implementation of the renewable
fuels standard also contained in the Energy Act, the blending of
ethanol, in particular, into gasoline is expected to increase
considerably, not decrease. Therefore, despite this action to remove
the oxygenate mandate in RFG, when viewed in the context of companion
energy legislation, overall use of oxygenates is expected to increase
in the future.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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 final rule does not establish new technical standards within
the meaning of the NTTAA. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of
any voluntary consensus standards.
[[Page 26698]]
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule''
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(a).
K. Clean Air Act Section 307(d)
This rule is subject to section 307(d) of the CAA. Section
307(d)(7)(B) provides that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure
which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during
judicial review.'' This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA
to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to
raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any
person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Director of
the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
The statutory authority for the actions in today's direct final
rule comes from section 211 and 301(a) of the CAA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 2, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
40 CFR part 80 is amended as follows:
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a)).
0
2. The stay on Sec. 80.65(d)(2)(vi) and Sec. 80.129(a), (d)(3)(iii),
(d)(3)(iv), and (d)(3)(v), published on November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60715)
is lifted.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
3. Section 80.2 is amended by revising paragraph (ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(ii) Reformulated gasoline credit means the unit of measure for the
paper transfer of benzene content resulting from reformulated gasoline
which contains less than 0.95 volume percent benzene.
* * * * *
Subpart D--[Amended]
0
4. Section 80.41 is amended by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (e), removing the entry
``Oxygen content (percent, by weight) (does not apply to gasoline
subject to the provisions in Sec. 80.81) * * * >=2.0 ;''
0
b. In the table in paragraph (f), removing the entry
``Oxygen content (percent by weight) (does not apply to gasoline
subject to the provisions in Sec. 80.81):
Standard * * * >=2.1
Per-Gallon Minimum >=1.5''
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (o); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (q) heading and introductory text and (q)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 80.41 Standards and requirements for compliance.
* * * * *
(o) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(q) Refineries and importers subject to adjusted standards.
Standards for average compliance that are adjusted to be more or less
stringent by operation of paragraphs (k), (l) (m) or (n) of this
section apply to average reformulated gasoline produced at each
refinery or imported by each importer as follows:
(1) Adjusted standards for a covered area apply to averaged
reformulated gasoline that is produced at a refinery if:
(i) Any averaged reformulated gasoline from that refinery supplied
the covered area during any year a survey was conducted which gave rise
to a standards adjustment; or
(ii) Any averaged reformulated gasoline from that refinery supplies
the covered area during any year that the standards are more stringent
than the initial standards; unless
(iii) The refiner is able to show that the volume of averaged
reformulated gasoline from a refinery that supplied the covered area
during any years under paragraphs (q)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section was
less than one percent of the reformulated gasoline produced at the
refinery during that year, or 100,000 barrels, whichever is less.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 80.65 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(3), removing paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) and removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2);
0
c. Removing and reserving (d)(2)(v)(D); revising paragraph (d)(2)(vi)
and (d)(3); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.65 General requirements for refiners and importers.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Those standards and requirements it designated under paragraph
(d) of this section for average compliance on an average basis over the
applicable averaging period.
(2) [Reserved]
(3)(i) For each averaging period, and separately for each parameter
that may be met either per-gallon or on average, any refiner shall
designate for each refinery, or any importer shall designate its
gasoline or RBOB as being subject to the standard applicable to that
parameter on either a per-gallon or average basis. For any specific
averaging period and parameter all batches of gasoline or RBOB shall be
designated as being subject to the per-gallon standard, or all batches
of gasoline and RBOB shall be designated as being subject to the
average standard. For any specific averaging period and parameter a
refiner for a refinery, or any importer may not designate certain
batches as being subject to the per-gallon standard and others as being
subject to the average standard.
(ii) In the event any refiner for a refinery, or any importer fails
to meet
[[Page 26699]]
the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section and for a
specific averaging period and parameter designates certain batches as
being subject to the per-gallon standard and others as being subject to
the average, all batches produced or imported during the averaging
period that were designated as being subject to the average standard
shall, ab initio, be redesignated as being subject to the per-gallon
standard. This redesignation shall apply regardless of whether the
batches in question met or failed to meet the per-gallon standard for
the parameter in question.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(D) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(vi) In the case of RBOB, the gasoline must be designated as RBOB
and the designation must include the type(s) and amount(s) of oxygenate
required to be blended with the RBOB.
(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 or importer 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, 4321-543321-95-
000002, etc.)
* * * * *
(h) Compliance audits. Any refiner and importer of any reformulated
gasoline or RBOB shall have the reformulated gasoline and RBOB it
produced or imported during each calendar year audited for compliance
with the requirements of this subpart D, in accordance with the
requirements of subpart F, at the conclusion of each calendar year.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 80.67 is am
