[Federal Register: June 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 106)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32015-32027]
[DOCID:fr02jn06-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0216; EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0149; FRL-8178-4]
RIN 2060-AM27 and RIN 2060-AM88

Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Refiner and Importer
Quality Assurance Requirements for Downstream Oxygenate Blending and
Requirements for Pipeline Interface

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
regulations to allow refiners and importers of reformulated gasoline
blendstock for oxygenate blending, or RBOB, the option to use an
alternative method of fulfilling a regulatory requirement to conduct
quality assurance sampling and testing at downstream oxygenate blending
facilities. This alternative method consists of a comprehensive program
of quality assurance sampling and testing that would cover all
terminals that blend oxygenate with RBOB in a specified reformulated
gasoline covered area. The program would be carried out by an
independent surveyor funded by industry. The program would be conducted
pursuant to a survey plan, approved by EPA, that is calculated to
achieve the same objectives as the current regulatory quality assurance
requirement.
    This proposed rule also would largely codify existing guidance for
compliance by parties that handle pipeline interface with requirements
for gasoline content standards, recordkeeping, sampling and testing.
The proposed rule also contains new provisions which would provide
additional flexibility to these regulated parties. The proposed rule
would also establish gasoline sulfur standards for transmix processors
and blenders that are consistent with the sulfur standards for other
entities, such as pipelines and terminals, that are downstream of
refineries in the gasoline distribution system, and would clarify the
requirements for transmix processors under the Mobile Source Air Toxics
program.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2006.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before July 3,
2006.
    Hearings: If EPA receives a request from a person wishing to speak
at a public hearing by June 19, 2006, a public hearing will be held on
July 3, 2006. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at a
time and location to be announced in a subsequent Federal Register
notice. To request to speak at a public hearing, send a request to the
contact in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0216 for comments on the transmix provisions, and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0149 for comments on the RBOB provisions, by one of the following
methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions

for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0216 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0149, as appropriate.
     Mail: Air Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0216, or
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0149, as appropriate, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room B102, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Air
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0216, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0149, as
appropriate. Such

deliveries are accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation,
and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0216, or EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0149, as appropriate. EPA's policy is
that all comments received will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional

instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.B. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris McKenna, mailcode 6406J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
343-2802; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action that is located in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of the Federal Register,
we are issuing these amendments to the RFG regulations as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because we view them as non-
controversial amendments and anticipate no adverse comment. If we
receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this
proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the
portion of the direct final rule on which adverse comment was received
will not take effect. Those portions of the rule on which adverse
comment was not received will go into effect on the effective date
noted in the DATES section. We will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved
with the production or importation of gasoline motor fuel. Regulated
categories and entities affected by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NAICS codes                    Examples of potentially regulated
                  Category                         \a\        SIC codes \b\                entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................          324110            2911  Petroleum Refiners.
Industry...................................  422710; 422720      5171; 5172  Gasoline Marketers and
                                                                              Distributors.
Industry...................................  484220; 484230      4212; 4213  Gasoline Carriers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    A. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    B. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    C. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    D. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    E. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    F. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    G. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    H. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
    3. Docket Copying Costs. You may be charged a reasonable fee for
photocopying docket materials, as provided by 40 CFR Part 2.

Outline of This Preamble

I. Refiner and Importer Quality Assurance Requirements for
Downstream Oxygenate Blending
    A. Background
    B. Need for Action
    C. This Action
II. Requirements for Pipeline Interface
    A. Background
    B. 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    C. Pipelines
    D. Transmix Processors
    E. Transmix Blenders
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Acts that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Refiner and Importer Quality Assurance Requirements for Downstream
Oxygenate Blending

A. Background

    The RFG regulations currently require RFG to contain a minimum of
2.0 weight percent oxygen. 40 CFR 80.41. To fulfill this requirement,
oxygenate is added either at the refinery before the gasoline is
certified by the refiner as meeting RFG requirements, or it is added
downstream from the refinery at an oxygenate blending facility. As
discussed in more detail below, refiners often wish to require that
more than the minimum amount of oxygenate be added downstream in order
to include the additional oxygenate in their emissions performance
compliance calculations. Although Congress recently removed the oxygen
requirement for RFG in the Clean Air Act,\1\ we believe many refiners
and importers may wish to continue to include oxygenate added
downstream in their emissions compliance calculations. Under the
current regulations, refiners must conduct a program of quality
assurance testing at the downstream oxygenate blending facility in
order to include the oxygenate in their compliance calculations. This
proposed rule would provide an alternative QA requirement for these
refiners and importers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 1 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58 (HR6), section
1504(a), 119 STAT 594, 1076-1077(2005). In accordance with the
Energy Policy Act, EPA has issued a rule amending the RFG
regulations for California to remove the 2.0 weight percent oxygen
standard (71 FR 8965 (February 22, 2006)), and has proposed a
similar rule that would be applicable in the rest of the country (71
FR 9070 (February 22, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current regulations, when oxygenate is to be added to
produce RFG at a downstream oxygenate blending facility, refiners
produce a product called reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate
blending, or RBOB. RBOB is certified by the refiner, or by an importer
who imports RBOB, as complying with all of the RFG requirements except
the minimum 2.0 weight percent oxygen requirement. The oxygenate
blender is responsible for complying with the oxygen requirement when
the oxygenate is added to the RBOB to produce RFG at the oxygenate
blending facility.
    Various oxygenates may be used to fulfill the oxygen requirement.
Some oxygenates, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE,
typically are added at the refinery. However, some oxygenates, such as
ethanol, have a propensity to attract water, and, as a result, cannot
be added at the refinery, particularly where the finished gasoline will
be traveling through a pipeline on its way to terminals and retail
gasoline stations. As a result, RFG containing ethanol is typically
produced by blending the ethanol with RBOB at a blending facility
downstream from the refinery that produced the RBOB.
    Refiners and importers of RBOB are required to calculate compliance
with the RFG emissions performance standards for VOC, NOX
and toxics by sampling and testing a hand blended mixture of the RBOB
and the type and amount of oxygenate that the refiner or importer of
the RBOB designates must be added downstream. The type and amount of
oxygenate to be added downstream must be indicated on the product
transfer documents that accompany the gasoline when it is transferred
to the downstream oxygenate blender. The oxygenate blender is required
to add the type and amount of oxygenate designated on the product
transfer documents.
    Under the current regulations, RBOB refiners and importers can
designate either a specific type and specific amount of oxygenate to be
added downstream, or they can designate one of two generic categories
of RBOB: ``any-oxygenate'' RBOB or ``ether-only'' RBOB. 40 CFR
80.69(a)(8). Where the RBOB is designated as any-oxygenate RBOB, the
refiner or importer must assume for purposes of its handblend that 2.0
weight percent ethanol will be added downstream. The downstream
oxygenate blender may add any type of legal \2\ oxygenate, to any-
oxygenate RBOB in an amount sufficient to meet the minimum 2.0 weight
percent requirement. Where the RBOB is designated as ether-only RBOB,
the refiner or importer must assume for purposes of its handblend that
2.0 weight percent MTBE will be added downstream. The oxygenate blender
may add any legal ether oxygenate to ether-only RBOB in an amount
sufficient to meet the minimum 2.0 weight percent requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Oxygenates that are allowed under EPA's ``substantially
similar'' rule and any section 211(f) waiver that may apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a specific type and amount of oxygenate is designated for the
RBOB rather than one of the two generic designations, the regulations
require the refiner or importer to conduct downstream oversight quality
assurance (QA) sampling and testing of the downstream oxygenate
blending facility. 40 CFR 80.69(a)(7). This is to ensure that the
specific type and amount of oxygenate that is designated, which
typically is greater than the 2.0 weight percent requirement, in fact
is added to the RBOB by the oxygenate blender. In addition, the refiner
or importer must have a contract with the oxygenate blender which
requires the blender to comply with the blending procedures specified
by the RBOB refiner or importer and allows the refiner or

importer to conduct the required QA sampling and testing. 40 CFR
80.69(a)(6). If the refiner or importer does not meet the contractual
and quality assurance requirements and does not designate its RBOB as
ether-only or any-oxygenate, the refiner or importer must assume for
purposes of its handblend that 4.0 volume percent ethanol will be added
to the RBOB downstream.

B. Need for Action

    Recently, the states of New York and Connecticut promulgated state
laws banning the use of MTBE in gasoline sold in these states. As a
result, many refiners and importers that historically produced or
imported RFG containing MTBE for the NY/CT RFG area currently produce
or import RBOB for ethanol blending. Refiners in this area have
indicated that, due to the complex gasoline marketplace in New York and
Connecticut, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to track
RBOB from the refinery where it is produced to the terminal where it is
blended with ethanol in order to fulfill the downstream QA sampling and
testing requirement. As a result, under the current regulations,
refiners in the NY/CT RFG area are effectively precluded from producing
an RBOB which requires a specific type and amount of oxygenate, such as
10 volume percent ethanol, and instead must produce a generic any-
oxygenate RBOB, which does not require the refiner to conduct
downstream QA testing at the ethanol blender facility.
    As discussed above, for purposes of calculating compliance with RFG
emissions performance standards, these refiners may then only include
in their handblends ethanol in an amount which would result in gasoline
having 2.0 weight percent ethanol (approximately 5.7 volume percent
ethanol.) Some refiners have indicated that they will need to produce
RBOB requiring 10 volume percent ethanol, which would allow them to
include 10 volume percent ethanol for purposes of compliance
calculations, in order to meet emissions performance standards. As a
result, these refiners have asked EPA to allow use of an alternative
method of meeting the downstream QA sampling and testing requirement.
    For the reasons discussed below, we believe it is appropriate to
provide refiners and importers who produce or import RBOB for the NY/CT
RFG area with an alternative means of meeting the QA sampling and
testing requirement. We also believe it is appropriate to provide this
alternative to refiners and importers who produce or import gasoline
RBOB for other RFG areas. As a result, this proposed rule would amend
the RFG regulations to provide an alternative QA sampling and testing
option which will be available to any RBOB refiner or importer in any
RFG covered area. As indicated above, we believe that providing this
alternative QA requirement would be appropriate even after the 2.0
weight percent minimum oxygen standard is removed.

C. This Action

    This proposal would provide RBOB refiners and importers the option
to comply with an alternative QA requirement which consists of a
program of sampling and testing designed to provide oversight of all
terminals that blend ethanol with RBOB for use in a specified RFG
covered area. Under this option, a refiner or importer would need to
either arrange to have an independent surveyor conduct a program of
compliance surveys, or participate in the funding of an organization
which arranges to have independent surveyor conduct a program of
compliance surveys. In either event, compliance surveys would need to
be carried out by an independent surveyor pursuant to a survey plan
calculated to achieve the same QA objectives as the current regulatory
requirement. A detailed survey plan would be submitted to EPA for
approval by September 1st of the year preceding the annual averaging
period in which the alternative QA sampling and testing program would
be implemented. The survey plan would include a methodology for
determining when the survey samples will be collected, the location of
the retail outlets where the samples will be collected, the number of
samples to be included in the survey, and any other elements that EPA
determines are necessary to achieve the same level of quality assurance
as the current QA requirement.
    Under this alternative QA option, the independent surveyor would be
required to obtain samples at retail stations in the RFG covered area
in accordance with the survey plan and have the samples tested for type
and amount of oxygenate. The sampling and testing conducted under this
alternative QA option would be required to be done in accordance with
the provisions in Sec. Sec.  80.8 and 80.46. The surveyor would obtain
from the retail outlet the product transfer documents associated with
the gasoline, which will provide the surveyor with information
regarding the type and amount of oxygenate that the gasoline is
supposed to contain, and the terminal that conducted the oxygenate
blending. The surveyor would be required to notify EPA of any instance
where the product transfer documents do not contain such information.
If the test results show that the gasoline does not contain the type
and/or the minimum amount of oxygenate indicated on the product
transfer documents, the surveyor would be required to ask the terminal
determined to have supplied the gasoline to produce documentation of
the blending instructions from the refiner or importer of the RBOB. The
surveyor would be required to notify EPA of any instances where the
refiner's or importer's blending instructions indicate that the
oxygenate blender did not add the type or minimum amount of oxygenate
designated for the RBOB by the refinery or importer. The surveyor would
be required to submit to EPA a report which includes the information
and data collected during the survey, and to maintain records
associated with the surveys for five years.
    This proposed rule would require each refiner and importer who
chooses to comply with the alternative QA requirement to take all
reasonable steps to ensure that parties downstream from the refiner or
importer cooperate with the program by allowing the independent
surveyor to collect samples, and by providing to the independent
surveyor copies of product transfer documents and other information
regarding the source of any gasoline received, the destination of any
gasoline distributed, the oxygenate blending instructions for RBOB, and
the rate the oxygenate was blended. In partial satisfaction of the
``reasonable steps'' requirement, the rule would require the refiner or
importer to include such a requirement in contractual agreements with
its branded downstream facilities.
    In addition, this proposed rule would require parties downstream
from a refiner or importer that complies with the alternative QA
requirement to include on product transfer documents the type and
amount of oxygenate contained in the gasoline and identification of the
oxygenate blending terminal that blended the gasoline. This proposed
rule would require that the survey plan include a process for notifying
all oxygenate blending terminals and other downstream parties in the
affected area of the product transfer documentation requirement. Where
a downstream party fails to receive notice of the product transfer
requirement, the party would be required to begin complying with the

product transfer requirement upon notification by EPA.
    We believe that use of this QA compliance alternative would result
in oversight sampling and testing that is equivalent to the current
regulatory QA requirement, and, in fact, may result in significantly
superior QA oversight since the sampling and testing would be conducted
by an independent surveyor in accordance with a comprehensive plan
approved by EPA, rather than by individual refiners and importers. This
rule would not have any adverse environmental impact, and would provide
refiners and importers with additional flexibility in complying with
the regulations. As a result, while this rulemaking was initiated in
response to the compliance issues raised by refiners in the NY/CT area,
we believe it is appropriate to provide this compliance alternative to
refiners and importers supplying any RFG covered area. The rule,
therefore, would provide this QA compliance alternative to any RBOB
refiner or importer in any RFG area who either arranges to have an
independent surveyor conduct a program of compliance surveys, or who
participates in the funding of an organization that arranges to have an
independent surveyor conduct a program of compliance surveys, in
accordance with the provisions in this proposed rule.
    Compliance with this QA alternative would be optional. Refiners and
importers may choose to comply with the existing QA requirement and not
participate in a survey program. Refiners and importers who supply more
than one RFG area may choose to participate in the survey program for
one RFG area and comply with the existing QA requirement for another
RFG area.
    This proposed rule would add a new paragraph (a)(11) to 40 CFR
80.69, which contains the current QA requirement. This proposed rule
also would amend Sec.  80.77 to require parties to include on product
transfer documents the information required under Sec.  80.69(a)(11) as
described above.

II. Requirements for Pipeline Interface

A. Background

    Refined petroleum products that are transported by pipeline
normally are pumped sequentially, as a continuous flow through the
pipeline. As a result, some amount of mixing of adjacent product types
normally occurs. The product in a pipeline between two adjacent volumes
of petroleum product consists of a mixture of the two adjacent volumes
and is called ``interface.'' Generally, interface is blended into the
two adjoining products that created the interface. For example, half of
the interface between premium and regular gasoline is blended into the
premium gasoline and half into the regular gasoline (called a ``fifty
percent cut'' or a ``mid-point cut.'') However, certain product types,
such as jet fuel, are not mixed with any other product type, and all of
the interface that contains jet fuel is blended into the other product
(called a ``clean cut.'')
    Where interface consists of a mixture of finished fuels that cannot
be cut with adjoining product so as to produce a product that meets the
specifications for a fuel that can be used or sold without further
processing, the interface is called ``transmix''. Transmix is not
blended into either of the two adjacent products transported by the
pipeline, but is diverted by the pipeline as a distinct product into a
separate storage tank. Transmix is generally transported via tank
truck, pipeline or barge to a facility designed to separate the
transmix into its fuel components. For example, where the transmix
consists of gasoline and distillate fuel, the transmix may be
transported to a ``transmix processing'' facility where the gasoline
portion is separated from the distillate fuel. At locations where it is
either relatively expensive or inconvenient to transport transmix to a
transmix processing facility for separation, the transmix is sometimes
blended into gasoline in very small amounts, typically around 0.25
volume percent of the gasoline.
    The reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping requirements apply
at any facility where gasoline is produced. See 40 CFR 80.2(h) and (i),
80.65(a), and 80.101. Gasoline most commonly is produced by processing
crude oil at refineries, but it is also produced by other processes,
such as combining blendstocks or adding blendstocks to finished
gasoline. Gasoline is also produced when transmix is blended into
gasoline, or when transmix is separated into gasoline and distillate
fuel. Transmix blending is similar to adding blendstock to gasoline
where the addition of the transmix, like blendstock, may change the
properties of the gasoline. Similarly, the process of separating
gasoline and distillate fuel may result in gasoline with different
properties than the gasoline as originally certified by the refinery.
Transmix processors and transmix blenders are refiners under the RFG/
anti-dumping regulations, but EPA has historically provided transmix
processors and transmix blenders flexibility in complying with the
refiner requirements. This proposed rule would codify some of the
existing practices into EPA regulations, and would also include
modifications reflecting EPA experience.

B. 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On July 11, 1997, EPA proposed to add a new Sec.  80.84 to the RFG/
anti-dumping regulations at 40 CFR Part 80 to clarify the manner in
which interface, including transmix, would be treated under the RFG/
anti-dumping regulations. The NPRM proposed requirements for
designating different combinations of gasoline in interface. The NPRM
also proposed requirements for transmix processors and transmix
blenders that produce either RFG or conventional gasoline.
    The NPRM proposed to allow parties to blend transmix into
conventional gasoline provided that the transmix resulted from normal
pipeline operations, and either there was no means of transporting the
transmix to a transmix processor via pipeline or water, or there was an
historical practice of blending transmix at the facility before 1995.
The rate of transmix blending was limited to the greater of 0.25 volume
percent or the demonstrated blending rate in 1994. The NPRM proposed to
allow transmix to be blended into RFG provided that the transmix
resulted from normal pipeline operations, there was no means of
transporting the transmix to a transmix processing facility via
pipeline or water, and the party was unable to blend the transmix into
conventional gasoline. The rate of transmix blending into RFG was
limited to a maximum of 0.25 volume percent. The NPRM also proposed
requiring transmix blenders to carry out a program of periodically
sampling and testing of the RFG subsequent to transmix blending to
ensure that the downstream standards were met.
    The NPRM proposed to require transmix processors who designate the
gasoline produced from the transmix (such gasoline is one type of
transmix gasoline product, or TGP) as conventional gasoline to exclude
the TGP from anti-dumping compliance calculations for the transmix
processing facility, but to include any blendstocks added to the TGP
since such blendstocks would not previously have been included in any
refinery's compliance calculations. The NPRM proposed to require
transmix processors who designate the gasoline produced from transmix
as RFG to include the TGP, as well as any blendstocks used, in the RFG
compliance calculations for the transmix processing facility to

ensure that the gasoline produced using the transmix meets all RFG
standards.
    Parties have been processing and blending transmix in accordance
with EPA guidance which describes similar treatment of interface and
transmix as that outlined in the July 11, 1997 NPRM. (See Reformulated
Gasoline and Anti-dumping Questions and Answers (November 12, 1996)).
Our experience since the guidance was issued indicates that the
approach taken in the guidance is mostly appropriate, but that some
revisions are warranted. EPA is also aware, from recent discussions
with several pipeline operators, that volumes of transmix may increase
as pipelines begin transporting ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. EPA had
anticipated that transporting ultra-low sulfur diesel would require
greater volumes of diesel to be cut as interface into other higher-
sulfur distillate fuels such as heating oil and jet fuel. However, some
pipelines have indicated they intend to change their product sequencing
by transporting volumes of ultra-low sulfur diesel between volumes of
gasoline, in order to minimize sulfur contamination of the ultra-low
sulfur diesel. This change would increase the number of gasoline/diesel
interfaces cut to transmix, and increase the overall volume of
transmix. Pipeline operators have also indicated that transporting
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel will cause them to generate transmix at
locations where they have not historically generated transmix.
    In this proposed rule, we are including the provisions in Sec.
80.84, which were previously proposed in the July 11, 1997 NPRM, with
certain changes made in response to the comments we received on the
NPRM, as discussed below. We believe it is appropriate to include in
this proposal the provisions in Sec.  80.84 given the length of time
since they were originally proposed, and to include changes made in
response to prior comments. We have also added several new provisions
in this proposal clarifying, and in some instances expanding, the
flexibilities available to transmix processors and transmix blenders
for complying with the RFG/antidumping regulations. This proposed rule
also includes modest recordkeeping requirements in Sec. Sec.  80.74 and
80.104 which would require parties that handle interface and transmix
to keep records verifying that the requirements of Sec.  80.84 were
met. In addition, this proposed rule includes provisions for transmix
processors and transmix blenders related to gasoline sulfur and air
toxics. This proposed rule only addresses gasoline produced by transmix
processors and transmix blenders. Distillate fuel produced by transmix
processors and transmix blenders is addressed in the diesel sulfur
regulations under 40 CFR part 80, subpart I.
    EPA believes the flexibilities available in this proposed rule are
appropriate given the unique roles that transmix processors and
transmix blenders fill in the petroleum products distribution system.
Although transmix processors and transmix blenders are refiners under
EPA's regulations, almost all of the gasoline and distillate fuel they
produce is derived from fuel which has already been produced and
certified by an upstream refinery. Thus, this proposed rule would allow
transmix processors the flexibility to exclude from their antidumping
compliance calculations conventional gasoline that they recover
directly from transmix, since the conventional gasoline has already
been accounted for in the compliance calculations of an upstream
refinery. Similarly, this proposed rule would allow transmix processors
to only have to meet the downstream sulfur standards for gasoline they
recover directly from transmix, since the gasoline has already been
accounted for in the compliance calculations of an upstream refinery.
However, transmix processors must comply with all refiner standards at
each of their transmix processing facilities for any blendstocks they
add to gasoline. Lastly, this proposed rule would allow transmix
blenders to blend transmix into gasoline without restriction on
location or rate, provided the endpoint of the transmix-blended
gasoline does not exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the gasoline
meets all applicable downstream standards.

C. Pipelines

    This proposed rule includes designations for pipeline interface
that are consistent with the designations in EPA's current guidance and
the 1997 NPRM. The designations for pipeline interface are primarily
intended to ensure that pipelines cut their interfaces in a manner that
maintains the quality of any RFG or VOC-controlled gasoline transported
by a pipeline. For example, interfaces between volumes of RFG and
conventional gasoline should be cut into the conventional gasoline to
maintain the quality of the RFG. Regardless of gasoline product
designation, all gasoline containing interface must meet all downstream
standards, including but not limited to any standards and requirements
that apply downstream of the refinery in 40 CFR Part 80 and the Clean
Air Act.

D. Transmix Processors

1. Comments on the 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    EPA received a number of comments on the 1997 NPRM regarding
transmix processors. One commenter said that the definition of transmix
should be changed since transmix processors and transmix blenders
sometimes process or blend mixtures of fuels that were unintentionally
combined in tanks. Although such mixtures are similar in composition to
transmix, they do not fit the definition of transmix proposed in the
1997 NPRM, which specified that transmix must be generated in a
pipeline. EPA agrees that a product that in composition is similar to
transmix, and that is produced by unintentionally mixing gasoline and
distillate fuel in tanks, should be afforded the same treatment as
transmix product generated in a pipeline. EPA also understands that
transmix may include mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel produced
through normal operational activities at pipelines and terminals, such
as draining tanks, or draining piping and hoses used to transfer
gasoline or distillate fuel to tanks or trucks, or from a safety relief
valve discharging to protect equipment from overpressuring. As a
result, Sec.  80.84(e) in this proposed rule specifically allows such
products to be covered under the transmix provisions.
    EPA is aware that some transmix processors and transmix blenders
may also be adding feedstocks to their transmix that were not produced
from normal pipeline interface, or from inadvertently mixing gasoline
and distillate fuel in tanks, or through normal operational activities
at pipelines and terminals. Mixing other feedstocks in transmix prior
to processing may cause these other feedstocks to be inappropriately
accounted for under the antidumping regulations and gasoline sulfur
regulations, as discussed later. The flexibility provided in this rule
extends only to transmix composed of pipeline interface, mixtures of
gasoline and distillate fuel that were unintentionally combined in a
tank, and mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel produced through
normal operational activities at pipelines and terminals. A transmix
processor or transmix blender who adds feedstocks derived from any
other sources to their transmix must comply with all the standards
applicable to a refiner under EPA's regulations for all the gasoline
they produce during a compliance period, including but not limited to
any standards and requirements in 40 CFR parts 79, 80 and

the Clean Air Act. Transmix processors that add feedstocks from any
other sources should also take extra care to be sure that they are
complying with Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6921-6939(e), and any state provision authorized
pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926.
    One commenter said that the 1997 NPRM should clarify that the
transmix processing requirements do not apply to transmix processed by
a crude oil refinery where the transmix is received into a crude or
other feedstock stream and is not separated before it is added to other
feedstocks. EPA believes that the regulations in this proposed rule are
clear in this regard, since they specifically apply to persons who
separate transmix at a transmix processing facility. The term
``transmix processing facility'' is defined as excluding refineries
that ``produce gasoline by processing crude oil''. Such refineries must
comply with all existing refiner requirements, and would not be
eligible to take advantage of the flexibilities available in this
proposed rule.
    Some commenters said that they do not know the source of the
transmix and, therefore, would not know the original designation of the
gasoline portion of the transmix (e.g., RFG, conventional gasoline,
blendstocks). The commenters said that the transmix processor should
not be required to track and segregate transmix generated from
different types of gasoline or blendstocks. This proposed rule would
not require a transmix processor to track and segregate transmix.
However, Sec.  80.65 requires the transmix processor to designate the
gasoline portion (i.e., conventional gasoline, RFG, or RBOB) that is
separated from the distillate fuel.
    One commenter said that, under previous guidance, EPA provided for
the exclusion of the transmix-based portion of conventional gasoline
from anti-dumping compliance calculations as an option, whereas in the
1997 NPRM, the exclusion would be mandatory. The commenter believes the
exclusion should be optional. Another commenter believes that transmix
processing improves the quality of the gasoline separated from transmix
by removing more heavy aromatics and sulfur compounds and improving
E300 distillation point, and therefore, TGP should be included in
compliance calculations for conventional gasoline to give credit for
the improvements. EPA agrees with the commenters, and this proposed
rule would modify the 1997 NPRM to allow the exclusion of the TGP from
anti-dumping compliance calculations to be optional, provided the TGP
meets all of the downstream standards for conventional gasoline.
However, in order to prevent transmix processors from selectively
including only high quality TPG batches in their compliance
calculations, while excluding those of low quality, transmix processors
must consistently include or exclude TGP in their compliance
calculations during each annual compliance period, with one exception.
    The exception occurs if transmix contains gasoline blendstocks that
are derived from pipeline interface. EPA understands that some
pipelines transport gasoline blendstocks, and that these pipelines may
cut interfaces containing gasoline blendstock to a transmix tank. If a
transmix processor produces conventional gasoline from transmix
containing gasoline blendstocks and was allowed to exclude the TGP from
their anti-dumping compliance calculations, the finished conventional
gasoline would not be included in any refiner's anti-dumping compliance
calculations. Thus, under this proposal, if a transmix processor
produces conventional gasoline at a transmix processing facility from
transmix containing gasoline blendstocks derived from pipeline
interface, the transmix processor must consistently include all TGP
produced during a compliance period in their antidumping compliance
calculations for that transmix processing facility. As discussed
previously, if transmix processors add any feedstocks to their transmix
that were not produced from normal pipeline interface, or from
inadvertently mixing gasoline and distillate fuel in tanks, or through
normal operational activities at pipelines and terminals, they would
need to comply with all standards applicable to refiners under EPA's
regulations for all the gasoline they produce during a compliance
period. This proposed rule would also require any RFG or RBOB produced
by a transmix processor to be included in the RFG compliance
calculations for the transmix processing facility.
    This proposed rule would also modify the 1997 NPRM by treating TGP
as a blendstock when the transmix processor mixes the TGP with other
blendstock(s) to produce conventional gasoline. In this situation, the
TGP would be included in compliance calculations for the resulting
conventional gasoline. We believe it is appropriate to treat TGP as a
blendstock rather than as a previously certified gasoline in this
situation, since the TGP is likely to have undergone changes as a
result of having been interfaced with another product and separated
through transmix processing. For example, one transmix processor
indicated that their TGP could not be directly sold as gasoline because
it does not meet standards for octane or Reid vapor pressure. This
approach is consistent with the approach taken in both the 1997 NPRM
and the Question and Answer guidance with regard to RFG, where TGP is
required to be included in compliance calculations when it is mixed
with blendstock to produce RFG.
    Where TGP is sold as a blendstock, the transmix processor would be
required to exclude the TGP from compliance calculations, with one
exception. The exception is when the transmix processor sells the TGP
to an oxygenate blender as a blendstock which becomes conventional
gasoline solely upon the addition of an oxygenate, such as ethanol or
MTBE. In this circumstance, the transmix processor would need to
include the TGP in compliance calculations. This exception would not
apply if the TGP is combined with any other non-oxygenated blendstocks
to produce conventional gasoline. Thus, in order for a transmix
processor to properly account for any TGP sold as a blendstock in
compliance calculations for a transmix processing facility, the
transmix processor must clearly state on the TGP product transfer
documents whether or not the TGP may only be combined with an oxygenate
to produce conventional gasoline. This approach is consistent with the
anti-dumping regulations at Sec.  80.101(d)(3), which require
blendstocks that become conventional gasoline solely upon the addition
of an oxygenate to be included in anti-dumping compliance calculations
for the refiner that produced the blendstock.
    Transmix processors also sometimes blend sub-octane TGP with
previously certified premium gasoline (PCG) to produce regular
gasoline. EPA is proposing that transmix processors which blend sub-
octane TGP with premium PCG to produce conventional gasoline must
include the TGP in compliance calculations for the transmix processing
facility, but may meet the sampling and testing requirements in one of
three ways. First, the transmix processor may directly measure the
properties of the TGP and treat each volume of TGP blended with PCG as
a separate batch for purposes of compliance calculations. As a second
alternative, the transmix processor may measure the volume and
properties of the PCG prior to blending with the TGP, then measure the
volume and properties of the gasoline subsequent to blending

with the TGP, and calculate the volume and properties of the TGP by
subtracting the volume and properties of the PCG from the volume and
properties of the gasoline subsequent to blending. As a third
alternative, the transmix processor may demonstrate compliance using
the procedures in Sec.  80.101(g)(9). Where TGP is mixed with
previously certified gasoline to produce RFG or RBOB, the transmix
processor must demonstrate compliance using the procedures in Sec.
80.65(i).
    One commenter said that EPA should allow transmix processors to
blend oxygenates and other blendstocks into transmix-based conventional
gasoline to produce RFG. This proposed rule would address this comment
by allowing transmix processors to treat their TGP as a blendstock, and
combine the TGP with other blendstocks to produce either conventional
or reformulated gasoline. In this situation, the transmix processor
would be required to fulfill all the requirements and standards for RFG
that apply to a refiner.
2. Issues Not Addressed in the 1997 NPRM
    a. Gasoline Sulfur. In the preamble to the gasoline sulfur
regulations, EPA indicated that the Agency would establish requirements
for transmix processors in a future rulemaking (65 FR 6800, February
10, 2000). Therefore, as part of this rulemaking, EPA is also including
proposed requirements for transmix processors and transmix blenders
under the gasoline sulfur regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subpart H.
    As under the RFG/anti-dumping rule, transmix processors and
transmix blenders are refiners under the gasoline sulfur regulations.
As a result, transmix processors and transmix blenders are subject to
the refinery sulfur standards under Sec.  80.195 of the gasoline sulfur
regulations. However, for reasons discussed below, we believe it is
appropriate that such parties be held to the gasoline sulfur standards
applicable to downstream parties under Sec. Sec.  80.210 and 80.220 of
the gasoline sulfur regulations, and not be held to the more stringent
refinery standards in Sec.  80.195.
    As indicated above, transmix processors generally do not control
their feedstock, but receive mixtures of products from upstream
refineries. The gasoline portion of transmix may be relatively high in
sulfur if it was originally produced by a small refiner, a refiner
producing gasoline for use in the Geographic Phase-in Area (GPA), or a
refiner who has been given a temporary hardship extension to produce
relatively high sulfur gasoline. As a result, holding transmix
processors to the downstream sulfur standards rather than the more
stringent refinery standards would provide transmix processors the
flexibility to recover gasoline originally produced by small refiners,
refiners of GPA gasoline, or temporary hardship refiners. To ensure
compliance with the applicable downstream sulfur standards, transmix
processors will be required to test any gasoline produced from transmix
for sulfur content.
    Under this proposed rule, transmix processors who add blendstocks
not derived from transmix to their recovered gasoline would be required
to meet all of the requirements and standards that apply to refiners
under 40 CFR Part 80, subpart H, for such blendstocks. Where certain
requirements are met, the transmix processor may use sulfur test
results from the blendstock supplier for purposes of meeting the
sampling and testing requirements under the sulfur rule.
    As mentioned previously, EPA has learned that some transmix
processors have added feedstocks to their transmix, before the transmix
is processed, that are not produced from pipeline interface, or from
mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel unintentionally combined in a
tank, or from normal operations at pipelines and terminals. Under this
proposal, transmix processors that use these other feedstocks would
need to meet all EPA standards applicable to a refiner for all the
gasoline they produce during a compliance period, including the
refinery level sulfur standards in 40 CFR 80.195. These transmix
processors could not utilize the flexibilities in this rule because
they have chosen to use feedstocks that have not been previously
accounted for by a refinery in the production of gasoline. When the
transmix is processed, the previously compliant gasoline present in the
transmix and the other feedstocks both distill out of the transmix
together as a fungible product, and the transmix processor cannot
distinguish exactly which portion of the TGP was derived from
previously compliant gasoline and which was derived from other
feedstocks. Thus, EPA proposes limiting the flexibility allowed by this
proposed rule to gasoline produced from transmix, only if the transmix
was produced from pipeline interface, or from mixtures of gasoline and
distillate fuel that were unintentionally combined in a tank, or from
mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel produced from normal
operational activities at pipelines and terminals. Transmix processors
who add any other material to their transmix would need to comply with
all EPA standards applicable to a refiner for all the gasoline they
produce during a compliance period, including the refinery level sulfur
standards in 40 CFR 80.195.
    This proposed rule would, however, allow transmix processors that
produce gasoline from pipeline interface to meet the less stringent
downstream gasoline sulfur standards, even if the interface contains
small amounts of gasoline blendstocks that are transported via pipeline
as a normal part of pipeline operations. EPA believes it is appropriate
to allow transmix processors that produce gasoline from these interface
mixtures to meet the downstream sulfur standards because they do not
have the same level of control over their transmix as the transmix
processors that intentionally introduce other feedstocks into the
production process. Furthermore, because the volume of gasoline
blendstocks in the transmix will be relatively small and since the
gasoline will still have to meet downstream standards, EPA believes the
environmental consequences of allowing these transmix processors to
meet the less stringent downstream sulfur standard should be
negligible.
    This proposed rule would add a new Sec.  80.213 to the gasoline
sulfur regulations. This section contains the additional requirements
for demonstrating compliance with the gasoline sulfur rule discussed
above for refiners who process or blend transmix in accordance with the
provisions in Sec.  80.84. EPA believes that the additional proposed
requirements for transmix processors and transmix blenders in Sec.
80.213 are necessary to maintain the flexibility of the current
practices regarding transmix, and will not result in any adverse
environmental consequences. This proposed rule would also add modest
recordkeeping requirements to Sec.  80.365 which require parties to
retain records of any sampling and testing required under Sec.  80.213.
    b. Air Toxics. The mobile source air toxics (MSAT) rule (66 FR
17230, March 29, 2001) requires the annual average toxics performance
of a refinery's or importer's gasoline to be at least as clean as the
average of its gasoline during the three-year baseline period 1998-
2000. The MSAT requirements apply separately to RFG and to conventional
gasoline. MSAT compliance is determined from the same gasoline data
used by a refiner to determine its compliance with the RFG or anti-
dumping requirements. As a result, only gasoline which would be
included in the RFG or anti-dumping compliance determination of a
refiner is

included in the refiner's MSAT baseline and compliance determinations.
    Most, if not all, transmix processors have unique individual MSAT
baselines. Under MSAT, those with unique individual MSAT baselines
(Sec.  80.915) are subject to their MSAT baseline up to their
associated MSAT baseline volume (Sec.  80.850). Gasoline production
above the MSAT baseline volume is subject to either the RFG toxics
performance standard (Sec.  80.41) or to the refiner's anti-dumping
standard (Sec.  80.91). Because these standards are equal to or less
stringent than the refiner's MSAT baseline, they offer some flexibility
to the refiner's overall compliance with its MSAT standard. Because
gasoline demand is increasing, EPA expects that this provision will
provide most refiners with some degree of MSAT compliance flexibility.
The MSAT rules also provide for limited credit and deficit carryover,
allowing refiners to weather slightly off years with better toxics
performance in an adjacent year (Sec.  80.815). Finally, because all
refiners are subject to MSAT standards which are typically more
stringent than the RFG toxics performance standard or their individual
anti-dumping standard, it is likely that the gasoline portion of the
transmix is also cleaner with respect to toxics performance than it was
during the baseline period 1998-2000, thus providing some immediate
flexibility to transmix processors and transmix blenders.
    This action clarifies that any gasoline or blendstock a transmix
processor includes in their RFG or anti-dumping compliance
determination is also included in their MSAT compliance calculations.
Also, EPA has recently proposed to replace the existing MSAT
regulations with a standard that would limit the benzene content of
gasoline to an annual average of 0.62 percent by volume for most
refiners, beginning in 2011. See 71 FR 15803 (March 29, 2006). The
proposed toxics regulations would exempt transmix processors from the
new benzene standard for any gasoline they recover from transmix, but
require transmix processors to meet the standard for any blendstocks
they add to transmix.

E. Transmix Blenders

1. Comments on the 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    One commenter was concerned that the sampling and testing
procedures in the 1997 NPRM for blends of transmix and RFG, which would
be performed after blending the transmix, may not prevent the release
of noncompliant RFG in the distribution system. For reasons discussed
below, however, EPA believes that commercial standards limit transmix
blending to such small percentages, that blending transmix in RFG will
cause essentially no change in the emissions performance of the RFG.
This proposed rule would specifically require that all gasoline
produced by transmix blenders have an endpoint less than 437 degrees
Fahrenheit. As described below, as a practical matter, EPA believes
that this endpoint standard will effectively prevent the blending of
transmix into gasoline from causing any appreciable changes in gasoline
emissions performance.
    One commenter said that the 1996 Question and Answer guidance
regarding transmix blended into conventional gasoline requires that the
transmix be blended at a rate no greater than the historical rate that
was used by the pipeline, whereas the NPRM provided that the transmix
be blended at a rate no greater than the historical rate at the
terminal or 0.25 volume percent, whichever is greater. The commenter
said the NPRM did not cover a situation where, historically, transmix
was moved through a pipeline to a terminal that is no longer used for
blending transmix, and the transmix is currently moved through the same
pipeline but blended at an intermediate terminal which historically had
not been used for blending transmix. The commenter recommended that the
language in the Q&A guidance, which covers this situation by allowing
blending at the historical rate used by the pipeline rather than by the
terminal, be adopted in the regulations.
    We believe the Q&A guidance is consistent with the 1997 NPRM in
stating that if a pipeline stops blending transmix at a terminal, that
the pipeline may not begin blending transmix at a second terminal at a
rate equal to the first terminal's blending rate. The Q&A guidance
states: ``* * * the transmix must be present in a terminal from which
there is no out-bound pipeline or water transportation by which the
transmix could be transported to a transmix processor, or the
pipeline's historical practice at the terminal [emphasis added] (the
practice beginning at least before January, 1994) has been to blend all
transmix into conventional gasoline without further processing.'' This
language indicates that the criteria regarding historical practice
applies to the terminal in which the transmix was blended by the
pipeline. Where a pipeline blends transmix at more than one terminal,
the historical practice criterion would apply separately to each of the
pipeline's terminals at which transmix is blended. However, as
described below, this proposed rule would change this approach.
2. This Proposal
    This proposed rule would eliminate the historical practice
criterion for determining amounts of transmix to be blended into
conventional gasoline and the locations where this may occur, and also
would eliminate the 0.25 volume percent limit for blending transmix in
reformulated gasoline. This proposed rule would instead allow transmix
to be blended into conventional or reformulated gasoline in any
location and in any amount, provided the endpoint of the transmix-
blended gasoline does not exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit,\3\ and meets
all other applicable downstream standards. As EPA's diesel sulfur
regulations begin phasing in, transmix will be generated at new
locations. EPA believes it is appropriate to allow the flexibility to
blend transmix into gasoline at locations which have not historically
blended transmix, provided the endpoint of the transmix-blended
gasoline does not exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit, and the gasoline meets
all other applicable downstream standards. In addition, EPA believes it
is appropriate to use gasoline endpoint to regulate transmix blending
because it takes into account the quality of the transmix-blended
gasoline. The historical practice criterion for conventional gasoline
and the 0.25 volume percent limit for RFG were crude approaches that
did not account for the variability of transmix and its effect on the
gasoline into which it was blended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 437 degrees Fahrenheit is the maximum allowable endpoint for
gasoline specified in ASTM's standard for automotive spark-ignition
engine fuel, D 4814-88. Gasoline endpoint is measured using ASTM
D86-01. ASTM D86-01 measures the percentage of a gasoline sample
that evaporates, as a function of temperature, as the sample is
heated up under controlled conditions. Endpoint is the temperature
at which all the volatile portion of a gasoline sample is
evaporated. ASTM D4814-88 specifies a maximum allowable endpoint of
437 degrees Fahrenheit in order to limit the amount of higher-
boiling point compounds that can be present in the gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that blending small percentages of transmix in
gasoline should be allowed at any facility, provided the facility takes
appropriate steps to ensure that the endpoint of the transmix-blended
gasoline does not exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit. Transmix typically
contains significant percentages of distillate fuels such as diesel
fuel or heating oil, and distillate fuels have higher boiling points
and much lower octane ratings than

gasoline. EPA's existing guidance regarding transmix blending reflected
a concern that blending excessive amounts of transmix in gasoline could
have an appreciable effect on emissions. However, EPA believes that
where transmix is blended at sufficiently low percentages, such that
the endpoint of the transmix-blended gasoline does not exceed 437
degrees Fahrenheit, the emissions effect of blending transmix in
gasoline will be negligible.
    In addition to affecting gasoline endpoint and octane, blending
transmix in gasoline also affects parameters in EPA's complex model,
the model used to ensure that imported or produced gasoline complies
with EPA standards. Although the complex model does not use gasoline
endpoint or octane to predict gasoline emissions, the complex model
does use several other gasoline parameters to predict gasoline
emissions. These parameters include sulfur content, benzene content,
aromatics content, olefin content, oxygen content, Reid vapor pressure
(RVP), and two distillation points (E200 and E300). Compared to
gasoline, the distillate fuel portion of transmix contains much less
benzene, olefins, and oxygen (typically zero for all three parameters),
has a much lower RVP, may contain a moderately greater percentage of
aromatics, has significantly lower (typically zero) E200 and E300
distillation points, and may contain more sulfur.
    EPA is primarily concerned with the effect of transmix blending on
average gasoline sulfur content. Beginning in 2006, EPA's gasoline
sulfur regulations specify that all gasoline produced by most
refineries or imported by each importer must contain an annual average
sulfur content of 30 ppm or less, in order to help significantly reduce
emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles.\4\ Transmix may contain
significant percentages of high sulfur distillate fuel such as heating
oil, nonroad diesel or jet fuel, and blending transmix containing high
sulfur distillate fuels into gasoline could cause an increase in the
sulfur content of the gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Gasoline produced by most refineries or imported by each
importer must also contain no more than 80 ppm sulfur per gallon
beginning in 2006. However, EPA has allowed flexibility for some
refiners to be able to produce gasoline that is higher on both an
average basis and a per gallon basis through December 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes, for two reasons, that the potential increase in
gasoline sulfur due to blending transmix into gasoline would be so
small, that the effect on emissions from gasoline engines would be
negligible. The first reason is that the percentage of transmix that
can be blended into gasoline is significantly limited by the amount of
distillate fuel in the transmix. Distillate fuels have much higher
boiling points than gasoline, so transmix blenders must limit the
addition of transmix so that the endpoint of the transmix-blended
gasoline does not exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit. Refiners already have
to meet the ASTM endpoint standard under the ``substantially similar''
requirements for gasoline (56 FR 5352, February 11, 1991).
Consequently, transmix which contains relatively high percentages of
distillate fuel must be blended into gasoline at relatively low
percentages so that the endpoint of the transmix-blended gasoline does
not exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit.
    The second reason is that EPA anticipates that the distillate fuel
portion of transmix will contain significantly less sulfur beginning
June, 2006, when the sulfur standard for highway diesel fuel drops
sharply from 500 to 15 parts per million (ppm). Beginning in June,
2006, EPA estimates that the national average sulfur content of
transmix will drop from approximately 800 ppm to 141 ppm, using product
sulfur levels and pipeline product sequencing arrangements from Chapter
7 of the Regulatory Support Document (RSD) for the nonroad diesel
sulfur regulations. Blending 0.25 volume percent transmix containing
141 ppm sulfur into gasoline raises the sulfur level of the gasoline by
only approximately 0.3 ppm. Although the percentage of gasoline that is
blended with transmix would be anticipated to increase under this
proposed rule, EPA anticipates that transmix will be blended at no more
than 0.25 volume percent on average nationwide, and that the overall
average increase in gasoline sulfur from transmix blending will have a
negligible impact on emissions from gasoline engines. Using EPA's model
for calculating emissions from vehicle fleets for a given year (MOBILE
6.2.03), EPA estimates that blending 0.25 volume percent transmix in
gasoline would change emissions of various pollutants by only -0.2 to
0.3 percent.
    EPA believes that the effect of blending transmix in gasoline at
relatively low percentages will have a similarly small effect on other
complex model parameters, such that the consequent effect on gasoline
emissions will also be negligible. Since gasoline toxics emissions are
primarily affected by benzene, and the distillate fuel portion of
transmix typically contains no benzene, transmix-blended gasoline is
not expected to produce any more toxics than gasoline which does not
contain transmix. Similarly, since evaporative emissions are primarily
affected by RVP, and the distillate fuel portion of transmix has a much
lower RVP than gasoline, volatile emissions from transmix-blended
gasoline are not expected to be any greater than volatile emissions
from gasoline which does not contain transmix.
    EPA is aware that the physical properties of gasoline and transmix
can vary due to a variety of factors, which affect the percentage of
transmix that can be blended into gasoline, without causing the
endpoint of the transmix-blended gasoline to exceed 437 degrees
Fahrenheit. For example, gasoline that is produced for use during
colder winter months often has an endpoint which is lower than the
endpoint of gasoline produced during warmer summer months. Similarly,
reformulated gasoline often has an endpoint which is lower than the
endpoint of conventional gasoline produced during the same time of the
year. Gasoline which has a relatively low endpoint compared to the ASTM
standard can be blended with a greater percentage of distillate fuel
without causing the endpoint of the transmix-blended gasoline to exceed
437 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, the properties of the transmix
itself can vary widely due to the practices of the pipeline or terminal
that produced the transmix. If transmix contains a relatively high
percentage of gasoline, a relatively greater percentage of transmix can
be blended into gasoline without causing the endpoint of the transmix-
blended gasoline to exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit, since the transmix
itself is already mostly composed of gasoline. Alternatively, if
transmix contains a relatively high percentage of distillate fuel, the
percentage of transmix that can be blended into gasoline without
causing the endpoint of the transmix-blended gasoline to exceed 437
degrees Fahrenheit is relatively low. EPA is not including any
requirements in this proposed rule to list additional information on
product transfer documents identifying gasoline or transmix properties.
However, as described below, EPA is proposing that transmix blenders
maintain a quality assurance program.
    EPA also understands that distillate fuel can potentially be
blended more than once into the same volume of gasoline through
transmix blending and other normal pipeline operations. Blending
transmix multiple times into the same volume of gasoline can cause an
excessive cumulative percentage of transmix to be blended into the
gasoline, and cause the endpoint of the transmix-blended gasoline to
exceed

437 degrees Fahrenheit. For example, a pipeline or terminal may blend
transmix into gasoline, then send the gasoline to another pipeline or
terminal which may blend transmix into the gasoline a second time.
Similarly, as part of normal pipeline operation, pipeline operators may
cut an interface between adjacent volumes of gasoline and distillate
fuel directly into the gasoline volume. Cutting distillate fuel
directly into gasoline has an effect on gasoline properties similar to
the effect of blending transmix directly into the gasoline (gasoline
endpoint increases and octane decreases). A downstream pipeline or
terminal could then subsequently blend transmix into the same volume of
gasoline which already contains distillate fuel from the interface cut.
EPA is not including any requirements in this proposed rule to list any
additional information on product transfer documents identifying
whether gasoline has been blended with transmix or any distillate fuel.
EPA believes that the requirement that gasoline produced by transmix
blenders meet the 437 degree Fahrenheit endpoint standard will prevent
any potentially deleterious effects from successive transmix blending.
However, as described below, EPA is proposing that transmix blenders
maintain a quality assurance program designed to ensure compliance with
the endpoint standard.
    This proposed rule requires transmix blenders to maintain a quality
assurance program that will ensure that the endpoint of transmix-
blended gasoline does not exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the
transmix-blended gasoline will comply with the downstream standards for
conventional or reformulated gasoline. As a part of this quality
assurance program, transmix blenders must either sample and test
transmix-blended gasoline at certain frequencies to determine the end-
point of the gasoline, or submit a petition to EPA documenting how
their quality assurance program ensures that the endpoint of their
transmix-blended gasoline will not exceed 437 degrees Fahrenheit, and
that the transmix-blended gasoline meets all EPA downstream standards
for conventional or reformulated gasoline.

III. Administrative Requirements

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 proposed 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. It would not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more and is not expected to have any
adverse economic effects as described in the Order. This proposed rule
does not raise issues of consistency with the actions taken or planned
by other agencies, would not materially alter the cited budgetary
impacts, and does not raise any novel legal or policy issues as defined
in the Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The modifications to the RFG information collection requirements in
this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA
has been assigned EPA ICR number 1591.21, OMB control number 2060-0277.
    This proposed rule addresses certain adverse impacts on refiners
and importers of RBOB under the current rule and provides these
refiners and importers with additional flexibility to comply with the
regulations. The flexibility afforded under this rule is optional.
Modest information collection requirements in the form gasoline surveys
of oxygenate blending facilities are required for those parties who
avail themselves of the flexibility provided in this rule. It is
estimated that refiners and importers who choose this option will save,
at a minimum, half of the cost they would incur if they complied with
the existing QA requirements.
    The estimated total hourly burden per respondent for the gasoline
surveys is 20 hours. The estimated total hourly burden for all
respondents is 700 hours (35 respondents maximum). The estimated hourly
cost is estimated to be $71 per hour. The total estimated cost per
respondent for the gasoline surveys is $1,420. The total estimated cost
for all respondents is $49,700. In addition, the gasoline survey
requirement is estimated to require purchase of services costs to
industry of approximately $220,000, assuming that refiners and
importers in all potentially affected RFG areas choose the compliance
option under this rule.
    This rule would provide flexibility for transmix processors and
transmix blenders to produce gasoline under certain circumstances
without having to meet all of EPA's standards for refiners. Transmix
processors would be allowed to recover gasoline from transmix that does
not need to be included in their compliance calculations, under certain
circumstances. Transmix blenders would be provided with the additional
flexibility to blend transmix at any rate and at any location, provided
the endpoint of their transmix-blended gasoline does not exceed 437
degrees Fahrenheit. However, in order to ensure the endpoint of the
transmix-blended gasoline does not exceed 437 degrees, transmix
blenders would be required to either test every batch of transmix-
blended gasoline or submit a petition to EPA documenting that they
maintain an oversight program that will prevent the endpoint of
transmix-blended gasoline from exceeding 437 degrees. This proposed
rule would codify existing practices designed to ensure that products
transported by pipelines meet existing downstream standards.
    EPA estimates that approximately 25 transmix blenders will submit
one-time petitions for approval of their quality testing programs. One
transmix blender estimated that they would need 1-2 person-weeks to
prepare a petition for EPA approval. For calculating the burden and
cost of this rule, EPA has estimated that the average labor cost would
be $71/hour, and that each petition would take 2 person-weeks (80
hours) to prepare. Multiplying the average labor cost by the total time
required to prepare each petition (80 hours) by the total number of
petitions (25) results in a total respondent cost of $142,000.
    The information under this rule will be collected by EPA's
Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), and by EPA's Air
Enforcement Division,

Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA). The information collected will be used by EPA to
evaluate compliance with the requirements under the RFG and antidumping
programs, and gasoline sulfur program. This oversight by EPA is
necessary to ensure attainment of the air quality goals of the RFG and
antidumping programs, and gasoline sulfur program.
    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. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
proposed rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) 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 this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify 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 rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify 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 proposed rule will not have any adverse economic impact on
small entities. This proposed rule would codify existing guidance for
the RFG and antidumping regulations, and establish provisions in the
gasoline sulfur regulations (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000) that allow
transmix processors and transmix blenders more flexibility for
compliance. The proposed rule would establish gasoline sulfur standards
for transmix processors and blenders that are consistent with the
sulfur standards for other entities, such as pipelines and terminals,
that are downstream of refineries in the gasoline distribution system,
and would clarify the requirements for transmix processors under the
Mobile Source Air Toxics program. This proposed rule would codify
existing practices designed to ensure that products transported by
pipelines meet existing downstream standards. This proposed rule would
also provide refiners and importers with an alternative compliance
option for fulfilling a requirement to conduct downstream sampling and
testing at oxygenate blender facilities. We have, therefore, concluded
that this proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for all small
entities subject to the RFG regulations. We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

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 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.
    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector that would result in
expenditures of $100 million or more. This proposed rule provides
refiners and importers of gasoline with additional flexibility in
complying with regulatory requirements. As a result, this proposed rule
would have the overall effect of reducing the burden of the RFG
regulations on these regulated parties. This proposed rule would also
codify existing practices designed to ensure that products transported
by pipelines meet existing downstream standards. 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 proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would
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 proposed rule would provide
refiners and importers of gasoline with additional flexibility in
complying with regulatory requirements. This proposed rule would also
codify existing practices designed to ensure that products transported
by pipelines meet existing downstream standards. The requirements of
this proposed rule would 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It would 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 would apply to gasoline refiners and importers of gasoline.
This action contains certain modifications to the federal requirements
for RFG, and would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not be 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 would
not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy. This proposed rule will provide refiners and importers
of gasoline with additional flexibility in complying with regulatory
requirements. This proposed rule would also codify existing practices
designed to ensure that products transported by pipelines meet existing
downstream standards. As a result, this proposed rule may have a
positive effect on gasoline supplies.

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 proposed 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.

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    The statutory authority for the actions in this proposed rule comes
from sections 211 and 301(a) of the CAA.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the regulatory text
proposed today is set forth in the concurrent direct final rule
published in today's Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

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

    Dated: May 25, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-5050 Filed 6-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 47801]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16672]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-069, OMB Control No. 3235-0069]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Extension: Industry Guides

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Industry Guides are used by registrants in certain industries as
disclosure guidelines to be followed in presenting information to
investors in Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and Exchange Act
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) registration statements and certain other
Exchange Act filings. The paperwork burden from the Industry Guides is
imposed through the forms that are subject to the disclosure
requirements in the Industry Guides and is reflected in the analysis of
these documents. To avoid a Paperwork Reduction Act inventory
reflecting duplicative burdens, for administrative convenience the
Commission estimates the total annual burden imposed by the Industry
Guides to be one hour.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication by October 3, 2022.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 29, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16672 Filed 8-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 9320]
[DOCID:fr01mr07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-125-001]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

February 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 21, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 289, to
be effective February 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3598 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P