CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA PHASE 3 RFG RULEMAKINGS The first CaRFG3 rulemaking consisted of the adoption of the Phase 3 CaRFG standards and requirements, which included the ban on MTBE ( the " Phase 3 CaRFG" rulemaking). The second rulemaking made a substantial number of changes to the Phase 3 CaRFG requirements, particularly to the complex provisions relating to California reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending, or " CARBOB"   the blendstock that refiners supply from their refineries when they plan to add the oxygenate ethanol after the product is no longer to be shipped through a pipeline ( the " Phase 3 CaRFG follow up" rulemaking). The third rulemaking revised some of the test methods for determining compliance with some of the CaRFG standards ( the " 2000 2001 CaRFG test methods rulemaking"). The fourth rulemaking postponed implementation of the Phase 3 CaRFG standards and the ban on MTBE from December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2003 ( the " Phase 3 CaRFG postponement" rulemaking). Finally, the recently concluded fifth rulemaking made a number of additional refinements to the Phase 3 CaRFG requirements, including amendments to the provisions on allowable residual levels of MTBE ( the " residual MTBE" rulemaking).

CARB's multi member Board approved the Phase 3 CaRFG standards at a December 9, 1999 public hearing. At the direction of the Board, the amendments were formally adopted by the Executive Officer on June 16, 2000. They were submitted on June 26, 2000 to the California Office of Administrative Law ( OAL). OAL approved the amendments and filed them with the California Secretary of State on August 3, 2000. Pursuant to California Government Code section 11343.4( d), they became operative September 2, 2000.

The Board approved the Phase 3 CaRFG follow up amendments at a November 16, 2000 public hearing. At the direction of the Board, the amendments were formally adopted by the Executive Officer on April 25, 2001. They were submitted to OAL on July 9, 2001. OAL approved the amendments and filed them with the California Secretary of State on August 20, 2001. Pursuant to California Government Code section 11343.4( d), they became operative on the same date.

The Board approved the Phase 3 CaRFG test method amendments at a November 16, 2000 public hearing. At the direction of the Board, the amendments were formally adopted by the Executive Officer on July 11, 2001 ( corrections were made August 28, 2001). They were submitted to OAL on July 18, 2001. OAL approved the amendments and filed them with the California Secretary of State on August 29, 2001. Pursuant to California Government Code section 11343.4( d), they became operative on September 27, 2001.

The Board approved the amendments postponing the Phase 3 CaRFG standards at a July 25, 2002 public hearing. At the direction of the Board, the amendments were formally adopted by the Executive Officer on November 8, 2002, and were submitted to OAL on the same date. OAL approved the amendments and filed them with the CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 2 California Secretary of State on December 24, 2002. Pursuant to California Government Code section 11343.4( d), they also became operative December 24, 2002.

Finally, the Board approved the residual MTBE amendments standards at a December 12, 2002 public hearing. At the direction of the Board, the amendments were formally adopted by the Executive Officer on March 14, 2003. They were submitted to OAL on March 20, 2003. OAL approved the amendments and filed them with the California Secretary of State on May 1, 2003. Pursuant to California Government Code section 11343.4( d), they also became operative May 1, 2003.

Background: Description of the Phase 2 CaRFG Regulations Immediately Prior to the Phase Three CaRFG Rulemaking The Phase 2 CaRFG regulations were adopted by the ARB following a hearing in November 1991, and became applicable in the spring of 1996. As of submittal of the last SIP revision on August 19, 1999, the regulations established a comprehensive set of standards for gasoline designed to achieve the maximum feasible reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from gasoline powered motor vehicles. The standards cover sulfur, benzene, olefin, oxygen, and aromatic hydrocarbon contents, the 50 percent and 90 percent distillation temperatures ( T50 and T90), and summertime Reid vapor pressure ( RVP). Table 1 in the next part of this letter shows the preexisting Phase 2 CaRFG standards and compares them to the Phase 3 CaRFG standards.

The primary element of the Phase 2 CaRFG standards is a set of limits that apply to gasoline when it is first supplied from the production facility ( typically a refinery) or import facility. These will be referred to as the " refiner" limits. The Phase 2 CaRFG standards also include a set of " cap limits" that apply throughout the gasoline distribution system and for all properties but RVP are less stringent than the refiner limits. This approach allows the imposition of very stringent standards at the refinery while allowing refiners to vary the composition of individual batches in a cost effective way up to the cap limits as long as overall equivalent emissions performance is achieved. The cap limits allow for effective enforcement for gasoline in transit to, and being sold at, service stations and other fueling facilities.

With the exception of RVP and oxygen content, the CaRFG regulations have provided three compliance options for meeting the refiner limits. One option is to have the gasoline subject to either a

flat limit," which is set forth in the regulations which must be met by every gallon of gasoline leaving the refinery, or a specified

averaging limit." The averaging limits for each of the six properties are numerically more stringent than the comparable flat limits. Under the averaging option, the producer may assign differing

designated alternative limits" ( DALs) to different batches of gasoline being supplied from the refinery. Each batch of gasoline must meet the DAL for the batch. A producer or importer supplying a batch of gasoline with a DAL above the averaging limit must, within 90 days before or after, supply sufficient quantities of gasoline subject to more stringent DALs to fully offset the excess over the averaging limit. CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 3 The CaRFG regulations also contain a second compliance mechanism under which a refiner may use the

Phase 2 CaRFG Predictive Model" to identify alternative flat and averaging limits applicable when gasoline is supplied from the refinery. The Predictive Model consists of mathematical equations which predict the changes in exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen ( NOx), and potency weighted toxics for four toxic air contaminants that result from different gasoline formulations. The four toxic air contaminants are benzene, 1,3 butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. The Predictive Model is based on data from 18 vehicle emission test programs analyzing the relationship of gasoline properties and emissions. An alternative gasoline formulation is acceptable if there will be essentially no increase in emissions of hydrocarbons, NOx, and potency weighted toxics under the Predictive Model. Since 1996, most California gasoline has been supplied by refiners using the Predictive Model compliance option.

The third compliance option provided by the CaRFG regulations allows for certification of alternative gasoline formulations based on the results of vehicle emission testing. Under this option, producers must perform a comparative vehicle emissions test program to show that their gasoline formulation achieves equivalent emissions as compared to a Phase 2 CaRFG reference test fuel. To date, this option has not been used by any refiner.

Gasoline oxygen content is regulated somewhat differently from the other properties in that there are both minimum and maximum oxygen content standards. Oxygen is added to gasoline by blending in an

oxygenate." The oxygenate most used by far in California has been MTBE. Much smaller amounts of ethanol have been used. While the Phase 2 CaRFG oxygen standard is 1.8 to 2.2 percent by weight ( wt. percent), producers and importers may use the Predictive Model to vary the applicable limit. The oxygen content may be as low as zero percent or as high as 3.5 wt. percent when the Predictive Model is used. Since adding oxygen to gasoline will reduce emissions of carbon monoxide ( CO) from most vehicles now on the road, the CaRFG regulations originally required a minimum oxygen content of 1.8 wt. percent statewide in the winter months when CO concentrations are the highest. In 1998 the ARB eliminated the wintertime minimum oxygen requirement in those areas where the requirement was not necessary to meet the national and state ambient CO standards. Since March 2000, the wintertime 1.8 wt. percent minimum oxygen requirement has applied only in Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial Counties. The state is conditionally mandated by section 211( m) of the federal Clean Air Act ( FCAA) to maintain a wintertime oxygen requirement in all of these counties except Imperial.

Compliance with the CaRFG standards has been affected by federal gasoline requirements administered by U. S. EPA. Pursuant to the 1990 amendments to FCAA section 211, U. S. EPA has adopted federal RFG regulations ( 40 CFR § § 80.40 et seq.) that now apply in San Diego County, the greater Los Angeles area ( Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties, and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties), greater Sacramento area ( Sacramento county and parts of Yolo, Solano, Sutter, Placer, CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 4 and El Dorado counties), and, since December 10, 2002, the San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area. Together, these areas make up about 80 percent of the state's gasoline market. Both the federal and state RFG regulations apply in those areas. To avoid unnecessary duplication of the enforcement requirements, in 40 CFR

80.81, the U. S. EPA exempted California producers marketers of Phase 2 CaRFG from many of the federal enforcement requirements.

The oxygen requirements in the federal RFG and CaRFG programs differ considerably. The FCAA requires a minimum 2.0 wt. percent oxygen requirement year round, even when it is not needed to avoid exceedances of the ambient CO standards and formulations with less or no oxygen will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of hydrocarbons, NOx and toxics. Thus because of federal law, California refiners must comply with the federal minimum oxygenate requirement in 80 percent of California's gasoline. For the remaining 20 percent of the state's gasoline, refiners have the flexibility to produce gasoline without oxygen if they choose, as long as minimum emissions performance required by the CaRFG regulations are met. Using this flexibility, California refiners have been providing substantial quantities of oxygen free gasoline where permitted in Northern California with no loss in emission benefits.

Genesis of the Phase 3 CaRFG Regulations During the initial implementation of the federal RFG regulations in 1995, concerns were raised regarding exposure to MTBE during vehicle fueling and associated potential adverse health effects. These concerns were initially raised in other states. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the detection of MTBE in surface and ground water, including a number of drinking water supplies in California and other states. Legislation enacted in 1997 required the University of California ( U. C.) to conduct a study of the health and other environmental risks and benefits of MTBE in gasoline compared to other oxygenates. This same legislation also required the Governor to take appropriate action based on the findings and information from public hearings conducted on the U. C. Report. The U. C. Report was released in late 1998, and concluded that there were significant risks to the environment, as well as costs associated with water contamination due to the use of MTBE. This was because MTBE is highly soluble in water and will transfer more readily than most other gasoline components to groundwater from gasoline leaking from underground storage tanks, pipelines and other parts of the gasoline distribution system. MTBE was also shown to pose an odor and taste problem in water at very low concentrations.

As a result, on March 25, 1999, Governor Davis signed Executive Order D 5 99, in which he found that, on balance, there is a significant risk to the environment from using MTBE in gasoline in California. Governor Davis directed the California Energy Commission ( CEC) to issue a timetable for the removal of MTBE from gasoline at the earliest possible date but not later than December 31, 2002. The CEC subsequently determined that December 31, 2002 was in fact the earliest feasible time. The Executive Order also directed the ARB by December 1999 to adopt Phase 3 CaRFG regulations that will provide additional flexibility in lowering or removing the oxygen CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 5 content requirement while maintaining current emissions and air quality benefits and ensuring compliance with the SIP.

Senate Bill 989 ( Sher) was signed by the Governor on October 10, 1999, enacting section 43013.1 of the Health and Safety Code. This statute required the CEC to develop a timetable for the removal of MTBE from gasoline at the earliest possible date, and required the ARB to ensure that the Phase 3 CaRFG regulations maintain or improve upon emissions and air quality benefits achieved by Phase 2 CaRFG as of January 1, 1999 and provide additional flexibility to reduce or remove oxygen from motor vehicle fuel.

Removal of MTBE from California gasoline would be considerably easier and less expensive if federal law did not mandate that it be replaced by another oxygenate in 80 percent of the state's gasoline. In 1999 Governor Davis asked U. S. EPA to exercise its authority under FCAA section 211( k)( 2)( B) to waive the minimum oxygen requirement in the federal RFG areas in the state, but in June 2001 the agency denied the state's request. On August 10, 2001, California filed a petition in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging the denial. Oral argument was conducted on February 12, 2003, and we are currently awaiting the court's decision.

Adoption of the Phase 3 CaRFG Standards Following a December 9, 1999 hearing, on June 16, 2000, the ARB formally adopted amendments to the CaRFG regulations consistent with the Governor's Executive Order D 5 99, SB 989, and the timetable for removing MTBE approved by the CEC. The key elements of the amendments are described below.

Prohibition on MTBE in California gasoline produced after December 31, 2002. The amendments include a ban on California gasoline produced with the use of MTBE, which would apply to all gasoline supplied from production and import facilities starting December 31, 2002. This was consistent with the Governor's Executive Order D 5 99 and the schedule approved by the CEC. The prohibition on production of gasoline with MTBE would quickly result in its phase out throughout the storage and marketing system. For enforcement purposes, the prohibition was to apply 45 days later to all downstream facilities except bulk plants, retail outlets, and bulk purchaser consumer facilities. After another 45 days, the ban on dispensing of California gasoline produced with the use of MTBE was to apply throughout the distribution system. This phase in was similar to the schedule used in the phase in of Phase 2 CaRFG in 1996, and was necessary to avoid disruptions in the gasoline distribution system.

Along with the prohibition on the use of MTBE in gasoline, the amendments included a three phase reduction of limits on the small residual levels of MTBE in produced and imported California gasoline. As the ban on the dispensing of MTBE in gasoline is implemented, it is expected that very low levels of MTBE may continue to exist in parts of the gasoline distribution system. During the first year, starting December 31, 2002, there was a prohibition of gasoline containing 0.3 vol. percent or more MTBE. This limit CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 6 had the same 90 day phase in period for downstream facilities as the prohibition of gasoline made with the use of MTBE. Starting in December 31, 2003, California gasoline was prohibited from containing 0.15 vol. percent or more MTBE, and a permanent prohibition of 0.05 percent or more MTBE was to apply starting December 31, 2004. A 90 day downstream phase in period would apply for each change in allowable MTBE.

In recognition that other ethers ( such as ethyl tertiary butyl ether ( ETBE) and tertiaryamyl methyl ether ( TAME)) have similar characteristics as MTBE and could likely pose similar risks to the environment if used in significant volume, the amendments required a comprehensive evaluation prior to the use of any oxygenate other than ethanol as replacements for MTBE. Under this requirement, any oxygenate other than ethanol must undergo a multimedia evaluation regarding the use of the oxygenate. Furthermore, the California Environmental Policy Council, which is established by Public Resources Code section 71017, would also have to determine that the oxygenate will not cause a significant adverse impact on the public health or the environment before its use would be allowed in California gasoline.

The Phase 3 CaRFG standards. In addition to the required phase out of MTBE use, The Board adopted a number of changes to the specifications for Phase 2 CaRFG gasoline. Collectively, these are referred to as the Phase 3 CaRFG standards. Table 1 shows the preexisting Phase 2 CaRFG standards and the new Phase 3 CaRFG standards, which were to become applicable starting December 31, 2002, with a 90 day phase in period downstream of production and import facilities. Refiners were generally expected to continue to use a predictive model in producing California gasoline. Thus for any particular batch of gasoline the refiner could vary the limits for the regulated properties from those in the table, as long as the predictive model showed that the alternative limits applicable to the batch will not increase emissions of hydrocarbons, NOx, and potency weighted toxics compared to the limits in the regulations.

Small refiners that had been producing Phase 2 CaRFG were allowed to elect to be subject to adjusted flat limits for aromatics of 35 vol. percent, benzene of 1.0 vol. percent, T50 of 220 ° F, and T90 of 312 ° F, as long as any increased hydrocarbon, NOx, and potency weighted toxic emissions associated with these alternative specifications were fully mitigated through a mechanism to be added to the small refiner diesel regulations. CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 7 Table 1 Flat Limits Averaging Limits Cap Limits Property Phase 2 CaRFG Phase 3 CaRFG Phase 2 CaRFG Phase 3 CaRFG Phase 2 CaRFG Phase 3 CaRFG Reid Vapor Pressure ( pounds per square inch; warmer months only) 7.00 7.00 or 6.90 w/ evap PM Not Available Not Available 7.00 6.40   7.20 60 Sulfur Content ( parts per million by weight) 40 20 30 15 80 30 ( 12/ 31/ 04)

Benzene Content ( percent by volume) 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.1 Aromatics Content ( percent by volume) 25.0 25.0 22.0 22.0 30.0 35.0 Olefins Content ( percent by volume) 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 T50 ( degrees Fahrenheit) 210 213 200 203 220 220 T90 ( degrees Fahrenheit) 300 305 290 ( max. 310) 295 330 330 1.8  3.5 winter areas 1.8  3.7 winter areas Oxygen Content ( percent by weight) 1.8  2.2 1.8  2.2 Not Available Not Available 0  3.5 0   3.7 MTBE and oxygenates other than ethanol Not Applicable Prohibited as provided in

2262.6 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Prohibited as provided in

2262.6 The Phase 3 CaRFG Predictive Model. The amendments included a new Phase 3 CaRFG Predictive Model that is applicable along with the Phase 3 CaRFG standards. The revised model was based on the existing Predictive Model with three basic changes. First, the ARB added an evaporative hydrocarbon emissions element that allows a refiner to vary RVP and use the hydrocarbon impacts in conjunction with the exhaust emissions Predictive Model. This was expected to facilitate ethanol usage by permitting refiners that use ethanol to produce a fuel with higher RVP provided that the increase in evaporative emissions were offset by reductions in exhaust emissions. It also allows refiners to use lower RVP gasolines as part of their compliance CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 8 demonstration under the Predictive Model. When using the evaporative model, the RVP flat limit will be 6.9 psi.

A second change in the Predictive Model allows a hydrocarbon credit for gasoline that provides CO emissions reductions associated with an oxygen content greater than 2.0 wt. percent. The credit reflects the fact that CO contributes to ozone formation, and is based on the relative reactivity of CO compared to the various hydrocarbon species. This credit is expected to facilitate the use of ethanol in California gasoline.

Third, the Predictive Model was updated to reflect recent vehicle test data and changes in the current vehicle fleet and to account for changes in newer vehicles' response to changes in fuel properties.

Refiners and importers were allowed to trigger a mechanism under which they could comply with the Phase 3 CaRFG standards and use the Phase 3 CaRFG Predictive Model prior to December 31, 2002. This was designed to facilitate the early removal of MTBE from California gasoline.

Other changes to the provisions on CARBOB. When gasoline is oxygenated with ethanol, certain characteristics of the resulting blend make it generally infeasible to be transported through pipeline systems. Because of this, ethanol is typically added to gasoline at the terminal or in the delivery truck. The CaRFG regulations allow a refiner to ship nonoxygenated gasoline from the refinery without complying with the CaRFG standards if it is specially formulated to be combined with oxygenate " downstream" from the refinery and the resulting blend will meet all of the CaRFG standards. This allows entities adding oxygen downstream from the refinery to take advantage of the contribution the oxygenate can make to complying with the CaRFG standards, particularly by diluting the concentration of compounds like benzene. The nonoxygenated blend is called " California reformulated gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending," or " CARBOB." ( the federal RFG regulations have a corresponding mechanism for what is called " RBOB.") The amendments made a number of changes to the CARBOB provisions, which in most cases made it easier for refiners and oxygenate blenders to comply. These changes included elimination of quality audit requirements, allowing up to 3.7 wt. percent oxygen for 10 vol. percent ethanol blends, and facilitating use of the Predictive Model for gasoline containing 2.7 wt. percent oxygen from ethanol.

The 2000 2001 Phase 3 CaRFG Follow Up Amendments Specifications for denatured ethanol. With the elimination of MTBE in California gasoline, the use of ethanol will become much more widespread, particularly if the federal government maintains the mandate that 80 percent of California's gasoline contain at least 2.0 wt. percent oxygen. However, even with relief from the federal requirement, refiners are expected to use substantial amounts of ethanol both to meet the state requirement for oxygen in wintertime gasoline in much of Southern California and to increase octane. In the original Phase 3 CaRFG rulemaking, staff proposed CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 9 specifications for denatured ethanol intended for use in California gasoline. The specifications were designed to assure a more uniform product with blending characteristics that would assist refiners in the challenging task of meeting the Phase 3 CaRFG standards and to help enable the ethanol blending requirements be streamlined. Since ethanol producers commented that some of the proposed specifications were too stringent in light of ethanol production processes and the characteristics of denaturants being used, the Board directed staff to work with interested parties and come back with a proposal for consideration at a later date.

In the Phase 3 CaRFG follow up rulemaking, the Board adopted the following limits for denatured ethanol intended for use in California gasoline starting December 31, 2002: a sulfur content not exceeding 10 parts per million, benzene content not exceeding 0.06 vol. percent, olefin content not exceeding 0.5 vol. percent, and aromatic hydrocarbon content not exceeding 1.7 vol. percent. Sulfur content was to be determined by ASTM D 5453 93. The benzene, olefin, and aromatic hydrocarbon content were be determined by analyzing the concentration of those compounds in the denaturant and then multiplying the result by 0.0476. The Board also adopted benzene, olefin and aromatic hydrocarbon limits for denaturants equal to the Phase 3 CaRFG cap limits. Starting December 31, 2002, persons transferring denatured ethanol intended for use in California gasoline were to be required to provide documentation stating that it complies with the applicable standards, and providing the name of the transferor, the facility where the ethanol was produced, and the person who produced the ethanol and added the denaturant.

Provisions pertaining to CARBOB. Under the preexisting regulations, compliance of CARBOB with the CaRFG standards was determined by adding the appropriate level of oxygenate to a sample of CARBOB and comparing the results to the applicable CaRFG limits. A producer was required to conduct such tests and notify the ARB prior to supplying a final blend of CARBOB from the refinery. Whenever the CARBOB was transferred, it had to be accompanied by a document identifying the oxygenate type or types and amount or range of amounts that must be added before the CARBOB is supplied from the final distribution facility.

The follow up amendments established a new " CARBOB Model" which can be used in connection with limits directly applicable to the CARBOB. The CARBOB model serves as a preprocessor for the Predictive Model. The properties of the CARBOB are used to calculate the expected properties of the finished blend. These finished blend properties are then entered into the Predictive Model to see if the CARBOB properties result in a qualifying fuel. A refiner has the option to use the CARBOB Model mechanism, in which case the refiner would be able to simply sample and analyze the CARBOB before it is supplied from the refinery, without having to hand blend the ethanol into the CARBOB before analyzing the properties.

n determining compliance, the properties of the denatured ethanol will normally be assumed to be in the expected range reflecting the proposed specifications for denatured ethanol. But producers and imports were given the option of specifying a CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 10 different range of ethanol properties, in which case the range would have to be included in product transfer documentation, and the ultimate oxygen blender would be responsible to use denatured ethanol with the specified properties.

The amendments also added cap limits for downstream CARBOB that has been supplied from its production or import facility. These cap limits can be enforced by sampling and testing the CARBOB without the need for hand blending ethanol into the CARBOB.

The amendments also changed the preexisting prohibition of combining CARBOB that has been shipped from the refinery with any other CARBOB, gasoline, blendstock or oxygenate, except for the oxygenate for which the CARBOB was designed, or other CARBOB for which the refiner has designated the same type and amount or range of oxygenate. First, the prohibition will apply to blending CARBOBs with different oxygen ranges rather than different amounts of oxygenate to be added; this should allow increased fungibility. Second, combining CARBOBs designed for different ethanol levels in a storage tank at a terminal or bulk plant will be permitted if it is part of a transition to a new type of CARBOB and certain criteria are met, including a requirement that the batch of the new CARBOB being added has a reduced sulfur content. Combining CARBOB with California gasoline in a storage tank at a terminal or bulk plant will also be permitted if specified conditions are met. One condition is that the resulting blend of product in the tank could only be supplied from the terminal or bulk plant when it was not subject to the RVP standards.

Providing offsets for excess emissions from small refiner Phase 3 CaRFG. In the Phase 3 CaRFG rulemaking, the Board included small refiner Phase 3 CaRFG standards with less stringent flat limits for benzene and aromatics content, T50, and T90. A small refiner may only use the small refiner Phase 3 CaRFG standards, however, if it offsets the excess emissions with changes to its diesel fuel produced pursuant the ARB's regulation limiting the aromatic hydrocarbon content. The original Phase 3 CaRFG regulations identified the excess emissions of hydrocarbons, NOx, and potency weighted toxics on a per barrel basis that must be offset, but the Board deferred establishment of the diesel fuel offset provisions until the follow up rulemaking. A small refiner may only use the small refiner Phase 3 CaRFG standards if it produced gasoline meeting Phase 2 CaRFG standards in 1998 and 1999; Kern Oil and Refining Co. ( Kern Oil) is the only refiner to meet this criterion.

The ARB's diesel aromatics regulation   section 2282   has included a basic aromatic hydrocarbon standard of 10 vol. percent, with a 20 vol. percent standard for small refiners, applicable to the small refiner's annual " exempt volume." Additional diesel fuel produced by the small refiner in the year is subject to the 10 percent aromatics standard. The regulation also includes a mechanism under which a refiner may certify an " alternative formulation" shown by an engine test program to achieve emissions reductions equivalent to a 10 percent aromatics diesel fuel ( 20 percent for small refiners). The ARB's diesel fuel regulations were approved by U. S. EPA as part of CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 11 California's SIP at the same time the Phase 2 CaRFG regulations were approved ( 60 FR 43379 ( August 21, 1995)).

The Phase 3 CaRFG follow up amendments provide a small refiner with three options in producing diesel fuel in a manner that offsets the excess emissions from gasoline subject to the small refiner Phase 3 CaRFG standards in a particular year. First, the small refiner can accept a smaller annual exempt volume of diesel fuel subject to the 20 percent aromatics standard   in the case of Kern Oil, the equivalent of 2,263 barrels per day in place of 6,405 barrels per day. Second, the refiner can produce up to its annual exempt volume of diesel fuel, but subject to standards more stringent than a 20 percent aromatics standard. Third, the small refiner could opt for an exempt volume augmented by 25 percent, if emissions are reduced enough to offset emissions from the small refiner's gasoline and the augmentation of the volume. The small refiner also had the option to use these mechanisms prior to December 31, 2002.

The 2000 2001 CaRFG Test Methods Amendments For each CaRFG property specification, our regulations identify the method to be used in determining compliance. In most cases the methods are based on test methods approved by the American Society of Testing and Materials ( ASTM). The last two digits of an ASTM designation represent the year of adoption or last revision. In the 2000 2001 CaRFG test methods rulemaking, the ARB amended the designations of the test methods for measuring olefin content from ASTM Method D 1319 95a to ASTM D 6550 00 with three modifications: ( 1) identifying repeatability and reproducibility as 0.13X0.5 and 0.32X0.5 respectively when x = mass percent olefins, ( 2) providing that volume percent olefins equals 0.857 x mass percent olefins, and ( 3) expanding the scope statement from 0.3 to 25 mass percent olefins. This change became applicable January 1, 2002. The Board also amended the method for measuring the T50 and T90 of gasoline from ASTM D 86 90 to ASTM D 86 99a 1.

The Phase 3 CaRFG Postponement Amendments On March 14, 2002, Governor Davis issued Executive Order D 52 02, which directed the ARB to take the necessary actions, by July 31, 2002, to postpone for one year the prohibitions of the use of MTBE and other specified oxygenates in California gasoline, and the related requirements for California Phase 3 CaRFG. The Governor found that it is not possible to eliminate use of MTBE on January 1, 2003 without significantly risking disruption of the availability of gasoline in California. This would substantially increase prices, harm California's economy and impose an unjustified burden upon our motorists. In the Phase 3 CaRFG postponement rulemaking, the ARB adopted regulatory amendments consistent with the Governor's Executive Order D 52 02, along with a few other amendments designed to ensure that the regulations work effectively.

Prohibitions regarding MTBE and other oxygenates other than ethanol. The amendments postponed the prohibition of the use of MTBE and other oxygenates other than ethanol in California gasoline supplied by refiners and importers from CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 12 December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2003, with the downstream phase in requirements also postponed by one year. Similarly, the schedule for reducing residual levels of MTBE in Phase 3 CaRFG was postponed one year.

Delaying imposition of the Phase 3 CaRFG standards. The amendments also postponed the imposition of the Phase 3 CaRFG standards for gasoline properties for one year, from December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2003. With the delay in the prohibition of the MTBE prohibition, it was appropriate to allow refiners to meet the Phase 2 CaRFG standards for an additional year for producing gasoline oxygenated with MTBE. However, individual refiners importers have retained the ability to elect to have batches of gasoline subject to the Phase 3 CaRFG standards   including the prohibition of MTBE   prior to December 31, 2003. The amendments also delay for one year ( from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2005) the reduction of the Phase 3 CaRFG sulfur content cap limit from 60 parts per million ( ppm) to 30 ppm.

The amendments also provided a gasoline producer or importer the option of electing to have the March 1 start of the RVP season delayed until April 1 in either 2003 or 2004 ( but not both) at each production and import facility. If the delay occurs in 2003, it would only apply to gasoline designated as subject to the Phase 3 CaRFG standards, and to Phase 2 CaRFG that is produced without the use of MTBE or other oxygenates other than ethanol. These amendments were designed to facilitate the transition to ethanol, which increases the RVP of gasoline.

Other amendments. Additional amendments were designed to ensure that the CaRFG regulations work effectively, provide additional flexibility where feasible, and correct errors. One set of amendments simplified the testing provisions for determining whether gasoline blendstock designed for blending with ethanol will comply with the CaRFG standards after it is oxygenated. Another amendment corrected errors in the assignment of RVP regulatory control periods for the North Coast Air Basin and the North Central Coast Air Basin.

The Residual MTBE Amendments Revisions to the schedule for implementation of allowable residual levels of MTBE. The amendments require that MTBE residual levels be reduced in four steps instead of the three steps previously required by the regulations. During the first six months after the MTBE phase out   starting December 31, 2003   California gasoline may not contain more than 0.60 vol. percent MTBE. Starting July 1, 2004, gasoline is prohibited from containing more than 0.30 vol. percent MTBE and eighteen months later, starting December 31, 2005, gasoline is prohibited from containing more than 0.15 vol. percent. The residual MTBE limit is further reduced to 0.05 vol. percent starting July 1, 2007. Staff will continue to evaluate the practicality of the later limits.

Revising the prohibitions of gasoline " produced with the use of" MTBE or other oxygenates other than ethanol. The residual MTBE amendments refine the prohibitions regarding gasoline " produced with the use of" MTBE and other oxygenates. CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 13 They remove ambiguities that make the prohibitions difficult to administer, and that could under some circumstances exclude imported blendstocks that contain MTBE and other prohibited oxygenates that are incidentally acquired through the production process or during transport.

A California refiner will be prohibited at the refinery from adding MTBE in neat form either to gasoline or blendstocks used to produce gasoline at the refinery. The refiner will also be prohibited from using any gasoline blendstock that contains more than 0.6 vol. percent MTBE when it is supplied to the refinery. Imported California gasoline will only be subject to the allowable residual MTBE levels of the Phase 3 CaRFG regulations. Application of the allowable residual levels on MTBE in imported gasoline should be sufficient to prohibit unacceptable MTBE levels while avoiding undue constraints in gasoline imports during potential supply shortages.

The amendments to the prohibitions on gasoline " produced with the use of" any oxygenate other than ethanol or MTBE parallel those applicable to MTBE. They prohibit the addition of any oxygenate, other than ethanol or MTBE, in neat form to California gasoline or to a blending component used to produce gasoline at the refinery. They also prohibit the use of a blending component that contains greater than 0.1 wt. percent total oxygen from oxygenates other than ethanol or MTBE when it was supplied to the California production facility. Imported California gasoline will only be subject to the new total oxygen weight percent limits, because of the difficulties in monitoring the way imported gasoline has been produced at some out of state location.

Establishment of allowable residual levels for oxygenates other than MTBE and ethanol. The amendments add a schedule for specifications for total oxygen content in gasoline from oxygenates other than MTBE and ethanol. During the first six months after the MTBE phase out, starting December 31, 2003, the combined oxygen concentration due to these prohibited oxygenates may not exceed 0.10 wt. percent. This limit of 0.10 wt. percent is the oxygen level equivalent to the new residual limit of 0.60 vol. percent for MTBE during that period. The final prohibition level of 0.06 wt. percent will apply starting July 1, 2004. ASTM D 4815 99 is identified as the test method to be used in determining the concentration of other oxygenates in California gasoline. These amendments are expected to significantly improve the enforceability of the restrictions on oxygenates both in gasoline produced in the state and imported gasoline. The prohibitions will apply unless a multimedia evaluation of the use of the oxygenate in California gasoline has been conducted, and the CEPC has determined that such use will not cause a significant adverse impact on public health or the environment.

Documentation of the presence or absence of ethanol in CaRFG delivered to retail outlets. The new amendments require any person delivering gasoline to a retail outlet to provide to the outlet operator or responsible employee, at the time of delivery of the fuel, an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation which states whether the gasoline does or does not contain ethanol, and which may identify the volumetric amount of ethanol. If neither the operator nor a responsible employee is at CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 14 the outlet at the time of delivery, the documentation my be left at a reasonably secure location at the outlet.

Other amendments. Additional amendments are designed to ensure that the regulations work effectively. One amendment sunsets the requirement for documentation of the presence of MTBE in the gasoline delivered to retail outlets after December 30, 2003. Another amendment replaces the recently added provision regarding oxygenates in early opt in Phase 3 CaRFG with a requirement that early optin Phase 3 CaRFG meet limits of 0.60 vol. percent for MTBE and 0.10 wt. percent oxygen collectively from the specified oxygenates other than MTBE or ethanol when it is supplied from the production or import facility. This will provide specific standards that can be monitored by refiners and importers and be readily enforced by ARB inspectors.

Impact of Phase 3 CaRFG rulemakings on Emissions of Ozone Precursors and Toxics Initial adoption of the Phase 3 CaRFG standards and requirements. As noted above, Health and Safety Code section 43013.1 has expressly required that the Phase 3 CaRFG regulations must " Maintain and improve upon emissions and air quality benefits achieved by California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline in California as of January 1, 1999, including emission reductions of all pollutants, including precursors, identified in the State Implementation Plan for ozone, and emission reductions in potency weighted air toxics compounds."

Section IV. A. of the Final Statement of Reasons ( this and the other referenced documents from this rulemaking are available at www. arb. ca. gov/ regact/ carfg3/ carfg3. htm) presented the basis of our comparison of the emissions impact of gasoline expected to be produced to comply with the final Phase 3 CaRFG standards to the emissions impact of typical 1998 in use California gasoline. Based on that approach, the Board found in Resolution 99 39 that the adopted Phase 3 CaRFG standards are expected to preserve the 1998 emission benefits of the Phase 2 CaRFG regulations, by reducing emissions of hydrocarbons, NOx, and potencyweighted toxics by 0.1 percent, 1.2 percent, and 1.8 percent respectively.

Chapter 5 of the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons also provides an extensive analysis of the expected emissions impact of the staff's initial Phase 3 CaRFG proposal. The Final Statement of Reasons additionally addresses the emissions impact of the final Phase 3 CaRFG standards in the responses to comments in Section V. A.( 1) and V. A.( 5).

The Phase 3 CaRFG follow up amendments. The Staff Report for the Phase 3 CaRFG follow up amendments ( this and the other referenced documents from this rulemaking are available at www. arb. ca. gov/ regact/ CARFG300/ CARFG300. htm) did not identify any adverse emissions impacts from the proposal. During the comment period leading up to the November 16, 2000 hearing, Communities for a Better Environment ( CBE) commented that modifications approved by the Board that would allow a CARB Legal Office 6/ 24/ 03 15 particular small refiner to meet the Phase 2 CaRFG standards during the first two years of the Phase 3 CaRFG program would result in a significant adverse environmental impact. These provisions were not part of the ARB's ultimately adopted amendments. The only other environmental issues that were raised were made during supplemental 15 day comment period by the Oxygenated Fuels Association, which represents companies engaged in the production and marketing of MTBE. Those issues were addressed in the responses to comments 29 33 of the Final Statement of Reasons. The Board and Executive Officer ultimately determined that the amendments would not have an adverse emissions or air quality impact ( Resolution 00 40) and Executive Order G 01 012 ( Attachment F. 5.).

The CaRFG test method amendments. These amendments simply established improved test methods for determining compliance with the olefin content and distillation temperature standards, and had no adverse emissions impact.

The Phase 3 CaRFG postponement amendments. The basic thrust of the fourth rulemaking was simply to postpone implementation of the Phase 3 CaRFG standards for one year   during which time refiners would continue to be subject to the Phase 2 CaRFG standards. As such, the amendments do not increase emissions compared to the Phase 2 CaRFG regulations. The amendments do eliminate April from the RVP season in South Coast, San Diego, Mojave Desert and Salton Sea Air Basins and Ventura County in 2004 in order to facilitate transitions from oxygenated with MTBE to oxygenating with ethanol. ( § 2262.4( b)( 2)( A).) They also eliminate the RVP requirement for March 1994 for refineries and import facilities in those areas, where the refiner or importer did not elect this treatment for March 2003. There are comparatively few ozone exceedances in April in these areas, and U. S. EPA has chosen in the federal RFG program to not have its VOC control periods ( i. e. RVP seasons) start until May 1 upstream from retail outlets and until June 1 at retail outlets. ( 40 CFR § 80.78( a)( 1)( v).) Under these time limited circumstances, we do not believe the amendments to the RVP control periods will prevent or interfere with attainment of the federal ozone standard.

The Residual MTBE amendments. The residual MTBE amendments pertain only to the prohibitions of MTBE and other oxygenates other than ethanol starting December 31, 2003. As such, we do not expect them to have any impact on emissions of ozone precursors or CO.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4188-4189]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01216]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-0691]

Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for
Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Peripheral and Central Nervous
System Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee
is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues.
The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket
for public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held virtually on March 22, 2023, from 10
a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,
all meeting participants will be joining this advisory committee
meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to commonly
asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed
at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2022-N-0691. Please note that late, untimely
filed comments will not be considered. The docket will close on March
21, 2023. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will
accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of March 21,
2023. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/
paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are received on or
before that date.
    Comments received on or before March 8, 2023, will be provided to
the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA
will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and
consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-N-0691 for ``Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public
Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Seo, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-7699, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last-minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before the
meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. The committee
will discuss new drug application (NDA) 215887, for tofersen (BIIB067)
intrathecal injection, submitted by Biogen Inc., for the treatment of
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) associated with a mutation in the
superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) gene.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at
the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the
link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll
down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting
will include slide presentations with audio components to allow the
presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an
in-person advisory committee meeting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before March 8, 2023, will be provided to the
committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 2:45 p.m. and 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before February 28, 2023.
Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by March 1, 2023.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Jessica Seo (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-01216 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 55 (Friday, March 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16187-16188]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05922]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Release of Airport
Property Acquired With Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Assistance at
the Prattville Grouby Field Airport, Prattville, Alabama.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on land release request.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a request from the Prattville Airport
Authority to waive the requirement that 1.35 acres of
airport property located at the Prattville Grouby Field Airport in
Prattville, Alabama, be used for airport development.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA to the following address: Jackson Airports
District Office Attn: Luke Flowers, Program Manager, 100 West Cross
Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Prattville Grouby Field Airport, Attn: Mr. Paul
Gardner, Chairman, Prattville Airport Authority, 1450 Aviation Way,
Prattville, AL 36067.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Flowers, Program Manager, Jackson
Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS
39208-2307,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The land release request may be reviewed in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the
Prattville Airport Authority to release approximately 1.35 acres, more
or less of airport property (portion of Exhibit A parcel 27) at
Prattville Grouby Field Airport (1A9) under the provisions of Title 49,
U.S.C. Section 47107(h)(2). The sale of the subject property will
result in the land at Prattville Grouby Field Airport (1A9) being
released from the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant
Agreement Grant Assurances. The FAA determined that the request to
release property at Prattville Grouby Field Airport (1A9) submitted by
the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the release of the property does not and will not
impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the
request, in whole or in part, no sooner

than thirty days after the publication of this notice. The 1.35 acres of property is not contiguous to the airfield or located
within the runway protection zone and located on the east quadrant of
airport property adjacent to Autauga County Highway 29. A deed
restriction or easement for obstruction clearing will remain on the
1.35 acres. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i)
and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property,
which will be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport
improvement project at Prattville Grouby Field Airport (1A9).
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other
documents germane to the request in person at the Prattville Grouby
Field Airport (1A9).

    Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on March 3, 2020.
William J. Schuller,
Acting Manager, Jackson Airports District Office Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-05922 Filed 3-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Memorandum
Date: 		April 30, 2019
To:		Surface Coating of Metal Can (40 CFR Part 63 subpart KKKK) Docket
From:		Paula Hirtz, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG
Subject:		Site Visit Report for the Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation Facility

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a site visit to the Ball Metal Beverage Container (Ball) plant located at 12340 Township Road, Findlay, OH 45840, on November 16, 2017. The EPA conducted the site visit to support the development of the risk and technology review for the Surface Coating of Metal Can National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR Part 63 subpart KKKK. The plant is a major source of HAP emissions and is therefore subject to the NESHAP. The EPA visitors included Paula Hirtz of EPA and Brian Palmer and Bryan Lange of Eastern Research Group, Incorporated (EC/R), contractors to EPA. Other attendees included:
Glenn Jost, Plant Manager, Ball
Alan R. Gans, Environmental, Health and Safety Manager (EHS), Ball
Allan Yee, EHS, Ball
Rick Garcia, EHS, Ball
Sueanne Pfifferling, Pfifferling and Associates, LLC.
Sylvester Giustino, Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI)

The site visit began with a meeting and presentation that provided an overview of the Findlay plant operations for can and end making, process descriptions for all emission points, MACT applicability, emission calculations and reporting for MACT, and was followed by a tour of the plant. The information that follows was shared during the visit.
Background Information
The Ball Findlay plant is the Ball Corporations largest plant and has been in operation for 43 years. It started with all steel can manufacturing but is now mostly aluminum beverage can manufacturing with one steel food can line. The plant operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on two 12-hour shifts. The Ball Findlay plant supplies aluminum cans to some of the largest beverage companies.
Can Manufacturing Process
The Ball Findlay plant operates 3 lines; two 2-piece aluminum beverage can lines, and one 2-piece steel food can line. The plant also manufactures can ends. The production process starts with sheets of coil stamped into cups. They are then drawn into a can shape through a bodymaker. The total length of sheet coil through the plant measures 3 miles and the plant stamps 3,000 cups per minute through the cupper. Both sides of coil sheet are lubed. The process also includes trimmers to make the cans uniform in size. An on-line quality check is conducted to ensure the can height and opening meets specifications.
Before the coating is applied to the formed cans they go through washers (sodium hydroxide removes the lube and sulfuric acid etches the can surface) and a drying oven. The coating application process uses ink to print the design to the outside of the can. The ink is added manually to the reservoir using a spatula as needed and up to six colors of ink are used. A varnish coating containing HAP is applied after the ink. A bottom coater roll coats the bottom of the can. The inside coating is applied to the cans from one of the eight internal coaters. The inside coating is a phenolic epoxy which contains HAP. It is sprayed using a high efficiency airless spray application.  A bag house is used to control the inside coating overspray. The cans are then processed through a leak tester. The cans are processed through ovens after each coating application. The ovens have heating capacities ranging from 2 to 3 million BTU and residence times ranging from 10 to 20 seconds for each can. Neck flangers are used to form the curl on top of the can. The can lids are made on a separate line and the pull tabs are fastened to the lid. The colored and plain tabs are pre-lubed and additional lube is added as needed. The lube and coating for the tabs do not contain HAP. A non-HAP waterborne end seal compound is applied to the grove on the lid. The plant tour also included the materials storage area which housed several 6,000 gallon tanks for the wash coat materials and the inside and overvarnish coatings. The tab lube was contained in 5 gallon pails.
Most of the emissions from the ink and the over varnish are emitted from the ovens versus the coating application stations. The plant uses a lithographic style coating application process to roll the waterborne ink onto the outside surface of the metal cans. The ink is mostly solid. The coatings are "applied as supplied" which means no thinning of the inks and coatings occurs at the plant, except for the over varnish.  Water is added to the over varnish as needed to maintain the proper viscosity.

As a customer may or may not require, a white basecoat or ink is applied to the entire outside surface of the can before applying the additional design. The white ink is applied only to the areas that are not covered with the additional design. The solvent used for cleanup of printer ink is isopropyl alcohol which is not a HAP. If the ink color needs to be changed, the ink wells are cleaned with the isopropyl alcohol.

All inside can coatings go thru a Food and Drug Administration approval process which includes shelf life testing. For steel cans, the inside coating must withstand the heat and acids and fats of the food. Several coating vendors supply all coatings to the can industry. Customer driven coating selections occasionally drive changes in the coatings to accommodate seasonal and product promotions. Changes to the inside coatings are due to the characteristics of different foods.
The conversion to waterborne coatings was a costly effort for the Findlay plant. The conversion was driven by the new source performance standard (NSPS), reasonably achievable control technology (RACT), and state implementation plans (SIP) for ozone attainment. The city of Findlay, Ohio is in attainment.

Compliance Option used by the Ball Findlay OH Plant
The Ball Findlay OH plant is a major source of HAP emissions and is therefore subject to 40 CFR Part 63 subpart KKKK. EGBE and MEK are emitted by the plant but were delisted as HAP before the compliance date of subpart KKKK. The plant employs the use of two compliance options in subpart KKKK  -  the compliant material option for the non-aseptic end seal operation and the emission rate without add-on controls option for all coatings used on the three can lines. The average monthly emission rates are below the emission limits for the 2-piece food and the 2-piece beverage cans.
General Information about the Metal Can Industry
Additional information was shared about the metal can manufacturing industry:
 It was an industry-wide practice for facilities to install thermal oxidizers to become synthetic minors.
 Powder coating does not work for the industry.
 In metal can manufacturing, the ovens account for 85% of the emissions and the coating application process accounts for 15% of the emissions.
 UV coating is limited to certain exterior coating used only on specific/designated can lines and cannot be used for all applications as customer needs may vary.