------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 04/01/93 [L-S document 452946, 58 FR 17175, 516 lines] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [AMS-FRL-4609-5] Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Reformulated Gasoline and Conventional Gasoline AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of public hearing and notice of correction for proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This action announces the date, time and place for a public hearing on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled "Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Reformulated Gasoline" published on February 26, 1993 (58 FR 11722). In addition, this action announces a correction to the NPRM. An incorrect version of section VI of the NPRM, originally entitled "Phase II Reformulated Gasoline Performance Standards", was published in error. The correct section VI of the NPRM is now entitled "Phase II (Post-1999) Reformulated Gasoline Standards" and is published here for public comment. The public hearing announced herein will also address the contents of this corrected section VI. DATES: EPA will conduct a public hearing for both the February 26, 1993 NPRM and today's notice of correction on April 14-15, 1993. The public hearing will begin at 10 a.m. on April 14th and continue until 6 pm and will resume at 8:30 am on April 15th and continue until all testimony has been heard. The comment period on the February 26, 1993 NPRM, as well as on this notice of correction, will extend through 30 days from the completion of the public hearing. The comment period for the NPRM published on July 9, 1991 (56 FR 31176) and the NPRM published on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13416) is also extended until such date. ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at the Holiday Inn Dulles International Airport, 1000 Sully Rd., Sterling, VA, 20166, Telephone number: (703) 471-7411. Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate if possible) to Public Docket No. A-92-12, at: Air Docket Section (LE-131), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Attention: Docket No. A-92-12, First Floor, Waterside Mall, rm. M-1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Materials relevant to this notice, including the regulatory language, are contained in that Public Docket. The docket may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. until 12 noon and from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m. Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Jackson Stephens, Fuel Studies and Standards Branch, Regulation Development and Support Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. Telephone: (313) 668-4276. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information on this matter, please refer to EPA's February 26, 1993 Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 58 FR 11722. NPRM Section VI: The following discussion replaces section VI of the February 26, 1993 NPRM published at 58 FR 11722. V Phase II (Post-1999) Reformulated Gasoline Standards A. Statutory Requirements Section 211(k)(1) of the Act specifies that the Administrator shall consider, in addition to cost, non-air quality and other air quality-related health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements in establishing requirements for the greatest achievable reductions in VOC and toxic emissions. Summaries of the cost, health, environmental, and energy impacts of achieving the proposed emissions reductions are presented below and are more thoroughly discussed in the Draft RIA associated with this proposal. Section 211(k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires, in the year 2000 and beyond, that aggregate emissions of ozone forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic air pollutants from baseline vehicles using reformulated gasoline be at least 25 percent below emissions from baseline vehicles using baseline gasoline during the high ozone season. The Act also specifies that the 25 percent reduction level may be adjusted to provide for a greater or lesser reduction based on technological feasibility, including consideration of the cost of achieving the reductions. However, in no case can the required reductions be less than 20 percent. The required emission reductions are called, hereafter, the Phase II standards. The Act requires that the minimum standard for emission reductions be set by the more stringent of either the formula fuel specified in section 211(k)(3)(A) or the performance requirement specified in section 211(k)(3)(B). For Phase I reformulated gasoline, the performance requirement of 15 percent is more stringent than the formula fuel emission reductions for both VOC and toxics. Since the performance requirement for Phase II reformulated gasoline is 25 percent, it is also more stringent than the formula fuel. As previously discussed, this sets the minimum standards allowed under section 211(k). The Phase II requirements would apply to gasoline which is sold in those ozone nonattainment areas required to receive reformulated gasoline and in those areas which have already opted into the program or which opt in at a later date. Requirements related to the enforcement of the Phase II standards (and all reformulated gasoline certification) would not change relative to that with the Phase I standards for 1997 and beyond. In discussions relating to potential opt-in, a question has been raised concerning a state opting into Phase I of the reformulated gasoline program, but not Phase II, such that a state would continue to have Phase I reformulated gasoline sold in its relevant ozone nonattainment areas under a Federal program beyond 1999. EPA has not, at this time, sufficiently analyzed the details of such an option to evaluate how such fuel would comply with the requirements of section 211(k), particularly those pertaining to the Phase II standards in section 211(k)(3)(B). EPA requests comments on ways such an approach could be designed to fully comply with these requirements, how it would affect fuel distribution and production costs and the value of this added flexibility to states trying to develop means to comply with the ozone NAAQS. In addition to the VOC and toxic emissions reductions, section 211(k)(2)(A) of the Act specifies that there be no net increase in NOX emissions (over baseline NOX levels) resulting from the use of reformulated gasoline. As will be shown below, NOX emission increases due to the use of reformulated gasoline are unlikely, and are definitely avoidable. Recently, both a National Research Council study /1/ and a study prepared for EPA /2/ have indicated that additional NOX reductions could significantly reduce ozone formation in some areas. Based on these reports, other EPA work in ambient ozone analysis and the broad authority granted EPA under section 211(c), EPA is considering adoption of a NOX emission reduction standard between 0 and approximately 15 percent in connection with the Phase II standards to further reduce ozone formation during the high ozone season. Section 211(c) of the Act gives the Agency broad regulatory authority to regulate motor vehicle fuel quality if any emission product of such fuel causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA must evaluate the effects of the emissions on public health, scientific data, and other factors including technological feasibility when considering using its 211(c) authority. NOTE /1/ "Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution," National Research Council, December 18, 1991. NOTE /2/ "Modeling the Effects of Reformulated Gasolines on Ozone and Toxics Concentrations in the Baltimore and Houston Areas," prepared for EPA, OPPE, APB by Systems Applications International, September 30, 1992. The Agency believes that NOX emission control via reformulated gasoline may be a technologically feasible and cost-effective option. The Agency also realizes that imposing a NOX reduction standard on reformulated gasoline may reduce the flexibility of refiners to modify their operations to produce complying gasoline. This reduced flexibility would likely increase production costs. EPA requests comments on the need for NOX emissions control in reformulated gasoline areas and on the use of its authority under section 211(c) to add NOX control to the reformulated gasoline program. B. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Selection of Proposed Standards In setting the Phase II reformulated gasoline standards, EPA must consider the cost, health, environmental and energy impacts, and the technological feasibility, of modifying fuels to meet certain emission reduction requirements. EPA's analyses of each of these factors is discussed briefly below, and in detail in the DRIA. Comments on any of the analyses are welcome. 1. Cost Impacts In evaluating the cost impact of meeting a Phase II emission reduction requirement, EPA considered the cost effectiveness of modifying a fuel to achieve a certain emission reduction. The methodology for determining the cost effectiveness of fuel component changes is described in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). In this analysis, the incremental cost effectiveness of an emission control obtained through fuel modifications is the ratio of the cost of a fuel component change to the additional reduction in emissions that occurs because of that fuel change. Individual fuel component control costs include operating costs and annualized capital costs. Individual fuel component control costs and the effects of changes in one fuel component on the other fuel components are integral parts in the determination of the cost effectiveness of an emission control strategy. In the analysis presented in the DRIA, these two integral parts were estimated from the results of refinery modeling performed by Turner, Mason and Company (for the Auto-Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program) and Bonner & Moore Management Science (for EPA) and on survey results presented by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Comments on the use of these studies for estimating individual fuel component control costs and coincident fuel component effects are requested. Additional fuel component control cost data is also welcome. EPA believes it is reasonable to focus this analysis for the proposed Phase II standards on cost effectiveness, which EPA defines here as the ratio of the incremental cost of a control measure to the incremental benefit, e.g., tons of VOC or NOX emissions reduced or number of cancer incidences avoided. EPA's cost effectiveness analysis measured the incremental cost and incremental benefit from the Phase I emissions performance standards. The use of cost effectiveness allows for the relative ranking of various control strategies so that a specified environmental goal can be achieved at minimum cost. EPA also evaluated the overall cost of the proposed standards on a per- gallon basis to ensure they would be reasonable. EPA does not expect non- production related costs, such as distribution costs, to increase relative to Phase I reformulated gasoline. All emission reductions for Class C areas are calculated relative to the statutory baseline per the requirements of the Act and all emission reductions for Class B areas are calculated relative to a fuel with an RVP of 7.8 psi and statutory baseline levels for all other parameters. As for Phase I reformulated gasoline, all Phase II reformulated gasoline must have at least 2.0 weight percent oxygen and maximum 1.0 volume percent benzene, with provisions for averaging. The costs of these two requirements are discussed in the Phase I reformulated gasoline DRIA.3 The DRIA for Phase II reformulated gasoline contains updated costs for each of these two mandated controls. The cost effectiveness of incremental changes in fuel quality is determined relative to the statutory baseline and the mandated oxygen and benzene requirements. EPA requests comments on the methodology used in determining the cost effectiveness of fuel component changes. NOTE 3 "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, Reformulated Gasoline and Anti- Dumping Regulations," EPA, OAR, OMS, ECTD, SDSB, July 1991. 2. Health and Environmental Effects The health and environmental benefits of the reformulated gasoline program are measured in terms of cancer incidences avoided and tons of VOC and NOX reduced. Based on the standards proposed today, and supported by the analysis in the DRIA, approximately 2-3 cancer incidences will be avoided annually nationwide, 81,000 to 228,000 annual tons of VOC will be reduced in Class B, and 142,000 to 187,000 annual tons of VOC will be reduced in C areas. The actual number of tons reduced depends on the performance standard (from the range of standards proposed today) ultimately promulgated. If NOX standards are imposed, 27,000 to 48,000 annual tons of NOX will be reduced in Class B areas and 40,000 to 71,000 annual tons of NOX will be reduced in C areas. Additional VOC reductions could also occur with imposition of a NOX standard. 3. Energy Impacts Approximately a 3-5 percent increase in energy required to produce reformulated gasoline (over conventional gasoline) is expected, primarily as process heat input. The total increase depends on many factors, including how the energy balance is drawn, refinery configuration, the sulfur level of the crude charge, the oxygenate source, and the reformulation approach chosen by a refiner. Directional changes in energy usage are predictable. For instance, refinery crude charge will decrease due to extensive use of oxygenates. Oxygenate production is energy intensive, not only in producing the oxygenates, but in the case of MTBE, producing the methanol and isobutylene feedstocks. Desulfurization processes are also energy intensive, particularly hydrogen production. Benzene removal via fractionation and benzene and olefin reduction via hydrogenation require additional energy. Aromatics reductions will reduce energy usage, because the reformer can be run at a lower severity, reducing fuel consumption. T90 reductions will require further gasoline processing of heavy ends to maintain gasoline yield. 4. Technological Feasibility The technological feasibility of producing fuels to meet the proposed standards must be considered in establishing the standards. EPA believes that the refinery modeling results, from which the fuel component control costs were estimated, provide adequate support for believing that the proposed fuel component changes are technologically feasible. The refinery models utilized only well-developed, demonstrated, commercially available technologies, and hence will only produce fuels within the limits of these technologies. In all likelihood, new technologies will be developed between now and the year 2000 which will reduce the costs for certain types of fuel component changes. Thus, EPA believes that the determination of fuel component control costs using the results of such models is reasonable and that the feasibility of producing such emission-reducing fuels is justifiable. Because the standards proposed today will not take effect until the year 2000, EPA does not believe that lead time issues should present problems to reformulated gasoline producers in achieving the proposed reductions, as all the processes needed to produce complying fuels are already commercially available. EPA has evaluated both driveability and safety concerns associated with the use of low RVP fuels and found no significant negative impacts. These issues are addressed in the Draft RIA. Comments are requested on potential technological barriers to achieving the proposed VOC, NOX and toxics emissions reductions. C. Proposed Standards 1. VOC and NOX Control a. Control Costs. The total cost (or manufacturing cost) of producing a reformulated gasoline is the sum of the capital recovery cost and the operating cost. In determining the cost of fuel changes for VOC and NOX control, EPA assumed that, because VOC control is mandated only during the high ozone season, the length of which was described in the NPRM and SNPRM, operating costs of changes made to produce reformulated gasoline would only occur in the summer and not in the winter, in effect, idling any process units built especially for the purpose of meeting the reformulated gasoline program emission requirements. However, capital costs would have to be fully recovered regardless of whether the equipment was used seasonally or not. EPA adjusted the capital costs accordingly, and used the sum of the adjusted capital cost and the original operating cost as the individual fuel component control cost in analyzing the cost-effectiveness of VOC and NOX controls. As will be discussed under the section on toxics control, in its estimate of the cost effectiveness of toxics control, EPA did not adjust the capital cost portion of the individual fuel component control costs as described above because toxics reductions are required year-round. Complete information on the development of the individual component costs for both Class B and C areas is provided in the Draft RIA. Table VI-1 gives the individual fuel component control costs and the associated incremental percent reduction in VOC emissions for Class C areas. The incremental costs shown in the table are the costs of making a particular fuel change after making the fuel change immediately above. The previous fuel change may or may not affect the value of the fuel component directly below. For example, the sulfur cost of 0.11-0.18 cents per gallon is the cost of reducing sulfur to 160 ppm from the sulfur level that resulted when olefins were reduced to 5.0 volume percent first. In this particular case, olefin reductions also reduced sulfur levels. The effect of each fuel component modification on other fuel components are discussed in the DRIA. Likewise, the incremental percent reductions shown in the table are the emission reductions due to making a particular fuel change after making the fuel change immediately above. The sum of the incremental reductions is the total reduction when the fuel component changes are made in the order shown. EPA must stress that the order shown is only an example; refiners may achieve the required standards by any combination of fuel component controls resulting in the required emissions performance. Similar information to that shown in Table VI-1 is available in the DRIA for Class B areas and for Class B and C areas for NOX and toxics emissions. Comments on the incremental costs and emission reductions presented in Table VI-1, or in the DRIA, and on their derivation are requested, as well as additional fuel component control cost data and supporting description. Table VI.--Class C Component Control Costs and VOC Emission Reductions Incremental VOC Control Incremental reduction Component level cost (c/gal) (percent) Oxygen 2.0 wt% /1/ 3.39-5.11 10.5 Benzene 1.0 vol% 0.69 0.0 RVP 8.1 psi 0.57 8.5 Olefins 5.0 vol% 0.27 1.9 Sulfur 160 ppm 0.11-0.18 1.0 RVP 7.5 psi 1.49 7.8 Oxygen 2.7 wt% /1/ 1.18-1.78 3.5 Sulfur 50 ppm 2.60-3.32 2.9 Aromatics 20 vol% 0.61-0.97 0.7 /1/ Based on MTBE. Includes increased costs due to fuel economy losses. b. Cost Effectiveness. In determining the emission reductions and the associated cost effectiveness of VOC and NOX standards, EPA employed a convention typically used in estimating the benefit of both mobile and stationary source VOC controls. This convention requires the determination of cost effectiveness on the basis of annual tons of VOC reduced. Thus, even though VOC emission reductions required under section 211(k) are only during the high ozone season, the convention is to calculate the cost of the fuel component control per ton of VOC removed as if the high ozone season emission reductions were obtained over the whole year. EPA evaluated particular combinations 4 of fuel component controls which reduce VOC (and VOC plus NOX) emissions at costs of less than $5,000 and less than $10,000 per ton, respectively. EPA believes that these values represent costs in the range of those which will be incurred by many ozone nonattainment areas in achieving attainment. These cost-effectiveness values are higher than any cost-effectiveness values for any existing federal nationwide motor vehicle or motor vehicle fuel controls. As the cost- effectiveness of an emission reduction strategy increases, substantial emission control may be achieved in other ways (e.g., through other regulatory programs) at the same or lower cost-effectiveness. Since many areas are currently formulating their State Implementation Plans (SIP), EPA requests comments on the cost-effectiveness of strategies being considered by states to reduce VOC and/or NOX emissions, including both mobile and stationary source controls. EPA also requests comments as to the appropriateness of the cost per ton levels of $5,000 and $10,000. NOTE 4 As stated previously, the combination of fuel components on which the proposed standards are based are just one of many fuel formulations which could be used to achieve the standards. The proposed standards are performance standards which may be met by the refiner's choice of fuel component controls. Normally, use of these cost per ton values would determine the depth of RVP controls projected for Class B and C fuels. However, limited RVP control cost data below 7.2 psi prevented the determination of RVP levels which would exceed the cost-effectiveness levels of $5,000 and $10,000 per ton. Instead, EPA based the proposed Phase II standards for Class B areas on an RVP range of 6.5-7.2 psi. For Class C areas, the proposed standards are based on RVPs of 6.5-7.5 psi which result in the same nonexhaust VOC emissions in Class C areas as the range of Class B RVPs do in Class B areas. Comments are requested on the level of RVP control in each class which is reasonable for use in setting the Phase II standards. Because fuel component control costs increase with increasing participation in the reformulated gasoline program (this effect is discussed in the DRIA), EPA based its analysis on a mid-level of participation which consists of the "nine cities" as well as those areas which have opted into the program as of June 26, 1992. EPA requests comments on whether its standard setting analysis should focus on just the "nine cities", given coverage of these areas is mandatory, not optional, and they represent the nine largest metropolitan areas with the most severe summertime ozone problems, or if it should focus on the cost-effectiveness of a reformulated gasoline program with a certain level of opt-in, to reflect the current extension of the program to several opt-in areas. c. VOC and NOX Standards. Based on the complex model, the refinery modeling studies and associated analyses described above, EPA has found that the VOC performance standards listed in Row A of Table VI-2 could be met under the various RVP and cost per ton levels evaluated for the Phase II standards. Table VI-2.--Proposed Standards for Phase II Reformulated Gasoline [Percent reduction in emissions] Cost effectiveness Cost effectiveness <$5,000 per ton <$10,000 per ton Class B Class B /1/ Class C /1/ Class C A. VOC Standard 20.7-29.6 26.7-32.1 23.2-31.7 29.2-34.7 B. NOX Standard 8.5-8.5 8.7-8.8 14.6-14.8 14.4-15.4 C. VOC Standard w/NOX Std 20.7-29.6 26.7-32.1 25.3-33.8 31.3-37.3 D. Toxics Standard From VOC Std 26.0-29.0 29.4-34.3 29.2-31.4 31.8-36.7 /1/ Class B standards relative to a base fuel with RVP at 7.8 psi and Clean Air Act base values for all other parameters. Analysis of Class B standards relative to Clean Air Act base fuel (with RVP of 8.7 psi) can be found in the DRIA. EPA is also proposing a NOX standard in the range shown in Row B in Table VI-2. The lower end of this range is a year-round zero NOX increase, as required by section 211(k)(2)(A) of the Act. In addition, under its authority provided by section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Agency is proposing a NOX reduction standard to further reduce ozone formation. The range under consideration for the stringency of the NOX standards (i.e., NOX emission reduction requirements) is zero up to those shown in Row B of Table VI-2. As for VOC, the NOX emission controls would apply only during the high ozone season. EPA estimated that the NOX reductions shown in Table VI-2 could be achieved at costs ranging from less than $1000 per ton of NOX to as high as $5,500 per ton of VOC plus NOX. Comments are requested on the cost-effectiveness levels which should be used in determining an appropriate level of NOX control, and whether cost-effectiveness should be evaluated on a NOX basis or on a VOC plus NOX basis, and, if the latter, on the relative values of VOC and NOX. The additional fuel component changes which yielded the proposed NOX standards also further decreased VOC emissions. While these fuel component changes cost more than the cost-effective targets described above when based solely on VOC control, they cost less than $5,000 and $10,000 per ton, respectively, when based on total tons of VOC plus NOX. The VOC reductions achievable under these cost effectiveness levels, on a VOC plus NOX basis when both VOC and NOX are controlled, are shown in Row C of Table VI-2. Implementing the more stringent, Row C VOC standards would increase the likelihood that the greatest VOC emission reductions achievable were being attained. However, EPA is not certain that it has fully considered all of the costs of refiners attaining both the VOC and NOX requirement simultaneously and the Row C VOC emission reductions may be achieved in-use even without the more stringent standards. Comments are requested as to whether EPA should promulgate the more stringent VOC standards of Row C if it also implements the NOX standards of Row B or whether the slightly more relaxed VOC standards shown in Row A should be required. Regardless of whether the VOC standards are based on those of Rows A or C, the addition of a NOX performance standard would further restrict refiners' flexibility in producing qualifying fuels. EPA therefore requests comments on an option whereby the VOC performance standards shown in Row A of Table VI-2 should be relaxed even further if a NOX reduction standard was promulgated, subject to section 211(k) minimum requirements. Such a decision might be appropriate, for example, if NOX emissions reductions were more important for ozone control than VOC reductions and, therefore, the acceptable cost effectiveness of VOC reductions should be lower than the $5,000 and $10,000 per ton levels considered in Table VI-2. Comments are also requested on granting refiners the option to trade off VOC and NOX control within fixed limits on either standard and on whether the trade-off should be one-for-one (in percentage reduction terms) or on some other basis. If EPA set a NOX standard under section 211(c), states could still petition EPA to revise it for their state's nonattainment areas based on local conditions. This would be similar to the approach taken in the Phase I and II RVP rulemakings.5 This decision could be made by each state based on detailed air quality analyses of their individual ozone nonattainment problems. A potential problem with this option is that it could require the production of another type of gasoline in one or more grades. Distribution problems and complications already expected with implementation of the reformulated gasoline requirements could increase. Comments are requested regarding benefits or drawbacks to state-specific NOX performance standards. NOTE 5 54 FR 11868 (March 22, 1989); 55 FR 23659 (June 11, 1990). 2. Toxics Control a. Control costs. As discussed above, in determining the cost of fuel changes for VOC and NOX control, EPA adjusted the capital cost portion of the individual fuel component control costs to account for the fact that VOC and NOX control are necessary only during the high ozone season. Toxics emissions, however, must be controlled year-round and thus no adjustment is needed for capital costs already amortized on an annual basis. The individual fuel component costs shown in Table VI-1 for VOC and NOX control are thus higher than those used in the determination of the cost effectiveness of toxics emissions control. b. Toxics standard and cost-effectiveness. Fuel controls for the sole purpose of reducing toxic emissions do not appear to be cost-effective. Based on the fuel component control costs used in this analysis, EPA estimates that fuel modifications for the control of toxics emissions would cost over $100 million per cancer incidence reduced. At the same time, the control of fuel components to reduce VOC emissions also results in average reductions of toxics emissions of 17-33 percent, as shown in row D of Table VI-2. However, EPA believes that Congress intended this program to provide fuel producers flexibility to produce a variety of complying fuel reformulations. While these toxics reductions would presumably be free since they would result from VOC and NOX controls, in this case, they would also in most cases automatically occur with or without a regulatory standard. If it were more economical for a particular refiner to use fuel modifications to meet the VOC and NOX standards which did not produce this degree of toxics reduction, then that refiner would be faced with controlling toxics explicitly, which appears to not be cost-effective. Thus, while a toxics performance standard greater than the minimum 25 percent level specified in section 211(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA is feasible, it would not be cost effective and EPA proposes setting the standard at 25 percent. Section 211(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA also permits EPA to reduce the toxics performance standard below 25 percent to as low as 20 percent based on technological feasibility, considering the cost of achieving such reductions in toxic emissions. While EPA does not have information on how refiners will choose to reformulate gasoline, nor on those reformulations which will not automatically achieve the required toxics reductions and thus will require the refiner to do additional reformulation explicitly for toxics control, and therefore does not have specific information on the actual costs involved, the same arguments expressed above for not requiring greater than a 25 percent reduction are equally applicable below 25 percent. Thus, EPA also proposes as a second option that the toxics performance standard be set at the 20 percent minimum level specified by section 211(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA. Comments are requested on this standard and the decision to not require a greater toxics performance standard of the magnitude shown in Row D of Table VI-2. Dated: March 26, 1993. Robert D. Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 93-7634 Filed 3-31-93; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P