RFG/ANTI-DUMPING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, NOVEMBER 10, 1997 The following are responses to questions received by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the manner in which the EPA intends to implement and assure compliance with the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping regulations at 40 CFR Part 80. This document was prepared by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Air Enforcement Division. Regulated parties may use this document to aid in achieving compliance with the reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping regulations. However, this document does not in any way alter the requirements of these regulations. While the answers provided in this document represent the Agency's interpretation and general plans for implementation of the regulations at this time, some of the responses may change as additional information becomes available or as the Agency further considers certain issues. This guidance document does not establish or change legal rights or obligations. It does not establish binding rules or requirements and is not fully determinative of the issues addressed. Agency decisions in any particular case will be made applying the law and regulations on the basis of specific facts and actual action. While we have attempted to include answers to all questions received, the necessity for policy decisions and/or resource constraints may have prevented the inclusion of certain questions. Questions not answered in this document may be answered in a subsequent document. Questions that merely require a justification of the regulations, or that have previously been answered or discussed either in a previous Question and Answer document or the Preamble to the regulations have been omitted. Complex Model Questions and Answers (From Complex Model Workshop July 31, 1997) 1. Question: Is there a "recommended" calculation tool for performing Complex Model calculations? Related question: In view of inconsistencies between the current regulations and the Complex Model spreadsheet posted by EPA, which should industry follow? If the answer is the regulation, can EPA confirm that the regulation is consistent with the actual Complex Model developed by EPA? Will EPA use the spreadsheet to determine if fuels are in compliance? Answer: The version of the Complex Model that is legally binding is that contained in the Federal Register. The printed version of the Complex Model in the Federal Register does contain several minor errors which are under correction through a proposed rulemaking (62 FR 37337 (July 11, 1997). With these minor corrections, the Complex Model contained in the Federal Register will be consistent with the spreadsheet version. The Lotus spreadsheet which EPA made available through the internet is being used by both the Office of Mobile Sources and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in verifying refiners' compliance with the performance standards. The Agency has no plans to use a version of the Complex Model other than this Lotus spreadsheet. Although a refiner choosing to use the spreadsheet version of the Complex Model bears responsibility for any errors it may contain, to date no errors have been found in the spreadsheet. 2. Question: What is the significance of winter VOC emissions, 80.45(c)(6)(ii)? Do not VOC emissions limits, by definition, apply only during VOC regulatory time periods? Answer: The VOC performance standard applicable under  80.41 is indeed a summer-only standard. Under the Complex Model, VOC emissions are calculated for winter blends to determine the emissions of Polycyclic Organic Material (POM). Emissions of POM are calculated as a fraction of VOC emissions. POM emissions are, in turn, used to determine compliance with the emissions performance standard for toxic pollutants for both RFG and conventional gasoline. The only significance of winter VOC emissions is based on their use in the determination of compliance with these toxic performance standards. 3. Question: What are specific calculation steps for conventional gasoline exhaust toxics and NOx emission performance? Is the annual statutory baseline used? If not, how are batches to be assigned to the summer/winter statutory baselines? Answer: The regulations currently state that batches of gasoline are to be designated as summer or winter for purposes of compliance calculations under the Complex Model based on the RVP of the gasoline ( 80.101(g)(1)(ii)). However, EPA issued guidance in the RFG/Anti-dumping Questions and Answers document (8/29/94), which clarifies that batches are to be designated as summer or winter for use with the Complex Model based on RVP and the intended season of use. This clarification has been proposed in the July 11, 1997 NPRM at  80.101(g)(3)(ii). The Complex Model calculates emissions in mg/mi for each batch. Proposed  80.101(g)(2)(i) of the July 11, 1997 NPRM clarifies that the exhaust toxics and NOx emissions in mg/mi are volume-weighted by batch to arrive at annual average values which must be less than or equal to the refiner's compliance baseline. 4. Question: Can refiners ship RFG with an RVP result of less than 6.4 psi, but use 6.4 psi in the emission parameter calculations? Answer: The valid range limits associated with the Complex Model are given in 80.45(f). These standards apply to every batch of RFG. Since the lower end of the valid range limit for RVP is 6.4 psi, no valid batches of RFG may be produced with an RVP of less than 6.4 psi. The Agency proposed to clarify this in the July 11, 1997 NPRM. If a given batch of RFG contains one or more fuel parameters falling outside of the valid range limits, the refiner must re-blend the batch before it leaves the refinery to comply with the valid range limit standards. 5. Question: For downstream compliance, has EPA addressed the issue that two complying batches mixed downstream may not comply when tested downstream? Answer: In the development of the Complex Model, EPA investigated the possibility that two complying batches, when mixed, may not comply with the RFG standards. This "fungibility" issue arises out of the model's nonlinear character. Based on a Monte Carlo simulation, EPA concluded that fungibility problems would not occur. The downstream standards adopted by EPA apply to each gallon of gasoline, including fungibly mixed gasoline. 6. Question: Will EPA consider widening the limits on distillation? Answer: The range of data on which the Complex Model was based limits the range within which the model will exhibit appropriate accuracy. The E200 range in the database was 33 to 66 vol%; extrapolation widened this range to 30 to 70 vol% for the Complex Model. Likewise the E300 database range of 72 to 94 vol% was widened through extrapolation to 70 to 100 vol% in the Complex Model. The Agency believes that these extrapolations maximize the utility of the Complex Model without unduly compromising its accuracy. Further widening of the limits on distillation would dramatically increase the likelihood that Complex Model emission estimates would be fictitious. In addition, the regulations contain provisions for widening the valid range limits on any fuel parameter through vehicle testing. See 80.48. 7. Question: It is technically possible for a particular batch of RFG to meet all current ASTM and EPA volatility specifications and yet have an E200 value less than the 30% minimum specified in 40 CFR 80.45(f)(1)(ii). Does EPA consider it unlawful to produce and sell a particular batch of RFG with an E200 less than 30% even though the volume-averaged parameters of the total RFG produced during the compliance period, including the E200 value, are well within the valid range of the Complex Model? Answer: The valid range limits associated with the Complex Model are, in effect, per-gallon RFG standards. Thus it would be unlawful to produce RFG with an E200 value less than 30 vol%. The July 11, 1997 NPRM has proposed regulatory text to clarify this. 8. Question: What are the differences between the summer and winter models and what is their justification? Answer: The equations, extrapolations, and normal-to-high emitter ratios remain the same when one switches from the summer version of the Complex Model to the winter version. However, four changes do take place. First, the baseline fuel is changed from the statutory summer values to the winter values. Second, the baseline emissions are changed from summer to winter values. The baseline emissions were derived from the MOBILE model with scenarios representing typical summer and winter conditions, and using the RVPs associated with the summer and winter baseline fuels. Third, the difference in non-exhaust emissions between the baseline fuel and the candidate fuel is given a value of zero under the winter complex model. As explained in Section IV.E of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the RFG program, EPA determined that vapor generation rates under summer conditions are substantially higher than under winter conditions, and that the mechanisms involved in non-exhaust emission production are highly temperature dependent. Since the data on which the Complex Model was based was collected entirely under summer conditions, it was deemed unfit to represent non-exhaust winter emissions. Last, under the winter complex model the RVP for both the baseline fuel and target (candidate) fuels must be set to 8.7 psi when calculating emission performances with the Complex Model. (See  80.45(c)(2), for example.) This last condition is designed to remove the effect of RVP on exhaust emissions, again since RVP effects are highly temperature dependent, and all the data on which the Complex Model was based was collected under summer conditions. See 59 FR 7716, 7731 (February 16, 1994) 9. Question: The Complex Model upper limit for RVP of conventional gasoline is 11.0 psi. Will winter gasoline meeting ASTM Class C and D specifications of 11.5 psi and 13.5 psi vapor pressures be allowed? Answer: As described in 80.45(c)(2), (d)(2), and (e)(2)(i), use of the winter version of the Complex Model requires that the RVP be set to 8.7 psi for both the baseline and target fuels. Thus the valid range limits associated with RVP are irrelevant for winter gasoline. 10. Question: Will you be looking at switching to MOBILE6, and if so, when? Answer: Version 4.1 of the MOBILE model was used to generate the statutory baseline emission values for the Phase I Complex Model, and version 5 of the MOBILE model was used to generate the baseline values for the Phase II Complex Model. To use MOBILE6 to generate baseline values for either the Phase I or Phase II Complex Models would require substantial changes to the RFG regulations, resulting in a major disruption to the RFG program. Therefore, the Agency has no current plans to modify the regulations to incorporate MOBILE6 into the Complex Model. However, the Agency may evaluate using the MOBILE6 model in the RFG program in the future. 11. Question: Today, and with the Phase I complex model, there is effectively a 1 RVP difference between the Region 1 and 2 standards. In Phase II, this difference basically drops to 0 RVP. Was this intended, and why? Answer: The Phase 2 Volatility Standards (55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990)) provided the basis for the different RVP standards, depending on VOC Control Region, for reformulated gasoline under the Simple Model. The standards for VOC emissions performance for Phase I RFG under the Complex Model were based on the Simple Model standards, which were translated into equivalent VOC emission performance standards under the Complex Model. The Phase II RFG standards for VOC emissions performance, however, were derived using the Complex Model, which takes into account RVP and several other factors in determining VOC emissions performance. Since the Complex Model already evaluates the effect of RVP on VOC emissions performance, there was no need to make any additional RVP distinction between the two regions. 12. Question: How should PTD messages be handled for mixtures of simple and complex model RFG? Can we use either simple or complex model message until the end of April 1998? Answer: Prior to January 1, 1998, simple model and complex model RFG may not be commingled, and under  80.77(g)(1)(iii), refiners and importers are required to identify RFG or RBOB in product transfer documents as certified under the simple model standards or the complex model standards. However, after January 1, 1998, there is no requirement to identify RFG or RBOB in product transfer documents as certified under the simple model standards or complex model standards. 13. Question: Please provide an overview of compliance performance with simple model and status of any ratchets. Answer: For Simple Model surveys the pass/fail criteria include: A minimum oxygen annual average of 2.00 weight percent. A maximum benzene annual average of 1.000 volume percent A minimum Simple Model toxics reduction annual average of 15.0% In addition to these annual average "survey series" criteria, a Simple Model VOC reduction standard applies to each seven day survey done during the VOC control season (June 1-September 15). Simple Model VOC emissions and emissions reduction requirements are calculated from RVP and oxygen content, and the required reductions from baseline emissions are 35.3% for VOC control region 1 (South), and 16.7% for VOC control region 2 (North). In 1996, 146 surveys were conducted in 22 RFG areas. More than 4700 samples from retail gasoline stations were collected. Samples collected outside of California were analyzed for oxygenates, benzene, aromatics and, during the VOC control season, RVP. (A total of 6 surveys were conducted in Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento, CA in which only oxygen content was sampled.). Oxygen survey series failures occurred in eight of the areas surveyed. These areas, shown with their oxygen averages are: AREA AVERAGE (wgt. % oxygen) Atlantic City, NJ 1.90 Baltimore, MD 1.86 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 1.89 Houston-Galveston, TX 1.86 Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA 1.87 Philadelphia.-Wilmington, DE-Trenton, NJ 1.95 Richmond, VA 1.85 Washington, D.C.-area 1.90 The annual "survey series" averages for benzene content and toxics reduction met regulatory requirements, although the 1% benzene level was exceeded in certain individual surveys. VOC reduction requirements were met for each of the summer surveys. As a consequence of the oxygen survey series failures, the per gallon minimum oxygen requirement for the affected "averaged" RFG is being raised from 1.5% to 1.6%. A Federal Register Notice announcing the oxygen ratchet was published on July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41047). The notice announces the increased standard and describes the covered areas and parties that are subject to the standard. The notice also provides a timetable for enforcement of the new standard. Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders will be required to meet the new standard 60 days from publication; facilities such as pipelines and terminals 120 days from publication, and retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities 150 days from publication. 14. Question: What downstream "remedies" are available if a batch of RFG is found to violate the minimum complex model VOC emissions reduction standard? Answer: The remedies outlined in the December 5, 1994 RFG/Anti-dumping Questions and Answers document (VII.E.1) apply to complex model RFG that is found to violate the minimum VOC emissions reduction standard. A copy of that Question and Answer is attached. 15. Question: Are independent labs required to submit quality parameter data or the % reduction performance results to EPA? Answer: The regulations require parameter comparisons and not emissions performance reduction comparisons. See  80.65(f)(3)(iii)(B)(1). 16. Question: Will EPA waive the requirement for completing all testing prior to shipping for complex model conventional gasoline? Answer: Section 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A) requires refiners and importers of conventional gasoline to determine the value of each of the properties required for determining compliance with applicable standards by collecting and analyzing a representative sample of each batch of gasoline using the regulatory test methods. Refiners and importers, therefore, must sample each batch of conventional gasoline before the gasoline is shipped from the refinery. The regulations, however, do not require that the testing for conventional gasoline properties be completed before the gasoline is shipped. (Note that under the July 11, 1997 NPRM refiners and importers of RFG would be required to determine the value of each of the properties specified in  80.65(e)(2)(i) that is subject to, or that is used to calculate an emissions performance that is subject to, a minimum or maximum standard specified in  80.41 prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility.) 17. Question: When will the new reporting forms be approved? Answer: The new forms were approved by OMB on July 16, 1997. The approval extends to July 31, 2000. 18. Question: After the July 11, 1997 NPRM becomes a final rule, will you be issuing a Q&A stating that previous Q&A documents are void? Answer: EPA will be working toward consolidating the Q&A documents after the RFG modifications rule is finalized. At that time, EPA will delete Qs&As that are no longer relevant and Qs&As that have been codified into the RFG regulations through the final rule. 19. Question: Please provide information on how to find RFG related documents on the web. Answer: The EPA Office of Mobile Sources posts RFG regulations, regulatory supporting documents, Question and Answer documents, and other RFG related documents on the following EPA Internet Web site: Http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/fuels/RFG (Look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic for recently published regulations) The official Federal Register notices are made available on th date of publication on the following Internet site: http://www.epa.gov/doc/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/ (either select desired date or use Search feature) ATTACHMENT The following is excerpted from: RFG/ANTI-DUMPING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, DECEMBER 5, 1994. REMEDIAL ACTION [NOTE: The following is an update of the answer to Question 1, Section VII.E., of the July 1, 1994 Question and Answer document dealing with remedial actions, to expand the remedial action option where RFG has insufficient oxygen.] VII.E.1. Question: If reformulated gasoline is found downstream of the refinery to be off specification, what procedures are appropriate for handling this gasoline? Answer: Downgrading In a case where RFG is found to violate any downstream standard, a party may take remedial action for the violation by reclassifying the RFG as conventional gasoline (by "downgrading" the gasoline), and using the gasoline only outside any RFG covered area. The downgraded gasoline must be segregated from all RFG, and the product transfer documents must identify the gasoline as conventional gasoline. There is no requirement that such downgraded gasoline must be included in any downstream party's anti-dumping compliance calculations, however. If RFG that is designated as VOC-controlled is found to violate a standard that applies only to VOC-controlled RFG, the RFG may be downgraded to non-VOC controlled RFG, and used outside the VOC control period. The VOC control period is May 1 through September 15 at facilities upstream of the retail level, and June 1 through September 15 at the retail level. If RFG that is designated as VOC-controlled for VOC Control Region 1 is found to be off-spec for that Region, but to meet the standards applicable to VOC Control Region 2, the gasoline may be downgraded to VOC Control Region 2 RFG, and used only in that Region. If the off-spec gasoline is found at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility located in an RFG covered area, all sales of gasoline from the tank must be stopped, and the gasoline removed from the storage tank and transported to an area that is appropriate for the downgraded classification of the gasoline. When RFG is downgraded, the party should document the circumstances that gave rise to the downgrading. The gasoline in question should be segregated from gasoline having the higher classification, the product transfer documents for the gasoline in question should be changed to the downgraded classification, and the gasoline must not be sold, dispensed, or transported in a manner that is inconsistent with the downgraded classification. Storage If during the VOC control period RFG is discovered that does not meet applicable VOC control standards, remedial action for the violation may consist of storing the gasoline in place until the end of the VOC control season on September 16. In such a case, the gasoline must be segregated from gasoline that meets the VOC control standards, documents associated with the gasoline must clearly state the gasoline is not VOC-controlled, and the gasoline must be sealed to prevent its accidental use in advance of September 16. Blending With Additional RFG Parties may blend additional RFG with RFG that is discovered to be off-spec a means of remedial action for the violation, subject to certain constraints, to bring the mixture within all applicable standards. In such a case, subsequent to blending the RFG must be sampled and tested to meet all applicable RFG downstream standards. Blending With Oxygenate Section 80.78(a)(6) prohibits the blending of any oxygenate with RFG, except that oxygenate may be blended with RFG that is designated as OPRG provided the RFG is used in an oxygenated fuels program area during the oxygenated fuels control period. As a result, any oxygenate may be blended with RFG provided the RFG is designated as OPRG and is used in an oxy fuels program as specified in  80.78(a)(6). In addition, only in the case of remediation for RFG that violates a downstream standard and regardless of whether the RFG is designated as OPRG or not-OPRG or whether the RFG is used in an oxy fuels program, oxygenate may be blended with off-spec RFG. Whenever oxygenate blending is used as a remedial action, subsequent to blending the RFG must be sampled and tested to meet all applicable RFG downstream standards and requirements, including in the case of VOC-controlled RFG the RVP or VOC emissions reduction standards and the prohibition against mixing ethanol and other oxygenates, and the maximum oxygen content standards. Moreover, any mixture of oxygenates in the resulting blend must conform to an approved oxygenate blend. Allowable oxygenate mixtures are discussed in the Oxy Fuel Section of this document. The party performing remedial oxygen blending does not need to be registered as an oxygenate blender. Each of the remedial actions discussed in this answer would be appropriate at all stages in the gasoline distribution system, including pipelines and terminals, and retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. These remedial actions also would be appropriate for use by refiners and importers who discover that RFG is off-spec subsequent to the gasoline being shipped from the refinery or import facility. On any occasion when a party takes remedial actions for an RFG violation, using any of the mechanisms discussed in this answer, the party should retain documents that reflect: the reason the party believed the gasoline to be in violation (e.g., test results); the actions taken to correct the violation; and any actions taken to prevent future violations.