UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REFORMULATED GASOLINE AND ANTI-DUMPING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS JULY 1, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 IV. BASELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. BASELINE AUDITORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. PETITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. SUBMISSION/APPROVALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 D. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . 17 E. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT - OXYGEN/RVP . . . . . . . . . . 19 F. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT -- SPECIAL SITUATIONS. . . . . . 20 G. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT -- CALCULATIONS. . . . . . . . . 24 H. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT -- LATE DATA COLLECTION. . . . . 25 I. MINIMUM DATA REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 J. INCLUDED GASOLINES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 K. METHOD 3 DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 L. TEST METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 M. SUMMER/WINTER CLARIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 N. LOW PARAMETER VALUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 O. BLENDERS/IMPORTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 P. E300/T90, E200/T50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 V. SAMPLING AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A. SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . 39 B. TEST METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 VI. REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 A. RFG GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 B. INDEPENDENT SAMPLING & TESTING. . . . . . . . . . . . 64 C. IN-LINE BLENDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 D. COMPLIANCE ON AVERAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 E. SURVEYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 F. DOWNSTREAM OXYGEN BLENDING REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . 97 G. COVERED AREAS/OPT-IN ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 H. REGISTRATION/RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING. . . . . . . . .104 I. PRODUCT TRANSFER DOCUMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . .112 J. CALIFORNIA ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . .119 K. ATTEST ENGAGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 L. ANTI-DUMPING REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128 VII. ENFORCEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 A. PROHIBITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 B. LIABILITY AND DEFENSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 C. PENALTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 D. INSPECTIONS AND AUDITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156 E. REMEDIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156 F. TEST TOLERANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159 VIII. INTERACTION WITH STATE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . .162 A. OXY FUEL PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162 B. OTHER STATE FUELS PROGRAMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 IX. SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167 A. TRANSITION ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167 B. DOWNSTREAM BLENDING ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .170 C. IMPORTER ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180 I. INTRODUCTION This edition of the Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) and Anti- Dumping Regulations Question and Answer Document responds to questions we have received concerning the manner in which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to implement and ensure 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 and anti-dumping regulations. However, it 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 at this time, some of the responses may change as additional information becomes available or as the Agency reconsiders 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. II. STANDARDS 1. Question: What are the standards for RFG? Answer: The standards applicable to RFG under each model may be found in  80.41 of the regulations. 2. Question: For simple model RFG, will the RVP be 8.1 psi max. all year around or will the 13.5 psi be allowed during the winter months in VOC-Control Region 2? Answer: The 8.1 psi maximum for per gallon RFG applies to any RFG designated as VOC controlled for use in VOC-Control Region 2. VOC controlled RFG is required only during the summer months (the period May 1 through September 15 for all facilities except retail stations, and June 1 through September 15 for retail stations). As well, VOC-Control Region 1 has a simple model per gallon maximum standard of 7.2 psi during the summer. There are no maximum RVP requirements for gasoline designated as non-VOC controlled during the winter months for either VOC- Control Regions 1 or 2. 3. Question: What is the maximum oxygen content a refiner, importer or blender may certify, including blending allowances? Does this maximum oxygen content vary according to oxygenate type? Answer: In general, refiners, importers, and oxygenate blenders may not certify fuel at an oxygen level above the maximum cap of 2.7% by weight for VOC controlled RFG, or 3.5% by weight for non-VOC controlled RFG. The maximum oxygen content for RFG does not vary according to oxygenate type, nor will blending allowances be permitted. This may be modified by state petition under  80.41(g). Also, oxygen content must otherwise be federally permissible. More specifically, under the substantially similar interpretive rule (56 FR 5352, February 11, 1991), oxygen content is limited to 2.7% by weight unless waived under section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act. 4. Question: Will carbon monoxide non-attainment areas have to market 2.0% oxygen during one season and 2.7% oxygen during another season? Answer: If an RFG area is also an oxygenated fuels program control area, then the RFG distributed to that area during the designated carbon monoxide control season will, pursuant to  211(m) of the Act, require an average of 2.7% oxygen by weight with a minimum oxygen content of 2.0% by weight. If a state oxygenated fuels program does not provide for averaging, the minimum oxygen content is 2.7% by weight. During the remainder of the year, RFG distributed to that area must contain either 2.0% oxygen by weight or, if averaging, must contain 2.1% oxygen on average with a minimum allowable oxygen content of 1.5% by weight. (Note: California has applied for a waiver from the 2.7% oxygen standard for the oxygenated fuels program, and currently has a 1.8% to 2.2% oxygen program enforced in the oxygenated fuels program control areas. Therefore, the specific waiver allowances for California would apply during the oxygenated fuel control season). 5. Question: What is the definition of oxygenated fuels program control area and oxygenated fuels program control period? Answer: As per section 80.2 of the regulations, an oxygenated fuels program control area means a geographic area in which only oxygenated gasoline may be sold or dispensed during the control period. An oxygenated fuels program control period means the period during which oxygenated gasoline must be sold or dispensed in any oxygenated gasoline control area, pursuant to section 211(m)(2) of the Act, and as specified in EPA guidance. Control seasons vary from 4-7 months in length depending on the state implemented program. A list of geographic areas required to implement oxygenated fuels programs and the length of their specific control periods is attached at the end of this document as Attachment I. 6. Question: Will areas that opted into RFG have to meet the 2.0% oxygen requirement all year? Answer: Areas that have opted into the RFG program will have to meet the same oxygen content standards as other RFG areas (i.e., 2.0% per gallon or 2.1% oxygen if averaging). However, if an RFG area is also an oxygenated fuels program control area, RFG distributed to that area during the control season must meet the oxygen content standards of the state implemented oxygenated fuels program as discussed in the answer to question #4 above. 7. Question: Must the complex model be used to certify RFG with an oxygen level greater than 2.7%? Answer: From the period January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1997, the simple model may be used for VOC-controlled RFG in a state which has elected to use the 3.5% by weight maximum oxygen content pursuant to 80.41(g). (Currently, no state has made such an election). In addition, the simple model may be used for RFG not designated as VOC-controlled which has a maximum oxygen content of 3.5% by weight. 8. Question: Section 80.41(h)(1) specifies that RFG may contain no heavy metals. What specifically does that mean, and is a refiner required to test for the presence of heavy metals? Answer: The prohibition of heavy metals in RFG means that heavy metals may not be added, nor may it contain more than trace levels that may be picked up from the transportation/distribution system. In fact, no substantially similar unleaded gasoline may contain any elements purposely added outside of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. Refiners are not required to test for heavy metals; however, quality control measures should be in place to ensure that heavy metals are not being added. 9. Question: Section 80.41(h)(2)(iii) and EPA's draft reporting forms imply that the sulfur, T-90 and olefin restrictions associated with the simple model do not apply on a refinery basis for a refiner with more than one refinery, but instead apply to the refiner's aggregation of his refineries as chosen under the antidumping program. Is that correct? Answer: If a refiner that operates more than one refinery elects to aggregate some or all of its refineries under section 80.101(h)(1), the aggregation of refineries must meet the standards for sulfur, T-90, and olefins for RFG that is produced at the aggregated refineries, on an annual average basis. If a refiner that operates more than one refinery chooses not to aggregate its refineries, each refinery must comply with the sulfur, T-90, and olefin standards for the RFG produced at each refinery on an individual refinery basis. 10. Question: When performing simple and complex model calculations, what number of decimal places need to be entered for each of the gasoline properties? Answer: Fuel parameters should be rounded to the following decimal places: RVP 2 decimal places Olefins 1 decimal place Benzene 2 decimal places E200 1 decimal place Sulfur 0 decimal places E300 1 decimal place Aromatics 1 decimal place III. MODELS 1. Question: For anti-dumping, is there any provision to use the complex model outside of the limits shown in  80.45(f)(1)(ii)? Answer: Yes, the provision is given in  80.91(f)(2)(ii), and allows for the extension of the valid range when a refiner's individual baseline fuel lies outside of the specified valid range. The provision given in this paragraph was clarified in the Direct Final Rulemaking signed on June 27, 1994. 2. Question: The valid range limits for the Simple and Complex Models given in  80.42(c)(1) and  80.45(f)(1), respectively, give the ranges outside of which fuels cannot be evaluated with the compliance models. What are you supposed to use if the fuels to be evaluated are outside of the specified valid range limits? Answer: If a target fuel contains one or more fuel parameters which are outside the valid range limits, the compliance models generally cannot be used to evaluate that fuel. To use the compliance models, a refiner may reformulate the fuel such that it falls within the valid range limits. A refiner may also augment the Complex Model through vehicle testing to widen the valid range limits. Finally, if the refiner's individual 1990 baseline fuel contains any parameters which fall outside the specified valid range limits, he may qualify for extension of the valid range per  80.91(f)(2)(ii). This paragraph on valid range extension has been clarified in the Direct Final Rulemaking signed on June 27, 1994. 3. Question: When calculating the winter baseline emissions for anti-dumping purposes, should a refinery use its winter baseline RVP or 8.7 psi? Answer: When using the winter Complex Model, an RVP of 8.7 psi should be used for both the baseline and target fuels. This applies to all winter Complex Model calculations, including an individual refiner's baseline emissions. 4. Question: Clarify that the valid range for RVP specified in the regulations has no effect on winter calculations with the Complex Model since the RVP is fixed at 8.7 psi in the winter regardless of the actual RVP of the fuel. Answer: That is correct. Since the winter Complex Model requires the use of an RVP of 8.7 psi for both baseline and target fuels regardless of the actual RVPs, the valid range limits for RVP do not apply to the winter Complex Model calculation. 5. Question: Limits of the RFG Simple Model for RVP at  80.42(c) is 9.0 psi. However, this Simple Model is used for compliance determinations of winter toxics. Will EPA revise the RVP range for non-VOC-controlled RFG to allow properly volatilized gasoline to be delivered in the winter season? Answer: RVP does not show up in the calculation of toxics during the winter because non-exhaust emissions are assumed to be zero. Thus the valid range limits for RVP are superfluous under the winter Simple Model. 6. Question: Section 80.42 states that the summer Simple Model is to be used from May 1 through September 15. However, reformulated gasoline certified to be VOC-controlled can be made from January 1 through September 15. Should batches of VOC- controlled gasoline blended during January 1 through May 1 be certified by the summer or winter model? Answer: The summer Simple Model should be used to evaluate all batches of VOC-controlled gasoline produced between January 1 and September 15. Non-VOC-controlled gasolines should be evaluated with the winter model. 7. Question: Clarify that interactive effects must be investigated when augmenting the Complex Model for a new fuel parameter despite the fact that the specified test fuel matrix does not include the full set of orthogonal matrices which is statistically necessary. Answer: The test fuel matrix provided in the regulations delineates the minimum test program that would be acceptable to the Agency for Complex Model augmentation. A more comprehensive test program, which would provide the full set of orthogonal matrices which is statistically necessary, is allowed and is encouraged. The Agency expects that primary interactive effects can be adequately identified with the required minimum test fuel matrix. 8. Question: Clarify that "B" as defined in  80.48(f)(3)(ii)(B) is equivalent to an edge target fuel as defined in  80.45(c) and (d). The reference to paragraph  80.48(f)(3)(i) is correct. Answer: Yes, "B" defines the percent change in emissions for an edge target fuel wherein the fuel parameter being testing is fixed at the valid range limit for that parameter as specified in  80.45(f)(1). 9. Question: Clarify that the proper version of the Complex Model that is to be used with an augmentation is the version that was in effect at the time the augmentation was approved. The preamble and regulations are inconsistent on this issue, and confusion arises in the term "the fuels," which is meant to apply to fuels that are produced before the augmentation is approved. Answer: The proper version of the Complex Model that is to be used with an augmentation is the version that was in effect at the time the augmentation was approved. 10. Question: The emissions standard for simple model RFG is 100% of the baseline. Is this the refiner's baseline or the statutory baseline? Answer: For reformulated gasoline under the Simple Model, refiners must not allow the level of sulfur, olefins, and/or T90 to rise above the levels of these parameters in their individual baseline fuels. The only exception is if a refiner meets the requirements for using the statutory baseline in lieu of an individual 1990 baseline. 11. Question: If a California refiner chooses to certify a CARB Phase 2 gasoline formulation under the predictive model, does this alter his ability to select the Simple or the Complex Model for conventional gasoline? Answer: The use of the Simple or Complex Models during the 1995 through 1997 time frame is generally governed by the provisions in  80.41(i). A refiner cannot change from use of the Simple Model to the Complex Model when California Phase 2 RFG begins on March 1, 1996 because only one compliance model can be used within any calendar year. Other than this restriction, all refiners retain the option of complying under the Simple Model or the Complex Model during the 1995-1997 time frame for RFG sold in non-California states. 12. Question: Will the EPA "Spreadsheet" be revised to be considered acceptable for fuel certifications? Answer: No. The spreadsheet was designed to provide assistance in understanding and implementing the Complex Model equations as provided in the regulations. The EPA has no authority to endorse the spreadsheet as a legal instrument of certification. Only the Federal Register has legal authority. 13. Question: Will the Complex Model for NOx emissions take additive effects into account? Answer: No. However, the Complex Model can be augmented through the vehicle testing procedure outlined in the final rule to include the emission effects of an additive. IV. BASELINES A. BASELINE AUDITORS 1. Question: Can you identify absolute minimum data requirements and margin for auditor judgements to minimize petitions for deficient data? Answer: No. The amount of data that is sufficient to develop a baseline will depend on the individual case. The baseline auditor does have some flexibility in using their judgement to determine what is appropriate, but the rationale and detailed discussion of the situation must be provided in a petition to EPA. 2. Question: It would seem that one objective of the auditor is to assure that the most representative 1990 baseline (with allowable adjustments) is submitted. What leeway, if any, do auditors have to achieve the most representative baseline? Answer: Within the limits of the regulations, the auditor has a significant amount of leeway in determining the most representative baseline. The amount of flexibility is also dependent on the individual situation. However, the baseline auditor's role includes using technical judgement to determine the best approach, or the most appropriate of several options, when developing or auditing a baseline. 3. Question: How does an auditor verify computer data if no hard copies exist? Answer: The only option is to make do with the data available. If it seems clear to the auditor that data is in error or otherwise false but this cannot be verified, that data should be excluded from the calculations, with an explanation. 4. Question: What are the requirements for baseline auditors? Answer: The requirements for baseline auditors are clearly outlined in section 80.92 of the reformulated gasoline regulations. B. PETITIONS 1. Question: Will EPA provide written responses to petitions? Answer: If the EPA responds to a petition prior to the deadline for baseline submissions, it will respond in writing. If the petition is not evaluated until review of the baseline submission (i.e after the deadline for baseline submissions), the petition will be addressed in the context of the baseline approval. 2. Question: Why can't general petitions be submitted? Answer: Section 80.91(b) requires a separate baseline submission for each refinery. Each baseline represents a distinct, individual situation and must be addressed as such. While similar situations may apply to several facilities, the impacts may vary significantly. 3. Question: Why are petitions needed for relatively simple things? Answer: Petitions are required for every situation where a refiner or other party wants or needs to deviate from the baseline determination requirements stipulated in the RFG regulations. Even apparently simple issues must be evaluated before the petition can be granted. 4. Question: Rather than petitioning to use less than the minimum data for baseline determination, can refiners rely on the engineering judgement of the outside auditor, if it is at least half of these minimum requirements? Answer: No. Baseline determination submissions must follow the criteria specified in the regulations regarding minimum data. 5. Question: Rather than petitioning EPA for approval to exclude any data due to improper labeling, improper testing, etc., can refiners petition for excluding data which is not within the normal statistical data range of two standard deviations from the average? (The best statistical approach would exclude data outside of the normal statistical range and should not require any special permission.) Answer: A petition must be approved for the exclusion of any baseline data, regardless of statistical deviation. Statistical variability, by itself, is not an acceptable basis for excluding data. 6. Question: Will EPA eliminate the petition and approval requirement for using E200 and E300 equations to determine values from T50 and T90 data (i.e., just mandate the use of the conversion equations if temperature data is unavailable)? Answer: No. This section of the regulation is subject to interpretation, and EPA needs to ensure that the equations are used only in situations that truly warrant their use. Often, interpolation of actual temperature data is more appropriate than using the equations. 7. Question: When should a refiner file a petition to use calculated E200 and E300 values via the formula provided? Answer: When they feel adequate temperature data is not available to create a distillation curve from actual data. 8. Question: Will a petition be granted to use the E300 and E200 equations if data from the actual distillation is available in the form of temperature values? Answer: No. The equations should be used only when the only available measurements are for T50 and T90. Given a table of temperature values, a distillation curve should be plotted from those numbers, and E (percent evaporated) values determined from the curve. 9. Question: How do we determine our baseline if we don't know the outcome of a petition? Answer: The refiner must decide how to proceed with its baseline determination. One method would be to assume that the petition will be allowed. Another method would be to calculate the baseline with and without approval of the petition. 10. Question: What if we can't meet a WIP or extenuating circumstance criteria--can we petition anyway? Answer: EPA cannot prevent any petition submissions. In this case, however, it is unlikely that the petition would be granted. Nevertheless, it may be a useful mechanism to gain EPA guidance on how the situation can best be addressed. 11. Question: Can work-in-progress be applied to an aggregate baseline? Answer: Work-in-progress applies only in the calculation of an individual refinery baseline. 12. Question: What is the difference in the WIP caps for compliance under the simple and complex models? Answer: Currently, the WIP caps for simple model and complex model compliance are defined differently, as stipulated in the regulations. However, this has been changed in the technical amendments. 13. Question: If a refinery has more than one WIP which came on-line at different times (e.g., early 1991, late 1992) is it limited to one WIP adjustment, or are the adjustments cumulative? Answer: If both projects meet the WIP requirements, the baseline should be adjusted for both. In other words, the baseline should reflect operation after both projects came on- line. 14. Question: For WIP, would a good indicator of progress be to require that a certain amount of funds be expended toward the project in 1990? The language might read "In order to be considered as WIP, the refiner must have committed at least X percent of the total cost of the project externally in 1990." Use of the "committed" rather than the "expended" is suggested because equipment procurement normally includes a payment schedule rather than cash up front. For example, the first payment might be 30 percent, timed to coincide with the refiner's accounting periods so that it appears on the books in a certain fiscal year. "Externally" means committed to others rather than the re-deployment of the refiner's in-house staff which could be more subjective. Answer: EPA will not be changing the regulation language regarding this issue. EPA will be evaluate each WIP petition on a case-by-case basis. 15. Question: Several refiners embarked on capital programs in 1990 aimed at meeting new environmental requirements. In some cases, permanent changes have been implemented stage-wise and in such a way as to provide improved refining returns as well as meeting the environmental regulations. Can a refiner claim as his baseline volume the impact of all these related permanent changes initiated by the need to produce low sulfur diesel? Answer: If, and only if, the projects were begun or committed to in 1990, in response to environmental regulations, may they all be considered in making the WIP adjustment. 16. Question: For a Work-in-Progress, are Method 1 and 2 type data limited to 1990 data only, with Method 3 being the only option for post-1990 data? OR are the Methods re-defined in a WIP situation? Answer: The data types are not re-defined by the WIP. The WIP is a post-1990 adjustment made to the original baseline, regardless of the data type (method 1, 2 or 3) originally used. 17. Question: For extenuating circumstances, does the shutdown include the shoulders of the shutdown? Answer: No. The limit of 30 days or more downtime given in the regulation was not meant to include the shoulders of the shutdown. Extenuating circumstances, however, may be evaluated on a case by case basis. 18. Question: For an extenuating circumstance adjustment, must the 30 days of downtime be consecutive? Answer: Generally, the downtime is expected to be continuous. In some situations, such as a unit being shutdown for an extended period and then only in operation a few days before shutting down again, continuous downtime is not necessary. This is subject to EPA evaluation and approval. 19. Question: Do all of the refineries of a refiner have to meet the JP-4 requirements to get an adjustment? Answer: The criteria for a JP-4 baseline adjustment must be met for each refinery of a refiner: 1) the refinery will not produce reformulated gasoline; and 2) refiners must meet the specified 1990 JP-4 production to gasoline ratio (the ratio has changed from .5 to .2 via the DFRM, barring adverse comments). However, for those refiners with multiple refineries, it is no longer required that each of a refiner's refineries had to have produced JP-4 in 1990. 20. Question: If a refiner meets the JP-4 provisions, but later switches to reform production, what baseline would be used? Answer: A refiner may begin producing reformulated gasoline instead of, or in addition to, conventional gasoline any time during the calendar year. If this happens at any refinery within a refinery aggregate which has received an adjustment for JP-4 production, then the compliance baseline for that aggregate shall revert to its unadjusted baseline values for that entire averaging period. This is true even for those refiners that meet the JP-4 criteria, have petitioned to receive the adjustment, and were subsequently approved to adjust their baselines by the Agency. 21. Question: Explain JP-4 provisions -- On a refinery basis or refiner basis? Answer: The 1990 JP-4 to gasoline production ratio should be calculated on a refiner basis as opposed to a refinery basis. In other words, the total 1990 JP-4 production for each of a refiner's refineries should be divided by the total 1990 gasoline production for each of a refiner's refineries to determine the ratio. 22. Question: To avoid burdensome additional testing in 1994, can a refiner use data from any industry-accepted test method in determination of fuel parameter values? Answer: In most cases, yes. However, in order to use such alternative test methods, the refiner must submit a petition and obtain EPA approval. 23. Question: How do we handle a WIP that was built before 1990 but was not used in 1990? Answer: To qualify for a WIP adjustment, the project must meet the requirements given in the regulation. It may be possible to consider a pre-1990 WIP if some unforeseen, extenuating circumstance prevented it from operating in 1990. This is highly unlikely, however, and is dependent on the specifics of the situation. 24. Question: What is the effect of the WIP caps on volume? For instance, if exhaust benzene cannot exceed 6.77, does the refiner get the full effect of the volume increase? Answer: Volume will also be adjusted based on the WIP. The new WIP-adjusted fuel parameters, whatever they may be, will apply to the entire WIP-adjusted volume. The WIP-adjusted volume would then be the baseline volume for the refinery. 25. Question: Must refiners of dual train refineries include the entire 1990 operation in their baselines or only the portion of the operation which they intend to operate? Answer: The baseline submittal must represent 1990 refinery operation. It can only be adjusted based on allowable petitions, not subsequent changes in refinery operation. C. SUBMISSION/APPROVALS 1. Question: Clarify due dates for baseline submission and late submission if still collecting data. Answer: Baselines were due to EPA June 1, 1994. If data collection continued beyond December 15, 1993, the resulting baseline is due September 1, 1994. It is not necessary to notify EPA that a baseline will be submitted September 1, 1994, if data collection continued into 1994. 2. Question: Must a petition be submitted for an extension of the baseline submittal deadline? What is the likelihood of it being granted? Answer: EPA does not have the authority to grant extensions to the deadlines for baseline submissions given in the final regulations. 3. Question: Do California refiners need to submit baselines? Answer: Yes. Every facility producing, importing or blending gasoline is required to have a 1990 baseline. 4. Question: For a refinery still collecting data on one or two parameters but has baseline values for the other parameters, should only completed data be submitted, with a note about the missing parameters (and then submit those as available) or should refiners wait and submit all data when complete? Answer: EPA would prefer to receive the completed baseline, once all data has been collected and all parameter values determined. If an incomplete baseline is submitted, EPA will wait until it is complete before beginning the review of that baseline. If an incomplete baseline is submitted after the deadline, the EPA will notify the submitter of the missing information and will wait for a resubmittal before begin review of the baseline. 5. Question: In methods 1, 2, and 3, can seasonal data be submitted, rather than monthly data (seasonal data is sufficient and significant data are from scattered weekly samples, not monthly)? Answer: The regulation requires monthly data - minimum data requirements are defined by month. However, EPA has modified the final rule (via the technical amendments) to allow use of method 1 per batch data to create the seasonal database. For minimum data requirements a month would then be defined as 4 weeks. This change would only apply to method 1. 6. Question: Why is seasonal data needed in the baseline submission? Answer: Because there are two compliance models, one for summer and a second for winter. 7. Question: When will the baseline guidance document be finished? Are alternate formats okay? How thick is the expected submission? Answer: A draft baseline guidance document is available. Given the time constraints of this regulation, it is unlikely that this document will be finalized. This document presents a suggested format; alternate formats are acceptable. The thickness of the submission will depend entirely upon the amount of data available for the facility. 8. Question: Specifically, what operating data is required for each refinery unit? Answer: The specific operating data required in the baseline submission is given in section 80.93(c)(10). This information should be provided for both the summer and winter operating periods. 9. Question: Is the refinery information needed if using Method 1 or Method 2? Or is it just needed if using Method 3? Answer: Per the final regulations, the refinery information must be provided with every baseline submission, regardless of the type of data used. 10. Question: How will baselines be approved? Who should we call concerning the status of our baseline? Answer: You will receive notification from EPA when the baseline has been approved. Please refrain from contacting EPA regarding the status of your individual baseline. EPA will be contacting each submitter throughout the review process. 11. Question: When presenting the gasoline pool data (EPA Table 6), is it ok to present just summer, winter, and annual average data, rather than monthly data? Answer: Yes, it is acceptable to present seasonal gasoline pool data. The format of this table will depend on the data available. 12. Question: What are the consequences of a facility not having an approved baseline by 1/1/95? If a refiner has submitted its baseline application, but EPA has not issued a final baseline determination, may a refiner produce RFG? If so, what baseline should the refiner use to be in compliance? Answer: A facility whose baseline has not been approved by the time it begins producing RFG is responsible for meeting the baseline as ultimately approved by EPA. There is no bar on producing RFG before the baseline is approved, but if the RFG produced violates the parameters of the baseline as ultimately approved, the facility would be in violation and would be subject to civil penalties. EPA believes that any facility seeking to establish its baseline should have sufficient knowledge to determine its likely baseline, and to plan accordingly. EPA also believes that it will be able to issue approved baselines in all cases where complete and properly prepared baseline applications are submitted by facilities in a timely manner. 13. Question: What information in the baseline submittal will be considered Confidential Business Information? Answer: Based on section 80.93(b)(6), the information listed in section 80.93(b)(5) cannot be considered CBI. Any other information in the baseline submission which the refiner wishes to be considered CBI must be clearly identified. Any such claims will be evaluated subject to 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Upon baseline approval, EPA will publish the individual baseline standards for each refinery, blender and importer in the Federal Register, including annual average baseline emissions and 125% of the individual baseline values for sulfur, olefins and T90. D. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT -- GENERAL 1. Question: Does a baseline change between the simple and complex models? Answer: The set of baseline fuel parameters (after allowed adjustments) is basically fixed. The only time the baseline fuel parameters would change is when some circumstance specified in the regulations allowed it to change (such as the production of RFG after a JP-4 adjustment). There are different baseline emissions calculated using these parameters, depending on the model used (Simple or Complex) and the timeframe (Phase I vs. Phase II). 2. Question: Do we get credit for the elimination of lead in the reduction of toxics? Answer: No. The Clean Air Act did not allow the consideration of fuel lead reductions in establishing a 1990 baseline nor in developing the anti-dumping regulations. 3. Question: Is anti-dumping compliance the only restriction on conventional gasoline? Are there any future emissions reductions for conventional gasoline? Answer: All gasoline requirements currently in place, except for those applicable to reformulated gasoline, apply to conventional gasoline (e.g., volatility requirements, lead requirements, state oxygenated fuel requirements, etc.). The anti-dumping requirements are in addition to these. It is possible that other fuel controls could be promulgated through separate actions in the future. 4. Question: Is the blendstock-to-gasoline ratio to be reported as part of the baseline one number, i.e., the sum of the eight identified blendstocks divided by the gasoline produced? Are eight individual ratios required? Answer: The numerator in the blendstock-to-gasoline ratio specified in  80.102 of the final rule is, in general, the sum of the volumes of the applicable blendstocks. An individual ratio is not required to be determined for each blendstock. 5. Question: With respect to benzene exhaust emissions for conventional gasoline under the simple model, there is reference to both benzene exhaust emissions calculated by the simple model and benzene exhaust emissions calculated by the formula presented in Section 80.90. Which formula should be used? Answer: For conventional gasoline compliance, the equation specified in  80.90 of the final regulations should be used to determine baseline exhaust benzene "emissions" under the simple model. 6. Question: If a refinery will only be producing reformulated gasoline (no conventional gasoline) does it have to develop baseline values for other than sulfur, olefins and T90? If not, are audit requirements reduced? Answer: Baseline values must be developed for each of the fuel parameters specified in  80.91(a)(2), and all individual baselines must be verified by a baseline auditor. The full set of baseline fuel parameter values will become necessary if the refinery ever elects to produce conventional gasoline. Also, the full set of baseline values will be used to determine regional and national average baselines. 7. Question: Using method 2 or 3 blendstock data, is there any way to exclude minimal blendstock quantities? (e.g. of the 1990 blendstocks, some contained only very small quantities for special cases, i.e. the volumes were negligible). Answer: There are no lower end, minimum provisions in the regulation. All blendstocks should be included in the baseline, regardless of their volume. 8. Question: Why is the baseline winter RVP 8.7 psi? Answer: When using the winter complex models, an RVP of 8.7 psi is used because the EPA was not able to adequately quantify the effects of RVP on wintertime emissions, and thus they are not represented in the Complex Model. Thus, independent of the actual RVP of such fuel (or the baseline value) for both baseline and compliance determination, 8.7 psi should be used. 9. Question: How are baselines apportioned for facilities that are joint ventures? Answer: Each facility must have a complete baseline. The joint venture is considered the owner of the facility and is responsible for the baseline. Individual baselines cannot be apportioned or divided in any way. Further, the facilities owned by the joint venture are considered separate from the facilities that may be owned by the individual parties of the joint venture. Therefore, the jointly owned facility can not be aggregated with facilities owned by any of the individual parties. 10. Question: Is in-line blending data acceptable for Method 2? For Method 1? Answer: The regulations allow the use of alternative sampling and/or test methods if it can be shown that these methods are equivalent to the methods required in the regulation. Generally, it is better to use the available data rather than attempting to model qualities, as long as the procedures used are not significantly biased. Petition for the use of in-line blending data and EPA will consider its use. E. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT - OXYGEN/RVP 1. Question: If for the winter model an RVP of 8.7 has to be used when calculating emissions, what is the purpose of the RVP limits being 6.4 to 11 psi for conventional gasoline? Answer: Some valid range limits must apply to conventional gasoline because even in summer months the RVP varies widely. The Complex Model contains statistically derived regression equations whose accuracy decreases dramatically when they are used outside of the valid range limits. 2. Question: How is the RVP and distillation non-linearity handled? Answer: The RVP of hydrocarbons and oxygenates should actually blend very linearly, with the exception of the lighter alcohols, methanol and ethanol. Methanol is not expected to be used as an oxygenate due to its high RVP, and there are accepted rules of thumb for approximating the RVP boost from ethanol. Regarding distillation, EPA's complex model uses the percent evaporated at a given temperature as opposed to the temperature at which a given percentage of fuel evaporates. This was done in part to avoid this problem, since percent evaporated, like RVP, blends very linearly. 3. Question: How are small amounts of alcohols and ethers in MTBE accounted for? Answer: In baseline determination, such negligible quantities are insignificant. An attempt should be made to account for them, but there should not be much concern over these byproducts. 4. Question: How should refiners use blending records for oxygenate parameters when distillation is nonlinear? Answer: In this situation, it may be necessary to do further testing with the same oxygenates and similar hydrocarbon blendstocks to determine the blending effects. 5. Question: For percent oxygen parameter determination, most refiners did not test for percent oxygen if they used an oxygenate. Should percent oxygen be estimated by dividing the volume of oxygenate blended by the volume of gasoline in 1990? Answer: Yes, the percent oxygen can be estimated, using an appropriate formula. 6. Question: What does EPA mean by "blending RVP of oxygenate" (equation in  80.91(e)(4)(i)(B))? Answer: This means the effect that an oxygenate has on RVP when it is assumed to have a constant RVP effect per volume added. This is analogous to the blending RVP for any other hydrocarbon, except that blending RVPs for hydrocarbons are generally independent of other factors while those for oxygenates may depend on the hydrocarbon composition and the amount of oxygenate added. F. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT -- SPECIAL SITUATIONS 1. Question: What if a refinery shipped a lot of blendstock in 1990 instead of gasoline (thus its 1990 gasoline volume is low)-- can it adjust for this? Answer: The baseline can be adjusted only if this unusual operation were the result of a work-in-progress, extenuating circumstance, or other allowable adjustment specified in the regulations. EPA recognizes that there may be anomalies in 1990 operation, however the Clean Air Act Amendments require that baselines must reflect 1990 operations. 2. Question: Can refiners aggregate if one of the refineries is partially owned? If so, how? (e.g. co-owned by oil company and some other, unrelated company) Answer: No. Two refineries can only be aggregated if they are wholly owned by the same refiner. If a refinery is owned by more than one party, it may not be aggregated with any other refineries. 3. Question: If a terminal was in operation for all of 1990, but did no blending of ethanol for gasoline and wishes to register it for potentially blending conventional gasoline from raffinate and ethanol, is it appropriate to use the statutory baseline? Would an outside audit be necessary? Answer: If full method 1 fuel parameter data is available for the terminal's 1990 operation, an individual 1990 baseline is required, regardless of future operation plans. If this complete data is not available, the statutory baseline must be used. If the statutory baseline is used, verification by a baseline auditor is not needed. 4. Question: If a refiner purchased finished gasoline in 1990, then blended in it's own components, is the baseline based on parameters for the final product (which would result in double counting of that gasoline), or only on the blending components it added? If parameters are required for the final product, the parameter information for the purchased gasoline is not available and will require a great deal of "guess work" to estimate. Answer: If the purchased product is finished gasoline which would be reported in another party's baseline calculation, only the produced blendstocks need to be included in the baseline. This is similar to the compliance provision in  80.101(e)(1) which states that gasoline produced at another refinery must be excluded from compliance calculations. 5. Question: A refiner owns a refinery where typical blend components are produced and blended to finished gasoline. One component is produced in excess, and shipped to a distant terminal also owned by that refiner. How should a baseline be developed? a. Could the terminal be included as an extension of the refinery, and thus construct a single baseline for both (the terminal is a refinery by definition)? These facilities do not meet the geographical proximity and other requirements. b. Should the refiner construct two baselines, one for each facility (one refiner, one blender)? The problem is that the blend component provided by the refinery is not purchased, as described in the regulations. Should the term "purchased" be interpreted as "purchased or otherwise acquired"? For the terminal, if Method 1 data is not complete, would it then default to the CAA baseline? Answer: Under  80.91(e)(1)(ii), if the terminal received at least 75 percent of its 1990 blendstock volume from a single refinery, or from one or more refineries which are part of an aggregate baseline, the terminal could be included as an extension of the refinery, resulting in a single baseline for both. If not, the terminal would need to develop it's own 1990 baseline as a blender. It is correct that if complete method 1 data is not available for the terminal, it would then default to the statutory baseline. 6. Question: When no oxygenate was used in 1990, how are oxygenated values calculated from non-oxygenated? What oxygenate is used, at what volume? Answer: Oxygenate values are not required in the baseline calculations if no oxygenate was used in 1990. 7. Question: If a refinery makes major post-1990 operating changes (like shutting down an FCC unit to go into the lube business), can this be accounted for in the baseline development? Answer: No, unless it meets the criteria for a work-in- progress adjustment or other adjustment (i.e., was contracted for prior to or in 1990, etc. See section 80.91(e)(5)). The anti- dumping baseline is based on 1990 operations. 8. Question: If loss of refinery throughput due to poor operation (not extenuating circumstances) was greater than 12% of normal, can that be equivalent to, say, 1-1/2 months of shutdown or otherwise accounted for using auditor judgement? Answer: No. Adjustments can be made to the 1990 baseline only when meeting the stipulated criteria for work-in-progress, extenuating circumstances, etc. However, you can petition for consideration of a special situation if you cannot meet the baseline determination requirements of the regulation. 9. Question: In an area where conventional gasoline is consumed and no longer supplied by the same company as in 1990, can the new supplier substitute or add the prior company's volume and/or baseline quality to its own? Answer: No. Each producer and supplier of gasoline must have it's own baseline parameter values, volumes and emission values - whether they are individual or statutory. Any excess volume must comply with the statutory baseline. 10. Question: A blender was producing gasoline in leased tankage in 1990. The blender subsequently purchases the tanks and moves them to a different physical location. Do the baseline properties and volumes associated with the leased tanks "move" to the new blending location? Answer: To the extent that blending operations remain the same, yes, the baseline associated with that operation should be used at the new location. 11. Question: If a refinery produces more conventional gasoline in a compliance period than Veq (equivalent 1990 baseline volume), it must use the statutory gasoline as the performance standard for the additional production. This results in several questions: Does the refinery meet 125% of the statutory baseline sulfur, olefin and T90 for the added volume? What sulfur, olefin and T90 does the refinery use for the statutory/regulatory baseline -- summer, winter or annual? Answer: The regulations have been amended in a manner that eliminates the calculation for Veq. The refinery must meet a maximum of 125% of it's compliance baseline which is calculated in accordance with section 80.101(f)(). The statutory baseline values used in this calculation are contained in section 80.91(c)(5)(iv), which are seasonally weighted summer/winter baseline fuel properties. G. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT -- CALCULATIONS 1. Question: Should Method 2 calculation include produced, transferred and purchased blendstock (i.e., all blendstocks used in the refinery's 1990 gasoline.)? Answer: Yes, all blendstocks should be included. The phrase "produced in the refinery" has been removed from both method 2 and method 3 definitions via the technical amendments. 2. Question: Can refiners reduce the number of significant figures required for emissions values from 4 to 3 (the fourth significant figure is not meaningful in these calculations)? Answer: No. Section 80.90(g) states that emission values shall be determined to four (4) significant figures. 3. Question: Should seasonal emissions for each refinery be calculated and weighted to produce an aggregated baseline or should the seasonal parameters be weighted and the emissions calculated with these seasonal averages? Answer: Refinery baseline emissions are calculated from the Complex Model, which is seasonal. Thus baseline emissions must be calculated separately for summer and winter, and then combined into a year-round baseline. You cannot determine baseline emissions based on annually aggregated fuel parameter values. However, the seasonal, individual refinery baseline values for sulfur, olefins and T90 should also be aggregated into year-round values. 4. Question: The baseline volume for a blender as described at  80.91(f)(1)(v) does not include the opportunity for inclusion of oxygenate volume. Is this intended? Answer: Section 80.91(f)(1)(v) does not exclude oxygenate from the baseline volume. It only excludes blendstocks produced and sold as blendstocks, and exported gasoline. 5. Question: Can a refiner include a terminal with a refinery in developing a common baseline if the terminal is under long- term lease to (as opposed to owned by) the refinery (80.91)? Answer: Yes, if it meets the definition and requirements of section 80.91(e)(1)(i). 6. Question: If the importer becomes the supplier to a marketer who imported gasoline in 1990, can the importer add the marketer's 1990 volume to the importer's 1990 volume? (isn't this analogous to buying a refinery and adding it to your baseline?) Would the parameter values for the marketer's volume be the CAAA default values? Answer: No, the importer cannot add the marketer's 1990 volume to it's own to create a new 1990 volume. As described in section 80.91, the requirements for an importer are not analogous to those for a refiner. Any imported volume exceeding the 1990 baseline volume (e.g. the marketer's volume) would have the statutory baseline values. 7. Question: Generally, small, simple refiners wish to establish their baseline using gasoline shipments, using Method 1 and Method 3 data (these refiners are generally operated nearly steady-state, on an essentially constant crude diet and there is no internal accounting for blendstocks, and there is no intermediate storage for these components). Will EPA allow the auditor to confirm an assessment, by means other than actual component data, as to whether the refiner has met the 10% component criteria? Answer: No. For method 3 data calculation, the only way to confirm that post-1990 fuel meets the 10% component criteria is to evaluate actual component data. 8. Question: Must refiners defer to regulatory references to blendstock produced on a batch basis, as all blendstocks made by refiners are produced from continuous processes (even purchased blendstocks are received at regular intervals and are typically blended on a fairly uniform basis)? Answer: Yes. Even continuous streams are only measured periodically and it would be best to apply the measurements to the volume produced most closely to the time of the measurement. In other words, break up the continuous stream into discrete batches for calculation purposes. H. BASELINE DEVELOPMENT -- LATE DATA COLLECTION 1. Question: What happens if refiners need to go beyond 9/15/94 to collect winter data? Answer: Refiners collecting data after December 15, 1993 must submit a baseline by September 1, 1994. If there has not been enough time to collect sufficient winter data due to the seasonal nature of winter fuel production, EPA can consider a petition for less than minimum data. 2. Question: If a refiner was forced to shut down prior to and during 1990 as a result of bankruptcy, what alternatives are available (other than assuming the default statutory baseline in the event the refinery is subsequently started)? Answer: Section 80.91(b)(1)(ii) of the regulations clearly state that a refinery not in operation for at least 6 months in 1990 gets the statutory baseline. 3. Question: A refinery was in operation for >6 months in 1990, shutdown after 1990 and insufficient data was collected to develop an individual baseline. Does this refinery develop a baseline or does it get the statutory baseline if: a) it re-opens after 12/31/94 -- can it collect CY 1995 or later data? Answer: Section 80.91(b)(1)(ii) of the regulations state that a refiner in this situation shall have the statutory baseline. b) it re-opens after 6/15/94 and can collect sufficient summer/winter data in CY 1994? Answer: If sufficient 1990 and post-1990 data is collected prior to January 1, 1995, the refinery must develop an individual baseline. c) it re-opens after 6/15/94 but cannot collect sufficient summer/winter data in CY 1994? Answer: If insufficient 1990 and post-1990 data is collected prior to January 1, 1995, the refinery shall have the statutory baseline. d) it re-opens before 6/15/94 and can collect sufficient summer/winter data in CY 1994? Answer: The refiner must develop an individual baseline. e) it re-opens before 6/15/94 but cannot collect sufficient summer/winter data in CY 1994? Answer: The refiner must develop an individual baseline. If insufficient data was collected, EPA would consider a less than minimum data petition. I. MINIMUM DATA REQUIREMENTS 1. Question: How is data excluded, i.e., are there statistically abnormal requirements, like 3 standard deviation? Answer: There are no specific provisions in the regulation for excluding data. If a submitter feels data should be excluded, they must petition for EPA approval. 2. Question: Define weighting of data for combined EPA methods based on a) assuming all gasoline pool data points are equivalent, or b) assuming Method 1 or Method 3a finished gasoline pool data points on finished batches are superior to Method 2 or Method 3b component data points on weekly grab samples and should be weighted by a factor of at least 2 to 1. Answer: The weighting of data when combining method data is dependent on the individual situation. Weighting should be determined based on the technical judgement of the refiner and the baseline auditor, to be evaluated and approved by EPA. 3. Question: What if there are only 1 or 2 1990 data points? Should they be used? Must they be used? Can the auditor use judgement (i.e., would the points fall on a representative 1990 curve)? Answer: Any 1990 data must be used in the baseline determination, unless the refiner petitions to exclude the data, subject to EPA approval. 4. Question: For Method 3, do post-1990 volume and volume sampled need to be supplied? Answer: Yes. Post-1990 volume must be supplied to determine the accuracy of post-1990 volumetric fraction. Sample volume is required in the method 3 blendstock calculation. 5. Question: When combining M1, M2 and M3, when is the data sufficiency requirement met? Answer: The data sufficiency requirements are met when the minimum data requirements for the final supplemental method have been fulfilled. As stated in the regulation, if method 1 data is supplemented with method 2 data, the data sufficiency requirements for method 2 must be met. 6. Question: If 4 batches/week of gasoline were produced in 1990, and 1 batch/week was tested, will this be acceptable in lieu of the minimum data? It is equivalent to blendstock testing for 6 months and better than using post-1990 data and backcasting. Answer: The regulations require that at least half of the batches must have been sampled to satisfy the minimum data requirements. However, EPA will consider a petition for less than minimum data if it can be clearly shown that the available data is sufficient in quality and quantity to develop a baseline. EPA cannot state whether one half of the required data is sufficient or not without evaluating the specific situation. 7. Question: How do we handle results from two different labs (refinery and outside) which differ? Answer: Technical and engineering judgement must be used to develop an explanation for and/or solution to the discrepancy. This explanation/solution must be supported by the baseline auditor, and is subject to EPA review and approval. 8. Question: Can we exclude 1990 data on a given parameter if post-1990 data via a better test method was later collected? Answer: Data can only be excluded if it can be shown, to EPA's satisfaction, that the data is not within the normal range of values expected for the gasoline or blendstock sample. This data could only be excluded if the testing or labelling could be shown to be improper, or the data is in some other way unacceptable as verified by an auditor. 9. Question: Are we to use the best data (whether it's 1990 or post-1990) or meet the requirements of the regs (i.e., hierarchical manner, including everything)? Answer: A baseline determination must meet the requirements of the regulation. The goal is to develop the most representative 1990 baseline, as defined by the requirements and criteria in the regulation. 10. Question: What is determined first: WIP/extenuating circumstance; M1; M2; M3; oxy/non-oxy basis? Answer: First, an unadjusted baseline must be developed based on the available data. Then any adjustments are made to develop the adjusted baseline. Oxygenated and non-oxygenated fuel parameter values shall be determined for both the adjusted and unadjusted baselines. 11. Question: If good 1990 data on 3 of 5 streams is available, and 1993 data on all 5 streams, should refiners use that part of the 1993 data missing for the 2 streams, or use all of the 1993 data? Isn't the goal to minimize backcasting and use the best data? Answer: The regulations state that if there is insufficient Method 1 and Method 2 data for a baseline parameter value determination, it must supplement that data with all available Method 3 data (the 1993 data), until the Method 3 sampling requirements have been met. 12. Question: Should refiners use all available Method 2 and Method 3 data to supplement Method 1 data or just until there's enough? Answer: As the regulation states, a refiner is only required to use sufficient Method 2 or Method 3 data until the minimum data requirements of that method have been met. Thus a refiner must use the first data collected which is sufficient to meet the minimum requirements. Should additional data be available, the refiner is encouraged to use it since presumably its use would result in a more accurate baseline. However, the refiner is not required to do this. 13. Question: Are sampling requirements based on 50% of volume or on one-half of the number of batches? Answer: Sampling requirements are based on the number of batches, not the volume, over a minimum of six months. J. INCLUDED GASOLINES 1. Question: Aviation gasoline has a low RVP, high octane, 10% aromatics and could be used as gasoline. Can it be included in the baseline determination? Is aviation gasoline considered finished gasoline? Answer: If a fuel is exempted from the gasoline RVP and/or lead requirements, exclude that volume from the baseline determination. 2. Question: Are specialty batches of gasoline (e.g. test fuels for the Auto-Oil research program) included in the baseline? Or are they considered "not introduced into commerce"? Answer: Specialty batches of gasoline in very limited volumes may be interpreted to be "not introduced into commerce," subject to EPA approval. 3. Question: For refiners who purchase blendstocks, how do other refineries' gasoline fit into the baseline? Answer: Purchased blendstocks are included in a refinery's baseline. Purchased gasoline is not included in a refinery's baseline calculation. The only exception would be when the producing refinery is able to demonstrate that such gasoline was sold as a blendstock, and is not included in that refiner's baseline. In this case, the purchaser is responsible for including the blendstock in a baseline. 4. Question: For purposes of baseline development, does the operation of the refinery have to be arms length from the import activities? If the refinery ships blendstocks to the leased storage facilities, are these considered to be blendstocks transferred to others? Answer: No, the refinery operation does not need to be separate from the import activities in any way. Such a refiner would file two baselines, one for each type of operation. If blendstocks are shipped to leased storage, this is not considered transferred to others, since the fuel is still under that refiner's control/operation. K. METHOD 3 DATA 1. Question: If winter sulfur data was collected in 1991, but the results were in error, should refiners resample, or can they backcast using reasonable estimates and technical judgement? Answer: This would depend on the individual situation. If the error could be corrected in a simple, straightforward manner, it may be possible to use the data, subject to auditor verification and EPA approval. 2. Question: How does backcasting work? Are the numbers used in the Method 3 calculation the original post-1990 numbers or the backcasted numbers? Answer: The Method 3 equations use the post-1990 parameter values to calculate the adjusted baseline parameter value. Subsequent calculations are based on this adjusted baseline parameter. 3. Question: The RIA/preamble language indicates that Method 3- blendstock data is superior to Method 3-finished gasoline data. Is there a hierarchy in their use, i.e., must Method 3-blendstock data be used first? This would be opposite to the way Methods 1 and 2 are set up. Answer: The regulations specify no hierarchy between the two types of Method 3 data. 4. Question: Butane is exempted from the Method 3-finished gasoline requirements - are oxygenates? Since 1992 gasoline was subject to the oxy\fuel requirements, can oxygenates be exempted unless the change significantly affected fuel parameter values (by X%)? Answer: No. Paragraph 80.91(e)(4) requires both oxygenated and non-oxygenated baselines to be determined, so oxygenate is not exempted. Butane is exempted because of the change in the RVP standard between 1990 and later years. 5. Question: Since Method 3-finished gasoline data cannot be used unless it meets certain requirements, does it have to be backcasted? Answer: Yes. Gasolines must be similar to start with to be able to have confidence in the backcasting adjustment (projecting changes between the future year gasoline and 1990 gasoline). Despite such similarities, however, backcasting is still required. L. TEST METHODS 1. Question: For purposes of developing baselines, EPA has established limits for negligible levels of aromatics, olefins, benzene, sulfur and oxygen in gasoline blending components. If the levels of any of these properties are below these "negligible limits" (which are similar to very low level test reproducibility limits), they may have been considered to be zero in the refinery baseline development. As a result, a refinery may have a baseline parameter value that is below the test tolerance. At these low concentrations, they could be in technical violation of the regulations simply because of testing accuracy. How can this be handled? Answer: If the levels of any of the above mentioned properties are below the "negligible limit," the value should be reported in the baseline petition as the negligible limit value rather than zero. 2. Question: What fuel parameters are acceptable via which test methods? Will all tests be considered industry standard methods? Answer: API has prepared a list of alternate test methods that could be considered industry standard methods for each of the baseline fuel parameters. EPA is currently evaluating this list, but will use it along with other available information to evaluate petitions for the use of alternate test methods. 3. Question: Are adjustments made to parameters for future vs. current test methods? Answer: If a known bias can be shown, parameters should be adjusted based on the test method used. This will only be considered as part of an alternate test method petition. 4. Question: Please clarify what is meant by industry standard. Answer: API has assisted EPA in determining industry standard by preparing a list of alternate test methods in use in 1990. Other test methods may also be considered, but there must be concurrence from the auditor that such test methods were acceptable in 1990 and used correctly. 5. Question: The RIA method for aromatics and olefins doesn't result in agreement with finished gasoline, i.e., the sum of the blendstock parameters doesn't equal the finished gasoline value (>6% delta). Are alternative methods okay? Answer: Alternative test methods may be considered, based on the individual situation as explained in an alternate test method petition. 6. Question: Can a bias/correlation be used to adjust baselines from alternate lab methods to EPA-specified methods to enhance accuracy? That is, since EPA will be comparing new data to old data, old data should be adjusted to be comparable to new data (reg. test method). Answer: If a known bias can be shown, parameters may be adjusted based on the test method used. This will only be considered as part of an alternate test method petition. M. SUMMER/WINTER CLARIFICATION 1. Question: Must the 3 months of summer or winter data be consecutive? Answer: No. 2. Question: In determining summer/winter data, does the actual data go to a given season on a batch basis? Answer: Per the Direct Final Rulemaking, for Method 1, actual per batch data is used define the season of that batch. 3. Question: Is Puerto Rico considered a domestic producer? There are no federal RVP standards there--do they use summer fuels in the winter complex model? Answer: Puerto Rico refineries are considered federal gasoline producers. If their fuel remains seasonally the same throughout the year, they meet the criteria of a refiner marketing in an area with no seasonal changes, and they are only required to provide three months of data. In such a case, all fuels would be evaluated by the seasonal Complex Model which matches their year-round season. If the fuel does change seasonally, then they are required to provide data on both the "summer" fuel and "winter" fuel. 4. Question: Revise the minimum required data from 3 months of summer and 3 months of winter to 12 weeks each. Answer: Per the technical amendments, when using Method 1 actual per batch data, a month is defined as 4 weeks, and therefore the 3 month season is equivalent to 12 weeks. 5. Question: For baseline purposes, how is summer fuel made early in the year (e.g., February) handled? Answer: This situation is clarified by the new season definition given in the technical amendments. For Method 1, actual per batch data, any summer RVP fuel produced in February is considered summer volume and is included in the summer calculations. Otherwise, the determination for the month of February is made based on the volumes of winter RVP and summer RVP fuel produced in that month. If more than 50 percent of the fuel is summer fuel, February is a summer month. 6. Question: Does summer quality gasoline go with the summer calculation? Answer: The technical amendments clarify handling of summer and winter data. For method 1 data, all summer quality gasoline is included in the summer calculation. For method 2 and 3 data, all data from a given month is considered summer or winter, based on the volumes of summer and winter fuel produced. If more than 50 percent of the fuel is summer fuel, that month is considered a summer month. 7. Question: If there is little difference between summer and winter component composition, can refiners use less than the minimum required data? Answer: Based on the baseline data, a petition for less than minimum data would be considered in this situation. 8. Question: Producers in California may not have 3 months of winter data. What do they do? Answer: If three months of winter data are not available, a petition for less than minimum data would be considered. 9. Question: One refiner made 7# RVP gasoline beginning in March in order to begin blending down the vapor pressure in the market, but did not make 9# gasoline until late April. Does the 7# product count as summer gasoline in the baseline calculation (it meets the Federal standard for summer)? Answer: If the fuel meets summer volatility standards, it should be considered summer fuel. This is true in a case where the low RVP gasoline was produced to blend down RVP in preparation for the summer season. 10. Question: Does EPA preclude refiners with batch per batch summer and winter data from using that data? By defining monthly data, more specific data seems to be unacceptable. Answer: The technical amendments allow the use of specific method 1, per batch data in the seasonal calculations. If such data is not available, then the data is defined on a monthly basis. N. LOW PARAMETER VALUES 1. Question: If baseline sulfur or olefins are very low, how is 125% of these numbers determined for compliance? Answer: EPA expects to apply a lower threshold value, based on the lower limits of the test methods used to measure the fuel parameters. For example, if a baseline sulfur parameter value of 3 ppm is given based on a test method with a valid range of 1000 to 5 ppm, the parameter value would be 5 ppm, 125% of that being 6.25 ppm. 2. Question: Many refiners have reported certain 1990 parameter values at a "less than" value. For a refiner who can demonstrate that his parameter values are less than the quantity deemed negligible (i.e. 30 ppm sulfur), may she/he assume the negligible values adopted by EPA? Answer: Yes. O. BLENDERS/IMPORTERS 1. Question: How is imported gasoline, which is then blended, accounted for (i.e., as an import or as a blend)? What if it can be demonstrated that it was used as a blendstock? Answer: Imported gasoline requires a separate baseline. If it can be shown that this fuel was never sold as is, then it can be treated as a domestic blendstock. 2. Question: If a blender or importer has finished gasoline data for all but one parameter, can it develop a baseline value for that parameter or use the statutory value for that parameter? Answer: A blender or importer must have complete method 1 data. If not, that blender's or importer's baseline is the statutory baseline. The statutory baseline cannot be used partially. However, it may be possible to petition for approval of less than minimum data. 3. Question: If a blender or importer has finished gasoline data on 29 of 30 shipments, will EPA allow it to develop its own baseline? Answer: The regulations state that a blender or importer must have method 1 data on every 1990 batch. However, it may be possible to petition for approval of less than minimum data. 4. Question: Who accounts for imported finished gasoline blended with blendstock? Answer: If the blendstock added to the imported finished gasoline is oxygenate, then the blending activity is ignored and the finished gasoline is reported by the importer. If some other blendstock is blended to the imported finished gasoline, e.g., to create a different grade of fuel, then the imported finished gasoline is treated as a blendstock and is reported in the blender's baseline. 5. Question: In 1990, a refinery sent unfinished gasoline to a terminal. Is the baseline of the terminal, or of an entity (the blender) which happens to use the terminal's facilities? If the refinery wants to become a blender, does it get the terminal's baseline? Answer: If the refinery and terminal are owned by the same entity or have a long term agreement, then they are treated as one operation, developing one baseline which includes both. If not, the refinery produced no gasoline in 1990 and thus does not have a baseline, and would have to use the statutory baseline. The baseline applies to the owner of the gasoline, whether that is the terminal operator or an entity using the terminal's facilities. 6. Question: If a terminal uses Method 1 data to establish a baseline, and it received gasoline from a refinery, isn't the gasoline going to be double counted? Answer: If the gasoline received from the refinery leaves the terminal unchanged, it is not included in the terminal baseline. If the fuel is blended with anything other than oxygenate, the fuel must be included in the terminal baseline. 7. Question: Can blenders substitute statutory baseline values for those parameters for which they have no Method 1 data? Answer: No. The statutory baseline values must be used together. If a blender does not have complete method 1 data, they must use the complete statutory baseline. 8. Question: Will EPA allow an importer to use known Method 1 type data for previously tested volume but not for untested volume? Answer: If an importer has complete method 1 data, it must be used. However, complete method 1 data is required on every batch. If such data is not available, the importer defaults to the statutory baseline. 9. Question: If a blender has data on 1 or 2 parameters, should they come up with the rest, or use the statutory baseline? Answer: If a blender has complete method 1 data, it must be used. If not, the blender must comply with the statutory baseline. 10. Question: For blenders that purchased gasoline, raffinate, and ethanol and splash blended them into a truck in 1990 and now wishes to register for blending of conventional gasoline, must he: Use method 1 or use the statutory baseline? Have an outside audit of his baseline? Answer: If complete method 1 data is available, it must be used to develop an individual baseline. Individual baselines must be audited. If complete method 1 data is not available, the blender must comply with the statutory baseline. Using the statutory baseline does not require an outside audit. P. E300/T90, E200/T50 1. Question: Can refiners linearize the distillation curve between points or must refiners curve fit data on every sample? Is linear interpolation using a table of values considered calculating E200 and E300 "direct from the data"? Answer: Refiners should use the most accurate means available to determine values for E200 and E300. If these parameters can be measured directly, such direct measured values should be used. If E200 and E300 must be converted from distillation data, nonlinear curve-fitting would be considered more accurate than linear interpolation since distillation curves are generally non-linear, and therefore should be used. 2. Question: Can refiners use the E300 and E200 conversion equations in lieu of re-graphing the distillation data? Answer: Refiners should use the most accurate means available to determine values for E200 and E300. If these parameters cannot be measured directly, they must be converted from distillation data via curve-fitting. Only if no distillation data exists can the conversion equations be used. 3. Question: For those with graphical data on E200/E300, will EPA allow use of either the equation or graphical for both baseline and compliance? Answer: Graphical approaches to calculating E200 and E300 for all fuels (i.e. both baseline and compliance fuels) can be used when curve-fitting or linear interpolation are not feasible. The conversion equations provided in the regulations can only be used if the only data available to a refiner is T50 and T90 measurements (i.e. no other distillation data is available). 4. Question: In determining E200 and E300, will EPA allow D-86 distillation point averaging of gasoline grade data which is ñ 20øF before graphing? Answer: E200 and E300 values should be calculated separately for each batch of gasoline. If error bars are associated with distillation data for repeat tests on a given batch, the results may be averaged for the purposes of graphing and/or curve-fitting. 5. Question: Does EPA have curves showing the effects of different oxygenate levels on the resulting T50/T90? Answer: The Agency has developed no such curves. However, since the Complex Model requires the use of E200 and E300 instead of T50 and T90, the effects of different oxygenate levels on E200 and E300 can be back-calculated from the resulting dilution of the base gasoline. V. SAMPLING AND TESTING A. SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1. Question: How should storage tanks be sampled for RFG? Answer: Section 80.65(e)(1) of the regulations states that, "Each refiner or importer shall determine the value of each of the [reformulated gasoline] properties for each batch of reformulated gasoline it produces or imports prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility, by collecting and analyzing a representative sample of gasoline taken from the batch." "Batch of reformulated gasoline" is defined at  80.2(gg) as "a quantity of reformulated gasoline which is homogeneous with regard to those properties which are specified for reformulated gasoline certification." Samples that accurately represent batch properties are necessary in order to determine if RFG standards are being met. Therefore, the first concern of batch sampling is to determine whether or not the tank contents are homogeneous. Upper, middle, and lower gravity analyses constitute an appropriate determination of homogeneity. Where it is found that tank contents are not homogeneous, further mixing should be performed before collecting a representative sample for reformulated gasoline analysis. Product stratification should also be avoided downstream of refiner or importer facilities, because samples must meet the downstream "per gallon" standards, and stratification could result in a portion of the gasoline in a tank being out of compliance with "per gallon" standards. For further discussion of homogeneity, see the Independent Sampling and Testing Section, Question 20. Storage tanks should be sampled according to 40 CFR part 80, Appendix D, using the method that will best represent the contents of the tank or batch. EPA expects the refiner, importer, or independent laboratory to use its best professional judgment in determining the procedures that are necessary in order to best represent a given batch within the guidelines of Appendix D. EPA preference for sampling storage tanks is a "running" or "all-levels" sample collected from an un-confined (no gauge tube) roof port. A "running" or "all levels" sample collected from a perforated gauge tube is the next best choice. In no case should a sample be collected from a solid gauge tube. EPA prefers to collect "running" samples as opposed to "all- levels" samples for two reasons. First, assuming both "all- levels and "running" samples are collected with uniform lowering and retrieval rates, the "running" procedure achieves better representation of the tank contents than the "all-levels" procedure. This occurs because with the "running" procedure, one half of the sample is collected when lowering the apparatus, and the column sampled is undisturbed at that point. The second reason is that "running" samples are easier to collect than "all- levels" samples because the sample collector is not required to stopper the sample bottle. If a tank cannot be bottle sampled from the top, then tap sampling is an appropriate substitute. For best representation, a single composite should be collected by proportionally filling the sample container from all available taps. If homogeneity is well documented, the entire sample may be collected from a single tap. If a refinery or importer tank has no roof sampling port or sampling taps, then a pipeline sample is the only other sampling means that is possible. Pipeline sampling is discussed in Question 2 of this section. In the case of downstream quality assurance sampling from a storage tank which does not have a roof sampling port or taps for sampling, a sample collected from a truck or barge that has just loaded from that tank is marginally acceptable. The truck or barge should be completely empty before loading, and a "running" sample should be collected from the truck or barge compartment. Appendix D contains general instructions and precautions that must be followed when choosing sampling equipment and containers, and when collecting samples. RVP is the most sensitive reformulated gasoline property, relative to sampling, and therefore precautions to prevent loss of "light ends" must be followed carefully. Also, sampling containers must be clean and rinsed well with the gasoline to be sampled in order that the sample is not contaminated, for example, with trace amounts of heavy metals. When collecting tap samples, the tap and connecting piping must be completely flushed, and the sample container must be bottom filled strictly according to the procedure outlined in Appendix D. Always label the container as soon as possible, and note the location of the sampling point and method of collection. 2. Question: Must sampling be performed only from tank storage, or will pipeline sampling qualify? Answer: For a refiner, pipeline sampling is appropriate when performed according to the procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 80, Appendix D. Appendix D, section 11.4 describes how to collect a continuous or intermittent flow proportional sample, using automatic sampling apparatus, of an entire batch. Under  80.65(e), however, refiners must have test results in hand before shipping RFG. Therefore the only way a refiner could conduct pipeline sampling of an RFG batch, would be to collect the entire batch in tankage subsequent to the pipeline sampling and prior to shipping the batch out of the refinery, and to hold the batch in that tank until the requisite test results are complete. In the case of downstream quality assurance sampling, pipeline sampling as outlined in Appendix D is appropriate, and tank collection is not an issue. In the case of an independent laboratory collecting a pipeline sample at a refinery or import facility in fulfillment of the independent sampling and testing requirement, the automatic sampling equipment must be calibrated and operated by the independent laboratory during the entire period of time the pipeline sample is collected. See the Independent Sampling and Testing Section, Question 18, for further discussion of pipeline sampling and in-line blending. 3. Question: Appendix D of the fuels regulations specifies that only taps extending at least 3 feet inside a tank are suitable for sampling. Is this requirement applicable for gasoline sampling? Is it necessary to secure EPA's acceptance before collecting samples from taps without such "stingers?" Answer: Appendix D was adopted from ASTM D 4057, "Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products." As such, it covers a broad range of materials with various properties. EPA has found that representative samples of gasoline (representative of the given tap height) may be collected for RVP analysis without the use of any "stinger." It is also expected that sampling for other reformulated gasoline properties will not be affected by the absence of "stingers." However, Appendix D, section 11.3, "Tap Sampling," states, "The tank should be equipped with at least three sampling taps... extending at least three feet inside the tank shell." Section 11.1 provides for the use of alternative procedures (such as sampling from taps without "stingers"), "if a mutually satisfactory agreement has been reached by the party involved and EPA and such agreement has been put in writing and signed by authorized officials." EPA advises that tap sampling from taps without stingers is appropriate for compliance with the reformulated gasoline regulations, however, a written agreement between EPA and the regulated party should be executed in order to fulfill the regulatory requirements of Appendix D. Such an agreement may be initiated by writing to: Marc Hillson Chief, Mobile Source Enforcement Branch Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance US EPA (6406J) Washington, DC 20460 (202) 233-9060 The agreement request should include an explanation of the need for alternative procedures and a storage tank description. 4. Question: Are samples collected at a retail outlet dispenser acceptable for quality assurance testing requirements? Answer: Yes, when sampling from retail outlets, nozzle samples should be collected according to the procedure specified in 40 CFR part 80, Appendix D, section 11.5. 5. Question: Under what environmental conditions must RFG samples be shipped and stored? Answer: The sample container specifications outlined in 40 CFR part 80, Appendix D, limit the materials and closure systems for sample containers, such that RFG properties will be maintained under normal conditions encountered during shipping (by air or ground), and long term storage at room temperature and pressure. Refrigerated storage is appropriate if desired. Refrigeration is not necessary, however, as long as temperature extremes (less than 0 degrees F, and greater than 120 degrees F) are avoided during storage. 6. Question: Should separate samples be collected for RVP analysis? Answer: One sample may be used for all of the RFG parameters that need to be determined, including RVP. However, because sample handling in the laboratory may affect various reformulated gasoline properties, such as RVP, analyses must be performed in order of sensitivity. As long as RVP is the first laboratory analysis performed on each sample, there is no need to collect a separate sample just for the RVP measurement. 7. Question: Please comment on how laboratories can discard erroneous test results. Also, please comment on the example of a test result which is clearly an outlier, but without a discernible cause. Answer: Suspect test results should not be discarded, but should be treated according to the laboratory's quality assurance plan covering the test method. At a minimum, the plan should include steps to document that a result is suspect, the reason the result is considered suspect, the results for the sample that are not considered suspect, the steps that were taken to obtain the non-suspect result, and the steps that were taken to assure quality of future analyses. Reporting requirements (to EPA) only include submission of the final result. However, documentation of erroneous results should be kept for auditing purposes. An outlier which can be clearly identified through statistical means, may be discarded when allowed by the laboratory's quality assurance plan. These steps must be clearly documented as explained above. EPA will not accept retesting on a regular basis as a means to achieve favorable test results through test to test variation. Also, it is not considered appropriate to only retest unusually high (or unfavorable in the case of properties like oxygen content) test results. An outlier in the favorable direction should also be investigated. B. TEST METHODS 1. Question: Please confirm that the regulations require that the test methods listed in  80.46 must be used for certifying both conventional and reformulated gasoline by the refiner or importer and no other methods are acceptable. Answer: Confirmed. However, the regulations provide for the use of optional alternative methods for oxygen and aromatics until January 1, 1997. See  80.46 (f)(3) and (g)(9). The other exception to the regulatory test method requirements pertains to California gasoline.  80.81(h) states that, for purposes of the batch sampling and analysis requirements of  80.65(e), a refiner of California gasoline may use a sampling and/or analysis methodology prescribed in the Title 13, California Code of Regulations, sections 2260 et seq., in lieu of the regulatory methods for sampling and testing California gasoline. 2. Question: For conventional gasolines, can a refiner use the same methods that were accepted for baseline determination for compliance testing if they are correlated to the regulatory methods? Answer: No. The methods specified in  80.46 must be used for conventional gasoline. See  101(i)(1)(i)(A). 3. Question: The regulations dictate specific equipment and methodologies for reformulated gasoline analysis. We recommend that the EPA only specify the precision or level of accuracy it requires and let the chemist or laboratory decide which method and type of equipment they will employ for the required analysis. Answer: Although this may be possible at some time in the future, at the present time, tolerance issues dictate that we specify equipment and method. 4. Question: The preamble states: "As with all parameters, there will be only one regulatory distillation test method. However, other suitable methods may be used for defense purposes (but not to meet mandatory testing requirements) as long as they are properly correlated with the regulatory test method." Does this mean that for testing downstream of the refinery or import facility for quality assurances purposes, other methods may be used by a refiner for defense assuming they are correlated to the regulatory method? Answer: Yes. 5. Question: Since other ASTM methods are being developed that would allow the use of one analyzer to obtain benzene, aromatics, and olefins, will EPA allow any of these new methods to be used for gasoline certification and/or a refiners's defense? Answer: They are not allowed for the determination of properties of reformulated, or conventional gasoline at the refinery, but, as indicated above, they may be used downstream for quality assurance. In the future, EPA may consider amending the regulations to allow for new methods as it did for RVP. 6. Question: Can a refiner certify finished gasoline using method D-4294 or D-5354-94 (Antek Oxidation-UV Fluorescence Method) instead of D-2622 for sulfur? Will EPA accept other methods for measuring total aromatics content such as using mid- IR instruments? Answer: No. Again, alternate methods are not allowed for certification of the gasoline by the refiner or importer, with the exception of alternatives for oxygen/oxygenates and aromatics until January 1, 1997, but they can be used for downstream quality assurance testing if correlated with the regulatory method. 7. Question: Will foreign refiners be allowed to use a sulfur test other than D-2622 in order to verify specification? Answer: Foreign refiners are not regulated parties under the reformulated gasoline regulations, issued on 12/15/93. Importers of foreign gasoline are required to test the gasoline using the regulatory methods, including the regulatory test method for sulfur. 8. Question: What is the definition of sulfur in gasoline? Answer: The sulfur portion of all sulfur forms and compounds. 9. Question: We interpret the following with respect to sampling and testing at the terminal level: a. That oxygenate blenders are required to use the same methodology for oxygen testing as prescribed for refiners under  80.46. b. That for quality assurance purposes, a terminal may use alternate methods if such methods are correlated with those prescribed under  80.46. Answer: Oxygenate blenders are required to use the methodology for oxygen testing prescribed under  80.46. This is true both for the oxygenate blenders who blend in terminal tanks, under  80.69(c), and for those who splash blend in trucks, under  80.69(e). In the case of truck blending, any quality assurance testing beyond that specified under  80.69(e) could use alternative test methods, however. 10. Question: A procedure has been outlined by the EPA for the certification of oxygen content by meter for the oxyfuel program. Can this method be used for certification of oxygen content in reformulated gasoline? Is an exemption for in-line blending required? Answer: No. The regulatory method for oxygen testing, or the approved temporary method discussed in question 39, must be used for certification of reformulated gasoline produced at the refinery and also for blending oxygenate with RBOB. For further discussion of the exemption see the In-line Blending Section. 11. Question: Regarding oxygen and oxygenate content analysis by the OFID method,  80.46(g)(1)(ii) states "It is applicable to individual organic oxygenated compounds ... in gasoline having a final boiling point not greater than 220 C (428 F). Samples above this range should be diluted to fall within the specified range." ASTM allows a final boiling point of 437 F. A procedure should be available that allows handling this boiling range. Failing that, what procedures are acceptable for diluting that will not distort other parameters? Answer: Dilution refers to oxygen concentration, not to boiling point. The final boiling point referred to in  80.46(g)(1)(ii) was mistakenly specified as 220 øC, rather than the correct value of 225 øC that should be used. Nevertheless, we believe that essentially all finished fuels will have end points below 220 øC, especially in reformulated fuels controlled for E300. 12. Question: Confirm that ASTM method D-1319, Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption (FIA) can be used to determine aromatic and olefin levels until January 1, 1997. Answer: Yes, the current version, ASTM method D-1319-93, is the regulatory method for olefins and may be used as an alternate for aromatics until January 1, 1997. For aromatics, it must also be correlated to the GC-MS method. Correlation to another laboratory's GC-MS is acceptable. Each D-1319 analysis system must show correlation since the method is operator dependent. 13. Question: Will EPA cooperate in round robin efforts to provide correlation tests for users of method ASTM D-1319-93 for total aromatics? Answer: EPA will participate as we are able. Since we are unable to make open commitments of this type, labs should make arrangements with local labs for routine correlation testing. 14. Question: The final RFG rule specifies the use of EPA's GC- MS method for measuring aromatics, but allows the use of ASTM method D 1319-93 for aromatics until January 1, 1997 for the purpose of meeting the industry requirements under section 80.65(e), provided that it is correlated with EPA's GC-MS method. According to the preamble of the final rule, This two year transition period should provide sufficient time for industry to purchase equipment and become familiar with the new method. In addition, during this time period, it is anticipated that EPA and industry can discuss any problems that might arise as a result of the new method being promulgated. Will EPA provide further guidance as to how a correlation with the GC-MS method can be developed at this time? Since EPA's GC- MS method is not fully defined, refiners cannot reasonably develop a correlation with D 1319. Without this correlation, refiners will have no choice but to purchase new equipment, install it, and ensure that it is operating properly. It is highly unlikely that all this can be accomplished by September when some refiners will have to begin RFG production. Given these difficulties, can refiners use the ASTM D 1319 method without correlation? Answer: Prior to 1993, ASTM 1319 specifically excluded analysis of aromatics in the presence of oxygenates which, of course, is needed for RFG analysis. ASTM 1319 was edited in 1993 to accommodate gasoline with oxygenates; however, EPA still believes this method is inferior for long term use because of the very high reproducibility associated with it and because the procedure is highly operator-dependent. Nevertheless, given the time constraints, EPA has decided to allow this method IF correlated with the EPA method discussed below. EPA prescribed a method in the RFG regulations referred to as the GC-MS method (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry). This method has much better repeatability and is much more accurate. The method, as described in the regulations is not defined as a step-by-step procedure but, instead, allows flexibility so that companies can tailor the procedures to their lab. In the regulations, specified quality control procedures are detailed so as to assure adequacy of these tailored methods. Correlation with this method by those using ASTM D 1319 will produce results far less operator-dependent. EPA believes that the regulatory method is sufficiently defined. Furthermore, there is no requirement that correlation with the EPA method be shown internally within a lab and, therefore, correlation can be accomplished with other labs utilizing the EPA method. In fact, EPA's lab has already correlated the EPA method internally with ASTM D 1319. Thus, purchase of new equipment by September is not required. Additionally, EPA believes most labs already have the needed equipment (even if not previously used for this purpose). EPA's lab and other labs with this equipment should supply sufficient correlation opportunities. 15. Question: Since a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer (GC- MS) must be used in the measurement of total aromatic content, including benzene, why is there a separate GC method, ASTM method D-3606-92, for benzene? Answer: D-3606-92 is specified as the single test method for benzene because many testers do not plan to use GC-MS instruments immediately. The FIA method, an alternative to using a GC-MS, can be used to measure total aromatics until January 1, 1997. 16. Question: When a GC-MS is used for analyzing total aromatics, a benzene number will be produced that is different from that produced by method D-3606-92. Which result should be used? Answer: The result from method D-3606-92 must be used. 17. Question: When measuring total aromatics using a GC-MS, can either method A or method B be used, or must both be used? Answer: Either method A or method B may be used. 18. Question: In the GC-MS test for aromatics, why must the calibration curves be forced through the origin? All mass spectrometers will show some noise at a zero concentration level. Answer: Calibration curves are not required to be forced through the origins. The reference in the regulation is a suggested method. 19. Question: Rather than bracketing all components of a sample during the GC-MS analysis in section 80.46(f), can a laboratory use linearity curves for the components? Answer: Yes. We only require that the calibration standards bracket the concentration range of samples. You may use the linearity curves when analyzing the unknowns. 20. Question: Currently, the EPA's GC/MS method for aromatics does not work (poor repeatability precision on successive sample injections.) Should refiners spend $100,000 each for GC/MS instruments before the EPA method development work is complete? What is the likelihood of the EPA later rejecting the GC/MS method altogether? Answer: When EPA developed the GC/MS method for the determination of aromatics in gasoline, samples that were run side by side after the method was completed showed that the precision of GC/MS was considerably better than D-1319. This study was undertaken several years ago, and involved some thirty or so samples, all analyzed without any change to the calibration. Currently, ASTM is in the round robin phase of development of their version of the GC/MS method. The details of this method have been coordinated with EPA, and we believe they are consistent with the regulatory requirements. Evaluations of the need for the use of secondary and tertiary ions for compound identification during this round robin will provide EPA with some hard evidence for evaluating whether this technique will be permitted. Should secondary and tertiary ion use prove unnecessary, it is possible that instruments costing about $35K will be suitable. In any case, as discussed above, the regulations provide an optional alternate method until 1/1/97. After that time, the GC/MS analysis for aromatics will be the only allowed method for this property. Should the ASTM GC-MS method prove satisfactory, EPA will accept its use. 21. Question: When method A is used to quantify the total aromatic hydrocarbons, should the measurement include only the analytes listed in the method? Answer: No. All aromatics must be measured. The list is a sample calibration. Uncalibrated peaks are estimated from the nearest calibrated peak with the same mass. 22. Question: The chromatographic conditions listed in the total aromatic method are loosely defined. Does this mean that the laboratory is free to use any type of column and chromatographic conditions as long as adequate separation and the appropriate QA/QC parameters are met? Answer: Yes. 23. Question: Who is the EPA contact person for questions about the procedure for measuring total aromatics with a GC-MS? Answer: Contact Carl Scarbro (313) 668-4209 or Bruce Kolowich (313) 668-4582. 24. Question: Does EPA know where the industry can purchase a standard with the list of aromatic analytes shown in method A? Answer: No. 25. Question: There are two typing errors in the analyte list in method A. 1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene and 2-ethyl-1,3- dimethylbenzene each appear twice in the list, each with a different retention time. What analytes have been mislabeled? Answer: Corrections have been made to the table in section 80.46 and published in the technical amendments. The number of compounds has been increased from 32 to 34 and several of the specifications have been changed. 26. Question: Why is the Digital Herzog excluded as a compliance test acceptable for RVP measurement under section 80.46? Answer: Method 3 was selected for RVP measurement because it has been shown to have much greater precision than the Digital Herzog. 27. Question: If the Method 3 RVP analyzer fails, can a gauge RVP reading be used to make a shipment and an RVP determined by an outside laboratory later? Answer: No. 28. Question: Are there any plans for laboratory certifications? Answer: No. It is the responsibility of each refiner to ensure the quality of the independent laboratory it is using. 29. Question: Are there any temperature requirements for the shipping of samples? Answer: No. 30. Question: When handling samples to be analyzed for oxygen and oxygenate content, section 80.46(g), what are conditions for bringing the samples to room temperature? Answer: There are no conditions other than to have the sample at room temperature before beginning any volumetric measurement for the analysis. 31. Question: When preparing samples for oxygen analysis according to section 80.46(g), isn't there a risk of losing volatile components when allowing samples to come to room temperature? Answer: The fractional loss during "limited" sample handling is not measurable for these properties. 32. Question: Are the samples in section 80.46(g) oxygen analysis brought to room temperature in an autosampler or similar device? Answer: No. 33. Question: Do the sample handling requirements for oxygen and oxygenate content apply to the analysis of other fuel parameters. Answer: The sample handling procedures must comply with the requirements of their individual testing methods. Aromatics, oxygen and oxygenate, benzene, olefins, and sulfur samples should be at room temperature, although aromatics samples for GC-MS analysis are measured gravimetrically and are not very temperature sensitive. Distillation samples require 55 øF - 65 øF. Vapor pressure requires 32 øF - 40 øF. 34. Question: Regarding distillation testing, in the preamble and in  8046(d)(2), it is noted that the repeatability and reproducibility figures in Table 9 of ASTM D-86-90 are incorrect and cannot be used. According to ASTM, Table 9 in ASTM D-86-93 contains the correct figures. Please confirm that it is acceptable to use ASTM D-86-93 as the regulatory method or to use ASTM D-86-90 and substitute Table 9 from ASTM D- 86-93. Answer: Refiners and importers must use D-86-90, except that Table 9 from the 1990 version of that method may not be used. Parties may use Table 9, the reproducibility values, from the 1993 version of this method, ASTM D-86-93. 35. Question: With the industry average level for sulfur, has the EPA seen any problems with their OFID instrumentation? The understanding is that small levels of sulfur kills the catalyst used in this application resulting in much downtime and a calibration drift over time. Answer: We have not experienced this problem. We believe the latest catalysts are very sturdy. 36. Question: Section 80.101(i) provides a composite sampling and testing option to determine conventional gasoline properties. One provision to this option is that composite samples will need to be prepared as described in  80.91(d)(4)(iii). Part B of this procedure requires that "properties of the retained samples shall be adjusted for loss of butane by comparing the RVP measured right after blending with the RVP determined at the time that the supplemental properties are measured." No further details are given. Please detail how this process would work. Answer: The best process would be to blend the fuel in such a way that butane loss is avoided. Practically, this means having all fuel samples at or below 32 øF before their containers are opened for blending. In practice, however, some loss may occur. Three assumptions are made in the adjustment procedure. The first of these is that RVP blends linearly with volume. This is not true if ethanol fuels are included, so ethanol- blended fuels must be treated separately. If ethanol-blended fuels are to be composited, a separate composite must be maintained for them. If different ethanol-blended fuels are to be produced, such as 2.0% oxygen and 3.7% oxygen fuels, these must be composited separately. In operation, the maintenance of several composites may be necessary, one containing all hydrocarbon fuels, one with 2.0% oxygen from ethanol, and one with 2.0% oxygen from ethanol, and one with 3.7% oxygen from ethanol. In general, any single ethanol fuel composite may span a range of up to 0.5% oxygen. In other words, samples containing from 3.3% to 3.8% oxygen may be composited. If other samples are produced, they will require a separate composite. If other samples are produced, they will require a separate composite. Since fuels containing MTBE and similar ethers do not affect RVP as dramatically, they may be combined with the hydrocarbon fuels. The second assumption is that all the loss in RVP observed is due to evaporation of n-butane. In reality, this is not true, as virtually all of the isobutane and some of the pentanes will be lost, but considering the difficulty of ascertaining the exact species lost, this is a reasonable approximation. The final assumption is that the RVP of n-butane is 51.6 psi. This value was taken from a Phillips Petroleum Reference Data circular (bulletin 521). The technique for producing a composite sample would require that additions to any composite be of consistent volume, 100 ml for example. Using this method, the final expected RVP of the composite would be the simple arithmetic average of the included samples. If the measured RVP of the composite is different than this calculated value, any measured property should be adjusted for the volume loss due to butane. This is done by calculating the quantity of n-butane required to bring the composite its original RVP. As an example, the following calculation would result from a composite of 80 samples at 100 ml each. The calculated average RVP should be 7.20 psi, and the measured RVP of the composite is 6.60 psi. 6.60(8000 - z) + 51.6(z) = 7.20(8000) (I) 52,800 - 6.60(z) + 51.6(z) = 57,600 (II) 45.0(z) = 4,800 (III) z = 106.7 (IV) 106.7/(8000 - 106.7) = 1.35% (V) This means that 1.35% volume-per cent butane must be added to bring the composite sample to its original RVP. This is the volume correction that must be applied to all other measured properties. For intrinsic properties, such as the concentration of benzene, this correction is applied as a ratio, so that a measured concentration of benzene in the composite would be reduced by 1.35%. As an example of this, where the measured benzene concentration is 0.925%: 0.925(8000 - 106.7) = (b)8000 (VI) b = 0.913 (VII) The corrected benzene concentration is 0.913% by volume. This type of correction would also be applied to oxygenate, sulfur, aromatic, and olefin measurements. Distillation measurements require a different type of correction, since any evaporative loss due to butane would affect the initial portion of the distillation curve. In fact, during the test, there is a loss, and this loss is assumed to be due to the inability of the still to recover butane. The most appropriate way to apply the correction here would be to begin the distillation with only 98.6 ml if fuel. The result will be a larger loss. This measured loss will be the correction for butane loss, and will yield corrected values for the distillation. If E200 and E300 values are needed, they are taken from the corrected curve. 37. Question: Conventional gasoline refineries meeting simple model average standards must monitor their T90, olefins, sulfur and exhaust benzene (function of benzene and aromatics) results. Since RVP is not required for anti-dumping compliance in the simple model case will the butane adjustment step be required for composite samples at simple model refineries? Answer: No. The adjustment may be done but is not required. 38. Question: In general, how are the properties determined for blendstocks that fall outside the scope of the regulatory methods? Answer: Some gasoline blendstocks have properties that cause them to fall outside the scope of the regulatory methods. If properties need to be obtained for these blendstocks, they must be determined by a different route, that being an interpolation based on the measured properties of the gasoline before and after the blendstock is added. For example, to determine the RVP of a blendstock, an appropriate equation would be: 7.60(100,000) + r(5,000) = 7.30(105,000) (I) 760,000 + r(5,000) = 766,500 (II) r(5,000) = 6,500 (III) r = 1.30 (IV) In this example, where the initial fuel sample was 100,000 barrels with an RVP of 7.60, the blendstock volume was 5,000 barrels, and the RVP of the final blend was 7.30, the calculated RVP of the blendstock would be 1.30. 39. Question: The EPA allows ASTM D-4815-93 to be used for determination of oxygenates prior to 1/1/97 if it is correlated to the GC-OFID method identified in  80.46(g)(1). Does the EPA know of any such correlations that have been developed for use by the industry? Answer: Because D-4815 is such an operator dependent method, each correlation must be developed individually. A universal correlation equation is not acceptable. Correlation of a laboratory's D-4815 instrument can be shown through participation in a "round-robin" program that includes a GC-OFID or by correlation to any other laboratory's GC-OFID. 40. Question: What is the frequency of correlation samples for laboratories to remain qualified for RFG testing. Answer: There is no definition of "qualified" laboratories. The principle requirement for correlation relates to the use of one of the alternate methods allowed until January 1, 1997. When one elects to use ASTM D-1319 for measuring aromatic content in gasoline, or ASTM D-4815 for the measurement of oxygenates in gasoline, correlation must be established to the regulatory methods. The principle reason for this requirement is the operator-dependent nature of D-1319 and D-4815. This operator dependence is echoed by the relatively large reproducibility of these methods. Because of the operator dependence, each facility (or in some cases, each operator) must establish its own correlation to the appropriate regulatory method. This correlation need not be established via an internal route, participation in an outside program or ongoing exchange group may be sufficient. The actual number of tests performed will depend on the quality of the correlation. In general, some initial group of tests will be necessary, perhaps from 15 to 30, to establish the nature of one's correlation. If both methods report identical numbers, this may be enough, and all that would be required in addition would be a few samples a month to verify that no shift has occurred. If this initial effort describes a bias, considerably more effort may be necessary. The object would be either to describe the bias via a correlation equation, or eliminate the bias via improvement (or alteration) in the technique of the operator. The effort required will be determined by the difficulty in eliminating the bias or producing the equation. Following this, some number of samples should be run on an ongoing basis, to confirm that no shifts have occurred. Again, this number will be determined by the individual's reasonable confidence in his established correlation. VI. REQUIREMENTS A. RFG GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Question: What constitutes a batch of reformulated gasoline? What method should be used by refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders for determining the volume of a batch of reformulated gasoline? What method should be used by independent laboratories? If a refiner is to report the tank volume at the time that a sample is collected, this may result in double- counting because the tank would not be emptied before blendstocks are added to produce the next batch. For example, suppose the volume in a tank is 100,000 barrels for batch 1, which is sampled and tested. Subsequently, there are two shipments from this tank, a 50,000 barrel shipment and a 20,000 barrel shipment, leaving 30,000 barrels in the tank. The tank is then blended up to 90,000 barrels for batch 2, which is sampled and tested, with subsequent shipments of 28,000 barrels and 44,000 barrels. Should the reported volume for batch 1 be 100,000 barrels or 70,000 barrels? Should the reported volume for batch 2 be 90,000 barrels or 72,000 barrels? Answer: Section 80.2(gg) defines a "batch of reformulated gasoline" as "a quantity of reformulated gasoline which is homogeneous with regard to those properties which are specified for reformulated gasoline certification." The reported volume for the batch should be the volume of reformulated gasoline shipped out of the refinery or import facility after the gasoline has been blended and sampled. In the example above, the volume for batch 1 would be 70,000 (50,000 + 20,000) barrels and the volume for batch 2 would be 72,000 (28,000 + 44,000) barrels. For a discussion of the method for determining batch size by independent laboratories, see Independent Sampling/Testing Section, Question 19. 2. Question: During tank transfers and other operations necessary to accommodate pipeline schedules, barrels of untested, uncertified reformulated gasoline may be mixed with barrels of previously certified product that have been included in the refiner's averaging calculations. If the total volume of mixed product is tested, certified, and booked, then double-accounting of the previously certified barrels will result. Can a procedure for un-booking of the quality and quantity of the previously certified product be used to avoid this double accounting problem? Answer: If, as discussed above, batch volumes are reported based on shipments out of the refinery or import facility (and averaging calculations are based on these volumes), a volume of previously tested reformulated gasoline remaining in a tank, which is then mixed with untested gasoline, would be included in the volume reported (i.e., the next shipment out of the refinery from that tank) and double counting will not occur. 3. Question: Our practice is for each tank to be a batch and we test that tank once even though it may be used to supply several distribution systems. If several tanks are required to make up a pipeline tender, each tank is tested separately and the separate certificates of analysis provided to the pipeline. Will this practice still be acceptable? Answer: Yes. Moreover, EPA believes that each separate tank of produced gasoline must be a separate batch, and that gasoline produced and contained in more than one tank may not be treated as a single batch. 4. Question: If operations necessitate a transfer between two tanks which are both certified reformulated gasoline, does the receiving tank have to be retested and certified? Answer: Assuming that the receiving tank contains certified RFG, such a transfer would be permissible without retesting and recertification. 5. Question: To blend gasoline from various components, must we be registered as a refiner? Answer: Yes. Registration is required for any refiner, importer, and oxygenate blender that produces any reformulated gasoline, and any refiner and importer of conventional gasoline. ( 80.76(a) and 80.103.) Section 80.65(d)(3) requires each batch of reformulated or conventional gasoline or RBOB produced or imported at each refinery or import facility, or each batch of blendstock produced and sold or transferred if blendstock accounting is required under  80.101(d)(1)(ii), to be assigned a "batch number" which includes (among other information) the refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender registration number and the EPA assigned facility registration number. 6. Question: May a company have multiple designations? That is, may a company register as a refiner, an importer, a blender, and a marketer since aspects of our business cover all designations? Does each company have a designation, or can a company choose a designation that best fits the operations of a given facility? Answer: As discussed above, a company is required to register as a refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender if it produces any reformulated gasoline. A company is also required to register as a refiner or importer if it produces conventional gasoline. A party whose business covers more than one of these designations must register for each designation. There is no registration requirement for a marketer (called a distributor under the RFG regulations). 7. Question: Is a foreign refiner with a domestic arm required to follow the same procedures as U.S. refiners with regard to the reformulated gasoline it produces? Are they subject to the same anti-dumping regulations? Must these foreign refiners meet the U.S. standard baseline, or can they use their own? Answer: Foreign refiners are not regulated under the RFG program, and the anti-dumping requirements do not apply to foreign refiners. Gasoline produced at foreign refineries and imported into the U.S. is regulated through the importer, however, who is subject to all of the requirements under the reformulated and anti-dumping regulations. The baseline for an importer is determined under  80.91(b)(4). In most cases we expect this to be the Clean Air Act baseline. EPA has proposed a modification of this provision for RFG and a decision on this proposal is expected by late summer 1994. In a case where a foreign refiner sells to another party who then imports the gasoline into the U.S., the foreign refiner is not subject to the regulations but the importer is. 8. Question: Most pipeline companies conduct an internal pipe corrosion control program pursuant to DOT regulations. These programs generally involve the injection of corrosion inhibitor additives into the petroleum products (gasoline, distillate, etc.) being transported by the pipeline company. Does this injection of corrosion inhibitors result in the pipeline company coming under the reformulated gasoline regulations' definition of a (blender) refiner? Answer: No. EPA does not view the blending of de minimis amounts of additives, such as detergents or corrosion prevention additives, into finished RFG to be the "production" of gasoline, and does not believe such blending will cause resulting gasoline to fail to meet RFG standards. 9. Question: Terminal blending of mid-grade gasoline (using a premium and regular mix) is common practice in the industry. We interpret that terminals engaging in this practice are not considered refiners under the regulations based on the comment "that the EPA believes that multi-grade mixing of RFG will result in gasoline that meets all reformulated standards." (Response to comments, fungibility section). We request clarification. Answer: Parties who only mix different grades of certified reformulated gasoline will not be considered refiners or blenders under the reformulated gasoline regulations. Similarly, parties who mix different grades of conventional gasoline which were produced in compliance with the anti-dumping regulations will not be considered refiners under the regulations. 10. Question: If a refiner produces RBOB and sends it down a proprietary line to his own terminal where it is blended with ethanol, is the refiner required to register as an oxygenate blender for this terminal oxygenate blending operation? Answer: Yes. 11. Question: Is the required registration of blenders limited only to those parties who hold title to the product? Answer: No. Any blender that fits the definition of an oxygenate blender under the regulations is subject to the requirements for oxygenate blenders, including the registration requirements at  80.76. An oxygenate blender is defined at  80.2(mm) as any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an oxygenate blending facility, or who owns or controls the blendstock or gasoline used or the gasoline produced at an oxygenate blending facility. Similarly, any blender that fits the definition of a refiner is subject to the requirements for refiners, including the registration requirements at  80.76. A refiner is defined at  80.2(i) as any person who owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises a refinery (i.e., a plant at which gasoline is produced.) If, for a particular operation, the definition of oxygenate blender or refiner applies to more than one party, the parties may agree that one party will report. However, each party may be liable for noncompliance with applicable regulations. 12. Question: Who is the oxygenate blender in a situation where a petroleum marketer who holds title to the gasoline engages a common carrier tank truck company to transport the gasoline, and, upon the completion of loading the truck, but before leaving the marketer's facility, oxygenate owned by the marketer is added to the gasoline per instructions by the marketer? Who is the oxygenate blender in a similar situation, except that the blending operation is performed by the carrier at a site removed from the marketer's facility and/or operational control? Answer: In both scenarios, since the marketer owns the gasoline and the carrier owns the oxygenate blending facility (i.e., the truck in which blending takes place) and executes the blending operation, both parties fit the definition of an oxygenate blender, as found in  80.2 of the regulations. Both parties, therefore, are independently responsible for the completion of all oxy blending requirements, such as meeting standards, sampling and testing, recordkeeping and reporting. However, these oxy blending requirements must be met only once for any oxy blending operation. As a result, if the requirements are properly accomplished by one oxy blender for a particular blending operation, EPA will consider the requirement to have been accomplished by each person who meets the definition of oxy blender for that operation. Normally, the party that holds title to the fuel would be responsible for reporting the batch to EPA. 13. Question: Section 80.65(e) lists properties that product must be tested for before shipment. Some of these do not have standards in the simple model. Is it necessary to test, and ultimately report, those parameters not required for the simple model? Is reporting of all tests required or just those required for the simple model? Answer: Refiners and importers must test for each parameter listed in  80.65(e) for RFG certified under the simple model with the exception of T-50 and, in the case of non-VOC controlled RFG, RVP. However, in the case of simple model RFG, refiners must only have received test results prior to shipment for oxygen and benzene, and RVP in the case of VOC-controlled RFG. 14. Question: When certifying a batch of gasoline, which property data should be used (analyzer, lab, calculated, etc.)? Answer: When certifying a batch of gasoline, a sample that is representative of the entire batch must be taken and tested according to the regulatory test methods specified in  80.46 of the regulations. For information on independent sampling and testing, please see Independent Sampling and Testing Section. In addition, for information on what property data to use when certifying RFG when using a computer-controlled in-line blending operation that has been exempted from the independent sampling and testing requirements, see In-Line Blending Section. 15. Question: What are the sampling and testing requirements for terminal blenders (barges, trucks and pipelines)? Answer: If the facility's activities fit the definition of a refiner, it would have to sample and test each batch of gasoline as required under  80.65(e). If its activities fit the definition of an oxygenate blender, it would have to fulfill the appropriate testing requirements under  80.69. 16. Question: What are the compliance requirements for pipelines? Answer: Pipelines, unless they engage in blending gasoline, generally fit the definition of carrier under the regulations. As such, pipelines must ensure that the quality of the gasoline is not changed and provide product transfer documents. In order to establish a defense to a presumptive violation, pipelines should also conduct quality control programs. For further information on pipeline compliance requirements, see Question 29 of this section. 17. Question: What are the requirements for retailers in the covered areas? Answer: Retailers are subject to certain controls and prohibitions on reformulated gasoline as provided in  80.78 of the regulations, such as meeting downstream standards, not selling conventional gasoline in RFG areas, selling VOC- controlled gasoline for the proper VOC Control Region from June 1 through September 15, not adding any oxygenate to reformulated gasoline unless it is designated at OPRG, not combining any VOC- controlled reformulated gasoline that is produced using ethanol with any VOC-controlled reformulated gasoline that is produced using any other oxygenate from January 1 through September 15, or combining reformulated gasoline with conventional gasoline and selling the resulting mixture as reformulated gasoline. Retailers may be held liable for violations in accordance with the provisions of  80.79. 18. Question: Must reformulated gasoline be sold only in those areas designated as reformulated gasoline areas by the EPA? Can a refiner produce and designate certified reformulated gasoline for distribution and sale even though there may be no immediate reformulated gasoline market for that product except as a replacement for conventional gasoline? Are the volume and fuel parameters of the gasoline to be incorporated into the anti- dumping compliance calculations? Answer: Reformulated gasoline may be sold in areas not designated as RFG areas. However, if the reformulated gasoline is mixed with conventional gasoline, it may not be sold as reformulated gasoline. Certified reformulated gasoline used in a non-RFG area should not be incorporated into the anti-dumping compliance calculations and should be used in the RFG compliance calculations. 19. Question: Averaged reformulated gasoline produced in 1994 is to be included in 1995 compliance determinations. However, recordkeeping and reporting for conventional gasoline does not begin until January 1, 1995. Please confirm this understanding. Answer: Your understanding is correct. 20. Question: Must the refiner track the barrels and qualities of each batch of gasoline beyond the tank in which it was certified? Answer: No, but the batch volume is not determined by tank volume; rather, it is determined based on shipment volume. 21. Question: If, due to piping constraints, a refiner must put a purchased or inter-refinery transferred batch of finished gasoline through the refinery blendstock system, but does so without the batch losing integrity, must the refiner include the batch in his compliance calculations? Answer: No. As per  80.65(i) of the regulations, any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender shall exclude from all compliance calculations, the volume and properties of any RFG that is produced at another refinery or oxygenate blending facility, or imported by another refiner in order to avoid double-counting. 22. Question: Can leaded racing gas continue to be sold in an RFG area? Answer: Yes. Since vehicles used exclusively for racing are not considered motor vehicles or off-road vehicles under  216 of the Clean Air Act (Act), racing fuel may continue to be sold in RFG areas. However, racing fuel must be clearly designated for use in racing vehicles only and appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the gasoline will not be dispensed into other vehicles. It should be noted that EPA has strict guidelines as to what constitutes a racing vehicle, and racing fuel may not be dispensed in any vehicle that does not meet these guidelines. For further information on what constitutes a racing vehicle, contact the Manufacturers Operations Division of EPA at (202) 233-9250. 23. Question: Can conventional gasoline be used for off-road applications in an RFG area? Answer: No. Only reformulated gasoline may be sold or supplied in a covered area. 24. Question: Does a refiner have to use the same model at all of its refineries? Answer: If a refiner elects to aggregate its refineries under section 80.101(h), the same model (simple or complex) must be used at all refineries aggregated. 25. Question: If a given refinery produces both reformulated and conventional gasoline, must that refinery use the same model for both? Answer: Yes. 26. Question: Please clarify how the facility aggregation option would work. Would the facility aggregation apply only to simple model RFG sulfur, T-90 and olefins compliance? Answer: A refiner may aggregate its refineries for anti- dumping compliance purposes under  80.101(h). This aggregation option must be exercised for the 1995 averaging period, and may not thereafter be changed. In addition, under  80.41(i) the refiner must use the same model (simple or complex) for the RFG and conventional gasoline produced at any refinery, and the same model must be used at all aggregated refineries. Moreover, under  80.41(i) the RFG standards for sulfur, T-90, and olefins, but no other RFG standards, are met in relation to refinery baselines. Therefore, in the case of a refiner who elects to aggregate refineries, who produces RFG, and who uses the simple model, the RFG standards for sulfur, T-90, and olefins must be met for all RFG produced at the refiner's aggregated refineries, and all other RFG standards must be met separately for each refinery, regardless of aggregation. 27. Question: Are there any circumstances where a pipeline could be considered an oxygenate blender? Answer: If a pipeline otherwise meets the definition of oxygenate blender (i.e., any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an oxygenate blending facility, or who owns or controls the blendstock or gasoline used or the gasoline produced at an oxygenate blending facility), then it will be considered an oxygenate blender. This can occur if the pipeline operates a terminal where oxy blending is occurring. 28. Question: Who accounts for blending operations that take place in leased storage facilities? Answer: Under the regulations, a refiner is any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a refinery. As indicated above, an oxygenate blender is any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an oxygenate blending facility, or who owns or controls the blendstock or gasoline used or the gasoline produced at an oxygenate blending facility. Therefore, there are situations where more than one person meets the definition of refiner or oxygenate blender (e.g., the person who owns the facility, the person who directs the blending operation, and the person who owns the gasoline). In a situation where a refiner leases storage facilities to another, both parties would be considered refiners under the regulations and would be accountable for blending operations. The parties may decide among themselves who registers and reports, however, all are liable in the event there is a violation. While all parties must meet all of the elements of their defense, if a violation is discovered, the regulated parties may decide who performs quality assurance tasks. 29. Question: Section 80.42 describing the simple model states that the summer model is to be used from May 1 through September 15. However, reformulated gasoline certified to be VOC- controlled can be made from January 1 through September 15. During the period from January 1 through May 1, VOC-controlled gasoline will be blended to turn the distributions system over. Should batches of VOC-controlled gasoline blended during January 1 through May be certified by the summer or winter model? Answer: The summer model should be used for all RFG gasoline that is VOC-controlled. B. INDEPENDENT SAMPLING & TESTING 1. Question: When does the independent sampling and testing requirement begin? Answer: The independent sampling and testing requirements apply to each batch of RFG that is produced or imported, unless an in-line blending waiver has been obtained. As a result, the independent sampling and testing requirements begin for any refiner or importer when the first batch of RFG is produced or imported during the Fall of 1994, in preparation for bringing terminals up to the RFG standards by December 1, 1994. 2. Question: Is a lab independent if any refiner has an interest in the lab? Answer: Section 80.65(f)(2)(iii) specifies the criteria for independence for labs, and states that the laboratory must not be operated by any refiner or importer, the laboratory must be free from any interest in any refiner or importer, and the refiner or importer must be free from any interest in the laboratory. These independence criteria mean a lab would not be considered independent if any refiner or importer operates the lab, but that another refiner may have an interest in the lab. 3. Question: For the purposes of the RFG sampling and testing requirements under  80.65(e) and (f), may a refiner use the option under which the independent lab samples and tests 100% of the batches for some parameters, and use the option under which the refiner tests 100% of the batches and the independent lab samples 100% of the batches and tests 10% of the batches for other parameters? Answer: Refiners and importers may not use the 100% independent lab analysis option for certain parameters and the 10% independent lab analysis option for other parameters, but must use the same option for all RFG parameters. However, a refiner or importer using the 10% independent analysis option may use another lab, including the refiner's or importer's designated independent lab, to perform analyses that are the responsibility of the refiner or importer provided the substitute lab properly performs the testing. In any case where a refiner or importer uses a substitute lab, the refiner or importer remains responsible for the proper conduct of the analyses, and for meeting all requirements for reporting test results to EPA. 4. Question: In the case of a refiner or importer using the 100% independent analysis option, must the refiner or importer conduct any sampling or testing of RFG in addition to that performed by the independent lab? Answer: A refiner or importer using the 100% independent analysis option must use the test results from the designated independent lab as the basis for all RFG reports to EPA. The RFG regulations do not prohibit a refiner or importer using the 100% independent analysis option from also performing other sampling and testing, nor from having other sampling and testing performed by another lab. Such other test results may not be used by the refiner or importer to show compliance with the RFG standards, however. 5. Question: If an independent lab temporarily cannot run a required test, may the independent lab use a substitute lab for the test until the independent lab regains its testing capacity? May a refiner use one independent lab to collect samples at a refinery, and another independent lab to analyze those samples? If a second lab is used, must the primary independent lab notify EPA of the role of the second lab? Answer: An independent lab may use a second lab to collect samples or perform required tests, provided that: (1) the second lab is independent as defined in  80.65(f)(2)(iii); (2) the primary independent lab is responsible for the quality of work performed by the second independent lab; and (3) the primary independent lab remains responsible for receiving all communications from EPA and submitting all reports to EPA. If a second independent lab is used, there is no requirement to report this fact to EPA, but the primary independent lab should retain documents to support the manner in which the sample collection and analyses were performed. Such documents then would be available, at the time of the independent attest engagement or EPA audit, to document the proper completion of the independent sampling and testing requirements. 6. Question: Must a refiner identify a single independent lab for each refinery? Answer: Yes. Although an independent lab may use a substitute lab for certain tasks, discussed in Question 5 of this Section, a refiner is required to name a single independent lab for each refinery. It is this independent lab with which EPA will communicate regarding the independent sampling and testing program, and who must submit all reports to EPA. A refiner that operates more than one refinery may, however, use the same independent lab for each refinery. 7. Question: Must the independent lab use the same brand and model of equipment as the refinery lab? Answer: Both the refiner's and the independent lab must use the RFG analyses methods specified in  80.46, but this section does not specify particular brands or models for the testing equipment. Note that in the case of oxygen and aromatics, alternative test methods may be used until January 1, 1996. Nevertheless, EPA believes there is a strong incentive for a refiner to select an independent lab that is able to closely correlate with the refiner's lab, and that this correlation concern probably would result in a refiner selecting an independent lab that uses the same oxygen and aromatics test methods as the refiner's lab. 8. Question: May an independent lab use the refiner's testing equipment? May the independent lab set up its lab on property that is owned by the refiner? May the independent lab use the refiner's facilities for storing gasoline samples? Answer: In order to ensure independence, the independent lab must operate in a manner that is completely separate from the refiner. This means that, in fulfillment of the independent sampling and testing requirements, the independent lab may not use the refiner's testing equipment, may not operate its own testing equipment if set up on the refiner's premises, and may not store gasoline samples on the refiner's premises. 9. Question: In the case of refiners or importers using the 10% independent analysis option, how will EPA notify independent labs of which samples to analyze? Answer: While the details are not finalized the following is the likely approach that EPA will use to notify independent laboratories which samples to test under the 10% option: a. EPA will notify each laboratory either once a week (or once every other week) which samples to test from the previous one (or two) week period. b. Notification will be in the form of a list of random numbers against which the laboratory will match up the samples collected. The numbers will not necessarily be 6 digits in length (the list might contain 3-digit numbers that would be matched against the last three digits of the batch numbers). The laboratory will order the samples by batch number and select samples for testing that match the random list as read from top to bottom until 10% of the samples on hand for each client have been selected. c. EPA is considering two methods for communicating this list to the labs. The list could be posted on a PC bulletin board that the labs would then dial into or EPA could use the FAX numbers provided by the labs upon registration to FAX the list to each lab. 10. Question: In the case of refiners or importers using the 10% independent analysis option, will EPA evenly distribute the analyses that must be performed over the year, or is it possible EPA will concentrate the entire 10% during a short time period? Answer: EPA intends to evenly space through the year the 10% of the samples identified for analysis under the 10% independent analysis option, although the specific batches selected for independent analysis each week (or every other week) will be selected randomly. There could be cases, however, where EPA would direct an independent lab to analyze more than 10% of the samples from a particular refinery or importer, to be offset later by requests for analysis of less than 10% of the samples from that refinery or importer. Over the course of each year, though, the total number of analyses identified for each refinery or importer will not exceed 10%. 11. Question: In the case of refiners or importers using the 10% independent analysis option, if the independent lab analyses a particular sample before receiving notification from EPA that this sample should be analyzed, will the prior analysis meet the independent analysis requirement? Answer: Yes. 12. Question: Are independent labs required to report to EPA, the refiner, or both? What are the reporting requirements for independent labs in the case an independent lab's analysis shows gasoline does not meet relevant RFG standards? Answer: Under  80.65(f)(3)(iii) refiners and importers are required to have their independent labs report directly to EPA on a quarterly basis. There is no requirement that independent labs must report to the refiner or importer for whom they are conducting sampling and testing. Nevertheless, EPA expects that independent labs normally will report the results of their analyses to the refiner or importer, so these parties will know if their analyses results are corroborated, and if not corroborated, so these parties may arrange for secondary independent lab analyses and take corrective actions if necessary. A refiner or importer may not release RFG from the refinery or import facility until the refiner or importer has test results which demonstrate the RFG meets all applicable standards. As a result, in the case of a refiner or importer using the 100% independent lab analysis option - where the refiner or importer relies only on the independent lab's analyses - the refiner or importer would have to receive the independent lab's test results before the RFG in question could be released from the refinery or import facility. A refiner or importer using the 100% independent lab analysis option also would need the independent lab's test results so the refiner or importer could file its quarterly reports to EPA, and averaging reports to EPA in the case of standards that are being met on average. In the case of an analysis by an independent lab that shows an RFG batch does not meet applicable RFG standards, under either the 10% or the 100% independent analysis options, EPA believes the independent lab should immediately notify the refiner or importer so that party may take corrective actions. Such a situation would exist, for example, if a sample is found by the independent lab to contain in excess of 1.300 volume percent benzene (or a lesser benzene content if there has been a benzene ratchet); or if a sample is found to contain in excess of 1.000 volume percent benzene if the refiner or importer is meeting the benzene standard on a per-gallon basis. The independent lab's non-compliant analysis result would be reported to EPA as part of the normal quarterly report to EPA, and there currently is no requirement that independent labs must report such instances to EPA prior to the quarterly report. Nevertheless, EPA intends to monitor this aspect of the independent sampling and testing program, and may modify the reporting requirements in this regard in the future if it appears necessary in order to ensure appropriate correction of violations. 13. Question: Section  80.65(e)(2) contains a mechanism for identifying the test result a refiner or importer must use if the independent lab's test result does not corroborate the refiner's or importer's test result. Does this mechanism apply in a case where the independent lab's test result fails to corroborate the refiner's or importer's test result for a particular parameter, but where both test results are within the applicable maximum level for that parameter? Answer: The mechanisms specified in  80.65(e)(2)(ii), for instances where a refiner's or importer's RFG test result is not corroborated by the independent lab's test result, apply whenever there is such a non-corroboration. There is no exception in a case where both the refiner's or importer's test result and the independent lab's test result are within the applicable maximum level for that parameter. If the standard at issue is being met on average, the mechanism in  80.65(e)(2)(ii) will identify the value for the parameter the refiner or importer must use in its compliance calculations. If the standard at issue is being met on a per-gallon basis, the question is whether the parameter meets the per-gallon standard, and the cited mechanism will resolve that question. 14. Question: What are the requirements for reporting to EPA in the case of an independent lab that conducts sampling and testing that is unrelated to the independent sampling and testing requirements that apply for refiners or importers, such as quality assurance sampling and testing for a downstream pipeline or terminal? Answer: There is no requirement that the results of downstream quality assurance sampling and testing must be reported to EPA. This is true both in the case of quality assurance sampling and testing by downstream parties such as pipelines or terminals, and in the case of quality assurance sampling and testing carried out by branded refiners or importers over their downstream branded operations. The conduct of quality assurance sampling and testing programs, and the actions that are appropriate when violations are found through such a program, are discussed in the Remedies and Liability/Defenses Sections of this document. 15. Question: May a refiner use the same independent lab to satisfy the RFG independent sampling and testing requirements and to conduct sampling and testing needs that are unrelated to the RFG requirements (e.g., internal quality assurance or custody transfer sampling and testing)? Answer: Yes. 16. Question: Is independent sampling and testing required of oxygenate blenders? Answer: A party who meets the definition of oxygenate blender is not required to have the gasoline it produces sampled or tested by an independent lab. However, an oxygenate blender is required to sample and test the gasoline it produces: every- batch sampling and testing in the case of terminal storage tank oxygenate blending, and periodic sampling and testing at specified frequencies in the case of truck splash blended oxygenate. This oxygenate blender sampling and testing requirement could be met if performed by an independent lab, but an independent lab is not required. The sampling and testing requirements for oxygenate blenders are discussed in the Downstream Oxygen Blending Requirements Section of this document. 17. Question: Is independent sampling and testing required of terminals that supply RFG? Answer: The only parties who are required to meet the independent sampling and testing requirements are refiners and importers. A party that meets the definition of distributor or reseller, such as a terminal, therefore, is not required to meet the independent sampling and testing requirements. In order to establish a defense to violations of the RFG standards for which it may be presumptively liable, however, a distributor must conduct a quality assurance program of sampling and testing. This quality assurance sampling and testing program could be conducted by an independent lab, but an independent lab is not required. The quality assurance sampling and testing defense provisions are discussed in the Liability/Defenses Section of this document. 18. Question: Is independent sampling and testing required of a refiner who has an in-line blending program? Answer: Refiners who produce RFG using computer controlled in-line blending, and who have received an exemption from EPA from independent sampling and testing, are not required to conduct independent sampling and testing of RFG produced with this blending operation. The issues associated with in-line blending waivers from independent sampling and testing are discussed in the In-Line Blending Waivers Section of this document. A refiner who produces RFG using in-line blending, but who does not have an exemption from independent sampling and testing from EPA, must meet the independent sampling and testing requirements. In such a case, however, EPA believes it is unlikely the refiner could meet all the requirements that apply to the production of RFG unless all the gasoline produced using the in-line blender is available for sampling and testing in storage tanks at the refinery before being shipped from the refinery. This tank collection gasoline is necessary so the refiner is able to meet the requirement that it have test results for a batch of RFG before releasing the RFG from the refinery. Tank collection also is necessary so the independent lab is able to collect a representative sample for the entire batch. A sample collected by the refiner or by an independent lab at any single point in the blending process would not necessarily be representative of portions of that batch that were produced prior to, or subsequent to, the moment the independent sample was collected. As a result, a pipeline spot sample collected during an in-line blending operation would not satisfy the requirement that the refiner must have test results in advance of release of RFG unless the entire batch is held at the refinery until the refiner has in hand a test of the entire in-line blended batch. This entire batch sample could be a composite over the entire in- line blend, but more likely would be a sample from the storage tank, or storage tanks, where the in-line blended RFG is collected. With regard to the independent sampling and testing requirement, conceivably the independent lab could collect a composite sample of the entire blend, but this would require the independent sampler to use its own compositor equipment, to be present during the entire blending operation in order to ensure the compositor functions properly, and to collect and analyze additional spot samples to verify the composite sample. In addition, the independent lab would have to independently establish the volume of the in-line blended batch. EPA is unaware of any valid way an independent lab can establish RFG batch volume, except through measurement in a storage tank. As a result, EPA believes the only option available for a refiner using in-line blending to produce RFG who does not have an exemption from EPA from independent sampling and testing, is to collect the RFG produced using the in-line blender in a storage tank (or storage tanks) located on the refinery premises. The refiner then could certify the RFG in each storage tank as a batch, and have the independent lab collect a sample from each storage tank in the same manner as tank-blended RFG. 19. Question: Explain the volume determination requirement for independent labs. Answer: Section 80.65(f)(3)(i)(B) requires the independent lab to determine the volume of each RFG batch that is sampled. EPA expects the independent lab will determine the volume of a RFG batch in the same manner gasoline volumes currently are determined for commercial transactions, using standard industry methods such as ASTM standard D 1085, "Method of Gaging Petroleum and Petroleum Products." (This same method also is referenced by API as standard 2545, and by ANSI as standard 211.196.) The independent lab's volume determination, of the volume of gasoline contained in the storage tank, would be the total production volume of the RFG batch. The refiner's report to EPA for RFG batch volume, however, is of the volume of RFG produced and shipped. The refiner reports the volume shipped in order to avoid double counting the RFG remaining in the storage tank when blending begins for the subsequent batch (i.e., the tank heel). This difference between the reported RFG batch volume for the independent lab (production volume) and the refiner (shipped volume) means the two volume reports normally will not match. While it would be preferable for the independent lab's and the refiner's or importer's volume reports to match, such correlation currently is not anticipated. In order for the independent lab to be able to report the shipped volume for an RFG batch, which would match the refiner's batch volume, the independent lab would have to reinspect the tank subsequent to all gasoline movements from the tank in question. EPA believes the costs associated with such additional independent inspections are not warranted. The independent lab's report of production volume for an RFG batch serves an appropriate oversight function, because it constitutes an outside bound on the volume the refiner could report for the batch. Nevertheless, EPA intends to monitor the effectiveness of this portion of the independent sampling and testing program, and may modify this provision if greater correlation in volume measurements by refiners and independent labs is necessary. 20. Question: What is the responsibility of the independent lab in determining whether a tank of RFG meets the definition of "batch," i.e., is homogeneous with regard to the RFG properties? Answer: The independent sampling and testing provisions require the independent lab to collect a separate sample from each batch of RFG. "Batch of reformulated gasoline" is defined at  80.2(gg) as "a quantity of reformulated gasoline which is homogeneous with regard to those properties which are specified for reformulated gasoline certification." As a result, when an independent lab identifies a sample it collects as being representative of the gasoline contained in a batch of RFG, that lab is independently representing that the gasoline being sampled is homogeneous with regard to the RFG properties - that the tank is fully mixed and is not stratified. EPA expects the independent lab to use its best professional judgment in determining the procedures that are necessary in order to classify the gasoline in a storage tank as being fully mixed. For example, if the independent lab's normal practice is to analyze the gravity of top/middle/lower samples to determine tank mixing, EPA believes the independent lab should follow that practice with regard to the RFG independent sampling and testing requirements. 21. Question: In a case where an independent lab collects more than one sample from a batch (e.g., top/middle/lower samples), how many samples must be retained by the independent lab? Answer: For EPA's purposes, an independent lab must collect a single representative sample for each batch of RFG, and it is this single sample that should be analyzed and retained for transfer to EPA if necessary. If more than one laboratory will be analyzing the properties of a batch, then the independent lab should collect two separate samples rather than splitting one sample after collection. Split samples are vulnerable to loss of light ends unless transfer is carefully performed according to the procedure outlined in Appendix E, section 8.1 and figure 1.1. When collecting duplicate samples take care to assure consistency. For example, unless a storage tank is fully mixed, multiple running samples collected from that tank can vary according to retrieval rates, dwell at the bottom point, and consistency of the measurement of the bottom point. See the Sampling/Testing - Sampling Section, Question 1, for a discussion of the sampling methods that are appropriate for RFG. In the case of additional samples collected by the independent lab, for example, to establish that a storage tank is fully mixed and is not stratified, there is no requirement that such samples must be retained. The independent lab should keep documents that reflect any sampling and testing that was performed to establish the effectiveness of tank mixing, however, in case questions arise about the quality of gasoline from a particular batch or to support the quality of the independent lab's work in the case of an EPA audit. 22. Question: What volume of gasoline should a sample collected by an independent lab contain? Answer: EPA believes that a one quart sample is adequate. 23. Question: If EPA requests that an independent lab supply a portion of a sample to the EPA lab, what volume of gasoline should be sent to EPA? Answer: When EPA requests a sample from an independent lab, the independent lab should send EPA the entire one quart sample if the lab has not analyzed the sample. If the sample is one the independent lab has analyzed, the independent lab should send EPA the entire remaining volume. 24. Question: When the independent lab samples a batch of RFG, they are to "determine" blending times, batch volumes, tank numbers, and grade. Which of these determinations must be independently made by the independent lab, and which can be obtained from the refiner or importer? Answer: The independent lab may rely on the refiner's or importer's representations with regard to the date and time the batch became finished RFG, and the grade of gasoline, if this reliance is warranted in the exercise of the independent lab's best professional judgment. This reliance would, of course, not be warranted where the independent lab has reason to believe the information supplied is incorrect. The independent lab is required to independently establish the identification number of the storage tank, and the batch volume as discussed in Question 19 of this Section. C. IN-LINE BLENDING 1. Question: Is EPA making any allowances for refiners that utilize a computer-controlled in-line blending operation? Answer: EPA is allowing an alternative to the independent sampling and analysis requirement for certain refiners that produce RFG using computer-controlled in-line blending equipment. This option would be appropriate only in the case of relatively sophisticated in-line blending operations, where sufficient gasoline quality checks and cross-checks occur to ensure that fuel produced in-line meets the specifications for RFG. Under this alternative the refiner would have an independent audit conducted of the documents generated during the course of such in-line blending as confirmation of the refiner's reported batch properties and volume. In order to use this option, a refiner is required to petition EPA to allow its use for a particular in-line blending operation. EPA will evaluate the petition on the basis of the particular equipment and procedures in place at the petitioner- refiner's refinery. The types of factors which are relevant to EPA's review of the petition are specified in the regulations at  80.65(f)(4). EPA believes this alternative for certain in-line blending operations is appropriate because of the difficulty of obtaining a representative sample of gasoline that has been produced through in-line blending, and because there can be sufficient confidence in the results from a paper audit of such an operation. EPA expects that a sophisticated in-line blending operation would have to have multiple safeguards to monitor and record the properties of the blend on an on-going basis to qualify for the exemption. 2. Question: Is there a deadline for the submittal of a petition requesting an exemption from the independent sampling and testing requirements? Answer: There are no time frames for or limitations in the regulations or the statute for submitting or reviewing in-line blending petitions. However, since EPA will need adequate time to review and resolve any outstanding issues before acting on a petition for exemption, we suggest that refiners that wish to apply for the exemption, submit their petitions as soon as possible if they plan to be exempt from the independent sampling and testing requirements at the beginning of production of RFG in the Fall of 1994. Until a petition is approved, all RFG and RBOB produced by a refiner is subject to the independent sampling and testing requirements under  80.65(f). 3. Question: The petition process referred to in  80.65(f)(4) references RFG. Will in-line blenders of RBOB also be allowed to become exempt from the independent sampling/testing requirements through EPA approval of a petition? Answer: Yes, refiners who blend RBOB using a computer- controlled in-line blending process are allowed to petition for exemption from the independent sampling and testing requirements. 4. Question: What is the definition of "computer-controlled in- line blending"? Answer: The regulations do not define computer-controlled in-line blending. Generally, EPA will consider an in-line blending operation to be adequate if it has sophisticated computer monitoring and recording of all relevant data generated during the batch. These systems would also include computer control and adjustment of the blend properties during production depending on other parameters. In-line blending systems vary with regard to degree of automation. As a result, the sufficiency of any particular system will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 5. Question: Does in-line blending of conventional gasoline require an exemption? Answer: Conventional gasoline does not require independent sampling and testing and, therefore, there is no need to obtain an exemption. However, the properties of both reformulated and conventional gasoline are required to be determined by the methods specified in  80.46. Please refer to the Sampling and Testing Section of this document. 6. Question: What defines a batch for refineries utilizing in- line blending? Answer: Section 80.2 of the regulations defines a "batch" as "a quantity of reformulated gasoline which is homogeneous with regard to those properties which are specified for reformulated gasoline certification." For refiners who are exempt from the independent sampling and testing requirements, the batch identification number should be assigned at the point the refiner begins producing a stream of gasoline with a given set of parameters, which are representative of the composite sample. In some cases, where a large volume of gasoline is produced to the same specification, the refiner may wish to sample, test and report batches based on smaller quantities of gasoline as it is being shipped out. However, refiners who in-line blend, and who have not been exempted from the independent sampling and testing requirements, must blend to a storage tank and meet the independent sampling and testing requirements for certifying RFG as specified in  80.65(f). 7. Question: How does a refinery that in-line blends RFG generate a certificate of analysis (key RFG parameters) prior to shipment as required by the regulations? Answer: For the simple model, refiners who petitioned for an exemption from the independent sampling and testing requirements are required to specify their reasonable basis for knowing that the fuel meets the standards for benzene and oxygen, and RVP in the case of VOC-controlled RFG, before the gasoline leaves the refinery. The on-line analyzers, coupled with the continuous measurement of component blend ratios and volumes, in approved in-line blending operations, are expected to provide an accurate characterization of the fuel during, and at the end of the blend. When the batch is complete, the composite sample will be tested to provide a report of the blend's certified properties. EPA has amended the final rule to allow exempted in- line blenders to release RFG in advance of receiving final test results. However, refiners who in-line blend, and who have not been exempted from the independent sampling and testing requirements, must blend to a tank and meet the independent sampling and testing requirements for certifying RFG as specified in  80.65(f). 8. Question: Does EPA intend to grant approval for in-line blending systems that do not have the opportunity for sampling and analysis prior to fungible mixing? Answer: As discussed in the answer to question #7 above, samples taken for determining the certified properties of the fuel, and some analysis of the gasoline properties, must occur before the gasoline is fungibly mixed with other gasoline. 9. Question: For refiners that in-line blend and are exempt from the independent sampling and testing requirements, which test measurements are to be used for the certified fuel properties, the integrated readings from on-line analyzers and flow meters, spot samples, composite samples, or samples taken from storage tanks downstream of the blending process? Answer: Generally, the results from the composite sample, tested using the methods specified in  80.46 of the regulations, should be used. If more than one composite sample is taken during the blend and tested to determine compliance, or if the composite is tested more than once, an average of the test results must be used. The number of composite samples taken and the number of tests conducted on each sample should be the same for each batch (i.e., a refiner should specify in his petition how many analyses will be performed on a composite sample and must conduct the same number of tests on all batches produced). Data and test results from component tanks, on-line samples and spot samples would be used to control the blend properties and to corroborate composite sample results. EPA will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, proposals for using results from on-line analyzers or storage tank samples for certification of fuel properties, based on the particular equipment being used on-line and other relevant aspects of the particular in-line operation. Spot sample results cannot be used for certification, but are appropriate quality control/quality assurance measures to check and correlate the on-line analyses and/or composite results. 10. Question: Assuming that EPA approves the use of analyzers to certify in-line blended RFG, if an analyzer has maintenance problems during a blend such that it did not give results for 50% of the blend, can the refinery use spot samples to track the property? Is there a specific percent up-time that the EPA requires should analyzers be used to certify blends? Answer: Proposals for using results from on-line analyzers for purposes of certifying a batch will be evaluated on a case- by-case basis. EPA has not established the amount of up-time required in order to qualify the on-line analyzer results for use in certification. However, in considering a proposal to use on- line analyzer results for certification, EPA expects that the proposal will include a back-up system and plan as part of the QC/QA program for dealing with outliers and analyzer failures. 11. Question: If a spot sample indicates the analyzers were off, can a sample from the transporting ship or truck in which the fuel is being shipped be used to certify the batch? Can this sample be taken when off-loading the fuel? Answer: In the case of an approved in-line blending system, spot sample results should be used to correlate with the results from on-line analyzers. If a spot sample shows that the on-line analyzers are not properly monitoring the fuel parameters, then the refiner should act accordingly to bring the fuel back on spec. If a portion of a batch is shipped prior to the composite sample being tested, it is the refiner's responsibility to ensure that the fuel shipped out meets all requirements for RFG. 12. Question: When a portion of a batch is shipped to a customer while the batch is still being blended, assuming an approved in-line blending system, does the batch ID number for the shipping documents pertain to the portion shipped or to the whole batch? Answer: The batch identification number is assigned to the total batch volume as is represented by the composite sample. Section 80.77 does not require refiners to include the batch identification number or total batch volume on the product transfer documents. The volume that is required in the product transfer document is the volume of gasoline being shipped out of the refinery. For more information, see the Product Transfer Document Section of this document. 13. Question: What is the relationship between a portion of a batch that is shipped during in-line blending and the remainder of that batch? Answer: Both portions of the batch, i.e. the volume shipped and the remaining portion or portions of the total batch volume, are identified with the same fuel properties and the same batch identification number. The properties are determined from the analysis of the fuel in the compositor, a proportional sample of the total batch. 14. Question: At an in-line blending facility, a portion of batch A is captured in an empty storage tank and not immediately shipped. Then a portion of batch C is added to that tank and the combined mixture is shipped. How do the records show compliance with reformulated gasoline regulations? Answer: Batches A and C will be certified separately based on the results from the composite sample analyses for each of these batches (unless EPA has approved another method of sampling for a particular refiner). Since product transfer documents do not require that a batch number be assigned to each shipment, multiple batches of certified RFG can be commingled without regard for batch numbers (i.e, the resulting mixture will not be assigned a new batch number). As discussed in the answer to question #11 above, when the combined mixture is shipped, the product transfer document will identify the volume of the shipment, not the batch, and any other designations specified in  80.77. 15. Question: In the case where RFG is in-line blended through a holding tank, should the compositor be located before or after the holding tank? Answer: The regulations do not specify where the compositor should be located; however, the location of the compositor will determine what qualifies as the certified batch. The refiner should include the location of compositors in their petition for a waiver as stated in  80.65(i)(7). 16. Question: Do all properties have to be analyzed on-line to get an exemption from the independent laboratory sampling and testing requirement? Answer: No. However, EPA would prefer that in-line blending operations at least be capable of analyzing benzene, oxygen, and RVP on line. If the operation does not have the capability to analyze all properties on-line, the refiner must indicate in his petition how he intends to determine the fuel properties for those parameters not analyzed on-line, and provide sufficient cross-checks of the results from a composite sample to warrant an exemption from the independent sampling and testing requirements. In-line blending petitions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with regard to the operation's capability to analyze all properties on-line. 17. Question: Our computerized control system collects, calculates, and historizes data for blends and product movements. The data can include volumes, analyzer results, manually entered lab results, etc. Data is historized by writing a file to the equivalent of a personal computer hard disk. The data collected in the files will be used for reformulated fuels documentation. The file is protected such that only a person with a physical engineering key can unprotect the file. Is this acceptable data control to the EPA? Answer: Data control and recording systems should be proposed in the exemption request as part of an overall quality control, record keeping and review plan. All data that is generated for the batch that is intended to form a basis for the RFG certification, must be recorded and retained in a secure manner so that the auditor will be able to review accurate data for the yearly in-line blending audits. We believe the refiner should provide reasonable security for all the data that is generated so as to retain uncompromised files and to restrict unnecessary and unauthorized access to those files. Limiting the number of persons who have access to the files is as important as who has access. 18. Question: In a computer-controlled in-line blending operation, adjustments to blending volumes and other blending parameters are made on an ongoing basis to keep the gasoline being blended on-spec. Normally, these adjustments are made automatically by a computer. However, some aspects of the blending operation must be placed in a manual mode when instrument problems arise. The operator is able to enter values (transfer volumes, blend volumes) in the case of such a manual mode operation. The computer records when manually-entered adjustments are made. Is this acceptable data control to the EPA? Answer: It would seem to be appropriate for the software to indicate when data are manually entered, who entered the data and when it was entered. This information should be recorded with the file for the batch and available for an audit. There should also be a procedure or method by which the data that were entered could be verified by some other documents available for an auditor. D. COMPLIANCE ON AVERAGE 1. Question: The regulations and reporting requirements imply that credit trading for oxygen and benzene is allowed across nonattainment areas [and] not just within an area. Is that correct? Is there any geographic restriction with regard to benzene and oxygen trading? Answer: Oxygen and benzene credits may be traded across RFG areas. However, all conditions specified in 80.67(h) must be met. 2. Question: In calculating the 1995 annual average for toxics, do we include December 1994 along with the twelve 1995 months? Answer: You should include all gasoline that was produced in 1994 and 1995 and that was designated as RFG. 3. Question: Can a refiner complying on a per gallon basis take domestic delivery of a product from a refiner or an importer that meets per gallon or minimum/maximum standards for averaged gasoline but does not meet per gallon standards? Answer: Yes. 4. Question: At the March NPRA workshop, EPA stated that OPRG cannot be sold in areas not requiring OPRG. This creates significant distribution system problems. If there is a concern by the EPA related to averaging, a possible solution would be to require parties who choose to average oxygen to account for and document OPRG sales in non-OPRG areas. There should be no restriction on those who do not average oxygen. Answer: Under the reformulated gasoline regulation, OPRG could not be sold in areas not requiring OPRG. The technical amendments to the reformulated gasoline regulation adds a new provision, at  80.65(d)(2)(iii)(B), which provides that RFG containing at least 2.0 weight % oxygen may be designated as OPRG regardless of whether or not the gasoline is used in an oxygenated gasoline program control area during the appropriate oxygenated gasoline control period. This change, therefore, allows all RFG that contains 2.0 weight % oxygen to be designated as OPRG, without such gasoline being restricted to use in oxygenated gasoline areas during the appropriate oxygenated gasoline control period. However, it is still permissible to designate oxygenated gasoline with at least 2.0 weight % oxygen as non-OPRG. 5. Question: With no set procedure for declaring per gallon/averaging, it appears a refinery has until the first quarterly report to make a decision. As long as per-gallon standards were met up to the point the first quarterly report is filed, and the refiner meets the gasoline quality survey requirements, the option would remain open to go averaging for the year. Is this acceptable? Answer: It is true that EPA did not include in the RFG rule a process for regulated parties to notify EPA in advance of per- gallon versus averaging. As a result, the strategy described in the question would be appropriate. 6. Question: Can a refiner with more than one refinery transfer oxygen and benzene credits from one of its refineries to another of its refineries? Answer: If a refiner generates credits at one refinery, these credits could be used to offset a shortfall at another refinery through a transfer of credits meeting all conditions of  80.67(h). 7. Question: Can a company which is both a refiner and importer transfer oxygen and benzene credits from its import operations to its refineries? Answer: Yes, through a transfer of credits meeting all conditions of  80.67(h). 8. Question: In the event Refiner A purchases finished gasoline from Refiner B and uses that gasoline as a blendstock should this purchase be backed out of the Refiner A's compliance calculations for reformulated and conventional gasoline averaging purposes? This would be similar to purchasing a blendstock that is already included in the supplying refinery baseline. Answer: Under  80.65(i), Refiner A should not include in its compliance calculations the finished gasoline purchased from Refiner B. However, the finished gasoline produced by Refiner B should be included in Refiner B's compliance calculations. E. SURVEYS 1. Question: If a refinery supplies averaged gasoline to an area which fails a survey, can the refinery during the following year opt to meet per gallon standards and thus avoid the ratcheted standards which would have been applicable to its averaged gasoline? Answer: Yes. If a refinery opts to meet per gallon standards instead of averaging, ratcheted standards do not apply to that refinery even if the refinery had supplied averaged gasoline to the ratcheted area the previous year. Ratcheted standards apply only to averaged gasoline. 2. Question: Refiner A buys averaged RFG from refiner B and then sells it in NYC during a certain year. If NYC fails the survey for that year, which refiner must ratchet down the following year? Answer: The refinery which has produced the gasoline and accounted for the gasoline in its averaging program is responsible for the gasoline. Therefore, if the gasoline is ultimately used in NYC and NYC is ratcheted, all of the averaged gasoline produced at refinery B, with one exception, must meet the ratcheted standards the following year. The exception is VOC-controlled gasoline produced at the same refinery for a different VOC-control area. In the case of ratcheted VOC standards for a covered area located in VOC Control Region 1, the adjusted VOC standards apply only to the averaged RFG for use in Region 1, and ratcheted standards for Region 2 apply only for gasoline for use in Region 2. (See section 80.41(q)(4).) (Of course, if Refinery A actually produces gasoline during the following year which is sold in NYC, then Refinery A must also meet the ratcheted standards for all of its averaged RFG.) Refiner B, however, is responsible for quality control of its gasoline which must carry with it transfer documentation indicating that it will meet the minimum and maximum standards associated with the ratcheted area. 3. Question: A refinery produces averaged RFG which is mixed with other gasoline in a fungible system such as a pipeline or distribution terminal. A survey failure occurs in only one of many RFG areas served by the system. How does the refinery ascertain whether it must meet ratcheted standards for its averaged gasoline the following year? Answer: In the case of a refinery which supplies averaged RFG to a fungible distribution system which, in turn, supplies RFG to a failed survey area, that refinery must meet ratcheted standards for all of its averaged gasoline the following year. Specifically, if any RFG area supplied by the system fails the survey, such failure would trigger ratcheted standards the following year for all averaged gasoline supplied to the system from any refinery. (Of course, in the case of VOC standards, ratcheting is on a Region-specific basis. See Survey Question 2 above.) The only exception to this would be a situation where a refinery can demonstrate that the gasoline it had supplied to a system was, in fact, distributed to a smaller number of areas. Typically, this would require that the gasoline be completely segregated and the ultimate destination(s) could be demonstrated. Of course, such a product would not actually be considered to be a "fungible" shipment. In some cases, one fungible system is connected to a second system such as a separate second pipeline system which distributes, at least in some situations, material from the first system. If a refinery has supplied RFG to the first system, the refinery is not automatically responsible to meet ratcheted standards applied to areas serviced by delivery points of the second system. However, if it is a typical day-to-day business practice to distribute fungible gasoline directly from the first system into the second, then the refiner must assume responsibility for ratchets on the second system. Likewise, if it is known that RFG produced by a specific refinery has, in fact, been supplied to the second system, then that refinery would have to meet ratcheted standards resulting from a failed survey of a delivery area on the second system. If distribution to the second system is unusual or not a typical day-to-day procedure, then the refiner does not have to automatically assume responsibility for survey failures along the second system. If EPA has specific knowledge that fuel is distributed to the second system, then, to avoid a ratchet of an area on the second system, it would be the responsibility of a fuel producer to demonstrate that its fuel did not, in fact, move to the second system. 4. Question: Is there a bottom end to consecutive year "ratchets" in the RFG program should the annual compliance surveys continue to deem that a ratchet is necessary? Answer: Generally, for those properties for which there is a maximum or minimum, there is an effective practical bottom (or top in the case of minimums) in the ratcheting process. This is true because, at some point, a maximum or minimum reaches the per gallon standard and the concept of averaging loses its utility. There would presumably be no good reason to average if the maximum (or minimum) of an averaged gallon of RFG was the same as the per gallon standard. Hence, the regulated parties would presumably switch to a per gallon requirement and the ratcheted standards would become irrelevant. For example, after three consecutive benzene ratchets, the maximum allowable benzene content for averaged RFG would decrease from 1.3 volume percent to 1.0 volume percent (0.1 percent per ratchet). The 1.0 volume percent level is equal to the per gallon standard. Although not an exception to this view, section 80.41(o)(1) specifically states that "in no case shall the minimum oxygen content standard be greater than 2.0%." In the case of toxics reduction requirements, there is no minimum or maximum. Thus, the average toxics reduction requirement increases by 1.0 percent for each ratchet and there is no formal "top" to this increase. Of course, there is likely a point where every averaging party would reach a practical "top" in that the standard would be so severe as to essentially require meeting the per gallon toxics reduction even for the averaged gallonage at the lowest toxics reduction level. However, from a practical standpoint, the ratcheted standard at which this occurs likely will vary for different regulated parties. 5. Question: It may be the case that a refiner begins producing averaged RFG for January as early as the previous September. In this case, the refiner would not know if ratcheted standards (other than VOC or RVP) would apply to this "early" production, since ratcheted standards may not be known to apply or be announced by EPA until the first quarter of the following year. Thus a refiner would have to make a decision regarding per gallon vs. averaging 3-5 months prior to knowing what the average standard was going to be. Since severe economic penalties could result for lack of having an approved EPA target at the time of production, is this reasonable? Is the gasoline produced prior to announcement of a ratchet subject to the standard in place before the newly announced ratchet? Answer: Much of this question assumes that gasoline produced during one year and used the following year must be accounted for when averaging for the following year. This is an incorrect assumption. The refiner must meet the standards in place when the RFG is produced and certified. The ratcheted average standards (and not maximums and minimums) would not apply to gasoline produced during the year of the survey failure that precipitated the ratchet, but only to that gasoline produced and certified as RFG during the year when the ratcheted standards are in place. Ratcheted maximum and minimum standards do not apply until 90 days after announcement of a failure. Thus, leadtime issues should not be a problem in regards to maximums and minimums. Furthermore, the Agency will attempt to expedite the analysis and announcement of results of surveys and the Agency intends to make preliminary summary survey data available as it is produced throughout the year. This data should help to give an early picture of the possible chances of survey failures for non-summer parameters. 6. Question: Several covered areas which receive RFG from the same fungible system experience survey failures during a given year. (Or, alternatively, approved survey plans were not carried out in several cities receiving RFG from the same fungible system during a given year.) Would a refinery supplying averaged RFG to this fungible system be subject to one ratchet or multiple ratchets? Answer: As is mentioned in Survey Question 3 above, special considerations exist for fungible systems. In the case of a fungible system supplying RFG to a ratcheted area, the ratchet applies to all refineries supplying fungible RFG entering that system, since this RFG may have gone to any city receiving gasoline from the system. If two (or more) areas receiving gasoline from the system are ratcheted, all refiners supplying fungible averaged RFG are subject to each ratchet. However, these ratchets are not "additive". If the standard is the same for each ratcheted city, averaged RFG meeting one area's ratcheted standards would likewise meet the other area's standards. On the other hand, if two (or more) areas receiving gasoline on a fungible system have been ratcheted to different standards (e.g., one area is subject to two consecutive yearly ratchets, but the other areas are not), then all refineries providing fungible averaged RFG to the fungible system are subject to the most severe of the ratcheted standards. Likewise, for a single refinery supplying averaged RFG to several different fungible distribution systems, all averaged RFG produced by that refinery is subject to the most stringent of the ratchets of any area on any of the distribution systems. Failure to conduct an approved survey is tantamount to a survey failure and, therefore, the above answer applies in such situations. 7. Question: Some refineries supply product to more than one distribution system. It is understood that ratcheted standards apply on a given fungible system. Is a ratchet to which a refinery is subject due to survey failures on one distribution system applied to averaged RFG produced by that refinery for another distribution system? If so, why would this RFG produced for the other distribution system also be subject to the same ratchet since the material for the second system (for example, a local truck loading rack) may be completely segregated at the refinery. Answer: If any of a refinery's averaged RFG is subject to a ratchet, then all of that refinery's averaged RFG is subject to the same ratchet. (See section 80.41(q).) As was explained in previous RFG rulemaking notices, if the refinery was supplying averaged RFG to an area that failed a survey, that refinery's RFG potentially contributed to that survey failure. Therefore, all of that refinery's averaged RFG is subject to any ratchet resulting from a survey failure to which it has potentially contributed. The survey and ratchet provisions of the regulations were adopted to ensure that "refinery gate" averaging would lead to compliance for each covered area separately. This answer is applicable even in situations where fungibility is not a concern. For example, if a refinery supplies segregated (not fungible) shipments of averaged RFG to two covered areas and one of those areas are subject to a ratchet, all averaged RFG produced at that refinery must meet the ratcheted standards. 8. Question: If an area's standards have been ratcheted, some suppliers of that area will likely opt for a per gallon standard the following year and thus are not required to meet the ratcheted standards. Will it not be much more likely for that area to fail a subsequent survey since subsequent surveys will be comparing results obtained from samples of largely per gallon RFG to a ratcheted standard? Furthermore, if surveys occur during the first part of a year, before it is known whether surveys were failed late in the previous year, how will regulated parties know the standard against which these survey results will be compared? Answer: These are two of several questions which are based upon the following incorrect interpretation of the regulations: Determination of a survey failure during a year when ratcheted standards are in place is based upon a comparison of the survey results to these ratcheted standards. This is an incorrect interpretation. Determination of failure of a survey for a covered area will ALWAYS be based upon a comparison of the survey results with the applicable per gallon standards and this determination is independent of the current status of ratcheted standards applied to averaged RFG for that area. Thus, the choice of some refiners to opt to produce RFG based upon a per gallon standard after a ratcheting occurs would not negatively impact the chances that an area would pass a survey. Likewise, since the per gallon standards against which a survey is compared are always known, the question above as to surveys conducted early in the year is irrelevant. 9. Question: A refiner did not supply gasoline to an area during the year the area fails a survey but begins supplying gasoline to that area the following year when the failure has triggered a ratchet. Is all of that refiner's averaged RFG produced during the following year subject to the ratchet even if the refiner segregates RFG for other non-ratcheted areas from that shipped to the ratcheted area? Answer: The regulations provide that any ratcheted standards apply to all of the averaged RFG produced at a refinery subject to those ratcheted standards, regardless of where the gasoline is used. The rationale for this approach is that because compliance with the averaged standards is determined at the refinery gate, mechanisms are not included in the regulations to document the properties of a refinery's gasoline by specific covered areas. (Of course, VOC ratchets are region-specific. It is anticipated that Region 1 gasoline will typically be segregated from Region 2 gasoline.) Applying ratcheted standards to only that portion of a refinery's production sent to the covered area with adjusted standards would require the refiner to demonstrate the volume and quality of the refinery's gasoline production that is used in a specific covered area. EPA rejected this approach as unworkable on an industry-wide basis and the regulations do not provide an exception for individual refineries. 10. Question: The regulations require that if "refiners, importers, and oxygenate blenders" supplying a covered area do not complete a survey for that area, then the covered area would be deemed to have failed. Would the subsequent ratchet also apply to "suppliers" to that covered area? Can the ratcheting of compliance standards, as it relates to average gallon compliance, be used as a penalty on a "by company" as well as a "by region" standard? Answer: Although, from a practical standpoint in the marketplace, there are "suppliers" in the sense it is used in the question, enforcement of average standards are refiner, blender, and importer-based. Therefore, as is mentioned in Survey Question 2 (above), if a refiner sells RFG to another refiner for downstream retail or wholesale sales, the original refiner must account for the standards in place at the ultimate destination of the gasoline. (As is discussed in Survey Question 3, if the refiner does not know where the product will finally be used, the refiner must assume it has gone to any covered area supplied by any fungible system into which the refinery is distributing gasoline.) Thus, if RFG is brought into a covered area through purchase or exchange by a "supplier" who is other than the producer of the gasoline, this RFG should meet the ratcheted standards. This includes the ratcheted average standard (applicable to the refiner, importer or blender), and the ratcheted maximum/minimum standard (applicable to all parties including those downstream). If RFG brought into an area which has a ratcheted standard by a "supplier" does not, in fact, meet the ratcheted standards for that area, then each regulated party handling this out-of-compliance gasoline would be liable for a violation of the standard in question. Thus, the "supplier" which did not produce the gasoline but which brings the gasoline into the ratcheted covered area is responsible for meeting the ratcheted minimum and maximum standards. Furthermore, the "supplier" is responsible for conducting a quality control program which, as a defense against an enforcement action, must demonstrate that the gasoline meets the maximums or minimums applicable to the area, including ratcheted maximums and minimums in the case of a failed survey area. Thus, in regards to the last part of this question, average standards are applicable to refiners, importers and blenders and, if ratchets occur, these parties must meet the ratcheted standards on average. These same parties as well as the "suppliers" mentioned above are all responsible for compliance with maximums and minimums. Compliance with "average standards" on an area-by-area basis is effectively brought about by the survey in that, if the survey in a given area is failed, averaged standards for all refiners, importers, and blenders producing gasoline for that area are ratcheted. 11. Question: Section 80.41(p) states that if a maximum or minimum standard is changed to be more stringent, the effective date for such a change shall be ninety days following the date EPA announces the change. Yet in 80.40(k)-(o) it is stated that the more stringent standard goes into effect beginning in the following year. Is this inconsistent? Answer: In the case of the average standard, a more stringent ratcheted standard will be effective for the entire year even if the ratchet is not announced by EPA until late in the previous year or early in the year of the ratchet. (As is discussed in Survey Question 5 above, the Agency will use every means possible to assure early announcement of survey failures and ratchets.) Section 80.41(p) clarifies that ratcheted minimums and maximums will become effective 90 days after the ratchet is announced. 12. Question: If there are two surveys for RVP/VOC for a covered area per year and both fail, does this result in two "additive" ratchets for the covered area? Answer: No. Failure of surveys during a single year are not "additive", i.e., if any or all surveys in an area are failed during a given year, a single ratchet will be applied for the following year. Additionally, as in Survey Question 6 above, if a refiner is supplying gasoline to many covered areas and several of them experience survey failures, the refinery is subject to the most stringent standard applicable to any of the areas. In 1996, no area could be subjected to more than a single ratchet resulting from a 1995 survey failure. Thereafter, however, a single area may be subject to two or more consecutive yearly ratchets. In the case of a refiner supplying this area and other areas with standards which have been ratcheted only once, all of the refiner's gasoline would be subject to the most severe ratchet. 13. Question: Do ratchets resulting from failures of simple model surveys carry over to 1998 complex model standards if there were no survey failures in 1997? Answer: In the case of VOC, NOx and toxics standards, if no simple or complex model survey failures occur in 1997 and no ratcheted complex model standards apply as a result of complex model survey failures prior to 1997, then no ratcheted standards will be applicable in 1998. This is true even if there are in- place ratcheted simple model standards for these parameters in one or more areas in 1997 due to simple model survey failures during previous years. On the other hand, if simple model failures do occur during 1997, these would cause a ratchet of complex model standards in 1998. In the case of benzene and oxygen standards, applicable ratchets due to survey failures would carry over from 1997 to 1998 independent of complex or simple model use. The Agency recognizes that there will be a transition period during which complete turnover of simple model gasoline (remaining in retail station tanks after 1997) to complex model gasoline will occur. This transition period presents some practical problems which will have to be addressed in regards to surveys (and in regards to retail station enforcement of RFG regulations). Since this situation will not occur until 1998, the Agency will address this situation at a later time, after the RFG program is introduced and valuable experience is gained dealing with initial surveys and the initial enforcement of the regulations. It is important to note that benzene and oxygen are not covered by the above discussion. Any failure of the benzene or oxygen standards would, in fact, result in a ratchet the following year regardless of the year the failure occurs. 14. Question: Under section 80.68(c), a NOx survey series consists of samples collected between January 1 and May 31 or September 16 through December 31. A NOx survey, on the other hand, consists only of any survey conducted between June 1 and September 15 (the high-ozone season). If there is a NOx survey failure between June 1 and September 15, would a supplying refinery be subject to a NOx ratchet for just the high ozone period or would NOx standards be ratcheted year 'round? Answer: Any NOx ratchet resulting from a NOx survey or survey series failure would apply to both VOC and non-VOC- controlled gasoline. Thus, NOx standards would be ratcheted year 'round even if the failure occurred only within the high-ozone period. Likewise, if the "survey series" outside the high-ozone period was failed, all NOx standards including those during the high-ozone period would be ratcheted. 15. Question: If the air is found to have failed the VOC or toxics surveys, is the refiner subject to additional burden other than the tightening of the particular specifications as listed in section 80.41? Answer: Since surveys do not consist of the sampling and analysis of ambient air, the "air" does not pass or fail VOC or toxics surveys. Reformulated gasoline in a specific control area is sampled and analyzed for certain parameters and it is upon the basis of the results of these analyses that an area will pass or fail a survey. Survey failures result in the ratcheting of standards as described in section 80.41. The only other burden for which these refineries would be responsible, would be additional surveys in future years since the required number of future surveys would not decrease as quickly as it otherwise would have. 16. Question: Can those parties responsible for carrying out a survey utilize other methods of assurance that money is available to pay a contractor instead of actually placing the necessary funds in escrow? Answer: Section 80.68(c)(16) specifically requires the placement in escrow or payment to the surveyor of the full amount of money needed to carry out the survey. The regulations do not provide for any alternative method such as a financial test of self insurance or a demonstration of financial responsibility. 17. Question: Previous EPA handouts such as the one utilized at the NPRA workshop held in March, indicated that 120 surveys must be conducted for the nine original RFG covered areas. In fact, since the California cities which are part of this group are not covered by the survey requirements, shouldn't the 120 surveys apply to only the remaining seven areas? Answer: Yes, 120 surveys which apply to the original cities currently apply to the seven remaining cities and not to San Diego and Los Angeles. 18. Question: Since the 120 surveys were originally meant to cover nine areas and not seven, shouldn't the 120 surveys (and 80, 60 and 50 surveys for subsequent years) be adjusted downward? Answer: No. The regulations provide that the 120 surveys (80, 60, and 50 in subsequent years) shall be conducted in 1995. Although the regulations provide for an increased number of surveys as areas opt into RFG, the regulations do not provide for fewer surveys than initially required based on the fact that regulated parties supplying gasoline to California cities are not subject to survey requirements under section 80.81(b)(1). 19. Question: Section 80.68(b)(2) requires an increase in the number of surveys to be conducted under Option 2, the nationwide survey option, based on the amount of gasoline utilized in the opt-in areas. What is the source of the annual gasoline volume data by covered area? When will EPA announce the adjusted number of required surveys for 1995? Answer: The Agency views the adjusted number of surveys required as most appropriately part of the survey plan as submitted to the Agency. Thus, the Agency will look to the survey plan to define the appropriate methodology to determine the appropriate number of surveys based on the gasoline volumes utilized in opt-in areas and in the original nine cities. Likewise, for the years after 1995, the rate of decrease in the total number of surveys required will itself decrease based upon the gallonage of fuel supplied to areas which fail surveys the previous year. (See Survey Question 20 below.) The method to determine the volume of gasoline in these areas and, thus, the adjusted number of surveys, should be defined in the survey plan. (The areas addressed in the survey plan include not only the opt- in areas but also the gasoline volumes in the original nine cities since the equations in the regulations that determine the year-to-year change in the number of surveys required utilize ratios potentially involving the volumes for all cities in the RFG program, including the original nine envisioned in the Clean Air Act.) EPA will review this methodology as part of its overall review of a survey plan. A related questions involves the volume of gasoline in the "original nine cities" utilized in the equations to calculate the adjusted number of surveys. It was intended that this volume include the California areas which, under the California exemptions, will not now be included in the actual surveys. As is mentioned in Survey Question 19, the regulations are clear that all nine cities be included in this original volume. Thus the California areas will be included in the volumes for the "original nine cities" (Vorig) as specified in the equations of section 80.68(b)(2). 20. Question: Given that the number of surveys required in later years (after 1995) will, in part, be determined by survey failures, when will EPA announce the adjusted number of required surveys for 1996 (or subsequent years)? How can a survey plan be submitted by September 1, 1995, if the adjusted number of surveys for 1996 is not known? Answer: The survey plan will have to take into account whatever contingencies may occur. Any change in the total number of surveys which may be triggered by areas "passing" or "failing" surveys (see section 80.68(b)(2)(ii)) will not result in any change in the actual areas covered by the surveys. Rather, it will only change the number of surveys required for those areas. Thus, the survey plan will still have to address information such as how representative samples will be identified in each city and all other site-specific factors in planning a survey. In terms of total numbers of surveys, the plan should address the "worst case" contingency of no drop in total surveys required. If the total number of surveys drop, any plan which addresses the "worst case" contingency should accommodate a smaller number of total surveys. For new opt-in areas, the Administrator has some discretion in setting the date for compliance with introduction of RFG. Utilizing this discretion, and working with the states on scheduling opt-in requests, the Agency will work to facilitate opt-in schedules so as to not disrupt the efficient planning of surveys or introduction of RFG generally. 21. Question: Section 80.67(a)(2) authorizes a compliance procedure for benzene and oxygen averaging on a "covered area" basis. If a refinery participates in a compliance survey, does this section apply? Does this section apply only if a refinery decides to average oxygen or benzene and does not participate in a compliance survey? Do ratchets apply to parties complying with oxygen and benzene averaging under this section? Answer: The compliance procedure described in this section allows for oxygen and benzene averaging on an area-specific basis. Since the purpose of surveys is to assure that nationwide averaging provides adequate quality gasoline overall on an area- specific basis, a party complying under this section is not subject to the survey requirements, i.e., the refiner or importer need not take part in a survey. It is important to note that a party complying under this section must obtain EPA approval by supplying EPA with a detailed description of the procedures the party will undertake in order to assure that the complying fuel is limited to a specific covered area. EPA believes that a procedure to assure adherence to this type of area-specific averaging would require substantial effort on the part of the complying party. If a refinery/importer participates in a compliance survey, the averaging provisions and requirements stated in this section do not apply. If a refinery/importer does not take part in a compliance survey then it must either: 1) comply on a per gallon basis or 2) it can choose to average oxygen and benzene (only) under this section and, of course, must comply with all requirements of this section. Although parties complying with averaging under section 80.67(a)(2)(i) are considered to have met the survey requirements under section 80.68, the regulations do not authorize an exemption for these parties from complying with ratcheted standards for averaged RFG which result from failed surveys. If such parties were not subject to ratcheted average standards, an unworkable enforcement situation would result under which several different maximum and minimum standards would be applicable to the same area. 22. Question: Please describe the survey areas which are currently applicable. Answer: Attached to this document as Attachment II is a list of the presently applicable survey areas including opt-in areas. This list is current as of June, 1994. (The Agency has promulgated a "corrections notice" which defines these areas.) 23. Question: A previous EPA handout utilized at the NPRA workshop held in March, indicated that survey samples outside of the maximum and minimum standards with no enforcement tolerance applied will not be used to obtain survey values for that parameter. Is this correct? Answer: No. The handout was incorrect and should read that survey samples outside of the maximum and minimum standards plus any enforcement tolerance applied will not be used to obtain survey values for that parameter. (See section 80.68(c)(6)(i).) 24. Question: Could a refiner or importer comply with an RFG standard on average without actively (e.g., financially) participating in compliance survey option 1 or 2? Does section 80.67(a)(1), or any other paragraph in the regulations, mean that a refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender must actively participate in the compliance survey requirements in order to meet the RFG standards on average (with the exception of area- specific oxygen and benzene averaging under section 80.67(a)(2))? Answer: With the exception of area-specific oxygen and benzene averaging under section 80.67(a)(2), all refiners, importers or oxygenate blenders must actively comply with the survey requirements in order to be eligible to meet RFG standards on average. Section 80.67(a)(1) states that "any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender that complies with the survey requirements...has the option of meeting the standards...for average compliance...[and] any refiner, importer or oxygenate blender that does not comply with the survey requirements must meet the standards...for per gallon compliance, and does not have the option of meeting standards on average." The survey requirements are specified in section 80.68, which provides two options - a program of compliance surveys performed by a refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender (option 1), or a comprehensive program of surveys conducted under a plan approved by EPA (option 2). Section 80.68(b) does not explicitly identify those refiners, importers, and blenders that are deemed to satisfy the survey requirements under the second option. However, it does reference section 80.68(a) which requires active participation by a refiner, importer or blender, and EPA believes that requiring active participation under 80.68(b) is more likely to result in broader and more comprehensive surveys. Therefore, EPA interprets section 80.68(b) as providing that a refiner, importer or blender will be deemed to have satisfied the survey requirements if they actively participate in a comprehensive survey program. 25. Question: Section 80.68(a)(3) indicates that the penalty for failure to carry out "an approved survey" is the requirement that the regulated party achieve compliance with all per gallon standards for the entire year in question. Does this penalty apply to both survey options or just option 1? Answer: It applies to both survey options as discussed in the answer to Survey Question 24 (above). EPA interprets sections 80.67 and 80.68 as requiring an active participation in conducting either a survey under option 1 or option 2 as a prerequisite for meeting the standards on average. If a refiner, importer or blender does not actively participate, that party must meet the standards on a per gallon basis. 26. Question: Would survey failures in 1999 result in Phase II ratchets in 2000? Could survey failures prior to 1999 result in Phase II ratchets in 2000? Answer: All ratchets in place in 1999 and all survey failures which take place in 1999 will apply to Phase II gasoline in 2000, subject to the section 80.41 ratcheting requirements. For example, if an area has been ratcheted by 1% for VOC reductions for the year 1999, and that area also fails a survey in 1999, then Phase II averaged RFG in 2000 is ratcheted by 2% in 2000. 27. Question: With respect to section 80.68(b)(4)(ii), would a failure to conduct a simple model RFG survey NOT result in a Phase I complex model NOx ratchet because simple model RFG has been deemed to comply with the NOx standard? Answer: One interpretation of the question could include the assumption that a "simple model survey" might not be conducted while a "complex model survey" is conducted. Under the regulations, there are no separate "simple model surveys" and "complex model surveys". There is a single survey consisting of complex model samples and simple model samples. Nevertheless, a survey could be conducted with simple model samples but no complex model samples if no complex model gasoline were being distributed in the area. In such a case, if some simple model sample parameters were failed, there would be a ratchet of those failed simple model parameters but there would be no failure of complex model parameters since no complex model gasoline was found to be in the area. (As is discussed in Survey Question 13 above, benzene and oxygen failures are not covered by this discussion and a failure of these standards would always precipitate a ratchet the following year.) Thus, complex model NOx parameters would not be ratcheted for the following year. (In 1997, however, failure of the simple model VOC or toxics parameters will result in the ratcheting of those parameters for complex model gasoline in 1998.) If a planned survey was not conducted, the regulations are specific that the area would be deemed to have failed for all parameters including NOx. (See section 80.68(b)(4).) 28. Question: Are samples collected at retail outlet dispensers acceptable for the compliance survey requirements? Answer: Details of what is acceptable for purposes of the compliance survey will be specified in the survey plan submitted to the Agency in the September prior to the year of the survey (assuming the plan submitted is approved by EPA). However, it is highly likely that such samples from dispensers at retail stations would indeed be the basis of survey results. F. DOWNSTREAM OXYGEN BLENDING REQUIREMENTS 1. Question: There is considerable confusion regarding the ability of refiners to commingle RBOB produced at different refineries. Some refiners have interpreted 80.69 as requiring separate storage and handling for each RBOB, even when both are "any oxygenate" RBOB. Can "any oxygenate" RBOB be commingled? Answer: RBOB must be segregated from RFG, and from other RBOB having different oxygenate requirements, to the point of oxygenate blending. There is no need to separate "any oxygenate" RBOB from other "any oxygenate" RBOB. 2. Question: If an oxygenate blender adds oxygenate only to conventional gasoline downstream of the refinery, please confirm that the oxygenate blender is not considered a "refiner" and therefore is not subject to record keeping, reporting, or attest engagement requirements. Answer: This party would not be considered a "refiner" for purposes of the anti-dumping requirements, and is not required to meet the anti-dumping requirements specified in the question. 3. Question: Please define any restriction in the RFG program on mixing ethanol and ether fuels. Answer: Under  80.78(a)(8), no person may combine VOC- controlled RFG produced using ethanol with VOC-controlled RFG produced using any other oxygenate during the period of January 1 through September 15 of each year. This prohibition applies at all locations in the gasoline distribution system, including at retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. 4. Question: Section 80.69(b)(4) indicates that an oxygenate blender that chooses to average is required to test each batch of product. In the case of computer controlled truck blending would documentation of the metered volumes of components be sufficient given an oversight program as outlined in this section? Answer: EPA has not provided for "metering" of volumes as a substitute for per-batch testing. 5. Question: What is a satisfactory quality assurance program that ensures oxygenates are being added to RBOB at a non- proprietary terminal? Answer: For refiners and importers who wish to claim the actual oxygenate type and amount blended with RBOB, a program of contractual controls and quality assurance sampling and testing over the downstream oxygenate blending operation must be carried out. Under  80.69(a)(6) and (7), a quality assurance sampling and testing program must be carried out at the facilities of each oxygenate blender who blends any RBOB with any oxygenate. The testing methodology used must be consistent with  80.46(g). Section 80.69 specifies, among other things, mandatory sampling and testing rates and where samples must be taken. Refiners and importers have a second compliance option which allows them to make certain default assumptions regarding the type and amount of oxygenate blended downstream. Rather than claim the actual amount of oxygenate blended, these parties make certain default ("worst case") assumptions regarding the type and amount of oxygenate blended downstream. Under  80.69(a)(8), these assumptions are in lieu of the contractual and quality assurance requirements of  80.67(a)(6) and (7). 6. Question: Is splash blending of oxygenates allowed under the RFG program? Answer: Yes. 7. Question: Section 80.69(e) refers to "additional requirements for oxygenate blenders who blend oxygenate in delivery trucks." What type of activity is this intended to cover? Answer: This section refers to any case where the RBOB and oxygenate is not combined, mixed, and tested in a storage tank before loading into a truck. Thus, the provision includes cases both where the RBOB and oxygenate are sequentially loaded onto a truck, and where the RBOB and oxygenate are combined in a blending header between the storage tanks and the truck. 8. Question: Are truck drivers required to test the last three deliveries to a station if they are from different suppliers? Answer: Section 80.69(e)(2) requires certain sampling and testing by oxygenate blenders who splash blend and provides that quality assurance testing must be conducted either prior to when the delivery truck driver puts gasoline into the underground tank at the retail outlet, or subsequent to delivery into the underground tank if the last three deliveries to the retail outlet were acquired from the same blender as the current load. If the oxygenate blender is unable to meet the specified testing frequency at retail outlets where the last three deliveries were from different blenders, the oxygenate blender is required to sample before putting the gasoline in the underground tank, which would require a sample from the delivery truck. 9. Question: Can a refiner ship gasoline with an oxygen content higher than 2.9 weight % using ethers? The purpose is to quickly increase the oxygen content in the distribution system. Answer: In general, the maximum oxygen content for RFG that is not designated as VOC-controlled is 3.5 weight% oxygen. However, under the terms of the  211(f) "Sun" waiver, MTBE blends are restricted to 15 volume% (or approximately 2.7 weight% oxygen). Refiners may ship RFG designated as VOC-controlled only if the RFG has an oxygen content of 1.5 to 2.7 weight%. For those areas with state oxygenated gasoline programs under  211(m) of the Act, EPA has granted a "blending tolerance" which allows upstream parties to introduce ethers of up to 2.9 weight% oxygen. The reason for this tolerance was to address the slight dilution of oxygen content in the distribution system and to ensure downstream compliance with the 2.7 weight % oxygen content for oxygenated gasoline program areas under  211(m). This "blending tolerance" only applies in oxygenated gasoline program areas. For those oxygenated gasoline areas that are also RFG areas, the blending tolerance would only apply during the oxygenated gasoline control season (i.e. there is no "blending tolerance" in these areas during the VOC-controlled season or for VOC-controlled RFG). 10. Question: Section 80.69(b), requirements for oxygenated blenders, seems to conflict with 80.69(e), additional requirements for oxygenate blenders who blend oxygenate in trucks. Does 80.69(b)(4) apply to parties covered by 80.69(e)? Does each truck compartment have to be assigned a batch number? Answer: Section 80.69(b)(4) applies to parties covered by 80.69(e), if they are averaging. RFG produced by adding oxygenate to RBOB in the compartment of a truck is one batch of RFG and each compartment must be given a different batch number. If blending occurs prior to introducing the RFG into the truck compartment and is designated as a batch, then multiple compartments could be filled with RFG from the single designated batch. 11. Question: Per  80.65(d), you cannot designate RFG as oxygenated program RFG (OPRG) unless it is delivered within 5 days of the oxygenated gasoline control period. There could be considerable differences in delivery dates. Is there a mechanism to redesignated a batch if a shipment arrives early falling outside the 5 day window? Answer: Sections 80.65(d)(2)(iii) and 80.2(nn), in conjunction, say that gasoline must be designated as OPRG if it is intended for use in an oxygenated gasoline program area during an oxygenated gasoline program control period, and that gasoline arriving at a terminal serving an oxygenated gasoline area within 5 days of the beginning of the oxygenated gasoline control period is presumed to be for this use. If gasoline arrives earlier than 5 days prior to the start of the oxygenated gasoline control period, and is intended for use during the oxygenated gasoline control period, then this gasoline should be designated as OPRG. 12. Question: What testing must an oxygenate blender conduct at the point of blending? Answer: The requirements for oxygenate blender testing are contained in  80.69(b) through (e) of the regulations. 13. Question: The regulations appear to restrict the addition of oxygenates so that oxygenate can only be added to gasoline designated as OPRG. Is this correct? Why couldn't additional oxygen be added to RFG (non-OPRG) if needed to meet the needs of an oxygenated gasoline city? Also, does RFG have to be re- certified to change its designation from non-OPRG to OPRG? Answer: Under  80.78(a)(6), no person may add any oxygenate to RFG, except that oxygenate may be added to RFG that is designated as OPRG provided that such gasoline is used in an oxygenated gasoline control area during the appropriate oxygenated gasoline control season. RFG may not be re-certified to change its designation from non-OPRG to OPRG. However, the technical amendments to the reformulated gasoline regulation allow greater flexibility with respect to the designation of RFG as OPRG. Under  80.65(d)(2)(iii)(B), RFG that contains at least 2.0 weight% oxygen may be designated as OPRG regardless of whether the gasoline is used in an oxygenated gasoline program area during the oxygenated gasoline control season. The effect of this amendment is explained in great detail, see Downstream Blending Issues Section. 14. Question: If a refiner ships RBOB to an oxygenate blender at another location, is the refiner responsible for tracking properties following oxygenate addition? Answer: Refiners are required to determine the properties of each batch of RBOB they produce or import prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery. Under  80.69(a)(4) the refiner is required to determine that the properties of the RBOB are sufficient to allow the downstream parties to establish, through sampling and testing, whether the RBOB has been altered or contaminated so that it will not meet the applicable RFG standard after the addition of the specified type of oxygenate. If the refiner is complying with  80.69(a)(6) and (7) [i.e. claiming the actual oxygen content blended by the downstream blender], then the refiner must have a contractual relationship with each downstream blender and conduct a quality assurance and testing program. If the refiner is complying with  80.69(a)(8), in lieu of the contractual relationship and quality assurance requirements, he may make his compliance calculations based on specified, "worst case" assumptions about oxygen content. 15. Question: If ethanol is splash blended into a truck, does the truck operator become an oxygenate blender? If so, what are the registration, reporting, recordkeeping, and oversight requirements of the trucker? Will two bills of lading (one from a gasoline terminal and one from an ethanol terminal) stapled together be valid documentation of final product? Answer. The regulations at  80.2(ll) and (mm) specifically provide that any person who owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises an oxygenate blending facility, the definition of which includes a truck, is an oxygenate blender under the regulations. In addition, the gasoline owner, if different than the truck operator, would meet the oxygenate blender definition. As such, the truck operator and the gasoline owner would be subject to all registration, reporting, recordkeeping, and oversight requirements for oxygenate blenders specified in  80.69. In a case where the oxygen standard is being met on a per- gallon basis (and not on average), two bills of lading that contain all the product transfer document information specified in  80.77 would be appropriate documentation for showing that the proper amount and type of oxygenate are used generally, but these documents would not satisfy the sampling and testing requirements specified under  80.69(e). If more than one party meets the "oxygenate blender" definition, EPA will not enforce registration, reporting, recordkeeping and quality assurance requirements if these requirements are met by at least one of the parties. The parties should agree between themselves which of them will register with EPA. (EPA recommends that the party who owns the gasoline register.) All parties remain liable if the reporting, recordkeeping and quality assurance requirements are not met. Terminals may only transfer RBOB to registered oxygenate blenders. 16. Question: How do you certify a splash blended batch before proper mixing occurs (where mixing occurs during transport)? Answer: An oxygenate blender "certifies" RFG produced by combining RBOB with oxygenate by adding the proper type and amount of oxygenate. In the case of an oxygenate blender who meets the oxygenate standard on a per-gallon basis, the oxygenate blender is not required to sample and test each batch, but rather to conduct a specified quality assurance program of sampling and testing. The oxygenate blending records would be sufficient to "certify" that a particular batch that is not tested was properly blended. In the case of an oxygenate blender who meets the oxygenate standard on average, every batch must be certified by sampling and testing. The RFG regulation does not specify the distance or length of time that a batch must be transported in the delivery truck before proper mixing occurs. In order to ensure that proper mixing has occurred, the driver should sample the batch immediately before he places it in the underground storage tank at the retail station or when the batch reaches its final destination. 17. Question: The custody transfer point of the RBOB between the terminal operator and the exchange company is normally at the loading arm connection to the transport. Since the title to the RBOB is therefore held by the exchange company and not the terminal operator at the moment the RBOB enters the blending facility (the transport truck), is the terminal operator still considered an oxygenate blender in this situation? Our interpretation is that, in the case of automated sequential blending, the terminal would be an oxygenate blender because it "controls and supervises" the blending process. Likewise, it is our interpretation that the terminal operator would not be an oxygenate blender in a splash blending situation since the operator does not have title to the RBOB or ethanol at the time of blending and does not supervise or control the blending process. Is this interpretation correct? Answer. Your interpretation is correct in the first situation. If, in the second situation, the transport truck operator controls the amounts of products to be splash blended in the truck, your interpretation is also correct. 18. Question: If, in a splash blending situation, the terminal is not an oxygenate blender, would it handle the RBOB as an intermediate owner and transfer title of the RBOB to the exchange customer with the restriction that it only be sold to another intermediate owner of an EPA registered oxygenate blender? Would the exchange company, carrier, and owner of the blended product be responsible for the oxygenate blender oversight provisions and not the terminal operator? Answer: If a terminal does not meet the oxygenate blender definition, the answer to both questions is "yes." G. COVERED AREAS/OPT-IN ISSUES 1. Question: Which cities, including opt-in areas, are covered by this regulation and will have reformulated gasoline? What are the geographical boundaries of the covered areas? How many covered areas are there? Answer: A complete list of the covered areas current as of June 10, 1994, can be found in Attachment II to this Question and Answer document. The list includes descriptions of the covered areas. The current number of covered areas are 43 (46 if the recently opted-in Wisconsin areas are included). 2. Question: Section 80.70 lists for Virginia the county of Richmond as an opt-in and excludes the city of Richmond. Is this a typographical error? Answer: Yes. The city of Richmond is considered opted-in, not the county of Richmond. 3. Question: Putnam and Orange Counties in New York were not included in the list of RFG covered areas in Section 80.70. Was there exclusion an oversight? Answer: Yes. A correction has been made to include Putnam and Orange Counties in the New York City reformulated gasoline covered area. These counties are part of the New York City CMSA and are thus appropriately part of the New York City ozone nonattainment area and reformulated gasoline covered area. Putnam and Orange Counties are also included in the New York City CMSA for purposes of the oxygenated fuels program requirement. 4. Question: Does the EPA maintain a single document listing the reclassification of CO and ozone nonattainment areas? Answer: For information pertaining to the reclassification of CO and ozone nonattainment areas, contact Valerie Broadwell (919-541-3310) or Barry Gilbert (919-541-5238) Ozone/Carbon monoxide Programs Branch, AQMD, MD-15, OAQPS, EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711. 5. Question: How and when will refiners and gasoline distributors be notified of new areas which opt-in to the RFG program? How much advanced notice will be provided? Answer: New areas electing to opt-in to the reformulated gasoline program will be announced in a Federal Register notice. 6. Question: If a new area decides to opt-in to the reformulated gasoline program, what determines the effective date that reformulated gasoline must be supplied to that area? Answer: The effective date of the program in any area which opts into the program is January 1, 1995, or one year after EPA receives the request to include the area in the program, whichever is later. EPA will announce the effective date of new opt-in areas in a Federal Register notice after receipt of a state's petition. H. REGISTRATION/RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING 1. Question: Where should registrations and reports be sent? Answer: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Attn: REFGAS (6406J) 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 2. Question: Have all of the reporting formats been finalized? Answer: The final registration forms are available now and final batch report forms will be made available shortly (drafts have been available since January 1994). The other reports will be finalized later this year. 3. Question: In what form should independent laboratories report batch test results? Answer: Independent laboratories should use the same reporting forms and EDI formats used by regulated parties for reporting on batch test results. They will not need to report designations for each batch or the results of emissions calculations. 4. Question: What are the reports required for a refiner who produces RFG under the per gallon option? Answer: A refiner meeting the certification standards on a per gallon basis must submit quarterly reports for every batch of reformulated gasoline and RBOB produced, as specified in  80.75(a), and the end of year statement indicated in  80.75(l). 5. Question: When will final EDI formats be made available? Answer: EPA will provide an implementation guideline document for EDI submission of reports shortly. That document will contain the final EDI formats. Draft EDI formats have been available since February 1994. 6. Question: How should a party producing reformulated gasoline or RBOB make the designation of per gallon or average for the appropriate fuel parameters? Answer: If filing by paper, the party should submit the Annual Compliance Designation with its first quarter batch reports. If filing electronically, the first batch report transmitted must include the designations which will apply to each subsequent batch for that calendar year. 7. Question: When will registration numbers be issued by EPA? Answer: EPA will begin to issue registration ID numbers in July 1994. 8. Question: Will ID numbers issued for other EPA programs be used for the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs? Answer: To a certain extent, yes. If a facility was previously registered for EPA's lead phasedown program that ID will be used for the facility ID (with zeros added to pad out to the new format). If a company is registered in the fuels and fuel additives registration system (FFARS) the FFARS company ID will be used for the company ID. IDs from any other EPA programs will not be valid. EPA plans to issue a list of the phasedown and FFARS IDs. 9. Question: On the registration forms it seems you are forced to check only one primary activity (refiner, oxygenate blender, importer, or independent lab). Do you submit two forms if you are both a refiner and importer? Answer: No. The final forms have been changed to register each company once for all applicable activities. As before, each facility will be registered separately for each activity that is undertaken at the facility. Import facilities need not be registered individually (see question 10 in this section). 10. Question: Section 80.65(f)(2)(i) & (ii) Independent analysis requirement. states that any importer shall designate one independent laboratory for each import facility at which RFG or RBOB is imported and identify the designated independent laboratory to the EPA according to the registration requirements in  80.76. However,  80.76(c)(3) requires separate facility registrations only for refineries and oxygenate blending facilities. How and where do importers provide the required facility information? Answer: There are two ways that an importer may designate which independent lab(s) it will use. The first, which is reflected in  80.76(c) of the corrections to the RFG regulations, is to complete a facility registration for each PADD into which it imports gasoline. The importer should indicate the facility name as a PADD (i.e. PADD I) and enter the PADD number as the facility ID number (i.e. 00001). The remaining information, minus the facility address would be completed as for a refinery or oxy blending facility. The second is to register import facilities separately just like a refinery or oxygenate blending facility. An importer may elect either method or use a combination of both. That is, an importer may indicate a single independent lab for its operations in a PADD but supersede that for one or more import facilities by registering each facility with a different independent lab. Separate import facility registrations only affect independent laboratory designations, however, and such separate registrations have no affect on the requirement that an importer must include all imported gasoline, each year, in its annual compliance calculations. 11. Question: If an importer is unsure of what terminals might be involved in importing gasoline (RFG or conventional), may importers register more terminals than might be used? Answer: Yes. However, an importer does not need to register each import facility it uses (see previous question). 12. Question: The regulations require that an importer be registered 90 days before imports are received. Does this mean the company or the facility? Answer: Both. If an importer chooses to register individual import facilities it must register them 90 days prior to shipping into them. However, an importer is only required to register its activities in each PADD (still 90 days in advance) as per  80.76(c)(3) in the amended regulations. 13. Question: What is EPA's intent on requiring the location of off-site records on the facility registration? Answer: EPA needs to know where records are stored so that EPA inspectors may inspect those records. If a facility keeps some or all of its records off-site EPA needs to know the address of the primary off-site storage facility. 14. Question: Will registration prior to November 1, 1994 be required before reformulated gasoline for (use in 1995) may be made in 1994? Answer: The regulations do not require registration earlier than November 1, 1994. However, the regulations do require that registration numbers be placed on product transfer documents and so a party would need to register with EPA prior to producing or importing, and shipping, any reformulated gasoline or RBOB. EPA will begin accepting registrations and issuing registration numbers in July 1994. 15. Question: Will an independent laboratory be issued an ID for the entire company or must it register each one of its laboratories individually? Answer: If an independent sampling and testing firm runs many laboratories but test results will be gathered at and reported to EPA from a single location, the firm may register once at that location. If, however, reporting will be done from several locations, each one should be registered separately. 16. Question: Will EPA allow the electronic storage of records? Answer: Yes, so long as reasonable access and audit controls are in place. 17. Question: Has EPA issued guidelines for security and audit procedures for electronic recordkeeping systems? Answer: No. The Agency does not plan to issue such guidelines. EPA recommends that recordkeeping systems be audited by an independent auditing firm to verify the efficacy of security and audit controls. 18. Question: May records, regardless of whether they are paper or electronic, be stored off-site? Answer: Yes. Refiners, oxygenate blenders and importers must indicate where records will be kept on all facility registrations. 19. Question: What is the final form of the batch identification number? Answer: A batch ID is made up of the 4 digit company ID, 5 digit facility ID, 2 digit reporting year, and the 6 digit batch number (e.g., CCCC-FFFFF-YY-BBBBBB). 20. Question: May the six digit batch number in the batch ID contain non-numeric characters (i.e., to mark the grade of the batch)? Answer: No. 21. Question: May batch numbers be used to identify petroleum products other than gasoline or gasoline blendstocks thereby causing gaps in the batch numbering sequence? Answer: Yes. 22. Question: Must batch numbers be assigned in both numerical and chronological order? Answer: Batch numbers should be assigned in numerical and chronological order of production (not shipment). If a batch of gasoline must be re-blended because it is out of specification, and an independent laboratory has already sampled the batch, the resulting batch must be assigned a new ID. The volume of the original batch ID should then be reported to EPA as zero. If an independent lab has not sampled the original batch, the refiner may retain the original batch number. In either case, the refiner should ensure that records are kept on the nature of the contamination, corrective measures and original and subsequent sampling and testing. 23. Question: If an importer registers in a PADD, may the importer use a starting point other than zero, within the range of valid batch numbers, for generating the sequential batch numbers at each of its import facilities? Answer: Yes. As long as no batches are assigned duplicate numbers this would be acceptable. 24. Question: A refinery places two batches of gasoline that have been sampled and certified as reformulated gasoline with the same designation into a tank. Must the refinery assign a new batch ID to the mixture or can it be identified with the two previously assigned batch IDs? Answer: No new ID is necessary. Batches of reformulated gasoline may be fungibly mixed, subject to the segregation provisions of  80.78. 25. Question: Are multiple shipments from the same tank multiple batches? Answer: If a volume of gasoline is placed in a tank, certified (if not previously certified), and is not changed in some way it is considered to be the same batch of gasoline even if several shipments are made from that tank. The volume of the batch for RFG accounting and reporting purposes is the sum of all shipments. 26. Question: Will each compartment of a truck loaded at the rack at the refinery be deemed a different batch of reformulated gasoline and thus need a batch identification number? Could the invoice number serve as the unique identification number for that shipment? Answer: In the case of reformulated gasoline produced by adding oxygenate to RBOB in a truck, each truck compartment is a separate batch of reformulated gasoline. If the oxygen standard is being met on average, the reformulated gasoline in each compartment must be given a different batch number. If a volume of reformulated gasoline is certified and designated as a batch and then loaded into a truck, multiple compartments could be filled with gasoline from that batch. The invoice number may only be used for the batch number if it is six digits in length, unique for each batch produced in a year for each truck blender and generated in chronological and numerical order of production of the batch. Non-numeric characters are not allowed in the batch number. 27. Question: Do the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for conventional gasoline under the anti-dumping provisions apply to gasoline produced in 1994? Answer: No. 28. Question: Are there different reporting requirements for refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders? Answer: Yes. See  80.75 of the regulations. 29. Question: EPA has required that volumes be reported in gallons, but much of the industry measures volume in barrels. May volume be reported in barrels? Answer: No. If necessary, convert the volume in barrels to gallons using the proper conversion factor (42 gals/bbl) and round the result to the nearest whole gallon. When rounding fractional values, values from .01 to .49 should be rounded down to the unit value and values from .50 to .99 should be rounded up to the next highest unit value. 30. Question: Refiners and oxygenate blenders who produce averaged reformulated gasoline must report which covered areas products have been distributed to by each facility. How are these areas to be determined? Answer: Unless a refiner or oxygenate blender has specific and detailed information indicating otherwise, it must be assumed that products have been delivered to all covered areas serviced by the distribution system(s) used. A list of covered areas as of July 1, 1994 is attached to this document. (For a more detailed discussion of fungibility and covered areas see the responses to Survey questions in this document.) 31. Question: What is the definition of a responsible corporate officer (RCO) who is required to certify some of the submissions involved? Answer: Under  80.75(n), reports to EPA must be signed and certified as correct by the owner or a responsible corporate officer of the refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender. "Owner" means the person who is the principal owner of the business. The "responsible corporate officer" means a person who is an officer of the corporation under the laws of incorporation of the state in which the company is incorporated, and who in the corporate structure is the person ultimately responsible for the refining, importing, or oxygenate blending activity. EPA will accept reports that are signed by someone to whom the responsibility is delegated by the owner or an officer of the corporation, provided that the delegation is made in writing, the delegatee is familiar with the RFG and anti-dumping requirements, and the delegatee is no lower in the organization than refinery manager in the case of refiners, manager of the oxygenate blending facility in the case of oxygenate blenders, vice-president in charge of importing activities in the case of importers, or a similar level position. 32. Question: Should batch reports for blended gasoline be submitted by the facility at which gasoline is blended or the facility from which the blended gasoline is shipped? Answer: The facility where blending occurs. 33. Question: When you make the annual designation as an importer does it apply to all of your imported gasoline, or can you designate average or per gallon compliance parameters for each import facility? Answer: Importers must use the same per gallon or average designations for all reformulated gasoline imported each year, regardless of where that reformulated gasoline is imported. 34. Question: When are NOx Emissions Performance Averaging Reports due? Answer: With the fourth quarter submissions. 35. Question: What will constitute a valid electronic signature for electronic submission of reports to EPA? Answer: EPA will require that each party who wants to report electronically must sign an agreement that the use of electronic reporting methods will be considered equivalent to paper methods and that personal identification numbers assigned by EPA will be recognized as constituting a valid signature. In addition, each transmission sent to EPA must have embedded in it two personal identification numbers (PINs), one assigned to the company and one assigned to the individual certifying the report. 36. Question: How will EDI agreements affect third parties? Answer: An EDI agreement will be binding only on the Agency and the cosigner of the agreement. I. PRODUCT TRANSFER DOCUMENTATION 1. Question: Where are the product transfer documents requirements found in the RFG regulations and what do they require? Answer: The product transfer documents (PTD) requirements are found in  80.77 of the regulations for reformulated gasoline and RBOB and in  80.106 for conventional gasoline. These sections require that on each occasion when any person transfers title or custody of any gasoline (with the exception of gasoline sold or dispensed at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser- consumer for use in motor vehicles), the transferor must provide to the transferee the specific information pertaining to the fuel required in the product transfer document sections. The PTD requirements are not intended to require the creation of any new documentation in most situations. Instead, these requirements intend that parties include the PTD information in the documentation currently used to memorialize the transfer of title or custody of gasoline. 2. Question: Will product codes, such as are currently in use by pipelines, or fuel descriptions (simple, complex, RBOB), in place of minimum and maximums, be sufficient for compliance with the product transfer document requirements? Answer: The use of product codes would satisfy the product transfer document requirements of  80.77 and 80.106, provided that: 1) these codes reflect all the information required in these sections, including the applicable minimum and maximum standards; 2) these codes are standardized throughout the distribution system in which they are used; and 3) each downstream party is given sufficient information to know the full meaning of the product codes. In the case of a violation where a downstream party has not in fact been given the information necessary to know the meaning of the product codes, the product transfer document requirements of  80.77 and 80.106 will not have been met. A party may use product codes in the manner described to meet some of the transfer document requirements, and use plain English notations to meet other requirements. However, product codes may never be used to meet the requirements for specific language regarding conventional gasoline at  80.106(a)(1)(vi), and regarding certain blendstock at  80.106(b) 3. Question: What, specifically, are the minimum and/or maximum standards required on product transfer documents for benzene, oxygen, and RVP using the simple model? Answer: As per  80.77 of the regulations, the PTD's for simple model RFG need to contain the following min/max's. Averaged Standards Benzene 1.3 vol% per gal max. Oxygen 1.5 wt% per gal min. RVP 7.4 psi per gallon max., VOC Control Region 1 8.3 psi per gallon max., VOC Control Region 2 PTD's for simple model RFG designated as VOC-controlled must include the minimums or maximums for oxygen, benzene, and RVP and for simple model RFG not designated as VOC-controlled, the PTD must include the minimum for oxygen and the maximum for benzene. Should a refinery be subject to a ratchet as a result of a survey failure, the min/maxs on the PTDs should reflect the adjusted standard. In the case of RBOB, product transfer documents will not show the minimum or maximum standard for oxygen, but must specify the amount and type of oxygenate which the RBOB requires in order to meet the properties claimed by the refiner or importer of the RBOB. 4. Question: Does the product transfer documentation have to physically accompany a shipment of gasoline or could the documentation be sent electronically or by facsimile to the destination prior to the delivery arrival? Answer: Whenever possible the PTD's should accompany the shipment of gasoline. However, in circumstances like pipeline transfers where this would be impossible, the PTD's do not have to physically accompany the shipment. The regulations ( 80.77 and  80.106) require that on each occasion when any person transfers custody or title of any reformulated gasoline or RBOB or conventional gasoline, the transferor shall provide the transferee the appropriate PTD's. It does not specify the method required for the transferor to provide this information. 5. Question: Where a reformulated gasoline is injected into a "closed" proprietary pipeline, shipped to a "closed" proprietary marketing terminal and loaded into a proprietary truck and no other refiner can physically deliver or receive at these points, is it required to provide PTD's at each of these transfer points? Answer: The regulations require PTD's on each occasion when any person transfers custody or title of RFG, RBOB or conventional gasoline and conventional gasoline blendstock requiring the addition of oxygenate only. When the custody of gasoline changes within a proprietary distribution system the documents that are currently being used to memorialize the gasoline movement should contain the information specified for PTD's. 6. Question: Product transfer documents require a registration number. Doesn't this mean that parties must register with EPA earlier than the regulations indicate (the regulations say refiners must register on the date RFG production begins or November 1 whichever is later)? Answer: Yes, If a party intends to manufacture RFG prior to November 1, 1994. EPA expects to start assigning registration numbers in July. 7. Question: The requirement of  80.77 and  80.106 to provide all EPA assigned registration numbers for transferors and transferees, if registered, on all product transfer documents could create a rather enormous administrative task (keeping track of all EPA registration numbers). Is this requirement limited to only the refiner, importer or blender producing or importing the product to provide their own registration number on the documents or does it include downstream parties? Answer: The regulations state that the transferor shall provide the registration numbers for the immediate transferors and transferees who are refiners, importers or oxygen blenders and does not limit this to only those parties who are actually refining, importing or blending that particular delivery of gasoline. 8. Question: Where would a refiner go to find the registration numbers of all the transferees they will deal with? Answer: The transferees should supply the transferors with their registration numbers. EPA intends to have a list of the registration numbers available of all refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders. 9. Question:  80.77 and  80.106 states that product transfer documentation must be provided on each occasion when any person transfers custody or title of reformulated gasoline, RBOB or conventional gasoline. It is a common practice for a party to purchase or take title to gasoline but not take physical custody of the product. As an example, a party may buy product (and take title) in a tank and then take physical custody at a later time. Does EPA require that PTD's be provided when title changes or when the receiving party takes physical custody? What if separate parties are taking receipt of the title and the custody? Answer: The regulations require PTD's on each occasion when any person transfers custody or title of RFG, RBOB or conventional gasoline. Whatever documents (hardcopy or electronic) that are currently utilized for business purposes to memorialize the transaction should be annotated with the PTD information. If the transferee already has received a PTD from a transferor, for a particular delivery of gasoline due to a difference in the time between the change of custody and the change of title, EPA would not require the transferor to provide the transferee with another PTD unless there has been a modification or correction in the information provided on the first PTD between the time of the custody change and the title change. If one party is given title to a particular volume of gasoline and another party is given custody, the transferor should provide an appropriate PTD to each transferee. 10. Question: Who is the transferor and who is the transferee in the case of an exchange transaction? The sequence of physical custody is from terminal to truck to retail outlet, but the sequence of legal custody is from the terminal to exchange partner to marketer to truck driver to retail outlet. How many transfer documents must be generated? Can one document accompany the shipment, with successive parties adding their respective names to the document upon transfer? Answer: Any party who is receiving title or custody of the delivery would be considered a transferee, any party who relinquishes title or custody would be considered a transferor and any party who both receives and relinquishes title or custody would be both a transferee and a transferor. All transferors are responsible to provide all of their transferees PTD's containing the appropriate information. In some circumstances (where custody and title are being delivered to the same subsequent parties), it may be possible to utilize just one document that is updated each time the delivery is transferred. But the most appropriate way to meet PTD requirements is to include the PTD information on documents currently used to memorialize the transfer of title or custody. 11. Question: During a transition period, refiners will produce VOC-controlled RFG that is blended with non VOC-controlled RFG downstream of the refinery in order to blend down RVP prior to the beginning of the VOC season. How will the resultant mixture be classified and identified on the PTD issued for instance by a terminal? Answer: The resulting gasoline should be listed as non VOC- controlled RFG on the PTD's, unless the resulting blend meets the requirements to be designated as VOC-controlled gasoline. 12. Question: We would expect to purchase or exchange for reformulated gasoline in reformulated areas. At any given time, a tank could contain product from upwards of 3 different commingled RFG batches. As a distributor, is it sufficient to state on a bill of lading that all products conform to RFG, or must each of the batches in this tank be listed on the transfer document? Answer: This question assumes that PTD's must include batch identification numbers, which is incorrect. PTD's are not required to included the batch number or the name of the refinery that produced the gasoline. A distributor should include all the required information listed in  80.77 and  80.106 for the appropriate type of gasoline. While the name and registration number of the refinery or importer is required for complex model RFG or RBOB gasoline produced prior to January 1, 1998, this RFG or RBOB should not be combined with any other RFG or RBOB that was produced at another refinery or imported by another importer. 13. Question: What information needs to be included on RBOB product transfer documents? Is any information about min/max's required? Answer: The PTD requirements pertaining to RBOB can be found in  80.77. They include the type of RBOB and the type and amount of oxygenate to be added as well as the min/max's for benzene and RVP, for VOC controlled RBOB only (these min/maxs are provided in the answer to question 3 of this section). 14. Question: Are the min/maxs that are required on the PTD's for RBOB, intended to address the pre-oxygenate blended RBOB or the post-oxygenate blended RBOB? Answer: The post-oxygenate blended RBOB. 15. Question: 80.77(d) requires that transfer documentation include "the location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer." Does this mean the physical address of the transferring facility? Answer: Yes. 16. Question:  80.77 of the proposed rule included conventional gasoline in the requirement for product transfer documents. This section, in the final rule, now excludes conventional gasoline and includes that product in  80.106... this latter section however, states that it applies only "to product that becomes gasoline upon the addition of oxygenate only", is it correct to interpret that, except for gasoline that has had an oxygenate added, conventional gasoline transfers do not require PTD's to be in compliance? Answer: No. All conventional gasoline, including blendstock that requires the addition of oxygenate only, must meet the product transfer document requirements in  80.106. 17. Question: Will the EPA provide gasoline transfer document forms? Answer: No. 18. Question: Is there a required format for the wording of the certification for RFG? If not, is there a recommended or suggested format for certification in the PTD's, for downstream parties? Answer: No, to both questions. 80.106(a)(1)(vii) does specify certain language for conventional gasoline. 19. Question: Could a refiner rely upon transfer documents produced by a pipeline to meet the refiners (i.e., shipper's) responsibility as it relates to the generation of transfer documents and would such a document provide an adequate defense for the refiner? Answer: If a refiner is the transferor to a pipeline, then the refiner would be responsible to provide documentation to the pipeline. 20. Question: Outstanding gasoline exchange balances are commonly closed out between trading partners on an accounting basis because they are too small for an economic physical shipment. These "book transfers" do not in themselves cause the transportation or storage of product. Is it correct to assume that these activities are not subject to a requirement for PTD's? Answer: The PTD requirements refer only to the transferring of custody or title of any reformulated gasoline, RBOB, or conventional gasoline. If these "book transfers" involve the transferring of custody or title of such fuels then the PTD requirements would be applicable. The PTD information could be included on whatever documents are currently being used to memorialize these transactions for business reasons. 21. Question: The EPA has stated that PTD's include documents that reflect the transfer of ownership and physical custody of gas or blendstock, including invoices, receipts, bills of lading, manifests and pipeline tickets. Each of these documents contain different pieces of information required by the EPA. Some specify quality, quantity, parties of transfer, etc. Some are available prior to product shipment and some, such as pipeline meter tickets and final Bills of Lading, are provided after the product moves. Can we assume that the information identifying place of use restrictions, segregation requirements or standards of performance can be provided to the transferee prior to the product shipment? But that other transfer document requirements such as final quantity shipped, can be provided to the transferee after the product moves? Answer: Yes. The regulations require PTD's be provided by the transferor to the transferee on each occasion when any person transfers custody or title of RFG, RBOB or conventional gasoline. The regulations do not specify at what point in the delivery PTD's are to be provided for each occasion. 22. Question: The transfer document requirements state that the name and address of the transferor and transferee be present. When other oil partners, exchangers, are picking up product, will the address of the company headquarters be sufficient since EPA will still be able to trace the path of title and custody to the fuel. In addition, when jobbers pick up product we will have multiple account numbers for one main jobbership. These individual accounts do not contain the address of the jobbership. Is it sufficient that we provide the business name of the jobbership on the transfer document? If the address is later required we could provide it from our internal computer record. Answer: Yes, the headquarters address of the transferee would be acceptable. When jobbers pick up gasoline they are the transferees in the transaction and the regulations specifically require that an address for all transferees be included on the product transfer documents. 23. Question: If the oxygenate program remains in effect in California after CARB fuel in 1996, would we still need to identify the type and amount of oxygenate to meet the oxygenated program transfer document requirements? or will we be exempt for these record keeping/transfer document requirements? Answer: With regard to RFG product transfer documentation requirements as applied to California gasoline,  80.81(c)(9) of the regulations exempts California gasoline (as defined in  80.81(a)(2)) produced or imported subsequent to March 1, 1996 from the product transfer documentation requirements contained in  80.77 of the regulations. The wintertime oxygenated program transfer documents are a state of California requirement, EPA exempts California gasoline from the federal RFG PTD requirements but not from state required documents. 24. Question: On the island of Puerto Rico there is no opportunity for transporting a conventional gasoline to an area requiring reformulated gasoline except by ship or barge. Can the PTD and record keeping requirements downstream of the refiners and importers be eliminated in this instance? Answer: No. All PTD and record keeping requirements apply to the Island of Puerto Rico. The most appropriate way to comply with the PTD requirements is to include the information required by  80.77 and  80.106 on documents that are currently being used to memorialize these transactions. J. CALIFORNIA ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTIONS 1. Question: With regard to the California enforcement exemptions section of the RFG rule, are laboratory test methods that are recognized by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) allowed to be used (in lieu of the EPA prescribed methods) for certifying federal RFG for use in California prior to commencement of the CARB Phase II RFG program? Answer: Yes. Under  80.81(h), a refiner, importer or oxygenate blender of California gasoline may use sampling and analysis methodologies prescribed in the California Phase II RFG regulations. Such methodologies may be used at any time from the beginning of the federal RFG program on January 1, 1995, until December 31, 1999. CARB methodologies may only be used for "California gasoline," as defined in  80.81(a)(2). Gasoline that does not meet this definition (e.g., gasoline refined in California but sold or intended for sale in another state) must be sampled and tested in accordance with federal methodologies set forth in  80.46. 2. Question: Under  80.81(b)(2), California refiners are exempt from the independent analysis requirements set forth in  80.65(f). Does this exemption allow California refiners to use a computer-controlled in-line blending operation without first obtaining an exemption from EPA? Answer: Yes. Refiners of California gasoline may use computer-controlled in-line blending to produce RFG without obtaining an exemption under  80.65(f)(4). However, RFG that does not meet the definition of "California gasoline" in  80.81(a)(2) is subject to the independent analysis requirement, even if it is produced in California, and would require an exemption to allow computer-controlled in-line blending. 3. Question: Will California Phase 2 RFG comply with EPA Phase I and II requirements? Answer: EPA has determined that gasoline meeting the standards of the California Phase 2 RFG program has a greater VOC, NOx and toxic performance reduction than fuel meeting the federal reformulated gasoline Phase 1 standards, and that the California Phase 2 program is at least as stringent as the federal Phase I program. See 59 FR 7759, note 43 (February 16, 1994). However, the Agency has not made a determination at this time as to whether gasoline meeting the Phase II California standards will also meet the Phase II federal standards. Therefore, the California enforcement exemptions in  80.81 currently apply only during the time that the federal Phase I program is in effect (i.e., through the end of 1999). The Agency will consider whether these exemptions should be extended beyond 1999 in a later rulemaking. 4. Question: Starting with the first tender of RFG shipped later this year (1994), transferrors are required to provide transferrees with transfer documents detailing the type of RFG (VOC or non-VOC, oxygenate program or not, simple or complex) and various minimum or maximum quality statements (oxygen, benzene and RVP for simple model RFG; oxygen, benzene, VOC and NOx for complex model RFG). In California, the Los Angeles and San Diego areas are covered areas for both the RFG and wintertime oxygenated programs. The oxygenated fuels program in California requires 1.8 to 2.2 weight % oxygen for control areas during the winter control periods, as opposed to 2.7% elsewhere. Since RFG sold in California will satisfy the oxygenated program requirements without additional oxygenate, will transfer documents be required to differentiate between RFG and OPRG? Answer: Not after March 1, 1996. Section 80.81(c)(9) provides an exemption from the RFG product transfer documentation requirements contained in  80.77 for California gasoline manufactured or imported subsequent to March 1, 1996, that meets the requirements of the California Phase II RFG program. This exemption applies to  80.77(g)(1)(ii), which requires the proper identification of reformulated gasoline as "[o]xygenated fuels program reformulated gasoline" or "[n]ot oxygenated fuels program reformulated gasoline." California RFG manufactured prior to March 1, 1996, is subject to the product transfer documentation requirements, however. 5. Question: How will EPA enforce their regulations in California? Will the Agency defer to the California Air Resources Board? Answer: Prior to the start of the California Phase II RFG program in March 1996, EPA generally will enforce the federal RFG program California in the same manner in which it will be enforced in other parts of the nation. The principal difference is that compliance survey and independent analysis requirements will not apply to California gasoline during that period. Subsequent to the start of the California Phase II program, EPA will rely to a large extent on the proven ability of CARB to enforce its fuels programs. However, EPA retains the authority to monitor and enforce the federal RFG regulations in California. Such monitoring and enforcement may be done through sampling and testing of California gasoline and/or by the auditing of State- mandated records (which must be retained for 5 years under the federal regulations). In addition, refiners and importers of California gasoline are still subject to the registration ( 80.76) and batch testing ( 80.65(e)(1)) requirements of the federal regulations. 6. Question: Since the California winter oxygenate waiver will not allow RFG produced for Southern California during the winter of 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 to exceed 2.2 weight % while aiming for a 2.0 weight % oxygen target, EPA should exempt such gasoline from the OPRG designation provisions of  80.65(d). Does EPA concur? Answer: No. Section 80.81(c)(2) exempts refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders of California gasoline manufactured or imported subsequent to March 1, 1996, from the designation of gasoline requirements contained in  80.65(d). Reformulated gasoline produced or imported prior to that date must be designated in accordance with  80.65(d). 7. Question: How will the California exemption from EPA's final RFG rule be affected if California postpones the introduction of CARB Phase 2 reformulated gasoline? Answer: On April 12, 1994, CARB issued a notice of public hearing concerning certain proposed amendments to the State's Phase 2 reformulated gasoline program. The hearing on these amendments was held on June 9, 1994. At this hearing CARB approved changes to the State's Phase 2 reformulated gasoline regulations. These changes included certain implementation dates for the Phase 2 RFG program. Under the pre-existing California regulations, gasoline anywhere in the distribution system was subject to "cap" limits starting on April 1, 1996. The approved revisions change this date to April 15, 1996, for gasoline anywhere in the system except for the fueling of motor vehicles at service stations and other fueling facilities, and to June 1, 1996, for all fueling facilities. The approved amendments do not change the pre-existing implementation date of March 1, 1996, for compliance with the more stringent "flat" or "averaging" limits for gasoline supplied from a refinery or import facility. These changes in the implementation dates for the cap limits throughout the distribution system do not affect the timing of the California enforcement exemptions in the federal RFG regulations. The "cap" limits for gasoline leaving refineries and import facilities continues to apply as of March 1, 1996, the date on which most of the enforcement exemptions are based. 8. Question: If a California refiner can certify a CARB Phase 2 alternate gasoline formula using the State's predictive model, and that formula requires less than 1.8 percent oxygen, will it still satisfy the federal RFG specifications? Answer: No. Under  80.81(e)(2), if a refiner certifies under an alternative formula, then the exemption does not apply unless the refiner makes certain timely submissions to EPA. The refiner must submit to EPA a written demonstration that the certified gasoline formulation meets each of the complex model per-gallon standards specified in  80.41(c). The complex model per-gallon standards in  80.41(c) include a requirement that oxygen content be equal to or greater than 2.0 percent, by weight. A gasoline formulation that contains less than 1.8 percent oxygen would not meet this standard, and the California enforcement provisions would become inapplicable pursuant to the provisions of  80.81(e)(2)(ii). 9. Question: What oxygen level will be required in reformulated gasoline produced for Southern California during the summer of 1995? What oxygen level will be required in reformulated gasoline produced for Southern California during the summer of 1996? Because the CARB Phase II RFG standards specify a 1.8 to 2.2 weight % oxygen range starting on March 1, 1996, will refiners be allowed to target this range in Southern California during the summer of 1996? Answer: Reformulated gasoline produced for the Southern California areas covered by the federal RFG program (i.e., San Diego County and the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area, as defined in  80.70(a)) will be required to meet the oxygen content as well as other standards specified in the federal regulations during both 1995 and 1996. Although the Agency concluded that the CARB Phase 2 RFG oxygen "flat limit" of 1.8 to 2.2% would in practice be equivalent to the 2.0% minimum oxygen content required by the Clean Air Act, this conclusion was made for the purpose of determining whether exemptions from certain enforcement provisions of the federal regulations would be appropriate. Gasoline that qualifies for the enforcement exemptions under  80.81 must still comply with the federal reformulated gasoline standards even after the start of the CARB Phase 2 program in March 1996, including the oxygen content standards specified in  80.41 (e.g., at least 2.0% by weight). 10. Question: Although California gasoline is exempted in general, are there compliance requirements that would necessitate independent sampling and testing in that state? Answer: Yes. Section 80.81(b)(2) provides an exemption from the independent analysis requirements of  80.65(f) for California gasoline, as defined in  80.81(a)(2). Reformulated gasoline that does not meet this definition (e.g., RFG that is produced in California but sold or intended for sale outside the State) would be subject to the independent analysis requirements. In addition, the exemption could be lost under either of two circumstances: (1) A gasoline formulation is certified under the California predictive model or vehicle testing provisions, and its refiner, importer or oxygenate blender does not comply with the requirements of  80.81(e)(2); and/or (2) A refiner, importer or oxygenate blender has been assessed a penalty for a violation of the federal or California RFG regulations (see  80.81(e)(3)). In either of these cases, the refiner, importer or oxygenate blender would lose the exemption specified in  80.81, including the exemption from the independent analysis. 11. Question: Regarding refiners who have a California exemption, is it correct to assume the following for RFG made to be sold in California from January 1, 1995, until March 1, 1996 (the start of the California Phase II RFG program): A. Even if the refiner averages, it does not have to participate in the retail compliance survey; B. The refiner does not have to have sampling and testing done by an independent laboratory; and C. For batch sampling and analysis, the refiner may use methodologies prescribed in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations in lieu of the EPA-approved methodologies. Answer: A. Yes. Section 80.81(b)(1) exempts refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders of gasoline that is sold, intended for sale, or made available for sale as a motor fuel in the State of California from the compliance survey provisions of  80.68 for such gasoline. B. Yes. Section 80.81(b)(2) exempts refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders of California gasoline (as defined in  80.81(a)(2)) from the independent analysis requirements of  80.65(f) for such gasoline. C. Yes. Section 80.81(h) allows refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders of California gasoline (as defined in  80.81(a)(2)) to use a sampling and/or analysis methodology prescribed in Title 13, California Code of Regulations,  2260 et seq., for such gasoline in lieu of any applicable sampling and analysis methodology specified in the federal RFG regulations. Section 2263(a) and (b) of the California regulations prescribes the sampling procedures and test methods for the California Phase II program, and  2263(c) allows the use of another test method "following a determination by the executive officer that the other method produces results equivalent to the results with the specified method." Thus, the use of any test method determined by CARB to be equivalent to a prescribed method under  2263(c) of the California regulations is authorized under  80.81(h) of the federal regulations. However, a refiner that chooses to use California sampling and/or analytical methods for its California gasoline may not use such methods for its non-California gasoline. Section 80.81(h) allows the use of California methodologies only for California gasoline, and not for any other RFG that the regulated party may produce or import. All of these provisions apply from the start of the federal RFG program on January 1, 1995, until December 31, 1999. 12. Question: Section 80.81(e)(2)(i) requires California gasoline producers that use either the predictive model or vehicle testing model to "certify" a gasoline formulation under CARB regulations to submit documentation to EPA within 30 days of receiving such "certification" by the State. CARB does not plan to issue such "certifications" for the predictive model. In this case, what should California gasoline producers submit to EPA? Answer: EPA has not yet resolved the issue identified in this question. As a result, this question will be answered later. 13. Question: Section 80.80(e)(2) generally provides that a refiner or importer that fails to meet the independent analysis requirements of  80.65(f) may not use the results of sampling and testing carried out by the regulated party as evidence of the properties of gasoline giving rise to a violation. Does this provision apply to California gasoline, which is exempt from the independent testing requirements? Answer: No. Because  80.81(b)(2) exempts California gasoline from the  80.65(f) independent analysis requirements, the "penalty" set forth in  80.80(e)(2) for failure to meet these requirements is not applicable to such gasoline, unless this exemption is lost under  80.81(e). 14. Question: Does EPA agree that the California Exemption section of the RFG rule facilitates using the complex model for anti-dumping with the Commencement of CARB Phase 2 RFG effective 3\1\96? Answer: Section  80.41(i) of the federal regulation requires that during each calendar year 1995 through 1997 any refinery or importer shall be subject to the simple model standards or the Phase I complex model standards, at the option of the refinery or importer. However, no refinery or importer may be subject to a combination of the simple and complex model standards during the same calendar year. Any refiner or importer that elects to achieve compliance with the anti-dumping requirements can use either the simple or complex model but must meet the requirements of Subpart D of these regulations for the specified model. If the refiner or importer elects to use the complex model during a period prior to January 1, 1998, then the refiner or importer is subject to the Phase I complex model standards. Therefore, if a refiner or importer elects to use the simple model beginning on January 1, 1996, the regulations prohibit switching to the complex model on March 1, 1996 or at any other time during the same calendar year. K. ATTEST ENGAGEMENTS 1. Question: What is the affect of a "clean" attestation and/or regulatory audit on subsequent compliance violations identified? Answer: An attestation engagement report for the refinery or importer that indicates no discrepancies has no bearing on a violation by the refiner or importer that may be determined by EPA. With regard to the CPA or CIA who conducted the attestation engagement, any contradiction between an attest engagement report showing no discrepancies by a refiner or importer and a subsequently determined actual violation by that refiner or importer would prompt an inquiry by EPA into the basis for the contradiction. If the violation reasonably should not have triggered a discrepancy notation in the attest report, the matter would be considered closed. If the violation was such that the attestor should have discovered and noted a discrepancy, EPA could raise questions about the quality of the attest engagement, that under certain situations could lead to a action by EPA to debar the attestor. An attestor found to have intentionally submitted a false report to EPA would potentially be subject to the criminal penalties applicable to any party who intentionally submits a false report to the government. 2. Question: Confirm that the attester will designate what is required to turn over a tank from one service to another, and how the barrels should be counted; i.e., from RBOB to conventional, or 3.5 wt% RBOB to 2.7 wt% RBOB. Answer: The attester will not designate products for the party subject to the attestation engagement requirement. The function of the attestation engagement is to provide an independent analysis of the designations made by the regulated party. The designation of gasolines and RBOB occurs when product has been produced and shipped by a refiner. The attestation engagement is a year-end review of the production and marketing records of the regulated party, after decisions pertaining to product designations have been made. 3. Question: What basis is to be used for reconciliations, volume (gallons or barrels) or weight? What does EPA consider to be perpetual inventory? (Is a plant balancing considered a perpetual inventory?) Answer: Section 80.128 (Agreed upon procedures for refiners and importers) provides for comparison of records on the basis of volume except in section 80.128(b) which provides for analysis of gasoline inventory reconciliation records. While EPA anticipates that the standard practice is to keep gasoline inventory records on a volume basis, it is conceivable that a company could maintain such records on the basis of weight. Where a company has maintained its gasoline inventory reconciliation analysis and its perpetual inventory on a weight basis that is susceptible to analysis by an attester, that basis would be acceptable to EPA for purposes of section 80.128(b). Section 80.128(b) refers to a company's "perpetual inventory." EPA intended that this term refer to a company's regular method of keeping a running record of gasoline production and distribution volumes. In most cases, EPA believes that the industry standard practice is to keep a daily record of inventory. To the extent that a "plant balancing" would represent the most stringent customary recordkeeping practiced by a company, the "balancing" may be acceptable to EPA as a perpetual inventory. A company with specific questions with respect to this issue may contact EPA for case-by-case guidance. 4. Question: Will internal auditors be able to perform the attestation audits under the direct supervision of an independent CPA firm? Can the internal audit department meet the attestation requirement using CPAs rather than CIAs? Answer: Section 80.125(c) provides that an independent CPA (or firm of CPAs) engaged by a refiner, importer or oxygenate blender may complete the attest engagement requirements with the assistance of internal auditors so long as such assistance is in accordance with the Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements. The Statement provides explicit professional standards for a CPA to be able to attest to the accuracy of records underlying an attestation engagement, including a standard pertaining to independence of mental attitude in performing an engagement. Accordingly, an independent CPA (or firm of CPAs) may be assisted by a company's internal auditors, but the independent CPA (or firm of CPAs) is ultimately responsible for complying with the Statement and for the representation made in the Attestation Reports required under  80.130. Section 80.125(a) requires that CPAs (or firms of CPAs) be independent of the company subject to the attestation engagement. However, company employees who are certified by the Institute of Internal Auditors as Certified Internal Auditors and who are also licensed CPAs, may perform attestation engagements. L. ANTI-DUMPING REQUIREMENTS 1. Question: Refiner A is holding some of Refiner B's conventional gasoline in tanks at one of Refiner A's terminals or at Refiner A's refinery. Refiner A adds additional stocks to that gasoline at the request of Refiner B. Who is responsible for including the stocks in their compliance calculation (Refiner A or Refiner B)? Answer: The definition of "refiner" includes any person who owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises a refinery. Therefore, under this scenario, both the person who owns the gasoline being blended, and the person who owns the terminal tanks would be considered to be refiners. Each person meeting the definition of refiner for a particular refinery operation is independently responsible for the completion of all refinery requirements, such as meeting standards, sampling and testing, record keeping, reporting, and independent audits. However, these refinery requirements must be met only once for any refinery operation. As a result, if the refinery requirements are properly accomplished by one "refiner" for a particular refinery operation, EPA will consider the requirements to have been accomplished by each person who meets the definition of refiner for that operation. Normally the product owner takes responsibility for meeting the anti-dumping requirements. In the situation described in this question, the owner of the blendstock (who is not identified in the question) therefore would normally take responsibility for the anti-dumping requirements. 2. Question:  80.101(i)(1) says that conventional gasoline cannot leave a refinery until testing is completed for all parameters used in the compliance calculation. (e)(2) of the same section says that for purposes of meeting (e)(1) a refiner may composite samples and treat that as one batch provided that the composite is not for materials produced or imported over more than one month. May material leave the refinery before analysis is run on the composite? Just a comment, is it really necessary to hold up a batch for at least three hours while an FIA is run for olefins especially since the results of an individual batch are irrelevant for conventional gasoline. Is it EPA's intention to preclude in-line blending of conventional gasoline by this requirement? Answer: The regulations have been revised at  80.101(i)(1) to allow conventional gasoline to leave a refinery or importer facility prior to the completion of sample testing. Note that there are additional constraints related to composite samples at  80.101(i)(2) that must be followed for refiners that use composite sampling. The volume and results of analysis of the composite sample should be treated as if applied to one batch for the purposes of  80.104 and 80.105. Further, this revision to the regulation will allow the continued practice of in-line blending for conventional gasoline. See the "In-Line Blending" section for further discussion of this subject. 3. Question: Where in the final anti-dumping regulations are oxygenate blenders excluded from the antidumping requirements? Answer: Although oxygenate blenders have been considered refiners under previous EPA programs, they have been defined separately from refiners under  80.2 for the purpose of specific requirements under the RFG program. The regulations specify that only refiners and importers are subject to the anti-dumping requirements. Therefore, oxygenate blenders are excluded from the anti-dumping requirements to the extent that they exclusively add oxygenate, and not other blendstocks such as raffinate, etc. 4. Question: A refiner produces a tank of conventional gasoline on December 30, 1995. The tank is not shipped until January 2, 1996. Must the refiner include this batch in his 1995 volume or does he have the option of including it in either 1995 or 1996? Answer: Compliance for a particular batch of conventional gasoline is based on the date the batch is produced, not shipped. As a result, the batch identified in the question would be included in the 1995 compliance calculations. However, the volume for that batch would be the entire shipped volume, even though the shipment did not occur until 1996. 5. Question: What is EPA's plan for a dye and/or marker in conventional gasoline? Answer: This requirement is under review. A schedule for the proposed and final rules has not been established. However, industry will be provided with an opportunity to comment on any proposal. 6. Question: How will sales to traders/brokers where the end use of the blendstock is not known upon sale be considered for the purpose of refiners' calculations regarding blendstock accounting? Answer: Unless there is documentation that demonstrates otherwise, for the purpose of blendstock tracking under  80.102, blendstocks should be considered as ultimately being used in the production of gasoline. 7. Question: Are aliphatic solvents to be considered gasoline under the test of Section 80.102(a)(2), since the addition of oxygenates will result in a marketable gasoline, even if they are marketed for purposes other than gasoline. Answer: Products such as aliphatic solvents, for which there is documentation to demonstrate that they are not used in the production of gasoline, are not considered gasoline or gasoline blendstocks. 8. Question: Recently, a natural gas pipeline condensate was refused at a fractionator. The condensate met all fractionator specifications and did not contain any hazardous materials. The operator of the fractionator advised that their facility could only take in previously manufactured materials as a direct result of the anti-dumping rules contained in the reformulated gasoline regulations. Within the anti-dumping Subpart E, we cannot find any mention of previously manufactured materials. However, Subsection 80.102 "Controls applicable to blendstocks" does define "gasoline blendstocks" as products that are produced by a refiner but it also goes on to include other blendstocks with properties certain. The condensate described herein would not meet the definitional requirements of a gasoline blendstock as its end point would disqualify it as a gasoline (if an oxygenate was added). The fractionator would separate the condensate into a gasoline component and a diesel component. Is it the intention of the EPA that only manufactured products be used in blending either reformulated or conventional gasoline? Is it the intent to restrict the use of naturally occurring hydrocarbons in a fractionator that produces gasoline? Answer: The regulations do not prohibit or restrict the use or distribution of any gasoline or gasoline blendstocks regardless of their origin. Compliance with the anti-dumping requirements is based primarily on the properties of finished conventional gasoline. However, for the reasons discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the regulations also require the tracking and accounting of certain "applicable blendstocks" as defined in the regulations. The regulations do not intend to restrict the use of naturally occurring hydrocarbons. 9. Question: If a refiner produces only conventional gasoline, what is the purpose of the added burden of testing, auditing, documentation, and general compliance requirements? Since there is only conventional gasoline produced, there can be no dumping. Also, if the EPA is concerned with other companies dumping into our conventional gasoline pool by selling us blendstocks, the blendstock accounting section would prohibit this. Thus, we come back to the question, "What is EPA's intent with the baseline and compliance requirements for conventional gasoline refiners?" Can the EPA exempt refiners from the accounting requirements for conventional gasoline? The EPA could exempt conventional gasoline reporting for a baseline volume; however, this implies that the EPA has a hidden agenda to control the future quality, if not the current quality, of conventional gasoline. Is it possible to petition the EPA for an exemption to the accounting and compliance requirements for conventional gasoline? Answer: The Clean Air Act requires that all conventional gasoline on average be at least as clean as it was in 1990 regardless of who produces the conventional gasoline. Therefore, all refiners and importers are subject to requirements that ensure the quality of their conventional gasoline beginning in 1995. Refiners and importers of conventional gasoline could provide "dirtier" gasoline if not specifically prohibited, regardless of whether they produce or import RFG. Therefore, neither the statute nor the regulations provide for exceptions to these requirements. 10. Question: When no oxygenates are added to gasoline, must an oxygenate analysis be performed? Answer: Under the anti-dumping requirements, the refiner and importer is required to determine the properties of each batch of gasoline required for determining compliance with the applicable standards. Under the simple model, an analysis for oxygenates would clearly be unnecessary. If a particular batch of gasoline has been imported or received from another refiner or the refiner is using the complex model, then a full analysis, including oxygenates, is appropriate. If, however, the refiner has produced conventional gasoline under the complex model from crude oil without the addition of any oxygenates, an analysis for oxygenates would not be necessary. Under the RFG program, a refiner is required to ensure compliance with the applicable oxygen requirements and must test accordingly. 11. Question: The regulations require a refiner or importer to determine and report properties for each batch of reformulated and conventional gasoline it produces or imports. The wording would indicate that a refiner would report the volume produced into a tank. A better method would be to base the volume on refinery shipments. There are generally official records for refinery shipments such as meter tickets, bills-of-lading or tank gauges. These records can be more easily verified than trying to track refinery production. Consider the situation where conventional gasoline is shipped from a refinery tank through a meter with a representative composite line sample collected on the shipment. The composite sample is tested in the refiner's lab for the required parameters. Please confirm that this method is acceptable for determining the conventional gasoline properties and volume. Answer: The method described above is appropriate for determining the volume and properties of a batch of conventional gasoline as required by the anti-dumping regulations provided the sample analyses and volume determination are supported by appropriate documentation. 12. Question: For a refiner producing conventional gasoline, may oxygenate added at a non-proprietary terminal be included in the determination of the conventional gasoline properties, provided the refiner has a quality assurance program at the terminal to ensure the oxygenate was added? Answer: A refiner may include oxygenates added to conventional gasoline by a party downstream of the refinery, including a "non-proprietary terminal," provided the refiner has a program in place to ensure that the oxygenate is added as reported by the refiner as required by  80.101(d)(4)(ii). This program should include such controls as an appropriate contract with the downstream blender, periodic sampling and testing, and audits and inspections as necessary to ensure that the requirements are being met. These are discussed more fully in the preamble to the final rule. 13. Question: For a refiner producing conventional gasoline, may the election of using the simple or optional complex model until 1998 be changed annually? Answer: Yes. However, if the Simple Model Standards for reformulated gasoline are used, then the Simple Model Standards for conventional gasoline must be used. If the Complex Model Standards for reformulated gasoline are used, then the Optional Complex Model Standards for conventional gasoline must be used. Beginning on January 1, 1998 only the Complex Model Standards for conventional gasoline are applicable. RFG produced in 1994, however, must use the same model as that chosen for 1995. 14. Question: Could a refiner who distributes only in an attainment area produce all or part of his gasoline as RFG and market as conventional gasoline without including the RFG portion in meeting his 1990 baseline requirements? What are the recordkeeping implications? Answer: It is not a violation to market reformulated gasoline in conventional gasoline areas. Gasoline designated as RFG must still meet all RFG requirements, including recordkeeping, reporting, independent sampling and testing, auditing, etc.. 15. Question: Could a refinery producing conventional gasoline composite samples up to one month, ship to another location and run testing there? Answer: Yes. The regulations do not specify where or by whom the testing may be performed. The refiner or importer is ultimately responsible for sampling and testing each batch of conventional gasoline and reporting the results to EPA. Composite sampling is appropriate under the conditions specified at  80.101(i)(2). 16. Question: Section 80.106 states (a) "On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to any conventional gasoline, the transferor shall provide to the transferee documents which include the following information: ...(1) through (7); (8) The requirements of this paragraph (a) apply to product that becomes gasoline upon the addition of oxygenate only." 80.65(d)(1) "All gasoline produced or imported shall be properly designated as either reformulated or conventional gasoline, or as RBOB." It would appear that 80.106 is referring to a conventional gasoline blendstock for oxygenate blending (CBOB?) which heretofore has not been defined or discussed. Are 80.106(a)(1) - (7) intended for all conventional and conventional oxygenated gasolines? If so, the CBOB should be so identified to prevent confusion with regular conventional gasoline. Like RBOB, it should also contain the oxygenate information included in 80.77(i)(2) and (3). Answer: The regulations require that conventional blendstock which will become conventional gasoline solely upon the addition of oxygenate must be considered conventional gasoline for the purpose of complying with the anti-dumping requirements, including the transfer document provisions of  80.106(a). This corresponds to the requirement at  80.101(d)(3) that such blendstock must be included in the anti-dumping compliance calculations for conventional gasoline. From a practical standpoint, the transfer documentation would need to indicate that oxygenate must be added and the refiner must undertake certain monitoring and quality assurance efforts to ensure the blending occurs as specified in the regulations, if the refiner is including any oxygenate blended downstream in its compliance calculations. 17. Question: Is the transition date for conventional gasoline (subject to Anti-dumping requirements) the same as the December 1, 1994 terminal level date currently indicated for RFG? Answer: No, the anti-dumping gasoline requirements are for conventional gasoline produced during the averaging period which begins January 1, 1995. 18. Question: Does blending oxygenate in conventional gasoline at a terminal require the terminal operator to be registered as an "oxygenate blender?" Answer: The downstream blender of oxygenates exclusively into conventional gasoline is not subject to the anti-dumping requirements and therefore does not require registration by the operator. 19. Question: According to 80.75(k) Reporting requirements for early use of the complex model, early use complex model RFG refiners and importers need to submit an early use election report 60 days prior to the beginning of the calendar year during which such standards would apply. Will a refinery not involved in RFG production but electing early use of the complex model for its conventional gasoline production be required to submit the same report? Answer: No, the anti-dumping regulations do not require such a report. 20. Question: Anti-dumping section 80.101(e) Products to which standards do not apply, indicates that "California gasoline" should be excluded from a refinery's compliance calculations. "California gasoline" is defined in 80.81 as "any gasoline that is sold, intended for sale, or made available for sale as a motor vehicle fuel in the State of California and that (i) is manufactured within the State of California; (ii) is imported into the State of California from outside the United States; or (iii) is imported into the State of California from inside the United States and that is manufactured at a refinery that does not produce reformulated gasoline." Based on these sections, is it a correct interpretation that starting in 1995 a California refinery or importer producing or importing conventional gasoline solely for the California market would exclude all its gasoline from baseline compliance calculations and therefore not have any reporting requirements? Answer: Refiners and importers providing gasoline for use in non-RFG areas in California prior to March 1, 1996 must meet all the anti-dumping requirements. Gasoline produced or imported for use in California on or after March 1, 1996 is not subject to the anti-dumping requirements. 21. Question: Baseline volumes are determined as the larger of the total volume produced in or shipped from a facility in 1990, excluding gasoline blendstocks and exported gasoline, and including the oxygenate volume under certain circumstances. Compliance volumes are described as volumes produced and shipped during the compliance period. Is there an intentional difference in the volume descriptions of baseline development and compliance records? Answer: Yes, the difference was intentional. The baseline determination provisions at  80.90 and 80.91 are intended to allow for the largest volume of product possible for determining refinery baseline values and therefore permit the larger of produced or shipped as the 1990 volume. The compliance requirements, however, apply to the volume of gasoline produced and shipped during the compliance period. For consistency between averaging periods, the date of production defines in which averaging period product is included even if shipment occurs after December 31. 22. Question: Relative to refinery grouping for baseline purposes: If one of a refiner's refineries is NOT wholly-owned (joint venture with another party), can this refinery be grouped with other refineries that are wholly-owned by that refiner? Answer: In the case of a refinery that is jointly owned, the gasoline produced at the refinery can only be included in the compliance calculations of one of the joint owner-refiners. In addition, such a jointly-owned refinery may not be aggregated with other refineries for compliance purposes. Where more than one party owns a refinery, these parties should decide who will be responsible for demonstrating compliance with the anti-dumping requirements for gasoline produced at that refinery. However, all owners of that refinery may be liable for violations committed at that refinery. 23. Question: In calculating the blendstock-to-gasoline ratios and in determining equivalent conventional gasoline volume (Veq), does CARB gasoline count as conventional gasoline? Answer: The regulations explicitly exclude the volume of California gasoline for the purposes of determining compliance with the anti-dumping requirements. For the purpose of determining the blendstock-to-gasoline ratios under  80.102, the volume of California gasoline and blendstocks are included in the base year 1990-1993 computations, however, California gasoline and blendstocks transferred for use in California gasoline are excluded from the compliance year ratio computations beginning in 1995. With respect to Veq, the regulations have been revised with regard to the calculation for Compliance Baseline (CBi) in a manner which no longer requires the determination of Veq. This revision combined the two earlier equations and simplified the terms contained therein. This calculation for determining Compliance Baseline includes California gasoline. 24. Question: The applicability of standards in 80.101(c) is not clear. Do these provisions apply by refiner, regardless of how its refineries are aggregated? These provisions should apply to either individual refineries or aggregated refineries, depending on the refiner's choice of grouping refineries according to 80.101(h). Answer: The standards specified at 80.101(c) apply to individual refineries or refinery groupings as selected by the refiner under  80.101(h). 25. Question: Reference section 80.101(f) Compliance Baseline Determinations: Situation: A refinery makes all conventional gasoline. For eight months of the year the refinery makes this conventional gasoline to a summer (7.8 psi) RVP specification and to a winter (higher RVP) specification the other four months of the year. In 1998, the refinery increases production of conventional gasoline beyond its 1990 volumes. Is it correct that Veq (paragraph (f)(4)(i) and CBi (paragraph (f)(4)(iii)) are computed without regard for whether the incremental gasoline is produced as summer or winter gasoline? Are the correct values for DBi found in 80.91(c)(5)(iv)-NEW (proposed for Direct Final Rulemaking), the "annual average antidumping statutory baseline"? Are the correct values for Bi the numbers computed pursuant to 80.91(f)(2)(i), the "individual annual average baseline emissions"? Specific Example: A Hawaiian refinery makes non-VOC controlled conventional gasoline year round. Assuming the refinery complies using the complex model, per paragraph (g)(6), antidumping compliance calculations will use the winter complex model found in 80.45. If this refinery elects to increase production of conventional gasoline in 1998 or later, is it correct, in computing CBi, to use values for DBi found in 80.91(c)(5) (iv)-NEW, the "annual average antidumping statutory baseline" and not the values referred to in 80.91(c)(5)(ii) (column headed "Winter" in chart found in 80.45(b)(3))? If so, this interpretation would appear to force increased production of conventional winter gasoline to meet a combined winter/summer baseline. Was this EPA's intent? Answer: The intent of the regulations is to ensure that each refiner's and importer's conventional gasoline beginning in 1995 is no dirtier than its 1990 gasoline up to its 1990 volume. Production in excess of the 1990 volume is required to meet the statutory baseline. The regulations have been amended to define the annual average complex model statutory baseline values for exhaust benzene, NOx and toxics which were omitted from the final rule. These values are based on the seasonally weighted summer and winter baseline fuel performance levels. The interpretation suggested above is generally correct that any increased volume above 1990 levels would have to meet the combined winter/summer statutory baseline performance levels. However, the exact scenario presented above would require an increase in summer gasoline production, not winter gasoline. 26. Question: Reference section 80.101(g) Compliance Calculations: Section 80.101(g)(1) requires the computation of an "annual average value for each parameter or emissions performance during the averaging period." Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) presents an equation for computing averaged parameters based on individual batch data (APARM). Are the values computed for APARM then substituted in the appropriate equations found in 80.45? If so, should the words "for each batch" in paragraphs (g)(1)(iii-v) be eliminated? If not how are averaged values for emissions performance to be calculated from the values of APARM? Sections 80.101(g)(5 and 6) designate which model to use, summer or winter, to compute batch emissions performance. 40 CFR 80.27 contains both RVP limits by geographical area and by control period. Are "summer gasolines" to be determined by both limits? Should any gasoline produced to the applicable RVP limit be designated as summer regardless of what time of year it was produced? Or should summer gasoline be only that gasoline meeting the RVP limit and produced during the control period? Answer: Sections 80.101(g)(1)(i) and (ii) have been revised to clarify the simple and complex model calculation requirements. APARM calculations apply only to simple model calculations. The complex model calculations require exhaust benzene, exhaust toxics, and exhaust NOx emissions performance, as applicable, for each batch to be calculated in accordance with the applicable model under 80.45. Product will be considered "Summer gasoline" if it has an RVP less than or equal to the RVP requirements of 80.27, regardless of when it is produced. Product will be considered "Winter gasoline" if it has an RVP in excess of the RVP requirements of 80.27, regardless of when it is produced. Of course, it is necessary to know the area for which the gasoline is produced in order to know the applicable RVP standard under  80.27. 27. Question: Conventional gasoline refiners and importers who elect the simple model to determine compliance during the 1995- 1997 period will need to test for T90, olefins, sulfur, benzene and aromatics. They must then report T90, olefins, sulfur and exhaust benzene average results on an annual basis. Will these refiners and importers need to test and report any of the other quality parameters? Will simple model RFG refiners and importers and their independent labs need to test and report T50, E200 or E300? Answer: No for both questions. 28. Question: Confirm that the only specification for a blendstock being added to finished gasoline in early use of the Simple Model is a per gallon specification not exceeding the antidumping baseline exhaust benzene level, (per Section 80.101(g)(3)), and later the exhaust toxic and exhaust NOx baseline levels in 1998 and beyond. This is very important to clearly understand as regular CBOB is not a fungible grade of gasoline. Component blending with finished regular and ethanol is a very important option to blending regular CBOB with ethanol in terminals. This option is critical whenever the refinery that feeds the CBOB terminals requires maintenance or has operational problems, and no other refinery that feeds that terminal makes regular CBOB. Answer: Under the simple model for 1995-1997, refiners and importers are required to meet standards for exhaust benzene, sulfur, olefins and T90 on an annual average basis for conventional gasoline and, under certain conditions, applicable blendstocks as specified in  80.102. Beginning in 1998, refiners and importers are required to meet standards for exhaust NOx and toxics emissions on an annual average basis. There are no "per-gallon" requirements for conventional gasoline. The anti-dumping requirements do not preclude the blending of ethanol with finished gasoline or with blendstocks which become gasoline upon the addition of oxygenates. 29. Question: Confirm that blendstock reporting is not required if all baseline parameters are more restrictive than the statutory baseline, (per page 13 of the Blendstock Tracking & Accounting" presentation at the NPRA/EPA conference).  80.102(f)(1) states the opposite; the blendstock reporting is not required if all baseline parameters are less restrictive than the statutory baseline. Answer: The regulations are correct that blendstock tracking is not required if all baseline parameters are less stringent than the statutory baseline. 30. Question: A refinery is importing blendstocks that must be tracked. In the case where a refinery does not send the blendstock directly to blending (passes some FCC gas through a hydrotreater to remove more olefins), can tracking end at the first point of mixing or must it end where the reformulated or conventional gasoline is made? As this gasoline will be mixed with other product, can the refinery assume first in-first out while tracking it through tanks and the plant? Answer: A refiner is only required to track blendstocks that are produced at its refinery and transferred to others. Blendstocks purchased from another refiner or importer, or transferred for use as a feedstock, are not part of the refiner's or importer's blendstock tracking requirements under  80.102. 31. Question: If a batch of reformulated gasoline fails to meet the RFG specifications but meets the anti-dumping (i.e. conventional gasoline) specifications, can this batch be certified as conventional gasoline? May it be distributed through a facility located in an RFG area? What is required on the bill of lading? What else is required of the distributor? Is the distributor liable if the recipient sells the conventional gasoline in an RFG area? Answer: Gasoline that does not meet the requirements for reformulated gasoline may be designated as conventional gasoline prior to leaving the refinery and must be included in the refiner's compliance calculations in accordance with the anti- dumping requirements regardless of its original intended designation. The regulations do not prohibit the distribution of conventional gasoline to a non-covered area from a facility located in a covered area, subject to the applicable controls under  80.78. But, the facility should take appropriate precautions to ensure that conventional gasoline is not distributed in the covered area. 32. Question: 80.106(b) requires the following statement on product transfer documents under certain conditions: "For purposes of the Anti-Dumping requirements under 40 CFR Part 80, Subpart E, this blendstock has been accounted for by the refiner that produced it, and must be excluded from any subsequent compliance calculations." Does "excluded from any subsequent compliance calculations" mean that the receiving party backs the blendstock properties out of its finished gasoline product compliance calculations? Answer: Yes. This statement is to ensure that the blendstock is not accounted for twice, and is intended to inform the receiving party that it should not include the blendstock in its compliance calculations. 33. Question: Under  80.91(b)(4), importers that do not have method 1, 2 or 3 type data shall have the statutory parameter values as specified in the regulations as its individual baseline. Under  80.101(f)(3), any party that is both a refiner and importer and does not establish an individual baseline for its imported product, shall use the volume weighted average of all its individual refinery baselines as the compliance baseline for its imported product. Which is the applicable baseline for imported product? Answer:  80.90 and 80.91 provide the methodologies and procedures for ascertaining the appropriate data and for determining individual 1990 refiner, refinery or importer baselines based on those data and various other considerations.  80.101 establishes the standards applicable to refiners and importers and the methods and requirements for determining compliance with the anti-dumping statutory provisions. The preambles to the earlier proposals and the final rule discuss at some length the opportunities for certain refiners to take advantage of baseline differences by producing and transferring blendstocks to another party with a less stringent baseline circumventing the intent of the anti-dumping requirements. A similar situation exists for a domestic refiner with a stringent baseline that could "export" gasoline and then immediately import that product at the less stringent statutory baseline, thus circumventing the anti-dumping requirements. Therefore, the regulations state that, for the situation where a party is both a domestic refiner and an importer and for which an individual baseline has not been determined for the imported product, such domestic refiner shall use the volume weighted average of all its refineries for compliance determination purposes for its imported gasoline. Any refinery grouping chosen by the refiner would not alter this determination. A party that is an importer exclusively, however, would be required to meet the statutory baseline if it could not establish an individual 1990 baseline in accordance with  80.91 of the regulations. Compliance for the imported product shall be demonstrated separate and apart from any other refinery or refinery aggregation group. 34. Question: How do the blendstock tracking and accounting requirements under  80.102 apply to importers? Answer: Any importer that has an individual 1990 baseline or a volume weighted average of all its domestic refineries which is more stringent than the statutory baseline, would be subject to the conditions and requirements under  80.102 for its imported blendstocks and gasoline. 35. Question: For the purpose of blendstock tracking under  80.102, are blendstocks included in a refiner's computations based on the date of production or shipment from the refinery? Answer: Blendstocks are included in the averaging period during which they are shipped from the refinery for the purpose of determining blendstock to gasoline ratios and/or inclusion in the refiner's compliance calculations if required under  80.102(e)(2). 36. Question: Must products which contain mixtures of more than one applicable blendstocks or mixtures of an applicable blendstock(s) and other products be included in the blendstock to gasoline ratio calculations? Answer: A refiner or importer which is subject to the blendstock tracking requirements under  80.102, must determine the volume of any applicable blendstocks it produces or imports and transfers to others for the purpose of determining blendstock to gasoline ratios even if those blendstocks are contained in mixtures of other products. 37. Question: If a refinery ships blendstocks to a leased storage facility, are these considered to be blendstocks transferred to others? Answer: If the refiner ships blendstocks to a leased storage facility, and retains ownership of the product for its own use in blending gasoline from that refinery or another refinery within an aggregated group containing that refinery, then the product will not have been considered transferred to others. If the refiner sells the blendstock to another party or transfers the blendstock for use in another refinery group, then the blendstock shall be considered transferred to others. 38. Question: If an importer becomes a supplier to a marketer who imported gasoline in 1990, can the importer add the marketer's 1990 volume to the importer's 1990 volume? Would the parameter values for the marketer's volume be the CAAA default values? Answer: If an importer expands its import activities in 1995 by supplying additional marketers with conventional gasoline, the importer's 1990 baseline volume and properties would not change, regardless of the prior activities of the marketers. 39. Question: When calculating the Winter Baseline Emissions for Anti-dumping in section 80.91, should a refinery use its winter baseline RVP or 8.7 psi? Answer: 8.7 psi. 40. Question: Refiners with low baseline levels of sulfur and olefins will have difficulty meeting the standards for these parameters under the simple model. Further, the requirement for NOx emission levels beginning in 1998 for conventional gasoline may be lower than NOx levels for Phase I and/or Phase II RFG. How will refiners find equitable treatment under these circumstances? Answer: The regulations implement the terms of both the Reg Neg agreement and the statute very clearly for conventional gasoline. Sulfur and olefins cannot exceed 125% of the baseline levels under the simple model, and NOx emissions cannot increase over baseline levels beginning in 1998. There are no exceptions to these requirements. 41: Question: Please clarify how baselines are established and compliance is calculated for blender-refiner terminals, in particular with regard to aggregating. Answer: Terminals which blend conventional gasoline are considered refineries and thus required to meet the anti-dumping requirements. If such a facility is owned by a refiner with other refineries, the terminal may be aggregated for compliance purposes with other facilities owned by that refiner. The baseline for the aggregated group will be the volume weighted average of all the refineries in the group, including the blending terminal if selected. The volume weighted average is the summation of the products of the baseline for each parameter, or emissions performance, multiplied by the 1990 volume for that facility, divided by the total of 1990 volumes for all facilities in the group. Compliance is determined by calculating the volume weighted average of the each parameter or emissions performance for all conventional gasoline produced at each facility in the group, including blending terminals which are in that group. 42. Question: Is a new volume correction needed only when the 1990 volume is exceeded on an aggregate basis rather than for each individual refinery? Are new volume corrections to be applied on an annual average basis or seasonally? Answer: The new volume correction would be required when the 1990 volume is exceeded only on an aggregate basis, and applied on an annual average basis. 43. Question: The compliance baseline parameter calculation includes a component of the statutory baseline even when the volume of conventional gasoline in 1995 is less than or equal to the volume of conventional gasoline in 1990. Is it correct to conclude that, to the extent that a refiner's volume grows in 1995 versus 1990, the refiner will come under statutory guidelines for some of its conventional gasoline production, regardless if that volume growth is reformulated or conventional gasoline? Answer: Yes. VII. ENFORCEMENT A. PROHIBITIONS 1. Question: Is there any problem with supplying an RFG designated as OPRG outside an oxy fuel area during the oxy fuel control period? Answer: There is not a problem with supplying an RFG designated as OPRG outside an oxy fuel area during the oxy fuel control period. However, caution must be exercised as described in the following caveat. Section 80.78(a)(6) prohibits adding oxygenate to reformulated gasoline except in the case of RFG that is designated as OPRG and is used in an oxygenated fuels program control area during an oxygenated fuels program control period. Accordingly OPRG-designated RFG to which oxygen has been added is prohibited from sale in any case other than in an oxygenated fuel area during the oxygenated fuel control period. However, OPRG-designated RFG which contains oxygen may be used in either oxygenated fuels or non-oxygenated fuels markets. Thus, all RFG that contains 2.0 wt.% oxygen may be designated as OPRG, regardless of whether this RFG will be used in any oxygenated fuels control area during an oxygenated fuels control period. 2. Question: Is there any problem with supplying OPRG- designated RFG outside of any RFG covered areas, such as to an oxygenated fuels control area that is not an RFG covered area? Answer: RFG may be supplied to an area requiring conventional gasoline. Thus, OPRG-designated RFG may be supplied to an area that requires oxygenated gasoline, but not RFG. 3. Question: Is there any problem with supplying RFG designated as VOC-controlled for VOC Control Region 1 to an area requiring VOC Control Region 2 gasoline? Answer: RFG designated as VOC-controlled for VOC Control Region 1 may be supplied to an area requiring RFG designated as VOC-controlled for VOC Control Region 2. The converse is not true, however. 4. Question: What requirements will be the subject of EPA inspections downstream from the refinery? Answer: Downstream from the refinery or import facility, EPA will test gasoline for the applicable minimum and maximum parameters. Prior to January 1, 1998, the Simple Model downstream standards apply: oxygen and benzene content, and RVP during the period May 1 through September 15 (June 1 through September 15 at the retail level). The minimum and maximum standards for these parameters are set out at section 80.41 of the Final Rule. From January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999, the Phase I Complex Model downstream standards apply: these are oxygen and benzene content, and Nox emissions performance, and VOC emissions performance during the period May 1 through September 15 (June 1 through September 15 at the retail level). The benzene maximum and oxygen minimum under the complex model are unchanged from the standards for these parameters under the simple model. The minimums for VOC in Region 1 and Region 2 and for Nox are set out at section 80.41 of the Final Rule. Beginning January 1, 2000, the Phase II Complex Model downstream standards apply. The oxygen and benzene downstream standards are unchanged. The minimums for VOC in Region 1 and Region 2 are set out in section 80.41 of the Final Rule. The NOx minimum is unchanged from the Phase I Complex Model in the case of RFG not designated as VOC-controlled, and in the case RFG that is VOC-controlled, the NOx minimum is 3.0 percent reduction. These minimum and maximum standards are subject to change under the gasoline quality survey program. In the event of a survey ratchet, the more stringent standard would be enforced by EPA at the refineries and import facilities for which the adjusted standard applies. In addition, the adjusted minimum/maximum standard will be enforced in the covered area where the adjusted minimum/maximum standard applies. In addition to the downstream minimum/maximum standards, EPA will inspect and audit downstream parties for all other requirements that apply to them. These downstream EPA inspection and audit activities will include, but are not limited to:  Audits to see if product transfer documents are being maintained as required, and if product transfer documents are being transferred to the next party in the distribution network as required.  Audits of distributor terminals that handle RBOB to see if RBOB is dispensed only to registered oxygenate blenders; if ether-only RBOB is dispensed to truck blenders, audit to see if an appropriate basis exists for the distributor-terminal to believe the oxygenate blender is blending with ether oxygenates.  Audits to verify that RFG being dispensed is proper for time and place of use -- VOC-controlled during May 1 through September 15; VOC controlled for proper VOC-control Region; oxygenated fuels program RFG (OPRG) dispensed in OPRG areas (unless exception for OPRG designated RFG with 2.0 wt% oxygen).  Audits for compliance with the requirement for segregation of ethanol-based VOC-controlled RFG during January 1 through Sept 15 each year.  If any complex model RFG is present, audits for compliance with the requirement for segregation of complex RFG from simple RFG, and segregation of complex RFG from each refinery from any other refinery's complex RFG (unless refineries have identical baselines).  Audits for segregation of RFG from conventional gasoline, and no deliveries of conventional gasoline into RFG areas. Note however that RFG and conventional gasoline may be mixed and sold in conventional gasoline areas.  In the case of ethanol blenders, audits for compliance with the requirements that apply to ethanol blenders, including blending of the proper type and amount of oxygenate, and conduct of the required sampling and testing. 5. Question: In section 80.78(a)(1)(V), Prohibited Activities of the regulations, it states under (B) that no party can refine, manufacture, distribute, or transport RFG "unless each gallon of such gasoline that is subject to simple model standards has an RVP which is below the applicable RVP maximum specified at 80.41." Isn't this statement contradictory to the enforcement tolerances allowable to parties downstream of the refinery? For refiners, shouldn't they be able to produce gasoline "at or below the RVP standard?" The same discussion applies to this section subsequent part (C) relative to complex model VOC and NOx standards. Answer: Parties downstream of the refiner may apply the enforcement tolerance applicable to a specific parameter. EPA has amended  80.78(a)(1)(v)(B) and (a)(1)(v)(C) to clarify EPA's intent that gasolines produced by refiners subject to the per-gallon RVP maximum must be less than or equal to the RVP standard, and that gasoline subject to the VOC and Nox emissions reduction minimum must have emissions reductions that are greater than or equal to these standards. 6. Question: Since other ASTM methods are being developed that would allow use of one analyzer to obtain benzene, aromatics, and olefins, will EPA allow any of these new methods to be used in reformulated gasoline certification and/or a refiner's defense? Answer: A refiner that intends to distribute RFG must certify that product using the test methods prescribed in the Final Rule. However, a refiner performing quality assurance testing downstream of the refinery may use other test methods provided these methods have been correlated with EPA's test methods. 7. Question: Since RVP and low-sulfur diesel regulations allow the use of alternative methods (if they are correlated to EPA- approved methods), will EPA allow these alternate methods to be used in reformulated gasoline certification and/or a refiner's defense? Answer: EPA will not allow these alternative methods to be used in reformulated gasoline certification, although, as discussed in the preceding question, correlated alternative test methods may be used for quality assurance purposes. B. LIABILITY AND DEFENSES 1. Question: Are the liability and defense provisions of this rule structured similarly to those adopted by EPA in its prior motor vehicle fuel programs? Answer: Yes. The RFG liability and defense provisions are closely modeled after other motor vehicle fuel programs, such as unleaded gasoline, volatility, and diesel sulfur. The final rule establishes liability for a number of prohibited activities that may occur downstream of the refinery or importer. When such a violation is found, the following parties are presumed liable: the operator of the facility at which the violating gasoline is found, and each upstream party, other than carriers, that supplied any of the gasoline found to be in violation. In general, carriers are liable if they cause a violation at a downstream facility. In the case of a facility operating under the brand name of a refiner or importer, that refiner or importer also is presumed liable regardless of whether the refiner supplied any of the gasoline found in violation. A party presumed liable may establish an affirmative defense by showing: (1) that they did not cause the violation; (2) that product transfer documents indicate the gasoline in question met all relevant requirements; and (3) that they conducted a sufficient quality assurance program. Additional elements must be shown by refiners or importers for violations at branded facilities. These liability and defense provisions are specified at 40 C.F.R.  80.79. 2. Question: Must each batch of gasoline be traceable from the refinery or importation point to consumption in order to avoid liability if a non-conformance is found? Answer: No. However, each regulated party (other than a carrier) is presumptively liable for violations of the downstream standards found at facilities downstream from that party. In order to establish a defense the party must show, among other defense elements, that it did not cause the violation. A party normally is able to establish this "did-not-cause" defense element for a violation of a downstream standard by showing through test results that the gasoline in question met all applicable standards when the gasoline was passed to the next downstream party. As a result, a party should be able to "trace" its own gasoline to the extent necessary to be able to identify the specific gasoline supplied to the next parties in the distribution system, and the quality of that gasoline. 3. Question: Will a regulated party's defense fail if test results indicate the product is over the standard but within the EPA announced test tolerance? Answer: As discussed in the Enforcement Tolerance section of this document, all gasoline downstream of the refinery or importer level may be released if test results for each parameter show the gasoline to be within the applicable standard plus the tolerance for that parameter, provided all other RFG requirements are met. As a result, in the case of a violation of a downstream standard, a party who is presumptively liable could establish the quality assurance defense element if all of that party's test results are, for each parameter with a downstream standard, within the applicable standard plus the tolerance for that parameter. 4. Question: Company A owns and operates a terminal which it uses exclusively to store finished gasoline. It leases a small portion of its tanks to Company B, who uses the tankage to purchase and blend components together to make gasoline. How can Company A protect itself from liability for a violation detected in one of the leased tanks? Answer: The definition of "refiner" includes any person who owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises a refinery. Therefore, under this scenario, both the person who owns the gasoline being blended, and the person who owns the terminal tanks would be considered to be refiners. Each person meeting the definition of refiner for a particular refinery operation is independently responsible for the completion of all refinery requirements, such as meeting standards, sampling and testing (including independent sampling and testing), record keeping, reporting, and independent audits. However, these refinery requirements must be met only once for any refinery operation. As a result, if the refinery requirements are properly accomplished by one "refiner" for a particular refinery operation, EPA will consider the requirement to have been accomplished by each person who meets the definition of refiner for that operation. In the scenario described in the question, Company A could rely on Company B to meet the requirements for that refinery operation. If Company B does not properly meet all the refinery requirements, however, both Company B and Company A would be independently liable for the violation. As a result, Company A should allow Company B to conduct a refinery operation at Company A's facility only if: (1) Company A intends to meet the refinery requirements for the operation; or (2) Company A is fully satisfied Company B will meet these requirements. In addition, should Company A rely on Company B to meet these requirements, Company A should monitor the operation to ensure Company B in fact meets all refinery requirements. 5. Question: If a refiner produces gasoline at the direction and to the specifications of a distributor who will ultimately purchase it, and a violation is discovered at the refinery, will both parties be jointly and severally liable for the violation? How can the distributor protect itself against liability for violations that occur at the refinery? Answer: In a case where a refiner produces gasoline to specifications that are set by a distributor, and where that gasoline does not meet applicable refiner-level standards, the refiner who actually produces the gasoline clearly would be liable for the standards violation. It would be no defense for the refiner to argue that it only was following the directions of the distributor-transferee of the gasoline produced by the refiner. In addition, in this scenario the distributor also could meet the definition of "refiner" for the refining operation and could be liable if the gasoline is found in violation of the applicable standards. Contracting for the production of gasoline would amount to "control" over the refining operation, which would result in the distributor-"refiner" being jointly and severally liable for the standards violation. The distributor could protect itself against liability by including in the processing agreement only specifications for gasoline that meets all applicable standards, and by monitoring the quality of gasoline received from the refinery to ensure it in fact meets all applicable standards. In addition, if the distributor's relationship with the refinery operations is sufficiently close that the distributor, in effect, "operates, controls or supervises" the refinery operation, then the distributor would be a co-refiner. In such a case the distributor-"refiner" should take steps to ensure all the refiner requirements are met, including refiner and independent sampling and testing, record keeping, reporting, and attest engagements. 6. Question: What documentation will be needed downstream to show certification of RFG? Answer: Downstream of the refinery level, RFG may be considered to be "certified" if it is accompanied by product transfer documents, specified in  80.77, that identify the gasoline as RFG. Of course, if downstream testing shows that gasoline does not meet applicable downstream standards, then the gasoline could not be considered "certified" RFG. 7. Question: What RFG parameters should parties monitor as part of their downstream quality assurance programs? Answer: Parties should monitor the applicable downstream standards as part of their downstream quality assurance programs under  80.79(c). These are: under the simple model, oxygen and benzene, and RVP in the case of VOC-controlled RFG; and under the complex model, oxygen, benzene, and NOx emissions performance, and VOC emissions performance in the case of VOC-controlled RFG. 8. Question: What field test methods are acceptable for oversight programs? Answer: For purposes of meeting the downstream quality assurance defense element, parties may use any test method, so long as that method is performed in accordance with sound engineering and laboratory principles in a manner which provides reasonable correlation to the methods specified in  80.46. 9. Question: If RFG is shipped from a refinery to a terminal through a proprietary pipeline system, may the pipeline rely on the refinery and terminal test results to satisfy the quality assurance defense element? Answer: In a case where EPA documents a downstream standard violation at a proprietary terminal that is served only by a proprietary pipeline that receives gasoline only from a proprietary refinery, the company that owns the refinery, pipeline and terminal (Refiner A) would be presumptively liable for the violation. The quality assurance defense element would not be a factor in such a case because Refiner A would not be able to establish the first defense element - that it did not cause the violation (no other party could have cause a standard violation under such a scenario). If EPA documents a downstream standard violation at a facility downstream from Refiner A's terminal, e.g., at a retail outlet supplied by this terminal, Refiner A would be presumptively liable for the violation. In such a case, Refiner A could establish the did-not-cause defense element through test results from the terminal showing that all gasoline dispensed met all applicable standards. In addition, because of the unique proprietary refinery-pipeline-terminal scenario, Refiner A could meet the quality assurance program defense element using test results from the refinery and terminal, with no tests collected from the pipeline itself, provided the tests are designed to monitor the various types of violations that could occur during pipeline movements. 10. Question: If a refiner sends RFG to an intermediate party who inadvertently sends it to a region with stricter parameters, is the refiner liable provided the refiner otherwise meets all the elements of its defense? Answer: In a case where a party (Party A) delivers RFG to another party (Party B), and the gasoline when delivered meets all applicable standards and is accompanied with product transfer documents as required under  80.77 that inform Party B of the proper time and place of use for the gasoline, Party A normally would not be responsible if Party B later uses this gasoline in a time or place that is not proper. Party A could be liable for this later improper use by Party B, however, if Party A either knew or reasonably should have known of the improper use by Party B, and did not take steps to prevent the violation. For example, consider a case where a large volume of non-VOC controlled RFG is delivered to a terminal on April 30, and a violation of the VOC standard is discovered on May 1. In this case the distributor who sold this gasoline to the terminal would be liable for the violation (in addition to the terminal- distributor), because the seller-distributor knew or should have known the delivery would result in a violation. Another example would be a case where a terminal-distributor located in Philadelphia - which is in VOC-control Region 2 - intends to dispense gasoline that is properly identified for that Region into a truck for retail delivery. If the truck loading documents identify a delivery location in Baltimore - which is VOC-control Region 1 - the terminal-distributor would know or reasonably should know of the impending improper gasoline use. If the terminal-distributor nevertheless dispenses the gasoline, the terminal-distributor would be liable for this violation. These examples illustrate EPA's requirement that parties may not operate in a manner that will cause violations by other parties, and may not supply gasoline to another party if it is known (or reasonably should be known) that party will use the gasoline in a manner that violates the regulations. In a situation where a party knows or should know that gasoline in its control has been or will be used in violation of the regulations, EPA requires the party take affirmative steps to prevent the violation. If another person refuses to cooperate in the violation prevention, the party should discontinue doing business with that person. 11. Question: What constitutes "periodic sampling and testing"? Answer: EPA has not defined the frequency or scope of sampling and testing that is necessary to meet the quality assurance program defense element, because there is no single program that is appropriate in all situations. In addition, EPA believes that regulated parties are most familiar with their own operations, and therefore are in the best position to design quality assurance programs that are adequate to ensure the RFG standards are met. Factors that EPA believes are relevant in designing an RFG quality assurance program are: the results of previous sampling; the volume of gasoline in a particular batch (the larger the volume, the greater the justification for sampling and testing that batch); the degree of confidence in the quality of the gasoline which was received; the opportunity for violations while the gasoline is in the possession of the party (e.g., the opportunity for commingling of RFG and conventional gasoline); and the opportunity to deliver RFG in a manner inconsistent with the proper time and place of use. 12. Question: How can a distributor meet the defense elements in the case of gasoline that is obtained from another distributor's terminal through an exchange agreement? Answer: In the case of a downstream standard violation found at the retail level, under  80.79(a)(3) each distributor who sold, transported, or stored any of the gasoline found to be in violation is presumed liable, and in order to establish a defense under  80.79(b), in addition to other defense elements must show evidence of quality assurance program. As a result, in the case of an exchange agreement, presumptive liability would apply both to the distributor who sold the gasoline to the retail outlet, and to the terminal-distributor who supplied the gasoline in question. The terminal-distributor could meet the did-not-cause and the quality assurance program defense elements through test results that show the gasoline in question met all applicable standards when dispensed. The seller-distributor could rely on the terminal-distributor's testing to show the gasoline met applicable standards when dispensed from the terminal, if this testing is properly performed. Assuming the terminal-distributor has adequate test results, the more difficult defense element for the seller-distributor would be showing it did not cause the violation through the delivery truck, for example by mixing with conventional gasoline from a prior truck load. This did-not-cause showing by the seller-distributor would be necessary even in a case where a common carrier truck is used to deliver the gasoline (where the seller-distributor never had physical custody of the gasoline), because the truck carrier is acting as the agent of the seller- distributor. For practical purposes, the most likely way a seller- distributor could show it did not cause a violation found at a retail outlet is to show who or what did cause the violation. For example, if it could be shown that the violation was caused by delivery from another distributor of gasoline that was off- spec, the seller-distributor would establish the did-not-cause defense element. Of course, if the seller-distributor has test results from the delivery truck showing the gasoline delivered to the retail outlet met all applicable standards, the seller-distributor would be able to establish a full defense. In addition, in order to establish a defense the seller- distributor must present evidence of a quality assurance program of sampling and testing, as specified in  80.79(b)(1)(iii), and product transfer documents for the gasoline in question that indicate the gasoline met all relevant requirements, as specified in  80.79(b)(1)(ii). 13. Question: Will oversight programs and paper trail need to extend to conventional gasoline in order to comply with anti- dumping? Answer: The requirements of the anti-dumping program apply only to refiners and importers. As a result, there are no downstream standards or requirements for conventional gasoline, other than those related to the prohibitions against using conventional gasoline in RFG areas, against commingling RFG and conventional gasoline and the requirement to generate transfer documents that correctly identify the gasoline as conventional. Other requirements related to gasoline quality, such as volatility, continue to apply to conventional gasoline, however. 14. Question: Must downstream parties with their own labs use an independent lab for quality assurance sampling and testing? Answer: Parties may use their own lab, an independent lab, or another party's lab in fulfillment of the quality assurance program defense element. Regardless of which lab does the work, however, the burden remains on the party who is presumed liable to demonstrate that the samples were properly collected and the testing was properly performed. 15. Question: If terminals utilize the services of outside laboratories for periodic sampling and testing, how can the terminal limit exposure to liability in the event non-complying product from the tested tank(s) leaves the terminal during the three or four days before test results are available? Answer: A terminal-distributor's release of RFG that does not meet applicable standards would constitute a violation of  80.78(a)(1) for which the distributor would be liable, and it would not be a defense if the violation was caused by a delay in receipt of test results. A terminal-distributor could limit its exposure for such violations, however, by performing as much testing as possible at the terminal. For example, the parameters for which downstream standards apply under the simple model are RVP, oxygen, and benzene. EPA is aware of - and intends to use - field test equipment for these parameters. This field test equipment is appropriate for use by terminal-distributors at terminals, and if used would allow parties to avoid violations from the cause described in the question, at least until the complex model becomes effective in 1998. Similar field test equipment may be available for use under the complex model. Before 1998 there likely will be advances in testing equipment technology that will allow more field testing of the complex model parameters. EPA hopes to develop complex model screening protocols that are appropriate for use in the field. To the extent these advances materialize, terminal- distributors will be able to monitor RFG quality without the time lag inherent when outside labs are used. 16. Question: May survey samples be used as a substitute for a refiner's quality assurance program for enforcement purposes? Answer: Surveys may not be used as a substitute for a regulated party's own quality assurance program. 17. Question: Will oversight programs need to be designed differently for per-gallon versus averaging? Answer: The distinction between RFG certified under the per- gallon versus the average standards only applies at the refinery or importer level. The only standards that apply downstream are per-gallon maximum and minimum standards associated with average standards. Therefore, the downstream quality assurance program defense element is the same regardless of whether RFG is produced to an average standard or per-gallon standard. C. PENALTIES 1. Question: A refiner elects to meet a RFG specification via the "averaging" method. Two-thirds of the way through the averaging period, his tracking of cumulative qualities shows he is just meeting the standard. For the remaining last third of the averaging period the gasoline stays within the maximum or minimum RFG limits but exceeds the averaging standard. As a result the average for the averaging period is off-spec. Ignoring the purchase of credits for oxygen or benzene standards, is the refiner liable for a daily penalty over the entire averaging period, or only the number of days in the last third of the averaging period? Answer: Section 80.80(c) provides that the refiner would be liable for a daily penalty over the entire averaging period. Refiners, for each refinery, and importers, must elect to comply with each standard on a per-gallon or average basis at the start of each compliance period. These elections then are applicable throughout that compliance period. During the rulemaking, EPA considered whether to allow refiners and importers to declare their method of compliance on a batch-by- batch basis. This option was rejected out of EPA's concern that a batch-by-batch determination would result in exceedances of nationwide levels for regulated parameters. See 59 Fed. Reg. 7770. Accordingly, refiners are permitted the flexibility associated with averaging to achieve compliance over the whole compliance period, including the provision to adjust averages through the use of credits only in the case of parameters for which the averaging compliance approach is selected. Moreover, once the option of using an average standard is made, a refiner may not change to the per-gallon standard for that parameter during the averaging period, and an exceedance of the average standard represents a violation of that standard for each day of the averaging period. The maximum penalty for violations of average standards is $25,000 per violation for each day in the averaging period, plus the economic benefit or saving to the violator. EPA intends to develop a penalty policy that will be used to calculate penalties for use during the administrative phase of enforcement actions, which will take into account factors such as the gravity of the violation, the economic benefit or savings resulting from the violation, the size of the violator's business, the violator's history of compliance with the gasoline quality requirements, and actions taken to remedy the violation. 2. Question: Will EPA waive penalties imposed for late reports if reports are late due to mechanical or electronic failures? Answer: EPA will not waive penalties arising from late reporting. Reports must be submitted within the times specified in the regulations. EPA believes that parties have ample time (approximately 60 days) to prepare and submit reports following each reporting period. In an individual case where a report is filed late for reasons shown by the reporter to be outside of the reporter's control, EPA may exercise enforcement discretion in determining what enforcement action is appropriate. D. INSPECTIONS AND AUDITS 1. Question: How often does EPA expect to audit refiners, importers, and distributors? Will such audits be conducted by EPA personnel or contract personnel? Answer: The frequency of audits conducted at the above facilities will depend on a number of factors such as: general compliance rates, compliance history of individual facilities, EPA budget allowances, etc. Based upon the experience of past fuels enforcement programs, it is expected that the above facilities would be audited no more than once per year, unless circumstances would require audits at a greater frequency. These audits will be performed by both EPA and contract personnel. E. REMEDIES 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 (Restricted to OPRG RFG Only) 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, there is a limited opportunity to use oxygenate blending as remediation for RFG that violates the oxygen standard, provided the RFG is designated as OPRG and is used in an oxy fuels program as specified in  80.78(a)(6). In addition, subsequent to blending the RFG must be sampled and tested to meet all applicable RFG downstream standards, including 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. 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. 2. Question: May RFG that is found to be off-spec downstream of the refinery or import facility be corrected by blending "clean" non-oxygenate blendstocks? Answer: Any party who combines blendstocks other than oxygenate with RFG is producing gasoline, and must meet all the RFG standards and requirements applicable to a refiner. In addition, all applicable RFG standards must be met by the blendstock only. The blendstock, therefore, in effect must be RFG, and such blending is the equivalent of blending RFG with RFG. A party who does not meet the RFG refiner standards and requirements can take remedial action for RFG that violates applicable standards using the methods discussed above in Question 1. 3. Question: If reformulated gasoline is found at the refinery to be off specification, what procedures are appropriate for handling this gasoline? Answer: A case may occur where a refiner discovers RFG at a refinery that does not meet applicable standards, before that gasoline is shipped from the refinery. For example, RFG for which a parameter is being met on average could be found to violate the per-gallon minimum or maximum associated with that parameter, or RFG for which a parameter is being met on a per- gallon basis could be found to violate the per-gallon standard for that parameter. In such a case, and because none of the gasoline in question has left the refinery, the refiner could prevent any violation by reblending the gasoline to meet all applicable standards before it is shipped. The reblended gasoline then would be a new batch for which the independent sampling and testing requirements must be met. In this situation, the earlier off-spec batch would be reported to EPA, but with a volume of zero. This earlier batch would have to be reported so that the refiner's and the independent lab's records remain synchronized. F. TEST TOLERANCES 1. Question: What are the EPA test tolerances for each controlled variable related to RFG? Answer: The downstream test tolerance for RVP is 0.30 psi. The downstream test tolerance for oxygen is 0.30 wt%. The downstream test tolerance for benzene is 0.21 vol%. 2. Question: Please clarify and resolve the significant digit differences existing between the standard and enforcement tolerance specified, i.e. 8.3 psi RVP with a 0.30 psi enforcement tolerance. Answer: The significant digit differences between the RVP standard and the enforcement tolerance arise from EPA's desire to resolve any questions about rounding of RVP measurements when an enforcement tolerance has been applied. Accordingly, for example, the 0.30 psi RVP enforcement tolerance would preclude rounding of the second significant digit of the Rvp standard. 3. Question: In its discussion of Enforcement Test Tolerances, EPA states that if test results "show the product to be above the standard, then the product is in violation regardless of whether or not it is within the tolerance." Since this is, technically, a violation how is this reconciled with the requirement that parties in the distribution chain must take corrective action to bring all product into compliance? Can we rely on stated EPA intention to bring no enforcement if samples are over the standard but within tolerance? Are records required for these instances? Answer: Parties are expected to take corrective action when samples collected at locations downstream of the refinery or import facility exceed an applicable standard for a parameter plus the enforcement tolerance for that parameter. For example, if a distributor takes a sample of RFG taken from a storage tank at a terminal operated by that distributor that serves an RFG covered area, and this sample is analyzed to have a benzene content of 1.50 vol%, this result would be less than the benzene downstream standard (1.3 vol%) plus the benzene enforcement tolerance (0.21 vol%). As a result, the distributor would not be expected to take any action to reduce the benzene content of the RFG in the terminal. In addition, EPA would exercise its enforcement discretion and not pursue an enforcement action as a result of the distributor's test result. This answer would not change if the sample were collected and analyzed by EPA. Note that the test tolerance does not apply to samples taken and tested at a refinery or import facility. As a part of any quality assurance program, regulated parties should retain documents that reflect the results of sampling and testing, and any corrective actions that are taken. 4. Question: Confirm that an RFG property measured from a sample collected during an EPA inspection is in technical violation if that property exceeds an applicable standard, but that no enforcement action will be brought by EPA unless the property exceeded the standard in question by at least the enforcement tolerance for that property. Answer: As stated in the preamble to the RFG final rule, at 59 FR 7764 (February 16, 1994), EPA will not initiate an enforcement action on the basis of a test result from a gasoline sample collected at a facility downstream of the refinery or import facility, unless the test result exceeds the standard for a regulated parameter plus the enforcement tolerance for that parameter. 5. Question: How will the term "tolerances" be interpreted as a practical matter by EPA as it relates to specifications? As a clarification, please respond to the following: An importer who elects to comply on a "per-gallon" (vs. averaging) basis must meet an RVP maximum specification of 8.1 during the summer months. The EPA has established a 0.30 psi tolerance for this test. Consider the hypothetical, but likely situation whereby such an importer brings a cargo of RFG into New York Harbor which was determined by an independent inspector abroad to contain 8.1 psi at load. Upon discharge at New York Harbor by another independent inspector, the cargo was found to contain 8.3 psi. This second inspector's results are later confirmed by the EPA. Is this importer in compliance, due to the fact that the product conforms, within the established tolerances to the specifications established by EPA? Does the loadport analysis have any bearing on this matter? In the event the importer is found to be out of compliance, would he be subject to penalties under the Act? If so, would the loadport inspection certificate be construed as a satisfactory defense against an enforcement proceeding? Answer: As stated in the Preamble to the Final Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. 7764, "refiners and importers may not use the tolerance to expand the applicable standard. Further, product must meet all applicable specifications when it leaves the refinery or import facility. If the refiner or importer results show the product to be above the standard, then the product is in violation regardless of whether or not it is within the tolerance." Further, under  80.65(e) an importer is required to sample and test each batch of imported gasoline prior to the gasoline leaving the import facility. It is the importer's test result from the gasoline sample collected at the port-of-entry that is the basis for establishing the properties of the imported gasoline. Accordingly, under then hypothetical posed above, the test result of 8.3 psi RVP from the port-of-entry inspection would result in an EPA finding that the product is in violation of the regulations, and the importer would be liable for appropriate penalties. 6. Question: Although min/max standards do not apply to sulfur, olefins and T90, these parameters are regulated for both conventional and RFG. What tolerances will be available for these parameters? Answer: Under the simple model only oxygen and benzene, and RVP in the case of VOC-controlled RFG, will involve downstream EPA testing for enforcement purposes. EPA has not set enforcement tolerances for standards that apply at the refinery or importer level, such as sulfur, T-90, and olefins. Moreover, enforcement tolerances are only appropriate when measuring for per-gallon or min/max standards. Sulfur, olefins and T-90 are averaging standards. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate issuing enforcement tolerances for sulfur, T-90, or olefins. VIII. INTERACTION WITH STATE PROGRAMS A. OXY FUEL PROGRAM 1. Question: Let's assume that the pipeline's fungible non-OPRG specification is 2.0 wt% oxygen content. The actual oxygen content is likely to be higher than 2.0 wt%. Should this RFG be designated at the refinery as OPRG because an oxygen content test result could be higher than 2.0 wt% and some of this batch could end up in a terminal serving NYC area after September 25, 1995 or another Northeastern oxygenated fuels program control area after October 25, 1995? Answer: The technical amendments to the RFG regulations added a new provision, at section 80.65(d)(2)(iii)(B), that allows RFG that contains at least 2.0 wt% oxygen to be designated as OPRG regardless of whether or not the gasoline is used in an oxygenated fuels program control area during an oxygenated fuels program control period. This change allows terminals that serve both oxygenated fuels areas and non-oxygenated fuels areas to stock a single RFG that could be used in both areas, instead of having to stock both OPRG and non-OPRG. This change also allows all RFG which meets the 2.0 wt% oxygen per-gallon standard to be designated as OPRG, without such gasoline being restricted to use in oxygenated fuels areas during oxygenated fuels control periods. Also, under section 80.65(d)(2)(iii), RFG which has more than 2.0 wt% oxygen and which arrives at a terminal from which gasoline is dispensed into trucks used to deliver gasoline to an oxy control area within 5 days prior to the start of the oxy control period MUST be designated as OPRG. If such a terminal has a separate, segregated storage tank that serves only RFG areas that are not in the oxy fuels program, however, the gasoline stored in this tank could be designated as non-OPRG, notwithstanding the section 80.65(d)(2)(iii) provision. 2. Question: Could a terminal accept delivery of a batch of RFG that is designated as OPRG when that terminal does not serve a RFG covered area that is also an oxy fuels program control area? Could a terminal permit delivery of OPRG to a RFG covered area that is not also an oxy fuels program control area? Answer: OPRG-designated RFG cannot be sold outside of an oxygenated fuels control area during the oxygenated fuel control period, unless the OPRG-designated RFG contains at least 2.0 wt% oxygen. 3. Question: With respect to section 80.65(a), would there be any violation by the terminal located in an RFG covered area selling only conventional gasoline to stations in attainment areas? Answer: No. However, the terminal should take extra precautions to ensure that no conventional gasoline is distributed to a RFG area. See the discussion in the Prohibitions and Liabilities Section. 4. Question: The federal oxy fuels program requires transfer documents to contain oxygen type and oxygen weight % and volume % information on each oxy gasoline movement. The RFG program requires a min/max oxygen statement which essentially duplicates the oxy program requirements. Is it sufficient to print the RFG required message rather than both the oxy program and RFG program messages? Answer: The winter oxygenated fuels programs are state, not federal, programs. There are no federal oxy transfer document requirements, merely federal guidance to the states. Generally, the state winter oxy fuels programs do not have product transfer requirements. 5. Question: In areas where an oxy fuels program is in effect, how do these requirements coincide with RFG requirements? In areas where there is an overlap, are any regulatory changes necessary by the state? Answer: In areas that are covered by both a state's winter oxy fuels and the federal RFG programs, the fuel must comply with both program requirements. Therefore, the more stringent 2.7 wt% minimum requirement of the winter oxy fuels programs must be met during the oxy control period. States do not have to make any regulatory changes. 6. Question: Has there been any discussion about waiving the oxy program for California since the RFG fuel will exceed California's minimum oxy program standards? If the oxy program continues in California do we adhere to the maximum standard of 2.2 wt% instead of the 3.5 wt% maximum for winter RFG. Answer: California has applied for a waiver under section 211 (m) of the Act from the federally mandated 2.7 wt% oxygen program for their 1.8 wt% minimum, 2.2 wt% maximum oxygen program. EPA has not taken final action on that program. Should EPA approve that California program then the State's 1.8 wt% minimum and 2.2 wt% maximum would be the applicable state oxygen standard in California. However, RFG produced for the Southern California areas covered by the federal RFG program (i.e., San Diego County and the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area, as defined in  80.70(a)) will also be required to meet the federal RFG oxygen content requirement of 2.0 wt%(2.1 wt% oxygen if met on average). Although the Agency concluded that the CARB Phase 2 RFG oxygen "flat limit" of 1.8 to 2.2% would in practice be equivalent to the 2.0% minimum oxygen content required by the Clean Air Act, this conclusion was made for the purpose of determining whether exemptions from certain enforcement provisions of the federal regulations would be appropriate. Gasoline that qualifies for the enforcement exemptions under  80.81 must still comply with the federal reformulated gasoline standards even after the start of the CARB Phase 2 program in March 1996, including the oxygen content standards specified in  80.41 (e.g., 2.0% oxygen by weight if met as a per-gallon standard). Therefore, should the California oxy waiver be approved, gasoline in the Southern California covered areas must comply with both the federal 2.0 wt% oxygen requirement and the state's 1.8 wt% minimum oxygen and 2.2 wt% maximum oxygen standards. B. OTHER STATE FUELS PROGRAMS 1. Question: Under 80.41(g) the oxygen maximum standard is stated to be 2.7 wt% oxygen maximum unless a state were to allow up to 3.5 wt% oxygen. This is in conflict with the oxygenated gasoline program and the substantially similar rule which allows a maximum oxygen content for ethers to be 2.9 wt%. Areas which will require OPRG will have a minimum and a maximum of 2.7 wt% oxygen which is unattainable without a tolerance range. How do you plan to reconcile this apparent discrepancy? Answer: The 2.7 wt% maximum in section 80.41(g)(1) applies to simple model VOC-controlled RFG. Under section 80.41(g)(2) the oxygen maximum for simple model RFG which is not Voc- controlled is 3.5 wt%. The winter oxygenated gasoline programs are not operational during the RFG VOC-controlled season. Therefore, the RFG VOC season maximum is not in conflict with the blending allowance of 2.9 wt% permitted for oxy fuels program gasoline. 2. Question: Now that EPA has issued final regulations for reformulated and conventional gasoline, what if any state fuel controls are preempted? Answer: After EPA promulgates a federal fuel control or prohibition under section 211(c)(1) of the Act, state fuel controls respecting the same fuel characteristic or component as the federal regulation are preempted. A state may only adopt and enforce such a fuel control if it is approved by EPA as a SIP revision, after a showing that it is necessary to achieve the NAAQS that the plan implements. Prior to December 15, 1993, EPA had issued regulations under section 211(c)(1) that control the lead content and volatility of gasoline. State controls for these gasoline characteristics or components are subject to the above preemption provision. The reformulated and conventional gasoline regulations were issued under the authority of both section 211(c)(1) and 211(k). State controls respecting the gasoline characteristics or components controlled or prohibited in the RFG and conventional gasoline regulations are therefore preempted, like state volatility and lead content controls. In general, the gasoline characteristics or components controlled or prohibited under these federal regulations vary depending on the program (RFG or conventional) and the model (simple or complex). 3. Question: Under RFG, can a state provide a volatility allowance for ethanol during the winter months for both RVP and distillation? During the summer, can a state provide ethanol blends a distillation allowance from ASTM requirements? Answer: There is no federal RVP requirement for RFG that is not VOC-controlled . States are therefore not preempted from regulating wintertime RVP for such fuels. With respect to state controls on summertime distillation characteristics, the RFG rules establish annual controls on T-90 under the simple model. As such, state controls on T-90 are preempted during the simple model time period. States are not preempted from establishing controls on other distillation characteristics. It is important to note that even if a state is not preempted and enacts a state fuel control, this does not change the federal requirement for either reformulated or conventional gasoline. The regulated community must still comply with all the applicable federal requirements, notwithstanding the existence of a state fuel control. 4. Question: For areas not required to use RFG, do states have the ability to set ASTM performance specifications and any volatility allowances from those specifications for ethanol blended fuels? Answer: Areas not required to use RFG are subject to the conventional gasoline and federal volatility regulations. States may not set ASTM performance specifications for characteristics or components that are controlled or prohibited by these federal regulations, subject to approval as a SIP revision. For example, state RVP limits in both conventional and RFG areas are preempted unless they are approved as a SIP revision. 5. Question: Many states have adopted a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends during the RVP control period. In areas where RFG is required, do states need to amend that regulation in any fashion in order to not be in conflict with RFG requirements? Answer: In areas where RFG is required, states are preempted from having RVP requirements which are different from the RFG simple model requirements unless those requirements are approved by EPA as a SIP amendment which is necessary to attain a national ambient air quality standard. In any case, the federal regulation applies and regulated parties must meet the RVP and other requirements applicable to RFG. 6. Question: Can a state provide a T-50 waiver for oxygenates other than ethanol under EPA waiver limitations? Answer: Any state waiver for T-50 would not change the federal substantially similar rule or federal fuel waiver requirements. Therefore, such a T-50 waiver would have no force or effect federally. 7. Question: How will RFG impact ASTM motor fuel specifications? Answer: Fuel marketed in RFG areas must comply with the RFG regulations. If ASTM standards conflict with the RFG regulations, The ASTM standards will, in effect, be superseded. IX. SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS A. TRANSITION ISSUES 1. Question: How may regulated parties transition from conventional gasoline to RFG in advance of the December 1, 1994 date terminals serving RFG areas must be on-spec for RFG. Answer: Section 80.65(a) specifies that the RFG requirements apply to all gasoline produced, imported, transported, stored, sold, or dispensed at terminals that supply gasoline to RFG covered areas beginning on December 1, 1994, and at the retail level in RFG beginning on January 1, 1995. As a result, the prohibition, at  80.78(a)(10) against combining RFG with conventional gasoline and calling the mixture RFG, does not apply at the terminal and retail levels until December 1, 1994 and January 1, 1995, respectively. Prior to these dates, terminals and retail outlets may place RFG into storage tanks that contain conventional gasoline, in order to turn over their storage tanks to RFG. However, the storage tanks of terminals and retailers must contain only RFG as of December 1 and January 1, respectively. The RFG requirements apply to refiners and importers beginning on the date these parties first begin producing or importing RFG, however, because this gasoline will be "dispensed at terminals" beginning December 1, 1994, even if the refiner's or importer's RFG production begins in September or October, 1994. In effect, the RFG requirements apply to all gasoline designated by the refiner or importer as RFG, whenever produced or imported. 2. Question: May terminals or distributors supply conventional gasoline to a retail outlet in an RFG covered area during December 1994, if the retail outlet is brought into compliance with the RFG standards by January 1, 1995? Answer: No. Beginning December 1, 1994 all gasoline deliveries into RFG covered areas must be of RFG only. 3. Question: How may terminals and retail outlets transition from VOC-controlled RFG to non-VOC-controlled RFG in advance of the high ozone season each spring? Answer: Section 80.78(a)(1)(v) requires that RFG must be VOC-controlled for the proper VOC-control Region when stored or dispensed by terminals beginning May 1 of each year, and for retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumers beginning June 1 of each year. As a result, parties in the gasoline distribution system must transition from non-VOC-controlled RFG to VOC- controlled RFG in advance of these dates. The RFG regulations do not prohibit combining VOC-controlled RFG with non-VOC-controlled RFG prior to these dates. As a result, VOC-controlled RFG may be added to a storage tank that contains non-VOC-controlled RFG in order to turn over the storage tank to the VOC-controlled specification, in advance of May 1 each year in the case of terminals, and in advance of June 1 each year in the case of retail outlets and wholesale purchaser- consumers. A party who combines VOC-controlled and non-VOC-controlled RFG should treat the mixture as non-VOC-controlled until the party has a test result that shows the RFG meets all applicable VOC-controlled RFG standards. A terminal, therefore, should not supply product transfer documents to distributors stating the gasoline is VOC-controlled until the terminal has a test result that would support this designation. 4. Question: The RFG regulations prohibit the mixing of various types of gasoline. For example, RFG may not be mixed with conventional gasoline. How can a party change the service of a gasoline storage tank, given the fact that often it is very difficult to drain tanks completely dry? Answer: Section 80.78(a) requires the segregation of several categories of gasoline. These categories are: RFG may not be mixed with conventional gasoline and sold as RFG. RFG blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) may not be mixed with RFG or conventional gasoline, and RBOB's that have different oxygen requirements must be segregated from each other. During the period January 1 through September 15 each year VOC-controlled RFG that is produced using ethanol must be segregated from VOC-controlled RFG that is produced using any other oxygenate, including at the retail level. Oxygenated fuels program RFG (OPRG) must be segregated from non-OPRG designated RFG. Upstream of the retail or wholesale purchaser-consumer level, RFG produced under the simple model may not be mixed with RFG produced under the complex model. Before January 1, 1998 each refinery's or importer's complex model RFG must be segregated from every other refinery's or importer's complex model RFG, unless the refineries or importers have identical baselines. This segregation requirement does apply at the retail level. These segregation requirements preclude the mixing of any amount of the gasolines that must be segregated. Thus, if the type of gasoline stored in a tank is changed (a change in the tank's service), and the old gasoline type and the new gasoline type must be segregated, the new gasoline may not be added unless the tank is completely free of any amount of the old gasoline type. EPA recognizes that when many gasoline storage tanks are pumped as low as possible, a residual volume of gasoline remains, the tank "heel," and that it is very difficult (but not impossible) to eliminate this heel. As a result, and in order to facilitate the orderly conduct of business by regulated parties, in the limited situation related to changing the service of a gasoline storage tank: First, the party must be changing the tank service for a legitimate business reason. Second, the party must draw down the gasoline volume in the tank as low as possible before adding the new gasoline. Third, the party must fill the tank as full as possible with the new gasoline. Fourth, the party must collect a representative sample from the filled tank, and analyze this sample for all the properties specified for RFG using the regulatory test methods. This analysis must show that the gasoline meets each downstream standard that applies to the new gasoline type. Fifth, the party must retain documents that demonstrate these steps in the tank service change process. 5. Question: Most refiners will produce simple model RFG during 1995 through 1997, and complex model RFG when required beginning in 1998. How may parties carry out this transition from simple to complex RFG, given the prohibition against mixing simple and complex RFG? How will the survey account for the transition period from simple to complex RFG in late 1997 or early 1998? Answer: EPA recognizes that the transition from the simple to the complex model in early 1998 will necessarily include a time- period during which the distribution system will contain a mixture of simple and complex RFG. As a result, the gasoline quality surveys, quality assurance programs, and EPA enforcement activities during this transition period will have to take this mixture into account with regard to certain, but not all, downstream standards. EPA intends to issue guidance well in advance of 1998 on this transition from simple to complex RFG. B. DOWNSTREAM BLENDING ISSUES 1. Question: We believe that oxygenates should be permitted to be added to RFG, regardless of its designation as VOC-controlled or not and regardless of its designation as OPRG or not. Answer: The technical amendments to the RFG regulations added a new provision, at section 80.65(d)(2)(iii)(B), that allows RFG that contains at least 2.0 wt% oxygen to be designated as OPRG whether or not the gasoline is used in an oxygenated fuels program control area during an oxygenated fuels program control period. This change allows terminals that serve both oxygenated fuels areas and non-oxygenated fuels areas to stock a single RFG that could be used in both areas, instead of having to stock both OPRG and non-OPRG. This change also allows all RFG which meets the 2.0 wt% oxygen per-gallon standard to be designated as OPRG, without such gasoline being restricted to use in oxygenated fuels areas during oxygenated fuels control periods. A terminal thus could stock RFG that contains 2.7 wt% oxygen and, therefore, that meets the oxygenated fuels requirement, and deliver this gasoline to both OPRG and non-OPRG markets. A terminal could also stock RFG that contains 2.0 wt% oxygen (OPRG) for delivery into both OPRG and non-OPRG markets, and splash blend additional oxygenate with those batches of gasoline that are delivered into the oxygenated fuels area during the oxygenated fuel control period. Section 80.78(a)(6) prohibits adding oxygenate to RFG, except in the case of RFG that is designated as OPRG and is used in an oxygenated fuels program area during an oxygenated fuels control period. This change, however, leaves intact the regulatory mechanism for ensuring non-OPRG areas receive RFG that contain at least 2.0 wt% oxygen. Any RFG used outside an oxygenated fuels control area during an oxygenated fuels control period that contains less than 2.0 wt% oxygen (that must be designated as non-OPRG) must be offset with other non-OPRG that contains more than 2.0 wt% oxygen, such that the average oxygen content of the non-OPRG is greater than or equal to the 2.1 wt% average standard. 2. Question: Will mixtures of RFG and RBOB be allowed to be trim blended to increase the oxygen content without having to be re-certified as RFG provided these mixes occur after both have left the refinery. Answer: Section 80.78(a)(6) prohibits adding oxygenate to RFG, except in the case of RFG that is designated OPRG and is used in an oxygenated fuels program area during an oxygenated fuels control period. Refiners and importers of RBOB are required to include in the RBOB product transfer documents the type and amount, or range of types and amounts, of oxygenate that may be blended with a particular RBOB. Oxygenate blenders must follow the product transfer document instructions. 3. Question: Please confirm that a terminal can blend complying grades of gasoline to form another grade of gasoline and the terminal would not be considered to be a refiner. An example would be the blending of premium unleaded and unleaded regular to provide mid-grade unleaded. Answer: The blending of two certified RFG gasolines to make a mid-grade gasoline is permitted provided that the segregation restraints specified in section 80.78 are not violated. The terminal or gasoline station will not be considered a refiner provided no other blendstock is added to the mixture. 4. Question: Can batches of simple model RFG be commingled without recertification? Answer: Yes, subject to the segregation requirements at section 80.78. 5. Question: Should a distributor or blender wish to alter the parameters of RFG purchased from others by adding a blending component, are there limitations and/or restrictions on this type of activity? For example, in the Spring, will it be permissible to add a low-pressure blending component to gasoline in order to control volatility? Also, will it be permissible to blend octane deficient gasoline with an octane blending component to restore octane to specification? If blending is allowed can only the end product be tested and certified or is it necessary to certify each blending step? Is blending in the above manner restricted to companies who have a history of blending gasoline or will the uninitiated also be permitted to blend components? Answer: The addition of a blendstock to certified RFG would result in the blender becoming a refiner under the RFG regulation. Refiners must establish a baseline, register with EPA and comply with all the testing, certification and other refiner requirements under the regulation. In consequence, a blendstock may not be added to RFG unless that blendstock meets all RFG standards. Any company that does meet the requirements of an RFG refiner, however can produce RFG through blending. RFG which is changed in this manner could, however, be sold outside the RFG covered areas as conventional gasoline. However, the blender is considered a refiner under the antidumping requirements and thus is responsible for the properties of the blendstock which is added to the finished RFG. Antidumping compliance calculations for blendstocks which are added to finished gasoline are discussed in section IX (D) of the preamble to the final regulations at 59 FR 7806. 6. Question: Simple model gasoline may be released immediately after receiving results for oxygen, benzene, and RVP with other results to follow. If these or other results fail, can this batch be reclassified as conventional if it is diverted away from a RFG area? Answer: If the batch has not been released or fungibly mixed with certified RFG by the refiner, it may be reclassified. Once a batch of gasoline has been designated by the refiner and released it cannot be reclassified by the refiner. RFG found downstream to violate applicable RFG standards may be corrected by downgrading, however, following the procedures outlined in question 1 of the remedies section. 7. Question: The regulations state that no person may combine any RFG with any non-oxygenated blendstock unless that person meets each requirement specified as a refiner. Does this mean that if any such blending is done at a terminal then they would be required to have the full analytical capabilities required of a refinery. Could metering at the terminal be an acceptable substitute? Can documented blendstocks be blended and certified using meters? Answer: The addition of a blendstock to certified RFG, or the combination of several blendstocks to produce RFG, would result in the blender becoming a refiner under the RFG regulation with all the testing, certification and other requirements under the regulation. Metering at the terminal is not an acceptable substitute for the sampling and testing requirements for a refiner. 8. Question: A blender/importer unloads 200,000 barrels of imported blendstock into a tank at a registered terminal and blends the imported blendstock into reformulated gasoline. After the finished gasoline is certified as RFG, 150,000 barrels of the product is shipped out, and the next shipment of imported blendstock arrives. Can the imported blendstock be unloaded onto the remaining 50,000 barrels of certified RFG and reblended? (This seems to be defined as a prohibited activity if the subsequent blend is "dirtier," even though it meets RFG specifications.) Answer: The shipped batch of RFG should be reported as 150,000 barrels of RFG. The 50,000 barrels which are left are not considered to be part of the RFG batch for reporting purposes, because only the shipped volume is reported. Therefore, imported blendstocks can be unloaded onto these 50,000 barrels and reblended to produce another batch of RFG. 9. Question: Review of fungibility issues - what types of RFG may or may not be combined: at terminals? at retail? by consumers? Answer: Section 80.78(a) requires the segregation of several categories of gasoline. These categories are: RFG may not be mixed with conventional gasoline, and sold or used as RFG. RFG blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) may not be mixed with RFG or conventional gasoline, and RBOB's that have different oxygen requirements must be segregated from each other. During the period January 1 through September 15 each year VOC-controlled RFG that is produced using ethanol must be segregated from VOC-controlled RFG that is produced using any other oxygenate, including at the retail level. Oxygenated fuels program RFG (OPRG) must be segregated from non-OPRG designated RFG(unless the OPRG contains a minimum of 2.0 wt% oxygen). Upstream of the retail level, RFG produced under the simple model may not be mixed with RFG produced under the complex model. Before January 1, 1998 each refinery's or importer's complex model RFG must be segregated from every other refinery's or importer's complex model RFG, unless the refineries or importers have identical baselines. This segregation requirement does apply at the retail level. These segregation requirements preclude the mixing of any amount of the gasolines that must be segregated. For a discussion of the handling of the heal of a tank at terminals, see question 4 of the transition section. Section 80.78(a)(1)(v) requires that RFG must be VOC- controlled for the proper VOC-control Region when stored or dispensed by terminals beginning May 1 of each year, and for retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumers beginning June 1 of each year. As a result, parties in the gasoline distribution system must transition from non-VOC-controlled RFG to VOC- controlled RFG in advance of these dates. The RFG regulations contain no prohibition against combining VOC-controlled RFG with non-VOC-controlled RFG. As a result, VOC-controlled RFG may be added to a storage tank that contain non-VOC-controlled RFG in order to turn over the storage tank to the VOC-controlled specification, in advance of May 1 each year in the case of terminals, and in advance of June 1 each year in the case of retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumers. A party who combines VOC-controlled and non-VOC-controlled RFG should treat the mixture as a downgrade to non-VOC-controlled until the party has a test result that shows the RFG meets all applicable VOC-controlled RFG standards. A terminal, therefore, should not supply product transfer documents to distributors stating the gasoline is VOC-controlled until the terminal has a test result that would support this designation. 10. Question: A major refiner decides to implement early use of the complex model. That company has product that has the same quality specifications (within the ASTM reproducibility parameters) as the product an importer has in a tank. Can the importer purchase this product? If not, are there any circumstances during early use of the complex model where a company can have product fungibility? Answer: The importer may purchase the product, however, simple and complex model RFG cannot be mixed upstream of the retail level. Also, prior to January 1, 1998, two complex model RFGs from different refineries or importers cannot be mixed at any point in the distribution system. 11. Question: Is it correct that the regulations do not prohibit the mixing of ETBE RFG and MTBE RFG at any point in the distribution system. Answer: Yes, provided the segregation restrictions in section 80.78 are met. 12. Question: Can ether RFG and alcohol RFG be mixed outside the VOC season provided the substantially similar requirements are not violated. Answer: VOC-controlled RFG produced with ethanol cannot be mixed with VOC-controlled any-oxygenate RFG from January 1, through September 15 at any point in the distribution system, including at retail outlets and wholesale-purchaser consumers facilities. 13. Question: Is it correct that the regulations do not prohibit the mixing of RFG with conventional gasoline for sale outside RFG covered areas? Answer: Yes, provided the resulting gasoline is not sold as RFG and the procedures discussed in question 1 of the remedies section are followed. 14. Question: What procedures must be followed if product is downgraded, e.g., RFG is downgraded to conventional? What procedures apply at the refinery as opposed to downstream? Answer: There is no prohibition on the sale of RFG in conventional areas. Once a batch of gasoline is certified as RFG and released from the refinery its designation cannot be changed by the refiner. However, the refinery can change the designation of gasoline which has not been fungibly mixed with other certified gasoline before it leaves the refinery. If this is done, appropriate changes in the refinery's records should be made. When gasoline located downstream of the refinery or import facility is designated as reformulated, but does not meet the applicable RFG downstream standards (plus any applicable enforcement tolerance), the party is prohibited from selling, distributing, transporting, or storing this gasoline as RFG. A party may downgrade RFG to conventional gasoline, and use the gasoline only outside any RFG covered area. There is no requirement that such downgraded gasoline must be included in any party's anti-dumping compliance calculations. If RFG that is designated as VOC-controlled is found to violate a downstream 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 downstream 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. 15. Question: What are limitations, if any, on blending RFG with materials for sale into non-RFG markets? Answer: When RFG is blended with blendstocks, the blender is considered a refiner under the antidumping requirements and thus is responsible for the properties of the blendstock which is added to the finished RFG. Compliance calculations for blendstocks which are added to finished gasoline are discussed in section IX (D) of the preamble to the final regulations at 59 FR 7806. 16. Question: What options are available to pipelines for dealing with interface material, i.e., mixtures of two different types of product that result when the different products are adjacent during pipeline movement? Answer: Interface Mixtures First, the pipeline must minimize the instances of prohibited mixing, through the sequencing together of product types that may be legally mixed, to the greatest extent possible. Second, in those instances where illegal interface mixing occurs, the entire interface must be added to the product that will most ensure no adverse environmental consequences of the mixing. For example: a. Interface mixtures of RFG or RBOB and conventional gasoline must be classified as conventional gasoline. b. Interface mixtures of VOC-controlled RFG and non- VOC-controlled RFG must be classified as non- VOC-controlled RFG. c. Interface mixtures of VOC-controlled RFG for Region 1 and VOC-controlled RFG for Region 2 must be classified as VOC-controlled RFG for Region 2 or as non-VOC-controlled RFG. d. Interface mixtures of OPRG-designated RFG and non- OPRG-designated RFG must be classified as non-OPRG-designated RFG. e. Interface mixtures of VOC-controlled, OPRG RFG and non-VOC-controlled, non-OPRG RFG must be classified as non-VOC-controlled, non-OPRG RFG. f. Interface mixtures of RBOB and RFG must be classified as RBOB. g. Interface mixtures of any-oxygenate RBOB and ether-only RBOB must be classified as ether- only RBOB. h. Interface mixtures of generic RBOB (i.e., any- oxygenate or ether-only RBOB) and refiner- specific RBOB (under  80.69(a)(1)) must be classified as refiner-specific RBOB. Third, the pipeline must retain documents that reflect the nature of any illegal interface mixing and that the interface was classified in the proper manner, and must make these documents available to EPA upon request. Transmix EPA understands there are certain types of interface mixtures that cannot be easily added to either of the adjoining products that produced the interface. This primarily is the case of interface mixtures of gasoline and distillate, commonly called "transmix." EPA further understands that the current pipeline industry practice is to transport transmix via pipeline or barge to a facility designed to separate the gasoline and distillate portions, called a "transmix processor," which is a refiner under the RFG and anti-dumping programs. Transmix Processors First, the gasoline produced must be classified as conventional gasoline, and not RFG. If the gasoline produced is classified as RFG, the transmix processor must meet all refiner standards and requirements applicable to any other refiner of RFG. Second, no additional blendstocks may be used. If blendstocks are used, in addition to the transmix, the transmix processor must meet the anti-dumping refinery standards and requirements for this blendstock in the same manner as any other blender-refiner. A transmix processor could, of course, blend gasoline produced through the process with other finished gasoline without invoking the anti-dumping requirements, e.g., premium grade gasoline could be blended to improve octane. Third, the transmix used must be a mixture of distillate and gasoline - either RFG or conventional gasoline. If the transmix is a mixture of distillate and blendstock, the blendstock will never have been accounted-for, and the transmix processor must meet the anti-dumping refiner standards and requirements for any gasoline produced using this transmix. This distinction between the treatment of a transmix processor who produces RFG versus conventional gasoline is appropriate because the gasoline produced by a transmix processor is not identical to the gasoline that went into the transmix. These changes in gasoline quality through transmix processing are simply less critical for conventional gasoline than for RFG. In addition, the gasoline portion of transmix often will be mixtures of conventional gasoline and RFG, which would be appropriate for the conventional classification, but inappropriate for the RFG classification. Transmix Blending EPA understands that in certain limited situations where transmix cannot be transported via pipeline to a transmix processor, current pipeline industry practice is to add the transmix to gasoline in very small quantities - 0.25 percent or less of the gasoline volume - and to test the resulting gasoline to ensure it remains on-spec. This practice may constitute illegal blending under the RFG and anti-dumping programs, unless the blender meets all applicable refiner standards and requirements. In the case of transmix added to conventional gasoline: First, the transmix must result from pipeline operational necessity. Second, the transmix must be present in a terminal from which there is no out-bound pipeline or water transportation by which the transmix could be transported to a transmix processor. In the case of transmix added to RFG: First, the transmix must result from pipeline operational necessity. Second, the transmix must be present in a terminal from which there is no out-bound pipeline or water transportation by which the transmix could be transported to a transmix processor. Third, conventional gasoline must not be among the slate of products that arrive at the terminal (transmix must be blended with conventional gasoline if possible). Fourth, the blending rate of transmix to RFG must be no greater than 0.25 percent by volume. Fifth, the transmix must be blended with RFG in a batch mode, so that a sample may be collected of the entire batch. Sixth, the transmix-RFG blend must be sampled and tested, and the resulting blend must meet all applicable RFG downstream standards, before any of the blended gasoline leaves the terminal. Seventh, the pipeline must retain documents that reflect the rate of transmix blending and the results of all testing on the transmix-RFG blend, and must make these documents available to EPA upon request. 17. Question: If a pipeline must be classified as a refiner, how would that be handled administratively by EPA? Since pipelines don't own the product, would pipeline have to become buyers and sellers for regulatory purposes? Answer: Refiners must be registered with EPA. The pipeline need not be an owner of the gasoline to be a refiner. 18. Question: Currently, during the winter months butane is blended into gasoline at terminals in the Northern U.S. in order to raise the RVP of the gasoline to a level that assures vehicles will start in cold weather. What options under the RFG and anti- dumping programs are available for a party who wants to continue this butane blending practice? Would such a party be a "refiner" who is required to meet RFG and anti-dumping standards and requirements? Is there any alternative to every-batch sampling and testing? Answer: The issues raised in this question have not yet been resolved by EPA. In addition, EPA has recently received a recommendation from a party such as is described in the question, and is evaluating that recommendation. EPA will answer this question in the near future. C. IMPORTER ISSUES 1. Question: What is the EPA definition of an importer under the RFG final rule? Answer: EPA's importer definition is found at 40 CFR  80.4(r), which states that an importer is "a person who imports gasoline or gasoline blending stocks or components from a foreign country into the United States (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands)." U.S. Customs Service regulations at 19 CFR  101.1(l) define an importer as the "person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise, or an authorized agent acting on his behalf." To keep operations for EPA and the Customs Service consistent, the person who is the importer of record for the gasoline with the Customs Service should be the importer for purposes of EPA's RFG and anti-dumping programs. Normally this is the person who owns the gasoline when the import vessel arrives at the U.S. port of entry, or the person who owns the gasoline after it has been discharged by the import vessel into a shore tank, but sometimes it is a licensed customs house broker. The Customs importer of record, whether it is the person who owns the gasoline when it enters the U.S port of entry, the purchaser of the gasoline or the customs house broker, is always responsible for compliance with the RFG and anti-dumping standards and requirements, however. 2. Question: If a terminal receives gasoline that is delivered directly from a foreign source but the operator or owner of the receiving terminal is not the importer of that gasoline, is that terminal still considered to be the import facility? Is it the responsibility of the terminal operator or owner, who is not the importer, to do the testing, certification, recordkeeping, reporting, attest engagements and other functions described as importer responsibilities in the final RFG rules? Answer: The requirements for certification of RFG are applied to the importer, not the import facility. As described above, the importer is the person who is the importer of record with the Customs Service for the gasoline, and normally is either the person who owns the gasoline when the import vessel arrives at the U.S. port of entry, or the person who owns the gasoline after it has been discharged by the import vessel into a shore tank. A terminal owner or operator who is not the importer would not be responsible for compliance with the testing and certification requirements, but would, however, be responsible for the requirements applicable to distributors. 3. Question: If one company acquires foreign product in transit, then sells it to a second company while still in transit, who is the importer? Answer: The importer is the party identified above, the party primarily liable for payment of duties for Customs purposes when the gasoline enters the United States. 4. Question: If foreign product is acquired by an importer through an exchange agreement instead of a sale, does it change identification of the importer for RFG reporting purposes? Answer: No. The person who is the importer of record for Customs purposes should be the importer for RFG purposes, and this is usually the gasoline owner, regardless of how that ownership was acquired. 5. Question: May import facilities be grouped together for compliance and reporting purposes? Answer: For the most part, separate import facilities owned by one importer must be grouped together. All compliance demonstrations are to be made based on the aggregate of all gasoline imported into the United States by an importer. This provision is found in  80.67(b)(2) of the final rule. Please see Question 6 below for an explanation of when this general approach does not apply. 6. Question: When are an importer's facilities subject to different RFG standards? Answer: There is one situation in which importers must demonstrate compliance for individual import facilities instead of aggregating. Under  80.67(b)(2)(ii), importers must demonstrate compliance separately for the gasoline imported at facilities which are subject to different RFG standards under  80.41. The RFG standards for a covered area can change, or "ratchet," as the result of a failed gasoline quality survey in that area. When the standards for a covered area are ratcheted, the gasoline imported by an importer into the PADD containing the covered area, or into one of the PADDs supplying the covered area, would have to meet a separate standard. In this situation, the importer would submit separate compliance reports to EPA for gasoline imported into each PADD or group of PADDs with the same ratcheted standard. 7. Question: If an importer has more than two import terminals, may the importer of record elect "per gallon" compliance for some import terminals and "average" compliance for other import terminals, or must all imported RFG be designated consistently? Answer: All RFG must be designated consistently. For each of the RFG parameters, an importer must elect compliance on either a per-gallon basis or an average basis. These elections apply to all of the importer's facilities. 8. Question: At what point in the import process must shipments of imported gasoline be sampled in order to meet the RFG and anti-dumping requirements? Answer: Section 80.65(e)(1) requires importers to determine the properties applicable to the RFG standards for each batch of imported gasoline designated as RFG prior to the gasoline leaving the import facility, by analyzing a representative sample from the batch using the test methods specified in  80.46. Section 80.101(i)(1) similarly requires an importer to determine the properties applicable to the anti- dumping standards for each batch of imported conventional gasoline by analyzing a sample using the  80.46 test methods. In the case of conventional gasoline, under  80.101(i)(2) the samples from more than one batch of conventional gasoline may be combined into a composite sample and analyzed together, following procedures specified in that section. These sections thus require that a sample of each batch of imported gasoline must be collected before the batch is combined with any other gasoline or blendstock that is not a part of that imported batch. As a result, in order to meet the requirements, any batch of imported gasoline must be sampled before the batch is off-loaded from a ship into a shore tank if that shore tank contains any amount of any product. This is because a sample from such a shore tank would be a mixture of imported gasoline and the other product, and would therefore not be representative of the gasoline that being imported. For these reasons, a sample of each batch of imported gasoline must be collected before the ship is off-loaded at the port of entry. In the case of imported RFG, the independent lab and the importer (if the importer is using the 10% independent analysis option) must collect a sample of the imported gasoline, and it must be determined that the measurements are consistent with certifiable RFG, before the ship is off-loaded. The different ship compartments normally must be considered different batches of gasoline, because the gasoline may not be homogeneous across multiple compartments. In the case of imported conventional gasoline, composite samples from multiple batches are allowed, so a volume-weighted composite from the gasoline in different compartments of a ship may be analyzed for anti-dumping compliance purposes. The volume of a batch of imported conventional gasoline must be the off-loaded volume, however, and normally would be established by the importer based on shore tank measurements. In the case of RFG, the importer and independent lab may treat the gasoline in different compartments of a ship as a single batch only if the importer or lab has a strong basis to believe that the gasoline is homogeneous across the compartments, but such a determination would require analysis of the different compartment samples for most of the RFG parameters. As a result, little would be gained by making such a determination. In the alternative, EPA will accept the analysis of samples collected from different ship compartments that are combined into a single volume-weighted composite sample, provided the compartments are off-loaded into a single shore tank. EPA believes such a composite sample would be representative of the overall quality of the gasoline in the multiple ship compartments, following the mixing of this gasoline in the shore tank. If the gasoline is not completely homogeneous when in the different ship compartments, presumably the gasoline will be mixed to the point of homogeneity in the shore tank. Such composite testing would not be appropriate in the case of RVP, however, because the process of preparing a composite sample renders any RVP result suspect. The importer and independent lab could, however, test a ship composite sample (if allowed as discussed above) for all properties other than RVP, and only separately analyze the compartment samples for RVP. The RVP of the multiple-compartment batch could then be derived mathematically from the separate RVP analyses for each compartment. As in the case of conventional gasoline, the volume of imported RFG must be the off-loaded volume, and normally would be established by the independent lab based on shore tank measurements. Any imported RFG that is sampled and tested using the composite approach discussed above would be considered a single batch for purposes of assigning batch numbers and reporting to EPA. The approach for testing imported RFG involving composite samples from multiple ship compartments, as discussed above, would not be appropriate if the importer or independent lab has any reason to believe the gasoline will not be homogeneous when released from the import facility. 9. Question: A foreign cargo of RFG is to be imported into several terminals. Can the cargo be certified before discharge at the first U.S. port of entry and that certification used for all subsequent ports of entry, or must it be tested and certified separately at each U.S. port of entry? Answer: Certification of every batch of imported RFG must occur separately for Customs purposes at each U.S. port of entry. For example, if a vessel goes first to New York to discharge half its cargo, then proceeds on to Philadelphia to discharge the rest, each half is a separate batch, and each batch is separately imported at each port. Each batch therefore would also be separately tested, certified, and reported as RFG. 10. Question: Must imported RFG be tested at the import facility or may the importer use the test results from a foreign source, or alternatively, from vessel samples secured from the vessel after loading is completed? Many independent labs operate internationally. Also, must all labs be registered with EPA? Answer: Importers must certify each batch of RFG and conventional gasoline based upon samples collected after the vessel carrying the gasoline has entered the U.S. port of entry where the gasoline will be discharged. Under  80.65(f)(2)(ii), importers must identify the designated independent laboratory to EPA under the registration requirements found in  80.76. 11. Question: How do importers account for blendstock sold from their import terminals? Answer: Under  80.103, importers of conventional gasoline are subject to the blendstock tracking and reporting requirements in the same manner as refiners. Please see Question ## in the Anti-Dumping section for a description of these requirements. These blendstock tracking and accounting requirements do not apply to a party using the statutory baseline, however, with the result that they will not apply to most importers. 12. Question: Even if an importer had sufficient imports in 1990 to establish an RFG baseline, it is likely that all of the RFG parameters were not identified. In this case, would the importer default to the statutory baseline? Answer: Under  80.91(b)(4), if an importer is unable to meet the requirements for baseline-setting under Method 1 for all parameters, the importer must use the statutory baseline. However, if an importer is also a foreign refiner, under  80.91(b)(4)(ii) that importer must determine its individual baseline if 75% of the gasoline produced at its foreign refinery in 1990 was imported into the U.S. This baseline must be set using the three Methods available to domestic refiners. In addition, if the importer is also a domestic refiner, under  80.101(f)(3) the importer would use the volume-weighted average of the refiner's refinery baselines. 13. Question: What options are available to an importer who wishes to import product that meets the definition of gasoline, but who wishes to further process this gasoline to meet the standards for conventional gasoline or RFG after the gasoline arrives at the U.S. port of entry? Answer: The issues raised in this question have not yet been resolved by EPA. As a result, this question will be answered at a later time. 14. Question: What options for meeting the importer requirements are available to an importer who imports gasoline into the United States by truck? How does such an importer meet the every-batch sampling and testing requirements, since every truck (or truck compartment) would be considered a separate batch? Answer: The issues raised in this question have not yet been resolved by EPA. In addition, EPA has recently received a recommendation from a party such as is described in the question, and is evaluating that recommendation. EPA will answer this question in the near future. ATTACHMENT I Areas Participating in the Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline Program in 1994-1995 November 1 - February 29 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA Baltimore, MD MSA Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC MSA Albuquerque, NM MSA El Paso, TX MSA Colorado Springs, CO MSA Denver-Boulder, CO CMSA Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA Provo-Orem, UT MSA Salt Lake City, UT MSA1 Missoula, MT San Diego, CA MSA Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA CMSA Grant's Pass, OR Klamath County, OR Medford, OR MSA October 1- April 30 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA October 1 - January 31 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA Stockton, CA MSA2 Chico, CA MSA2 Fresno, CA MSA2 Modesto, CA MSA2 Sacramento, CA MSA2 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA2 Reno, NV MSA October 1 - February 29 Las Vegas, NV MSA Phoenix, AZ MSA Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA2 September 1 - February 29 Spokane, WA MSA 1 The State of Utah has applied for a full waiver of the oxygenated fuel requirements for the Salt Lake City program area. The State officially suspended the program on October 1, 1993, pending EPA's decision of the waiver package submission. 2 The State of California has applied for a partial waiver of the oxygenated fuel requirements. The waiver submission requested a waiver of the 2.7% oxygen requirement. The State has requested authority to operate a 1.8% to 2.2% oxygen program. The State is currently operating a 1.8% to 2.2% oxygen program pending EPA's decision on the waiver package submission. ATTACHMENT II Draft List of Reformulated Gasoline Program Areas Below is EPA's current list of 46 reformulated gasoline program areas (current as of June 10, 1994). This is not EPA's finalized list of reformulated gasoline program areas. Although every effort has been made to make certain that this "draft list" is consistent with the regulations, internal EPA review continues and, therefore, this draft may be subject to change. The list of covered areas will be finalized upon signature of EPA's "Corrections Notice" which will be published soon in the Federal Register. Required Areas Los Angeles - Anaheim - Riverside, CA - Los Angeles County - Ventura County - Orange County - San Bernadino County, the portion that lies south of latitude 35 degrees, 10 minutes north and west of longitude 115 degrees, 45 minutes west - Riverside County, that portion which lies to the west of a line descibed as follows: 1) Beginning at the northeast corner of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, a point on the boundary line common to Riverside and San Bernadino Counties. 2) Then southerly along section lines to the centerline of the Colorado River Aqueduct. 3) Then southeasterly along the centerline of said Colorado River Aqueduct to the southerly line of Section 36, Township 3 South, Range 7 East. 4) Then easterly along the township line to the northeast corner of Section 6, Township 4 South, Range 9 East. 5) Then southerly along the easterly line of Section 6 to the southeast corner thereof. 6) Then easterly along section lines to the northeast corner of Section 10, Township 4 South, Range 9 East. 7) Then southerly along the section lines to the southeast corner of Section 15, Township 4 South, Range 9 East. 8) Then easterly along the section lines to the northeast corner of Section 21, Township 4 South, Range 10 East. 9) Then southerly along the easterly line of Section 21 to the southeast corner thereof. 10) Then easterly along the northerly line of Section 27 to the northeast corner thereof. 11) Then southerly along section lines to the southeast corner of Section 34, Township 4 South, Range 10 East. 12) Then easterly along the township line to the northeast corner of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 10 East. 13) Then southerly along the easterly line of Section 2, to the southeast corner thereof. 14) Then easterly along the northerly line of Section 12 to the northeast corner thereof. 15) Then southerly along the range line to the southwest corner of Section 18, Township 5 South, Range 11 East. 16) Then easterly along section lines to the northeast corner of Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 11 East. 17) Then southerly along the range line to the southeast corner of Section 36, Township 8 South, Range 11 East, a point on the boundary line common to Riverside and San Diego Counties. San Diego County, CA Greater Connecticut - Hartford County - Middlesex County - New Haven County - New London County - Tolland County - Windham County - Portions of certain Connecticut counties, described as follows: 1) In Fairfield County, The City of Shelton. 2) In Litchfield County. all cities and townships except the towns of Bridgewater and New Milford. New York - Northern New Jersey - Long Island - Connecticut area - Portions of certain Connecticut counties, described as follows: 1) In Fairfield County, all cities and townships except Shelton City. 2) In Litchfield County, the towns of Bridgewater and New Milford. - The following New Jersey counties: 1) Bergen 2) Essex 3) Hudson 4) Hunterdon 5) Middlesex 6) Monmouth 7) Morris 8) Ocean 9) Passaic 10) Somerset 11) Sussex 12) Union - The following New York counties: 1) Bronx 2) Kings 3) Nassau 4) New York (Manhattan) 5) Queens 6) Richmond 7) Rockland 8) Suffolk 9) Westchester 10) Orange 11) Putnam Philadelphia - Wilmington - Trenton - Cecil County, MD area - The following Delaware counties: 1) New Castle 2) Kent - Cecil County, MD - The following New Jersey counties: 1) Burlington 2) Camden 3) Cumberland 4) Gloucester 5) Mercer 6) Salem - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Bucks 2) Chester 3) Delaware 4) Montgomery 5) Philadelphia Chicago - Gary - Lake County, IL - Indiana - Wisconsin area - The following Illinois counties: 1) Cook 2) Du Page 3) Kane 4) Lake 5) McHenry 6) Will - Portions of certain Illinois counties, described as follows: 1) In Grundy County, the townships of Aux Sable and Goose Lake. 2) In Kendall County, Oswego township. - The following Indiana counties: 1) Lake 2) Porter Baltimore, MD - The following Maryland counties: 1) Anne Arundel 2) Baltimore 3) Carroll 4) Harford 5) Howard - The City of Baltimore Houston - Galveston - Brazoria, TX - The following Texas counties: 1) Brazoria 2) Fort Bend 3) Galveston 4) Harris 5) Liberty 6) Montgomery 7) Waller 8) Chambers Milwaukee - Racine, WI - The following Wisconsin counties: 1) Kenosha 2) Milwaukee 3) Ozaukee 4) Racine 5) Washington 6) Waukesha "Opt-ins" Areas Sussex County, DE Washington D.C. - District of Columbia portion of the Washington ozone nonattainment area (the entire District of Columbia) - The following Maryland counties: 1) Calvert 2) Charles 3) Frederick 4) Montgomery 5) Prince Georges - The following Virginia counties: 1) Alexandria 2) Arlington County 3) Fairfax 4) Fairfax County 5) Falls Church 6) Loudoun County 7) Manassas 8) Manassas Park 9) Prince William County 10) Stafford County Cincinnati - Hamilton, OH* - The following Kentucky counties: 1) Boone 2) Campbell 3) Kenton * The Ohio counties have not opted-in. Louisville, KY - The following Kentucky counties: 1) Jefferson - Portions of the following Kentucky counties: 1) Portion of Bullitt County described as follows: + Beginning at the intersection of Ky 1020 and the Jefferson-Bullitt County Line proceeding to the east along the county line to the intersection of county road 567 and the Jefferson-Bullitt County Line. + Proceeding south on county road 567 to the junction with Ky 1116 (also known as Zoneton Road). + Proceeding to the south on KY 1116 to the junction with Hebron Lane. + Proceeding to the south on Hebron Lane to Cedar Creek. + Proceeding south on Cedar Creek to the confluence of Floyds Fork turning southeast along a creek that meets Ky 44 at Stallings Cemetery. + Proceeding west along Ky 44 to the eastern most point in the Shepherdsville city limits. + Proceeding south along the Shepherdsville city limits to the Salt River and west to a point across the river from Mooney Lane. + Proceeding south along Mooney Lane to the junction of Ky 480. + Proceeding west on Ky 480 to the junction with Ky 2237. + Proceeding south on Ky 2237 to the junction with Ky 61 and proceeding north on Ky 61 to the junction with Ky 1494. + Proceeding south on Ky 1494 to the junction with the perimeter of the Fort Knox Military Reservation. + Proceeding north along the military reservation perimeter to Castleman Branch Road. + Proceeding north on Castleman Branch Road to Ky 44. + Proceeding a very short distance west on Ky 44 to a junction with Ky 1020. + proceeding north on Ky 1020 to the beginning. 2) Portion of Oldham County described as follows: + Beginning at the intersection of the Oldham- Jefferson County Line with the southbound lane of Interstate 71. + Proceeding to the northeast along the southbound lane of Interstate 71 to the intersection of Ky 329 and the southbound lane of Interstate 71. + Proceeding to the northwest on Ky 329 to the intersection of Zaring Road on Ky 329. + Proceeding to the east-northeast on Zaring Road to the junction of Cedar Point Road and Zaring Road. + proceeding to the north-northeast on Cedar Point Road to the junction of Ky 393 and Cedar Point Road. + Proceeding to the south-southeast on Ky 393 to the junction of county road 746 (the road on the north side of Reformatory Lake and the Reformatory. + Proceeding to the east-northeast on county road 746 to the junction with Dawkins Lane (also known as Saddlers Mill Road) and county road 746. + Proceeding to follow an electric power line east- northeast across from the junction of county road 746 and Dawkins Lane to the east-northeast across Ky 53 on to the La Grange Water Filtration Plant. + Proceeding on to the east-southeast along the power line then south across Fort Pickens Road to a power substation on Ky 146. + Proceeding along the power line south across Ky 146 and the Seaboard System Railroad track to adjoin the incorporated city limits of La Grange. + Then proceeding east then south along the La Grange city limits to a point abutting the north side of Ky 712. + Proceeding east-southeast on Ky 712 to the junction of Massie School Road and Ky 712. + Proceeding to the south-southwest and then north- northwest on Massie School Road to the junction of Ky 53 and Massie School Road. + Proceeding on Ky 53 to the north-northwest to the junction of Moody Lane and Ky 53. + Proceeding on Moody Lane to the south-southwest until meeting the city limits of La Grange. + Then briefly proceeding north following the La Grange city limits to the intersection of the northbound lane of Interstate 71 and the La Grange city limits. + Proceeding southwest on the northbound lane of Interstate 71 until intersecting with the North Fork of Currys Fork. + Proceeding south-southwest beyond the confluence of Currys Fork to the south-southwest beyond the confluence of Floyds Fork continuing on to the Oldham-Jefferson County Line. + Proceeding northwest along the Oldham-Jefferson County Line to the beginning. Hancock and Waldo Counties, ME Knox and Lincoln Counties, ME Lewiston - Auburn, ME - The following Maine counties: 1) Androscoggin County 2) Kennebec County Portland, ME - The following Maine counties 1) Cumberland County 2) Sagadahoc County 3) York County Queen Anne's and Kent Counties, MD Springfield, MA - The following Massachusetts counties: 1) Berkshire County 2) Franklin County 3) Hampden County 4) Hampshire County Boston - Lawrence - Worcester (E. MA) - The following Massachusetts counties: 1) Barnstable County 2) Bristol County 3) Dukes County 4) Essex County 5) Middlesex County 6) Nantucket County 7) Norfolk County 8) Plymouth County 9) Suffolk County 10) Worcester County - The follow New Hampshire counties: 1) Hillsborough County (part) * Pelham town * Amherst town * Brookline town * Hollis town * Hudson town * Litchfield town * Merrimack town * Milford town * Mont Vernon town * Nashua city * Wilton town 2) Rockingham County (part) * Atkinson town * Brentwood town * Danville town * Derry town * E. Kingston town * Hampstead town * Hampton Falls town * Kensington town * Kingston town * Londonderry town * Newton town * Plaistow town * Salem town * Sandown town * Seabrook town * South Hampton town * Windham town Manchester, NH - The following New Hampshire counties: 1) Hillsborough County (part) * Antrim town * Bedford town * Bennington town * Deering town * Francestown town * Goffstown town * Greenfield town * Greenville town * Hancock town * Hillsborough town * Lyndeborough town * Manchester city * Mason town * New Boston town * New Ipswich town * Peterborough town * Sharon town * Temple town * Weare town * Windsor town 2) Merrimack County 3) Rockingham County (part) * Auburn town * Candia town * Chester town * Deerfield town * Epping town * Fremont town * Northwood town * Nottingham town * Raymond town Portsmouth - Dover - Rochester, NH - The following New Hampshire counties: 1) Rockingham County (part) * Exeter town * Greenland town * Hampton town * New Castle town * Newfields town * Newington town * Newmarket town * North Hampton town * Portsmouth city * Rye town * Stratham town 2) Strafford County Allentown, PA - Bethlehem, PA - Easton, PA - The following New Jersey counties: 1) Warren County - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Carbon County 2) Lehigh County 3) Northampton County Atlantic City, NJ - The following New Jersey counties: 1) Atlantic 2) Cape May Albany - Schenectady - Troy - The following New York counties: 1) Albany County 2) Greene County 3) Montgomery County 4) Rensselear County 5) Saratoga County 6) Schenectady County Buffalo - Niagra Falls - The following New York counties: 1) Erie County 2) Niagra County Poughkeepsie, NY - The following New York counties: 1) Dutchess The portion of Essex County, NY, described as follows: 1) The portion of Whiteface Mountain above 4,500 feet in elevation in Essex County. Jefferson County, NY Altoona, PA - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Blair County Erie, PA - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Erie County Harrisburg - Lebanon - Carlisle, PA - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Cumberland County 2) Dauphin County 3) Lebanon County 4) Perry County Johnstown, PA - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Cambria County 2) Somerset County Lancaster, PA - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Lancaster County Pittsburgh - Beaver Valley - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Allegheny County 2) Beaver County 3) Fayette County 4) Washington County 5) Westmoreland County 6) Armstrong County 7) Butler County Reading, PA - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Berks County Scranton - Wilkes-Barre, PA - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Columbia County 2) Lackawanna County 3) Luzerne County 4) Monroe County 5) Wyoming County York, PA - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Adams County 2) York County Youngstown, OH - Warren, OH - Sharon, PA* - The following Pennsylvania counties: 1) Mercer * Ohio counties have not opted-in. The entire State of Rhode Island - The following Rhode Island counties: 1) Bristol County 2) Kent County 3) Newport County 4) Providence County 5) Washington County Dallas - Fort Worth - The following Texas counties (Dallas/Fort Worth area): 1) Collin 2) Dallas 3) Denton 4) Tarrant Richmond - Petersburg, VA - The following Virginia areas: 1) Charles City County 2) Chesterfield County 3) Colonial Heights 4) Hanover County 5) Henrico County 6) Hopewell 7) Richmond Norfolk - Virginia Beach - Newport News - The following Virginia areas 1) Chesapeake 2) Hampton 3) James City County 4) Newport News 5) Norfolk 6) Poquoson 7) Portsmouth 8) Suffolk 9) Virginia Beach 10) Williamsburg 11) York County The Governor of Wisconsin has recently requested that the following areas be included in the reformulated gasoline program. At this time, no official announcement has been made in the Federal Register, but the Wisconsin areas have been included in this list in anticipation of such an announcement. The effective date that reformulated gasoline must be supplied to the following areas has not yet been determined. Sheboygan, WI - The following Wisconsin areas: 1) Sheboygan County Kewaunee County, WI Manitowic County, WI