January 9, 1995
 Questions and Answers
     January 9,1995
    Fuels and Energy Division
     Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

              RFG/Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers, January 9,1995

       The following are responses to most of the questions received by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) through December 26,1994, concerning the manner in which the EPA
intends to implement and assure compliance with the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping
regulations at 40 CFR Part 80. This document was prepared by EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Air Enforcement Division.

       Regulated parties may use this document to aid in achieving compliance with the
reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping regulations.  However, this document does not in
any way alter there quirements of these regulations.  While the answers provided in this
document represent the Agency's interpretation and general plans for implementation of the
regulations at this time, some of the responses may change as additional information becomes
available or as the Agency further considers certain issues.

       This guidance document does not establish or change legal rights or obligations. It does
not establish binding rules or requirements and is not fully determinative of the issues addressed.
Agency decisions in any particular case will be made applying the law and regulations on the
basis of specific facts and actual action.

       While we have attempted to include answers to all questions received by December 26,
1994, the necessity for policy decisions and/or resource constraints may have prevented the
inclusion of certain questions.  Questions not answered in this document will be answered in a
subsequent document.  Questions that merely require a justification of the regulations, or that
have previously been answered or discussed either in a previous Question and Answer document
or the Preamble to the regulations have been omitted.
                                    Topics Covered
Sampling and Testing Procedures
Test Methods
RFG General Requirements
Downstream Oxygenate Blending/Roxy
Product Transfer Documentation
Interaction with State Programs
January 9, 1995


[NOTE: The following is an update to Question 1, Section V.A., of the July 1,1994
Question and Answer Document to clarify that the term "per gallon" standards refers to
the downstream per gallon minimum and maximum  standards.]
1.      Question: How should storage tanks be sampled for RFG?

   Answer: Section 80.65(e)(l) 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 minimum and maximum standards, and
stratification could result in a portion of the gasoline in a tank being out of compliance with the
per gallon minimum and maximum 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-confmed (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

January 9, 1995                                                                        2

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

       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.
                                   TEST METHODS

[NOTE: The following is an update to Question 36, Section V.B., of the July 1,1994
Question and Answer Document, which adds a paragraph discussing how to accomplish
the butane adjustment in the compositing procedure where batch size varies.]
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
January 9, 1995

       Answer:  The best process would be to avoid the butane adjustment by blending the fuels
in such a way that butane loss is avoided. Practically, this means having all fuel samples at or
below 32 degrees Fahrenheit 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 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. 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.  However, 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 (bull.no.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 to 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.

             6.6(8000 - z) + 51.6(z) = 7.2(8000)  (I)

             52,800 - 6.6(z) + 51.6(z) = 57,600          (II)

                           45.0(z) = 4,800                    (III)

                                 z= 106.7                         (IV)

             106.77(8000) - 106.7) = 1.35%                    (V)
January 9, 1995

This means that 1.35 volume percent 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 0.913% by volume. This type of correction would also be
applied to oxygenate, sulfur, aromatic, and olefm measurements.

       This is a simplified version of the correction calculation, and assumes a consistent
product batch size.  In cases where the batch size varies, the sample removed for composite must
be proportional to the size of the batch. For example, if batches totaling 50,000, 30,000, and
80,000 bbls. are produced, one might remove 100, 60, and 160 ml from the respective batches.
This amounts to volume weighting the composite for batch sizes.  The calculated average RVP
value is a weighted average of the original values:

       RVPl(Voll) + RVP2(Vol2) + RVP3(Vol3)....= RVP(avg)(Vol(total))

The volume compensation is calculated exactly as in the simplified case.

       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 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 of 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.
[NOTE: The following is an update to Question 40, Section V.B., of the July 1,1994
Question and Answer Document, which adds a paragraph at the end of the answer.]
40. Question: What is the frequency of correlation samples for laboratories to remain qualified
for reform testing?

       Answer:  There is no definition of "qualified" laboratories under the regulations. The
principle requirement for correlation relates to the use of one of the alternate methods allowed
until 1/1/97.
January 9, 1995

       When one elects to use ASTM D1319 for measuring aromatic content in gasoline, or
ASTM D4815 for the measurement of oxygenates in gasoline, correlation to the regulatory
methods must be established.  The principle reason for this requirement is the operator dependent
nature of D1319 and D4815. 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 methods.
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  confidence in his
established correlation.

       In practice, this means that each laboratory must establish this correlation if it intends to
measure aromatics by ASTM D1319, or oxygenates by ASTM D4815. This correlation testing is
done to define a bias, or show that none exists. It is not appropriate to include reproducibility in
this discussion, since the intention is to correlate the mean of one method with the mean of a
second method. In all cases, the fuel must meet its intended aromatics level as measured by
GC/MS, and its intended oxygenates level as measured by OFID.
                          RFC GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1.  Question: Can a company ship, sell, or offer for sale conventional gasoline to a retailer or
wholesaler operating on an Indian Reservation in an ozone nonattainment area which has been
opted-in by the state?  Can a company sell conventional gasoline to a wholesaler who supplies a
retailer or wholesaler who is operating on an Indian Reservation in an ozone nonattainment area
which has been opted-in by the state?

       Answer:  The Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies the areas that must be subject to the
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program.  These "covered areas" are: (1) the nine major
metropolitan areas with the worst (highest) ozone levels; and (2) any area reclassified as a severe
ozone nonattainment area (effective one year after reclassification).  See CAA § 21 l(k)(10)(D).
This statutorily-prescribed component of the RFG program applies with equal force to all
covered areas, including all affected State and Tribal areas.
January 9, 1995

      The CAA also allows the "Governor of a State" to voluntarily "opt-in" and subject any
marginal, moderate, serious or severe ozone nonattainment area in the State to the RFG program.
See CAA § 21 l(k)(6). As explained in the discussion below, a Governor's application to opt-in
to the RFG program includes all affected ozone nonattainment areas within the State's
jurisdiction but does not include any lands within the jurisdiction of a Federally recognized
Indian tribe.

      The term "State" is specifically defined in section 302(d) of the CAA and does not
include Indian Tribes. Rather, the term "Indian tribe" is independently defined in section 302(r)
to include any Federally recognized "tribe, band nation, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village."1 Compare also CAA § 302(b)(l)-(4) with CAA §
      Several other provisions of the CAA evince congressional intent not to treat Federally
recognized Indian Tribes as subdivisions of States under the CAA.  For example, section 164(c)
provides that "[l]ands within the exterior boundaries of reservations of federally recognized
Indian tribes may be redesignated" for purposes of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of
Air Quality program "only by the appropriate Indian governing body."  See also CAA § 164(e).
Section 301(d)(2) of the CAA authorizes EPA to issue regulations specifying those provisions of
the CAA for which it is appropriate "to treat Indian Tribes as States."2 Hence, section 301(d) of
the CAA provides for treating Tribes in the same manner as States, not as governmental
      1  The Department  of the  Interior periodically publishes a
list of Federally  recognized Tribes.  See 58 FR 54364  (Oct.  21,
1993) .

      2  Further,  section 301(d) (2) (B)  addresses  the potential
jurisdictional scope of  the resulting Tribal CAA program
submittals,  authorizing  EPA to  treat Tribes in  the same manner as
States for  "the management and  protection of air resources within
the  exterior boundaries  of the  reservation or other areas within
the  tribe's  jurisdiction."  EPA has proposed to interpret section
301(d)  and other provisions of  the CAA  as granting Tribes--
approved by  EPA to administer CAA programs in the same  manner  as
States--authority  over all air  resources  within the exterior
boundaries of a reservation for such programs.   EPA has explained
that "[t]his grant of authority by Congress would enable such
Tribes to address  conduct  on all lands,  including non-Indian
owned fee lands, within  the exterior boundaries of a
reservation."  EPA also  proposed to interpret the language in
section 301(d)(2)(B)  providing  for Tribal management and
protection of air  resources in  "other areas within the  Tribe's
jurisdiction" to authorize potential Tribal jurisdiction under
the  CAA over areas that  lie outside the exterior boundaries  of a
reservation,  upon  a fact-based  showing  of a Tribe's inherent
authority over sources located  on such  lands.   See 59  FR 43956,
43958-43960   (Aug.  25,  1994).

January 9, 1995                                                             7

subdivisions of States.  EPA has issued proposed rules that would treat Tribes in the same
manner as States for virtually all CAA programs. See 59 FR 43956 (Aug. 25, 1994).

       In addition, Federal Indian law and policy direct EPA to treat Tribes as sovereign
governments not as subdivisions of States. Settled principles of Indian law provide that "States
are generally precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians  in Indian country unless
Congress has clearly expressed an intention to permit it." Washington Department of Ecology.
752 F.2d at 1469-1479 (citations omitted^): see also United States v. Mazurie. 419 U.S. 544, 556
(1975) (the inherent sovereign authority of Indian Tribes extends  "over both their members and
their territory"); Montana v. United States. 450 U.S. 544, 556-557 (1981) (Tribes generally have
extensive authority to regulate activities on lands that are held by the United States in trust for
the Tribe); Montana. 450 U.S. at 566 (a Tribe "may...retain inherent power to exercise civil
authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct
threatens or has some direct effect on the...health or welfare of the tribe").

       Federal and Agency Tribal policy also direct EPA to treat Tribes as sovereign
governments. On January 24, 1983, the President issued a Federal Indian Policy stressing two
related themes:  (1) that the Federal government will pursue the principle of Indian "self-
government" and (2) that it will work directly with Tribal governments on a "government-to-
government" basis.  An April 29, 1994 Presidential Memorandum reiterated that the rights of
sovereign Tribal governments must be fully respected.  59 FR 22,951 (May 4, 1994).

       EPA's Tribal policies commit to certain principles, including the following:

             EPA recognizes Tribal Governments as sovereign  entities with primary authority
       and responsibility for the reservation populace.  Accordingly, EPA will work directly
       with Tribal Governments as the independent authority for reservation  affairs, and not as
       the political  subdivisions of States or other governmental  units.
              In keeping with the principal of Indian self-government, the Agency will view
       Tribal Governments as the appropriate non-Federal parties for making decisions and
       carrying out program responsibilities affecting Indian reservations, their environments,
       and the health and welfare of the reservation populace.  Just as EPA's deliberations and
       activities have traditionally involved interests and/or participation of State Governments,
       EPA will look directly to Tribal Governments to play this lead role for matters affecting
       reservation environments.

November 8, 1984 "EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian
Reservations"; Policy Reaffirmed by Administrator Carol M. Browner in a Memorandum issued
on March 14, 1994.
January 9, 1995

       Accordingly, a Governor's request to opt-in to the RFG program does not bind areas
within the jurisdiction of Federally recognized Indian Tribes. The "opt-in" portion of the RFG
program is voluntary and based on an application by the Governor of a State.  Treating a request
by a Governor of a State to voluntarily opt-in to the RFG program as binding on areas within the
jurisdiction of Federally recognized Indian Tribes would fundamentally be at odds with the
voluntary premise of the opt-in program, in light of other provisions of the CAA, and Federal
Indian law and policy that do not treat Tribes as subdivisions of States.

        Federally mandated and implemented fuels programs apply to areas within the
jurisdiction of Federally recognized Indian Tribes.  See 59 FR 43960-61.  Thus, areas within
Tribal jurisdiction that are located within the nine statutorily prescribed covered areas are subject
to the RFG regulations, and other areas within Tribal jurisdiction are subject to the anti-dumping
regulations. However, where an area within Tribal jurisdiction is not located within one of the
nine statutorily-prescribed covered areas: (1) the sale of conventional gasoline to a retailer or
distributor operating within the jurisdiction of a Federally recognized Indian tribe  is not
prohibited, even if surrounded  by a State opt-in area; and (2) the sale of conventional gasoline
intended for sale in areas within Tribal jurisdiction to a distributor located within a State opt-in
area but outside  the Tribal area is also not prohibited. All conventional gasoline is required to be
accompanied by product transfer documents that identify it as conventional gasoline not to be
used in a RFG covered area. See 40 CFR § 80.106(a)(l)(vii).

       Finally, any Tribes interested in opting in  to the RFG program for areas within their
jurisdiction should contact Joanne Jackson Stephens at (303) 668-4276. As noted, EPA has
authority to treat Federally recognized Tribes in the same manner as States for CAA programs
and has already proposed to do so for virtually all CAA programs including RFG.
2. Question:  Is a company considered an importer under the RFG regulations if it has a refinery
located in the Virgin Islands or Guam and transports gasoline produced at this refinery to a State?

       Answer:  Section 80.2(r) defines "importer" as "a person who imports gasoline or
gasoline blending stocks or components from a foreign country into the United States...."  Under
§ 302(d), Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana
Islands are included in the definition of "State" for purposes of compliance with the RFG and
anti-dumping regulations.  A company that produces gasoline at a refinery located in Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands or the Northern Mariana Islands, therefore, is a
refiner, rather than an importer, of that gasoline. In addition, gasoline transported into Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands or the Northern Mariana Islands from outside
any "State" would be imported gasoline that must be included in the importer's RFG or anti-
dumping compliance calculations.
January 9, 1995

1.  Question: If a downstream terminal has RFG non-OPRG in its inventory and then purchases
OPRG that contains at least 2.0% oxygen by weight, can the downstream terminal operator
commingle the non-OPRG and OPRG and market the commingled product as RFG non-OPRG
with all the required product transfer documentation messaging for non-OPRG?

      Answer:  OPRG RFG must be segregated from non-OPRG RFG unless the OPRG RFG
contains a minimum of 2.0 wt% oxygen. See Question 9,  Section IX.B., of the July 1, 1994
Question and Answer Document.  Accordingly, a downstream terminal may commingle OPRG
RFG which contains a minimum of 2.0 wt% oxygen with non-OPRG RFG and market the
product as non-OPRG RFG with the appropriate product transfer documentation.
2.  Question: In the case of RFG oxygenate blenders who splash blend oxygenate in trucks and
who wish to meet the oxygen standard on average, what options are available for establishing the
oxygen content of the RFG produced? Specifically, is there any option other than every-batch
sampling and testing, which would require sampling and testing every truck (or every truck
compartment) for a truck splash blending operation?

      Answer: Under § 80.69(b)(4), an RFG oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen
standard on average is required to sample and test each batch of RFG produced to determine the
batch's oxygen content, and assign a number to the batch for reporting purposes.  This every-
batch sampling and testing requirement applies regardless of whether the oxygenate blending  is
carried out in a large terminal tank or through splash blending in trucks.

      EPA agrees that every-batch sampling and testing by an oxygenate splash blender would
be difficult. As a result, an oxygenate blender may meet the oxygen standard on average without
conducting every-batch sampling and testing provided the oxygenate blender meets the following

      1.     Computer-controlled oxygenate blending required.  The oxygenate blending must
be carried out using computer-controlled in-line or sequential blending, that operates in such a
manner that the volumes of oxygenate and RBOB are automatically dispensed when a particular
grade of gasoline is selected for loading into a truck, and no operator instructions are required
regarding the oxygenate-RBOB proportions when an individual truck is loaded. Thus, this
alternative averaging approach would not be available where the oxygenate and RBOB are
separately metered into a truck, regardless of whether the separate metering occurs at the same
terminal or at different terminals.

      2.     Oxygenate blender must operate blending equipment. The oxygenate blender
must be the party who operates the computer-controlled in-line or  sequential blending
equipment.  Thus, this alternative averaging approach would not be available to a party who
receives delivery of splash blended RFG into trucks at a terminal if the terminal is not operated
by that party, regardless of whether the receiving party is a registered oxygenate blender.
January 9, 1995                                                                      10

       3.      Compliance calculations.  The oxygenate blender may base its compliance
calculations on the volumes and properties of RBOB and oxygenate used during a period not
longer than one calendar month. In calculating the oxygen content of the RFG produced, the
oxygenate blender may use assumptions regarding the specific gravities of the oxygenate and
RBOB blended, or in the alternative the oxygenate blender may use the measured specific
gravities of all oxygenate and RBOB blended in the blending operation. Similarly with regard to
the denaturant content of the ethanol (if used), an oxygenate blender may assume the denaturant
content is 5 vol% of the ethanol used provided the blender obtains documents from the ethanol
supplier which support this assumption and provided the quality assurance sampling and testing
(described below) supports this assumption, or in the alternative the denaturant content of ethanol
may be measured.

       During each oxygen averaging period, however, an oxygenate blender must use only the
assumed specific gravities or only the measured specific gravities for all compliance calculations
for an oxygenate blending facility.  Similarly, during each oxygen averaging period an oxygenate
blender must use only the assumed denaturant content of ethanol (if used) or only the measured
denaturant content for all compliance calculations for an oxygenate blending facility.

       a. The wt% oxygen which may be claimed is calculated using the following equation:
oxygenate   oxygenate    oxygenate'

   '-•'•RBOB' + '  "oxygenate* ^oxygenate'
                                                      X 1
                 weight percent oxygen in final blend

                 volume of oxygenate used, exclusive of denaturant

                 volume of RBOB and denaturant used

                 specific gravity of denatured oxygenate used

                 specific gravity of RBOB used
                 oxygen weight fraction for the oxygenate (0.3473 for
                 ethanol; 0.1815 forMTBE)
January 9, 1995

       b.     In the case of an oxygenate blender who is calculating oxygen content using the
assumptions for specific gravity, the following values must be used:

       RBOB specific gravity                                  -      0.7420
       denatured ethanol  specific gravity                 -       0.7939
       MTBE specific gravity                                  -      0.7460

       c.     An oxygenate blender using the measured specific gravity option must determine,
through sampling and testing, the specific gravity for each batch of oxygenate and RBOB used to
produce RFG.

       d.     An oxygenate blender using the measured oxygenate purity option must
determine, through sampling and testing, the purity for each batch of oxygenate used to produce

       4.     Quality assurance sampling and testing.

       a.     An oxygenate blender who meets the  oxygen standard on average using the
procedures described in this answer must conduct a program of quality assurance sampling and
testing the RFG produced, using the procedures and at the  frequencies specified under
§ 80.69(e)(2).

       b.     An oxygenate blender who assumes ethanol has a denaturant content of 5% must
conduct a program of quality assurance sampling the ethanol used. The frequency of this
sampling and testing must be at least one  sample for  every 1,500 barrels of ethanol used, or one
sample every month, whichever is more frequent.  In the event an  ethanol  sample from this
quality assurance program has a denaturant content which  is greater than 5%, the oxygenate
blender must: 1) use the greater denaturant content for all  oxygen compliance calculations for
the ethanol that was tested, and;  2) increase the frequency of quality assurance sampling and
testing to one sample for every 750 barrels or one sample every two weeks, and must maintain
this frequency until four successive samples show  an ethanol denaturant content that is equal to
or less than 5%.

       5.     Attest procedures.

       An oxygenate blender who meets the oxygen standard on average using the procedures
described in this answer must commission an independent review  of the oxygenate blending
operation using persons with the qualifications specified in § 80.125.  The agreed upon
procedures for the independent review should follow the requirements specified in §§ 80.129(a)
through (c).  In addition, the attester should complete the following attest steps:

       a.     Obtain a listing of all oxygenate receipts  for the previous year, test the
mathematical accuracy of the volumetric calculations contained in the listing, and agree the
January 9, 1995                                                                       12

volumetric calculations of the oxygenate receipts to the calculations contained in the material
balance analysis.

       b.      Obtain a listing of the monthly (or lesser period if used by the oxygenate blender)
oxygen compliance calculations, test the mathematical accuracy of the listing, and agree the
volumetric calculations to the material balance analysis. Select a representative sample of the
oxygen compliance calculations, and determine whether the oxygenate blender is basing its
calculations on the assumptions for specific gravity and the denaturant content (if ethanol is
used), or on the assumed values. If the oxygenate blender is using measured values, obtain the
oxygenate blender's test results for specific gravity and denaturant content for the RBOB and
oxygenate used, and agree these test results to the compliance calculations.  If the oxygenate
blender is using the assumed values, agree the specific gravity and denaturant content used in the
compliance calculations with the values specified in this procedure.

       c.      Agree the sampling and testing frequency of the oxygenate blender's quality
assurance program with the sampling and testing rates required by this procedure.

       6.      Record retention.

       The oxygenate blender must meet the record keeping requirements that are specified
under §§ 80.74(a), (c), and (d), and in addition must meet the record keeping requirements
specified under § 80.74(a) for any oxygenate sampling and testing that is performed.

       In addition to the alternative averaging  approach described above, EPA would be willing
to consider other alternative approaches that ensure the integrity of the averaging program.

1.      Question: We would like to preprint as much of the PTD information as possible on our
bill of lading for gasoline sales at our terminals. We would like to print the following statement
on all tickets: "Maximum RVP of 8.3 psi if gasoline is designated as VOC controlled for Region
1."  This would enable us to have the same bill of lading for both the summer and winter period
even though this statement would have no effect from for gasoline that is not designated as VOC
controlled.  Is this language acceptable?

       Answer: A statement such as the one in the question would be acceptable assuming that
the product is also properly identified as being either VOC controlled or not VOC controlled.
2.  Question: In the case of an integrated company, which is registered as a refiner (we have a
company number and four specific numbers for our four refineries that are registered), must our
registration number appear on all product transfer documents where some part of our company is
a transferor or transferee or only when the specific facilities that are registered are involved in the

January 9, 1995                                                                        13

transaction. Our understanding is that when, for example, we transfer product from one of our
marketing terminals (which is not registered as a refiner, importer or oxygenate blender) to a
retail gasoline station (also not registered as a refiner, importer or oxygenate blender) that we
would not be required to show our EPA registration number on the transfer document; we would
only be required to show it when one of our four registered refinery locations was involved in the
transfer.  Is this correct?
       Answer: Section 80.77(j) requires, in the case of transferors or transferees who are
refiners, importers or oxygenate blenders, that the EPA assigned registration numbers of those
persons be included in the PTDs.  Therefore, a company that has an EPA assigned registration
number must include it on the PTDs for any transfer of gasoline from or to any of its facilities,
whether or not the facility itself is one that is required to be registered. However, a transferor,
such as a carrier, who is not owned by a company with a registration number, and who normally
would not know whether the transferee (e.g., a retail outlet) is owned by a company that has a
registration number, is not required to include the registration number of the transferee on the
PTDs that the carrier leaves with the transferee.

1.  Question: The Boston CMS A has not adopted or implemented an oxygenated gasoline
program under § 21 l(m) of the CAA, and is seeking redesignation from its nonattainment status
for CO. Do refiners that market RFG for that area have to designate their gasoline as OPRG this

       Answer: Under the RFG regulations, RFG must be designated as OPRG if it has an
oxygen content greater than or equal to 2.0 wt%, and if it arrives at a terminal from which
gasoline is dispensed for delivery to an oxygenated fuels control area within five days prior to the
beginning of that area's control period for oxygenated gasoline. 40 CFR 80.65(d)(2)(iii)(A). The
answer as to whether the gasoline "must" be designated as OPRG turns on whether the Boston
CMS A is considered an oxygenated fuels control area for purposes of the RFG program.

       An oxygenated fuels control area is defined, for purposes of the RFG regulations, as "a
geographic area in which only oxygenated gasoline under the oxygenated gasoline program may
be sold or dispensed, with boundaries determined by section 21 l(m) of the Act." 40 CFR
80.2(pp). Oxygenated fuels control areas, therefore, are those areas where states have adopted
and implemented an oxygenated  gasoline program under § 21 l(m) of the Act.  Since Boston has
not adopted and implemented such a program, the Boston CMSA is not a control area as defined
in that section of the RFG regulations. A refiner, therefore, is not required to designate gasoline
as  OPRG that is marketed for the Boston CMSA until oxygenated gasoline is required by the
State for that  area. At the same time, a refiner is permitted to voluntarily designate RFG
intended for the Boston CMSA as OPRG, as  long as it contains at least 2.0 wt% oxygen. See §

January 9, 1995                                                                       14

January 9, 1995                                                                      15