EPA420-F-95-023
May 23, 1995
RFG/Anti-Dumping
Questions and Answers
May 23,1995
Fuels and Energy Division
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
RFG/ANTI-DUMPING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, MAY 23,1995
The following are responses to most of the questions received by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) through May 9, 1995, concerning the manner in which the EPA
intends to implement and assure compliance with the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping
regulations at 40 CFR Part 80. This document was prepared by EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Air Enforcement Division.
Regulated parties may use this document to aid in achieving compliance with the
reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping regulations. However, this document does not in
any way alter the requirements of these regulations. While the answers provided in this
document represent the Agency's interpretation and general plans for implementation of the
regulations at this time, some of the responses may change as additional information becomes
available or as the Agency further considers certain issues.
This guidance document does not establish or change legal rights or obligations. It does
not establish binding rules or requirements and is not fully determinative of the issues addressed.
Agency decisions in any particular case will be made applying the law and regulations on the
basis of specific facts and actual action.
While we have attempted to include answers to all questions received by May 9, 1995,
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
RFG General Requirements
In-Line Blending
Product Transfer Documentation
May 23, 1995
-------
RFC GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Question: Can total oxygen content, which may include small amounts of oxygenates such
as DIPE that are not required to be reported, be used in demonstrating compliance with the
oxygen standard? If so, in filling out the batch reports, the percent weight oxygen shown in Item
8.1 will not necessarily add up to the oxygen content that can be calculated from the sum of
individual oxygenates shown in Items 8.7 thru 8.12.
Answer: Total oxygen content may be used for demonstrating compliance with the
oxygen standard. If total oxygen content is used, the total oxygen weight percent in Item 8.1 of
the batch report may not necessarily be identical to the oxygen weight percent that can be
calculated from the sum of the individual oxygenates reported in Items 8.7 thru 8.12.
IN-LINE BLENDING
1. Question: For a refinery with an in-line gasoline blending exemption, can the annual in-line
blending audit be conducted by the same attestation auditor as outlined under Subpart F of the
RFG and Anti-dumping regulations? Must the auditor for an in-line blending operation meet the
requirements for Attest Engagements at § 80.125?
Answer: An in-line blending exemption exempts a refiner from the independent
sampling and testing requirements of § 80.65(f). As one of the conditions of the exemption, the
refiner must carry out an independent audit program of its in-line blending operation.
Attestation engagements are different than, and do not take the place of, the in-line
blending audits. Attestation engagements cover a broad range of records required under the
reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs, as specified in Subpart F. They deal with
production volumes, fuel properties reported for those volumes, and shipment documentation.
The independent audits required for in-line blending operations, on the other hand, are narrowly
focused on individual in-line blending systems that are unique for each location. Basically, the
in-line blending audit must verify that for each batch, the reported batch properties are
suppported by secondary sources of test data; that in-line blending control and recordkeeping
systems are being carried out as represented to the Agency in the petition for the exemption; and
that the testing, cross checks and quality control being exercised over the operation allow the
refiners to accurately predict the property values and volumes being reported for each batch.
Auditors who conduct in-line blending audits must meet the criteria specified in §
80.125(a) and/or (d), which require the auditor to be an independent certified public accountant,
or, alternatively, an employee of the refiner, provided that such employee is an internal auditor
certified by the Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc. ("CIA") and completes the internal audits in
accordance with the Codification of Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.
However, because of the complexity of on-line measurements and estimates, many auditors who
qualify for the attestation engagements may not have the technical qualifications to conduct in-
May23, 1995 2
-------
line blending audits. The audit program for an in-line blending operation will require the refiner
to use an auditor who both fulfills the requirements under § 80.125(a) and/or (b), and has
expertise with in-line blending operations.
PRODUCT TRANSFER DOCUMENTATION
1. Question: In RFG areas, at unattended cardlock fueling facilities, where should the three
most recent PTDs be maintained? It seems to make little sense that they be stored on-site, since
the driver normally does not leave any paperwork at the unattended cardlock facility, and an EPA
inspector would not have access to them due to the site being unattended. Since the driver
normally forwards the PTDs for a transaction at an unattended cardlock fueling facility to the
marketer's nearest office, would this be the appropriate location to maintain the PTDs for these
transactions?
Answer: In the situation discribed, it would be acceptable for the PTDs to be maintained
at the marketer's nearest office.
2. Question: Who is the transferee in a custody transfer where the owner of the receiving
tank/truck/barge is different than the operator (scheduler) of the tank/truck/barge, who may also
be different from the company that provides the employees of the site? Can a company assume
that when multiple parties can be the transferee, that one can take on the role of being the
designated responsible party.
Answer: Regarding transfers of custody, PTDs are intended to be given to the person
physically taking custody of the product. Where multiple parties are involved in a physical
transfer of the product, and the transferor does not know the name of the person physically taking
custody of the product, the name of that person may be omitted from the PTD so long as this
information has been recorded on some other document that memoralizes the transfer of custody
of the product, and this information is available to EPA on request.
[NOTE: The following is a revision of Question 5 of the Product Transfer Documentation
section of the October 17,1994 Question and Answer Document]
5. Question: When a party lifts gasoline at a terminal, there is usually both a transfer of
custody (to the carrier) and a transfer of title (to the person taking title). If all required PTD
information is given to the carrier through a bill of lading, is it also necessary to provide a
separate PTD to the person taking title? If so, does a single PTD suffice when the person taking
title utilizes his own truck as opposed to common carrier trucks?
Answer: The transferor must provide PTD information to both the transferee of custody
and the transferee of title. As a result, the required PTD information must be provided to both
May 23, 1995 2
-------
the carrier (the transferee of custody) and the person taking title (the transferee of title). If the the
same party is receiving both custody and title of the fuel (when utilizing his own trucks as
opposed to common carrier trucks), the PTD information would only have to be provided to the
party a single time.
May 23, 1995
------- |