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 
20F 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 C, rather than
the correct value of 225 C that should be used.  Nevertheless,
we believe that essentially all finished fuels will have end
points below 220 C, 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 F - 65
F. Vapor pressure requires 32 F - 40 F.


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 F 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