Learn the Issues
-
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?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. 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…
-
If a terminal imports off-spec kerosene (higher than 15 ppm), terminal operators are planning to blend the kerosene with diesel fuel so that the ultimate diesel fuel leaving the terminal gate and entering into commerce meets the 15 ppm standard. Would EPA please confirm that this process is permissible for an importer?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. The regulations at § 80.525(d) state that kerosene that a kerosene blender adds, or intends to add, to motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard. Section 80.521(b) allows…
-
Is independent sampling and testing required of a refiner who has an in-line blending program?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. 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…
-
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.
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. We have not experienced this problem. We believe the latest catalysts are very sturdy. (7/1/94) This question and answer was posted at
-
Is it correct that the regulations do not prohibit the mixing of RFG with conventional gasoline for sale outside RFG covered areas?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. Yes, provided the resulting gasoline is not sold as RFG and the procedures discussed in question 1 of the remedies section are followed. (7/1/94) This question and answer was posted at
-
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?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. 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…
-
Is it correct that the regulations do not prohibit the mixing of ETBE RFG and MTBE RFG at any point in the distribution system?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. Yes, provided the segregation restrictions in section 80.78 are met. (7/1/94) This question and answer was posted at
-
Is it legal for a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility to commingle RFG which meets the "substantially similar" requirements (e.g., a 15% MTBE blend) with RFG which is produced under a § 211(f) waiver (e.g., a 10% ethanol blend)? Similarly, is it legal for a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer to commingle conventional gasoline which meets the "substantially similar" requirements with conventional gasoline produced under a § 211(f) waiver? The concern is that the resulting mixture, as dispensed from the pump, would not comply with the substantially similar criteria or one of the waivers.
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. It is not a violation of the RFG regulations to commingle two legal RFG products at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, or a violation of § 211(f) to commingle two legal conventional gasolines at a retail outlet…
-
It is my understanding that if a terminal, registered as an oxygenate blender, blends RBOB and oxygenate into a truck using a computer controlled in-line blender the truck is also considered an oxygenate blender. If this is true, does the truck have to register? If the truck is not registered can the terminal legally sell this blended product to the truck?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. If blending occurs prior to putting the gasoline into the truck, then the terminal is the blending facility. If blending occurs in the truck, then the truck is the blending facility. As discussed in Question 11 of Section VI.A…
-
The July 1, 1994 Question and Answer Document indicates that sulfur, T90, and olefins are the only simple model RFG standards that can be seen on a refinery aggregated basis. We interpret this clarification to apply only to simple model RFG compliance and believe that it does not affect the anti-dumping provisions of § 80.101(b). Please confirm that all simple model anti-dumping standards can be met on a refinery-aggregate basis including sulfur, olefins, T90, and the exhaust benzene standards.
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. All simple model anti-dumping standards can be met on a refinery-aggregate basis pursuant to § 80.101(h). (11/28/94) This question and answer was posted at
-
It is our understanding that the conventional gasoline message for product transfer documents "this product does not meet the requirements for reformulated gasoline.." is intended to prevent the sale or use of conventional gasoline in reformulated gasoline covered areas, and that, while other PTD information can be conveyed via product codes, this message must be explicitly present on the PTD. It is understandable that this message be present on PTD's of shipments to service stations so that carriers and service station operators are aware that the product is conventional. However, for bulk custody transfers of gasoline between sophisticated parties within the petroleum industry such as pipelines, marine vessels, railroad cars, etc., the parties involved know what product they are handling, and the product is not directly bound for a service station. Based on this, we believe the explicit conventional message should only be required on PTD's of deliveries to service stations and that other PTD's should be allowed to convey this message implicitly via product code. Do you disagree with this rationale?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. The language regarding conventional gasoline specified at § 80.106(a)(1)(vii) must be included in the product transfer documentation for all transfers of conventional gasolines, and this specific language requirement may not be satisfied through the use of product codes. However…
-
The July 1, 1994 Question and Answer Document discusses the antidumping provisions that impact California gasoline -- a non-RFG California gasoline before 3/1/96 must meet all antidumping requirements (i.e., volumes and properties.) After 3/1/96, California gasoline is exempt from certain enforcement requirements of the antidumping rules. Does this mean that both the fuel parameters and fuel volumes associated with California gasoline are exempt from the antidumping rules, or are the volumes still included when comparing against the 1990 baseline volumes?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. Section 80.81(d) provides that, subsequent to March 1, 1996, refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders of California gasoline shall demonstrate compliance with the RFG and antidumping standards specified in §§ 80.41 and 80.90 by excluding the volume and properties of…
-
It is technically possible for a particular batch of RFG to meet all current ASTM and EPA volatility specifications and yet have an E200 value less than the 30% minimum specified in 40 CFR 80.45(f)(1)(ii). Does EPA consider it unlawful to produce and sell a particular batch of RFG with an E200 less than 30% even though the volume-averaged 18 parameters of the total RFG produced during the compliance period, including the E200 value, are well within the valid range of the Complex Model?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. The valid range limits associated with the Complex Model are, in effect, per-gallon RFG standards. Thus it would be unlawful to produce RFG with an E200 value less than 30 vol%. The July 11, 1997 NPRM has proposed regulatory…
-
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?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. 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…
-
In light of the prohibition at § 80.78(a)(8) against mixing VOC-controlled RFG produced using ethanol with any other VOC-controlled RFG during the period January 1 through September 15 each year, how can a retail station change from ethanol-based RFG (that is not VOC-controlled) to MTBE-based RFG (that is VOC-controlled) in advance of the high ozone season, and back to ethanol-based RFG at the conclusion of the high ozone season?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. In the case of the transition at the conclusion of the high ozone season from MTBE-based RFG to ethanol-based RFG, the prohibition at § 80.78(a)(8) would not apply because by its terms this prohibition is limited only to the…
-
Is a lab independent if any refiner has an interest in the lab?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. 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…
-
Is a laboratory considered to be "independent" under the independent sampling and testing requirements and the gasoline quality survey provisions, if the company that operates the laboratory also is a refiner who produces conventional gasoline only?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. The independent sampling and testing requirements of § 80.65(f)(2)(iii) and the gasoline quality survey provisions of § 80.68(c)(13)(i) each require that the sampling and testing must be carried out by a laboratory that is independent of any refiner or…
-
Many refiners currently make a jet fuel meeting <500 ppm requirements. If refiners make a jet fuel meeting 15 ppm requirements, there may be compatibility (safety or performance) issues for jet engine manufacturers. Have these manufacturers been consulted in this rulemaking process? If so, what is their position on use of 15 ppm jet fuel?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. The highway and nonroad diesel programs do not require that refiners produce 15 ppm sulfur jet fuel and do not set sulfur limits for jet fuel that is not designated as motor vehicle diesel fuel. This would be their…
-
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?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. 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…
-
One pipeline has notified all shippers and suppliers that their metering ticket will be the official transfer document for all shipments. This appears to be appropriate for a transfer whereby the pipeline is delivering (or transferring custody to a party) but how can it be appropriate when the pipeline is receiving (or being the transferee) product from a shipper? Isn't the shipper required to provide its own document? Or can we rely on the pipeline's ticket which memorializes the transaction?
See More Frequent Questions about Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help. EPA does not require that there be an "official" transfer document. While the approach described in the question seems appropriate, the enforcement liability still remains with the transferor. As a result, the transferor should verify that the transferee receives…