Normally, RFG may be redesignated as conventional gasoline without any restrictions, so long as the product transfer documents reflect this redesignation, and the redesignated gasoline is in fact used as conventional gasoline. See the Answers to Questions IX-B-13 and 14 of the July 1, 1994 Question and Answer Document. This answer is not true in the case of California gasoline, however, because the testing methods used in California are not required to be the test methods specified in § 80.46. Under § 80.81(h) refiners and importers of California gasoline may use the test methods allowed by California State regulations, in lieu of the § 80.46 test methods. This testing difference is allowed both before and after the CARB Phase II standards become effective in March, 1996. As a result, gasoline produced for use in the State of California does not necessarily meet the testing requirements for federal RFG or anti-dumping compliance.
The options available for redesignating California gasoline as federal conventional gasoline are the following.
First, if the refiner or importer tested the gasoline in question using the test methods specified under § 80.46, the gasoline may be used in or out of the State of California using the same approaches available in the remainder of the country. This would be true in the case of gasoline produced to the federal anti-dumping standards for use outside the Los Angeles or San Diego RFG covered areas before March 1996 (no redesignation would be necessary), or in the case of gasoline produced to the federal RFG standards before March 1996 or to the California Phase II standards beginning in March 1996 (redesignation would be necessary). Note that if the gasoline in question is part of a fungible mixture, in order to use this option all gasoline in the mixture must have been tested using the methods specified under § 80.46.
Second, the gasoline may be used as federal conventional gasoline without having been tested using the methods specified under § 80.46 provided that:
a) The gasoline in question was produced in accordance with the standards and requirements for the State of California, including any testing requirements, and the gasoline in question meets all standards for either RFG (under § 80.41) or for anti-dumping (under § 80.101).
b) The gasoline in question was intended for use in the State of California when produced or imported.
c) The gasoline in question was transported via pipeline, and when shipped was reasonably expected to be delivered to a terminal in the State of California.
d) Due to unforeseen operational necessity the gasoline could not be delivered to any terminal located in the State of California, and the only feasible option was to deliver the gasoline to a terminal located outside the State of California.
e) The parties involved (including the pipeline and the owner of the gasoline in question) retain documents that describe the intended destination of the gasoline and the nature of the operational necessity that resulted in the gasoline being delivered to a terminal outside the State of California.
This question and answer was posted at Consolidated List of Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping Questions and Answers: July 1, 1994 through November 10, 1997 (PDF)(333 pp, 18.17 MB, EPA420-R-03-009, July 2003, About PDF)