[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page ] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-31815] [Federal Register: December 28, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 CFR Part 60 40 CFR Part 80 [AMS-FRL-5128-9] Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Deposit Control Gasoline Additives AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On December 6, 1993, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require the use of deposit control (detergent) additives in all gasoline used in the United States. The NPRM contained a proposed interim program which would take effect beginning January 1, 1995, as well as a proposed performance-based detergent additive certification program to be implemented at a later date. The interim program was finalized on October 14, 1994. The detergent certification program is expected to be finalized by June 30, 1995, and to take effect a year later. As proposed, the detergent certification program was concerned specifically with the control of port fuel injector deposits (PFID) and intake valve deposits (IVD). While also acknowledging the potential importance of combustion chamber deposits (CCD), EPA did not propose any requirements for CCD control because of uncertainty regarding the scope of the problem and the current lack of suitable performance test procedures and standards. Subsequently, some commenters expressed concern that a federal requirement for PFID and IVD control might encourage detergent overuse, which could potentially exacerbate CCD concerns. These commenters suggested that, as a temporary measure, until CCD performance tests become available, EPA should cap detergent use by implementing standards to limit the level of unwashed gums in additized gasoline. However, other commenters disagreed with this suggestion. This document discusses the CCD issue and requests comments on alternative approaches for addressing it. Additional comment is also sought in regard to selected issues related to the proposed detergent certification program and the enforcement provisions of the detergents program. DATES: Written comments on the specific issues discussed in this document will be accepted until January 27, 1995. EPA is not soliciting new comments on aspects of the original proposed rule that are not specifically addressed in this document. ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be submitted in duplicate to: EPA Air Docket Section (LE-131); Attention: Public Docket No. A-91-77; Room M-1500, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. (Phone 202-260- 7548; FAX 202-260-4000). This docket also contains all other materials relevant to this rulemaking. The docket is open for public inspection from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., except on government holidays. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. Electronic copies of this and other documents related to this rulemaking are available through the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS). Details on how to access this bulletin board are included in Section VII of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and information related to technical issues contact: Mr. Jeffrey A. Herzog, U.S. EPA (RDSD-12), Regulation Development and Support Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone: (313) 668-4227, Fax: (313) 741-7816. For information on enforcement related issues contact: Judith Lubow, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Western Field Office, 12345 West Alameda Parkway, Suite 300, Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone: (303) 969-6483, FAX: (303) 969-6490. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: I. Introduction Section 211(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies that, beginning January 1, 1995, all gasoline shall contain additives to prevent the accumulation of deposits in engines or fuel supply systems. Such deposits can have adverse effects on the emissions of a vehicle as well as its fuel economy and driveability. As part of the CAA mandate, EPA was tasked with the promulgation of rules establishing specifications for such additives. In response to these statutory requirements, on December 6, 1993, (59 FR 64213) EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requiring that gasolines contain detergents to control port fuel injector deposits (PFID) and intake valve deposits (IVD). The rule was proposed to be implemented in two phases. The first phase was an interim program focused on registration and record-keeping requirements which would apply for the first year. The second phase, to apply thereafter, was a certification program requiring detergents to be evaluated in a matrix of test fuels using national consensus test procedures and prescribed standards for IVD and PFID control. The detergents rule is being finalized in two parts. The interim program was promulgated October 14, 1994, and appeared in the Federal Register on November 1, 1994 (59 FR 54678). Promulgation of the full detergent certification program is expected to occur by June 30, 1995. This second phase of the rule was delayed for two reasons. First, the national consensus procedure EPA proposed for use in testing PFID control was not finalized by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in time to be incorporated into the rule. Since an interim program had already been proposed for 1995, EPA saw little value in abandoning reliance on the ASTM procedure solely for the sake of promulgating the entire rule at once. Second, issues were raised in the comments regarding the possible impact of IVD and PFID control requirements on combustion chamber deposits (CCD). While the NPRM also contained a substantial discussion on CCD, it did not propose specific CCD control measures due to a lack of national consensus test procedures and performance standards as well as uncertainty as to the scope of the CCD problem. Given the need for a slight delay in the final rulemaking schedule to allow completion of the test procedure development, EPA believed it was important to further evaluate the CCD issue prior to finalization of the certification program. As part of that evaluation effort, this notice seeks public comment on concerns raised by auto industry commenters that the gum levels in gasoline will increase as a result of the use of IVD and PFID detergent additives and that these gums will increase CCD. This could have an adverse effect on emissions and vehicle driveability. Additional comment is also sought on several points raised in the comments regarding the proposed implementation and enforcement schemes under the detergent certification program. Each of these areas is discussed below. II. Combustion Chamber Deposit Control A. Background CCDs are composed of fuel and other material which enter the combustion chamber, are not fully burned, and are deposited in various portions of the engine's combustion chamber rather than leaving the chamber with other exhaust products. The formation of CCD is governed by the combustion process, combustion temperatures, and the design of the combustion chamber itself. Other factors influencing CCD formation include fuel and oil composition, engine design/technology and operating conditions (e.g., speed, load, coolant temperature), engine oil consumption, and fuel/oil additive usage. The technical literature indicates that CCD potentially have three effects on engine operations: an adverse effect on emission rates, an increase in engine octane requirements, and an impact on fuel economy. Additional background information on CCD is provided in the NPRM as well as a memorandum to the docket entitled, ``Summary Discussion of Combustion Chamber Deposits'' (Docket Item IV-B-04). Based on the incomplete information available in the literature and the lack of available consensus test procedures or standards, EPA did not propose a requirement for CCD control related to emissions or octane requirement increase (ORI) effects. EPA received comments both supporting and opposing this position. Vehicle manufacturers expressed concern that the proposed rule, which contained IVD/PFID performance standards but no requirements to control CCD, may have an adverse impact on vehicle performance. They stated that the use of excessive quantities of some types of detergent additives, which provide an acceptable level of IVD/PFID control, tend to incrementally contribute to CCD. They further held that EPA's rule, by requiring a consistent level of IVD/PFID control additives in all gasoline, may exacerbate this incremental additive contribution to CCD, since there would be at least a slight incentive to over- additize fuel to assure compliance. An adverse impact on vehicle NOx and HC emissions performance and durability would result. Vehicle manufacturers also stated that CCD can cause ORI, and that higher engine octane demand might limit future attempts to achieve fuel economy improvements through the design of engines with higher compression ratios. Concerns regarding the potential impact of CCD on vehicle driveability and durability centered around reports that detergent additive overuse could result in valve sticking and combustion chamber deposit interference (CCDI). These commenters stated that CCDI results from the accumulation of CCD on the top of the piston and combustion chamber, which causes mechanical interference during engine operation. Vehicle manufacturers urged EPA to investigate the potential adverse impact of some IVD/PFID additives on CCD as soon as possible, with the ultimate goal of a standardized CCD control test. As an interim measure, until such a performance test is available, several commenters urged EPA to, in effect, adopt a cap on additive concentration, by setting a maximum unwashed gum level in additized gasoline as measured by ASTM test D381. Two vehicle manufacturers recommended an unwashed gum standard of 20 mg/100 ml, based on the allowable limit for Japanese gasoline. They stated that CCD problems are not present in vehicles in Japan and this may be due in large part to the unwashed gum standard of 20 mg/100 ml. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) recommended an unwashed gum limit of 70 mg/100 ml, and stated that this value would act as a cap and not create a large burden since it exceeds the levels found in most gasolines today. These commenters supported their position by stating that a relationship exists between the increased use of IVD detergent additives, an increase in unwashed gum levels in gasoline, and an increased incidence of CCD-related customer complaints. One vehicle manufacturer recommended that, as a condition for detergent certification, data should be required demonstrating that the additive does not increase CCD relative to base gasoline. This commenter further stated that it would be appropriate in the interim to allow each additive manufacturer to use its own CCD control test methods. The commenter stated that, because these test procedures would be expected to vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, this approach was recommended only as an interim solution until a standardized CCD performance test and standard is developed. In contrast to the vehicle manufacturers, the petroleum and additive industries contended that regulatory control of CCD was not appropriate at this time because of a lack of data on the effects of CCD and the lack of an adequate performance test and standard. They stated that data suggesting a link between additive use and increased CCD with associated increased emissions and ORI is too sparse to reach sound conclusions. These commenters also stated that engine manufacturing tolerances may play a greater role than fuel properties in determining the onset and occurrence of CCDI. Commenters from the petroleum industry stated that, while negative impacts from overtreatment exist, including valve sticking, these occurrences have been very rare and usually result from an accidental overtreatment. In summary, API stated that there is no immediate, growing CCD-related problem in the field, and EPA's planned IVD/PFID control requirements are not likely to cause one. They stated that regulatory control of CCD should not be attempted until the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) has had an opportunity to investigate potential adverse effects of CCD and to gain an understanding of all of the factors which can affect CCD, including hardware, lubricant, fuel and additive effects. Commenters from the petroleum industry all agreed that, even if the need to control CCD were demonstrated, setting a cap on the unwashed gum level in additized gasoline would not be an appropriate control measure. They argued that the data offered to support a correlation between unwashed gum levels and CCD formation is unreliable. Furthermore, they claimed that the unwashed gum test is highly unrepeatable and cannot differentiate different sources of the gum content in the gasoline. They also noted that, since many current IVD/ PFID detergents have varying levels of dispersant and carrier oils (some having no carrier oil), the unwashed gum level in gasoline can be highly misleading as a measure of the amount of additive present. Given the disparity in these positions, EPA requested additional input from the affected industries. Additional comment was received from AAMA, API, Shell Development Company, and the Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA)\1\ Two technical papers were also published in this time frame that presented additional useful data on CCD related issues.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\See the memorandum to the docket entitled ``Summary of Additional Comments on Combustion Chamber Deposits'', Docket Item IV-E-35. Discussion of additional comments on CCD is also contained in the following docket items: IV-E-12, IV-E-27, IV-E-29, IV-E-33, IV-E-36, IV-G-37, and IV-E-38. \2\``Effects of Gasoline and Gasoline Detergents on Combustion Chamber Deposit Formation'', Yasunori Takei et. al., SAE Technical Paper Series No. 941893. ``Effects of Fuel and Additives on Combustion Chamber Deposits,'' Mitchell Jackson and Sara Pocinki, SAE Technical Paper Series No. 941890. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Considerations for Determining a Course of Action EPA is considering the implementation of a CCD control measure at this time in view of auto industry concerns that, absent such a measure, EPA's planned detergent certification program might contribute to CCD-related vehicle performance problems. Any CCD control measure which EPA might require must be based on EPA's belief that such a measure would prevent a future CCD problem or solve one which now exists. In addition, it would have to be practical to implement and be founded on a sound understanding of its impacts. If a control program is found to be needed, it would preferably be based on a national consensus test procedure and performance standard. Because several years may be required to develop such a test procedure and standard, however, a cap on unwashed gums has been suggested as a surrogate CCD control strategy. Thus, to determine whether it is appropriate for EPA to implement an unwashed gum standard for additized gasoline as an interim measure to control the potential additive contribution to CCD, EPA must assess the following questions: 1. To what extent do some or all IVD/PFID detergents contribute to unwashed gum levels in gasoline? Which, if any, classes/types of additives are of concern? Under what conditions and how substantial is this contribution? 2. To what extent do gums added to gasoline as part of the detergent additive package correlate or contribute to CCD formation? 3. To what extent is there now a CCD problem associated with the voluntary use of IVD/PFID detergents? Will mandatory use of these detergents exacerbate the potential concerns? 4. To what extent do CCD cause vehicle emission and performance problems? The information found in the literature and presented by the industry either in their written comments or in response to EPA follow- up is helpful in answering these questions. However, more information is needed. These points are discussed below, followed by a discussion of various alternatives that EPA could adopt regarding CCD control. EPA encourages public comment that would help to further the understanding of these issues. 1. Additive Contribution to Gasoline Unwashed Gum Levels The data summarized in the previous section indicate a trend toward increased unwashed gum levels with increased detergent additive use and concentration. Public comment is sought on the unwashed gum levels in additized gasoline for both the various classes/types of detergent additives and individual detergent products. Information is also sought on the relative contribution of various detergent additive package components to unwashed gums. In addition, EPA is also interested in more detail and public comment on claims that some detergents with superior CCD control performance cause relatively high unwashed gum levels in gasoline. 2. Gum/Additive Package Contribution to CCDs The information available seems to support the view that some detergent additives contribute to CCD more than others. However, the significance of this contribution relative to the potential adverse impacts of CCD remains unclear. It is also not completely clear what fraction of the additive types currently used contribute to CCD. This may be a significant concern if a CCD control measure were considered that would preclude the use of a significant fraction of the detergents currently being used. EPA understands that PIBA type detergent additives that use a mineral-based carrier oil predominate in the market. EPA requests comment on several points. First, more data is requested on the relationship between gums, the additive packages, and CCD. Second, EPA is interested in information on which classes/types of additives contribute to this concern more than others and market share and cost information on each type. Third, EPA requests comment on whether the use of a synthetic-based carrier oil rather than a mineral- based carrier oil in PIBA detergents would decrease the gum levels and improve the CCD impacts of these additives and the economic impacts which might result from such a change. 3. Prevalence of CCD-Related Problems Due to Detergent Use and the Effect of IVD Control Requirements on CCD More information is needed to quantify the scope of the current CCD problem as it relates to detergent additives. Additional information is needed on the fraction of vehicles with CCD-related performance problems as well as estimates of how the problem could grow with federal detergent requirements. Some public comment presented the viewpoint that the planned IVD/PFID control requirements would not result in over-additization because the primary result would be the use of deposit control additives by all fuel marketers at levels that are currently achieved in the majority of gasoline sold within the U.S. However, this comment neglects concerns about possible over- additization to assure compliance during field enforcement as well as for marketing/advertising purposes. EPA encourages additional comment on this issue. 4. Potential CCD-Related Vehicle Emissions and Performance Impacts A review of the available data on the potential impact of CCD on exhaust emissions is suggestive of a potentially significant impact. However, in addition to the prevalence issue discussed above, comment is requested in a number of areas relative to this point. First, comment is requested regarding the role of vehicle technology on the sensitivity to CCD. Second, more information is requested regarding a potential for threshold effect(s). Is there a level below which no CCD effect occurs for emissions, CCDI, ORI, or fuel economy? If thresholds exist, do they vary for the different impacts? In what relative order? Is there a CCD level above which the level of CCD no longer exacerbates the impact? If such thresholds exist, any potential control measure would ideally need to result in the reduction of CCD beyond this threshold to ensure any meaningful emissions benefit. Since there may be a threshold effect for the impact of CCD on fuel economy, the relationship of this threshold to the possible threshold for exhaust emissions and other impacts would also need to be considered in evaluating the overall impact of a CCD control measure. Third, data is needed relating these threshold effects to the amount of detergent additive used. EPA welcomes the submission of any data which might help to clarify these issues. The data on CCDI is also not conclusive as to whether this problem is related to fuel quality or vehicle manufacturing problems. EPA encourages the submission of additional data to further evaluate this issue. Of particular value would be data illustrating the extent to which out-of-tolerance engine manufacture may play a role. The commenters agreed that problems with intake valve sticking sometimes result from detergent additive overtreatment. However, opinions differed as to the extent of these problems and their relevance to the possible necessity of a standard to limit detergent additive concentration. The data currently available is limited and EPA encourages the submission of additional data to help determine the prevalence of this problem. The data on the potential impact on vehicle performance associated with oil viscosity increase (OVI) from the use of detergent additives is likewise very limited and more data is requested in this area. C. Alternative Actions Which EPA Could Adopt Based on the information already available and any additional information received in response to this notice, several options will be considered. Each of these is discussed below. 1. Option 1: Follow Approach Proposed in NPRM The first approach to the CCD issue that EPA is considering is to follow the basic strategy outlined in the NPRM. Under this option, EPA would defer action on CCD pending the gathering of more data, while encouraging responsible actions by industry to develop an industry consensus test procedure and standard. The CRC CCD panel may be in the best position to lead development of national consensus test procedures and standards for CCDs. However, EPA is aware of the disagreement among members of the industry regarding the current direction of the CRC CCD panel's work. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty as to the viability of this option. Members of the CRC's panel from the automobile industry have expressed reservations about whether the investigative work of the CRC CCD panel will proceed rapidly enough to address their concerns regarding the potential impact of CCD on vehicle driveability and on in-use emissions. EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate to allow industry to evaluate CCD related issues further prior to initiating any potential regulatory action regarding CCD control, or if more immediate intervention on the part of the Agency is necessary. 2. Option 2: Consideration of a CCD Performance Standard As discussed above, the Agency concluded in the proposal that the lack of adequate data relating CCD to emissions, ORI, or other engine performance indicators, as well as the lack of a suitable test procedure, precluded the Agency from proposing a CCD-related detergent additive performance standard at that time. However, the Agency stated that it may, at a later time, propose test procedures and performance standards for the control of CCD (among other deposit-related phenomena). In light of recent events (e.g., receipt by EPA of written and verbal comments concerning issues not considered previously), the Agency is again considering the issue of whether or not EPA should pursue such a combustion chamber deposit control performance standard at this time. A discussion of specific issues related to the development of a CCD performance standard is provided in a memorandum to the docket entitled, ``Consideration of a Combustion Chamber Deposit Control Performance Standard'' (Docket Item IV-B-05). 3. Option 3: Require Data Submission on Unwashed Gums As an intermediate measure, EPA could require that data on the unwashed gum levels of additized gasoline be submitted as part of detergent certification. Under this option, the detergent certifier would be required to measure the unwashed gum levels in their certification test fuel using the ASTM D-381 test procedures (see next section). The only requirement would be that these measurements be reported to EPA. Using these data, EPA could assess the difference in unwashed gum levels relative to the chemistry of the detergent additive package to evaluate whether a correlation exists. This information would also be useful in determining what fraction of gasoline is treated using additives that cause high unwashed gum levels for the purposes of evaluating the potential effect on industry of implementing an unwashed gum standard or CCD control program in the future. This option would also be beneficial in that it would encourage continued industry focus on CCD-related issues and may encourage the use of additives with better CCD control performance or less of an impact on unwashed gum levels. An unwashed gum reporting requirement would have little economic impact on industry, since the testing would be conducted concurrent with detergent certification testing, would not require a separate submittal to the Agency, and would be of minimal cost. EPA requests comments on the potential benefits and usefulness of this option in responding to current CCD concerns, and on any additional data that EPA should require to be submitted during detergent certification to help evaluate whether a CCD control measure based on an unwashed gum specification is appropriate. 4. Option 4: Implement an Unwashed Gum Standard As a measure to address concerns that detergent over-additization would contribute to CCDs, EPA requests comment on whether it would be appropriate to implement a limit on the unwashed gum level in additized gasoline as part of the requirements for detergent certification. As previously discussed, questions remain regarding the need for a full regulatory program to control CCD effects, and the potential associated impacts on emissions, fuel economy and vehicle driveability. While some public comments suggest that limiting the additive contribution to unwashed gums would not necessarily always result in a reduction in CCD, it is possible that an intermediate measure such as this would address the most significant concerns raised by the auto industry commenters without levying large direct compliance costs on the fuel and detergent additive industries. As perceived by the regulated industry the benefits may be very small, but, as discussed below, costs would also be very small. On the other hand, this requirement could make detergent packages with higher gum levels less attractive and could act as a disincentive for research on detergent additive packages with high gum levels. If an unwashed gum standard is established, EPA asks comment on whether such a standard should only be implemented for an interim period, assuming a CCD test procedure/ standard is established by regulation. a. Unwashed Gum Test Procedure. If an unwashed gum standard is adopted, it would likely need to be implemented by requiring testing of unwashed gum levels in detergent-additized gasoline using the ASTM D381 procedure or a derivation of this procedure. Concerns have been raised about the repeatability and reproducibility reported for this procedure in the ASTM D381 document, and EPA believes it would be useful to further explore the reasons for the reproducibility and repeatability performance cited in the procedure. In discussions with industry experts regarding the ASTM D381 procedure, one member of the panel which originally developed the procedure suggested the possibility that greater precision might be expected in measuring the unwashed gum levels of modern gasoline. The repeatability/reproducibility data in the ASTM procedure is based on gasolines of the 1960s and 1970s.\3\ EPA requests comment on the extent to which gasoline composition can effect the precision that can be achieved in the ASTM test. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\Memorandum to the docket entitled, ``Phone Call with Leo Stavinola of Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Regarding the Applicability of the Unwashed Gum Test to Modern Gasoline'', Docket Item IV-E-33. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA's analysis of 1993-94 unwashed gum data collected under ASTM's Interlaboratory Crosscheck Program suggests that the current reproducibility of the procedure may be somewhat better than that reported in the D381 document.\4\ However, the limited range of unwashed gum values represented in the test samples prevents an accurate assessment of test variability over the range of unwashed gum values likely to be encountered in use. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\Report to EPA from George Hoffman, CSC, entitled ``Sample Sizes for Unwashed Gums Measurements''. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not all laboratories using the D381 unwashed gum procedure encounter the variability discussed in the ASTM document. EPA contacted Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) to further evaluate the suitability of the unwashed gum test from the standpoint of repeatability and reproducibility.\5\ SwRI stated that the unwashed gum test is used routinely by their laboratory to determine whether or not gasoline had been detergent additized. In addition, SwRI related that not only was this test a useful predictor of additive presence, but it could also distinguish additive concentration fairly well. SwRI stated that, in their considerable experience in performing the unwashed gums test, they have achieved significantly better repeatability than that reported in the ASTM procedure. For example, at an unwashed gum level of 60 mg/100 ml, they commonly achieve repeatability of results within
5 mg/100 ml, as compared to the 25 mg/100 ml reported in the ASTM procedure. A round robin program conducted by AAMA using three fuels and four labs also indicated good reproducibility (coefficients of variation of 6 percent, 12 percent, and 2 percent) for the three fuels tested. (See memo in public docket at IV-G-39). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\Memorandum to the docket entitled ``Phone Call with Karen Kohl of Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Regarding the Unwashed Gums Test,'' Docket Item IV-E-32. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SwRI stated that they are aware of several potential problems that may partially account for the poor reproducibility reported by ASTM. SwRI related that the temperature of the evaporation bath and the flow of air to the airjet apparatus must be carefully controlled to limit the variability in results. SwRI also related that another potential problem which can introduce variability in test results is contamination of the oil from the supply pumps. If the repeatability reported by SwRI and the reproducibility achieved in the AAMA study could also be achieved at other laboratories, it might be possible to achieve adequate test precision while minimizing the required number of repeat tests. EPA requests comment on ways in which the ASTM D381 procedure could be modified to limit test variability. In particular, EPA requests comment on whether additional specifications are required regarding control of the evaporation bath temperature, flow of air to the air jet apparatus, and prevention of oil contamination of the fuel sample from the supply pumps. Specifically, EPA is considering tighter specifications on several elements of the test including the air jet apparatus to 600mL/s 30 mL/s, the steam jet apparatus to 1000 mL/s 50 mL/s, and the evaporation bath well temperature to 155 deg.C 2 deg.C. Use of a temperature measuring approach other than a thermometer (e.g., thermocouple with digital readout) is also being considered. Other similar modifications to test specifications will also be considered to the degree that they would reduce variability. The submission of test data from the ASTM D381 procedure would also be useful in assisting further evaluation evaluating test repeatability and reproducibility. b. Unwashed Gum Limit. If an unwashed gum standard for additized gasoline is adopted, it must be carefully selected based on the consideration of several factors. First, the available data suggests that the contribution to unwashed gums from sources other than detergent additives is generally under 10 mg/100 ml per the ASTM test. This consideration is important because the focus of an unwashed gum standard must be on the additive contribution to gums. EPA believes that it may be reasonable to assume that the base fuel contribution to gasoline unwashed gum levels does not exceed 10 mg/100 ml. EPA requests data to further evaluate whether this assumption is appropriate. Second, the choice of an unwashed gum cap should be based on an understanding that such a cap would result in an appropriate level of CCD control. This involves consideration of the possible threshold effects of CCD-related emissions, fuel economy, and vehicle driveability impacts. EPA requests comments on what would be an appropriate unwashed gum cap given these considerations. There were two separate suggestions in the public comment regarding the choice of an appropriate unwashed gum cap. The first suggestion was to adopt the unwashed gum cap already in place for Japanese gasoline of 20 mg/100 ml.\6\ This suggestion was based on the premise that the 20 mg/100 ml cap has been in force for Japanese gasoline for some time, that industry has been able to comply with this cap while meeting other deposit control performance needs, and that the presence of such a cap might be credited for the absence of CCD-related problems in Japan. EPA is concerned about setting a potential standard at this level, because it would prevent the use of many current IVD/PFID detergents. Assuming absolute precision in unwashed gum measurement, a 20 mg cap would limit the additive contribution to unwashed gums to about 10 mg. The available data indicates that this is significantly less than the contribution to unwashed gums for IVD/PFID detergents currently used in the U.S. which typically appears to be between 20 and 60 mg/100 ml and can be considerably higher.\7\ EPA's review of AAMA gasoline survey data reveals that less than 40 percent of U.S. gasoline samples tested had an unwashed gum level below 20 mg/100 ml.\8\ One explanation for the apparent large difference in unwashed gum levels in Japanese and U.S. gasolines might be that Japanese gasoline tends to require less detergent for adequate IVD control. EPA requests comment that would help explain the difference between the unwashed gum levels in Japanese and U.S. gasoline. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\Written comments on the NPRM from Mazda Motor Corporation, Docket Item IV-G-17, and from Toyota Motors Inc., Docket Item IV-G- 25. \7\Letter to Glenn Passavant, Office of Mobile Sources, from James Williams, American Petroleum Institute, Docket Item IV-G-36. \8\AAMA unleaded gasoline survey data, 1991-1993, California gasoline excluded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- AAMA suggested a significantly higher unwashed gum cap than that observed in Japan. AAMA contended that their suggested cap of 70 mg/100 ml took into account the base gasoline contribution to gums and the variability in the ASTM test procedure, and would allow the use of detergents capable of IVD, PFID and CCD control. They further stated that compliance with this cap could be achieved using current additive technology that results in unwashed gum levels of 35 to 40 mg/100 ml. AAMA's suggestion is based on the premise that an appropriate level of control of the detergent additive contribution to CCD can be achieved by preventing the use of the highest concentrations of detergent additives and unnecessary over-additization. EPA's review of AAMA gasoline survey data reveals that more than 90 percent of U.S. gasoline samples analyzed had unwashed gum levels below 70 mg/100 ml. A review of the same data also showed that approximately 35 percent of U.S. gasoline had unwashed gum levels in excess of 40 mg/100 ml. Thus, depending on the precision of the unwashed gum test, a 70 mg/100 ml unwashed gum cap could result in disqualification for use of detergent packages/concentrations used in approximately 10 to 35 percent of gasoline in the U.S. EPA requests comment on the suitability of an unwashed gum cap of 70 mg/100 ml. In particular, EPA requests comment on the potential benefit of implementing such a standard, and the ability of industry to meet IVD/PFID deposit control requirements with additives that comply with a 70 mg/100 ml unwashed gum standard. Given concerns expressed by some commenters about variability, EPA proposes that certification or data submission requirements be based on the average of five unwashed gum tests (ASTM D381). With regard to an unwashed gum standard, EPA asks for comment on the minimum number of unwashed gums tests which should be specified to demonstrate compliance and, as an option to industry, the maximum number which could be allowed. c. Incorporation of Unwashed Gum Standard Into the Detergent Certification Program. If EPA adopts an unwashed gum standard or requires submission of unwashed gum levels, the primary compliance focus would be placed on unwashed gum testing of the properly additized test fuel(s) used during detergent certification. One option would be to require the measurement of the unwashed gum level of a test fuel blended with the minimum treatment rate of the detergent package as determined by certification testing for IVD/PFID control. To limit variability in the base fuel contribution to unwashed gums, the test fuel would be required to comply with other specifications regarding gasoline composition (i.e., aromatic, olefin, T-90 and oxygenate content) prescribed for detergent certification testing. For the detergent additive to be certified, the unwashed gum level in this test (or the average for a series of tests) would need to be below the unwashed gum standard. One of the major issues raised by the auto industry commenters was concern that over-additization could lead to increased gum levels and CCD-related problems. While there may be no economic incentive to over- additize, it is likely to occur. It may occur accidentally, some fuel manufacturers may choose to slightly over-additize to ensure compliance with the volume accounting reconciliation requirements of EPA's enforcement program, or it may occur for other reasons such as advertising. One way to accommodate these possibilities and yet also address the concerns of auto makers is to set the concentration of the additive in the test fuel during testing for unwashed gums at a level higher than the certified treat rate. For example, requiring certification to the unwashed gum standard (or testing of unwashed gums under Option 3) at a level of 110 percent of the certified treat rate would allow the assessment of the impact of a slight over-additization without creating an unreasonable obstacle to compliance. This would also allow for some variation in the unwashed gum level of the unadditized gasoline. Yet another approach with a similar effect would be to reduce the proposed standard by 10 percent. That is, instead of 20 mg/100 ml or 70 mg/100 ml, the standard would be set at 18 mg/100 ml or 63 mg/100 ml with testing conducted at the certified treat rate. The detergent registration and certification programs require that each gasoline contain detergent in an amount at least equivalent to the minimum certified treat rate. No maximum limit is anticipated. While testing at 110 percent of the minimum certified treat rate would address slight over-additization when the minimum treat rate is the actual target concentration, it will not be representative for fuels additized at even higher rates. EPA, therefore, asks comment on an option which would require those fuel manufacturers who add detergent at greater than 110 percent of the minimum treat rate to pass the unwashed gum standard using fuel treated at the rate actually being used. As an ancillary enforcement tool, EPA might also require the submission of test data on the unwashed gum levels of in-use fuels from detergent additive blenders. In-use testing of unwashed gum levels might also be conducted by EPA. EPA does not anticipate that such in- use testing would be conducted routinely, but rather that it would be used in cases where there was a suspicion of violation, or would be conducted randomly to encourage compliance. Penalties for noncompliance with an unwashed gum standard would be similar to those for noncompliance with minimum concentration requirements. EPA requests comments on the potential certification and enforcement requirements described above as well as input on other options. d. Costs and Benefits. The potential economic impacts of implementing an unwashed gum standard or data submission requirement vary with the provisions of the potential program, but in general would be similar. First, EPA needs to further evaluate the number of unwashed gum tests that would be required for each detergent certification. If a single unwashed gum test was performed during certification testing, the additional cost for each certification would be approximately $100 for a total cost to industry of approximately $40,000 for the approximately 400 detergents certified in the first year of the program. (This assumes that these tests are not already conducted for other reasons. If multiple tests are used to reduce variability concerns raised in association with the ASTM D381 test, the total cost would be somewhat higher. If, for example, five tests were conducted as proposed above, the total cost for all detergents would be $200,000 in the first year. Recurring annual costs would vary between $6,000 and $30,000 assuming 15 percent new certifications per year. While it may be difficult to quantify the emission benefits, it is possible to estimate whether such a program could be cost effective. One approach would be to calculate the amount of emissions that would need to be prevented by an unwashed gum standard for the control measure to be cost-effective. If the costs were low, the amount of emissions that would need to be prevented could be relatively small and yet the program could still be quite cost effective. Using the first year cost of $200,000 discussed above, only 200 tons of HC/NOx emission reductions would be required to achieve a nominal cost effectiveness of $1,000 per ton. Given the large number of miles travelled per year by gasoline-fueled vehicles, only a tiny fraction of the fleet would have to get a tiny benefit for this level of benefits to be achieved. For example, less than a hundredth of one percent of vehicles would have to achieve a 0.01 g/mi benefit in order to achieve this benefit. This level of benefits and more appears quite conceivable. The potential negative impact of fuel economy that may accompany a reduction in CCDs complicates consideration of the potential economic impact of the program, as do potential adverse impacts on companies manufacturing detergent additives with high unwashed gum levels. EPA requests comment on the approach to determine the cost- effectiveness of CCD control outlined above and on a method by which any potential negative impact on fuel economy might be accounted for. EPA also asks comment on whether it is possible to reduce emissions or prevent emission problems without adversely affecting fuel economy. It should be noted that section 211(l) of the CAA does not require EPA to justify deposit control measures on a cost-effectiveness basis. However, EPA will give the costs and benefits of any potential CCD control measure due consideration. 5. Other Options a. Use of a Standard Based on Thermogravimetric Analysis of Detergent Additives as an Interim CCD Control Measure. EPA requests comment on whether a standard based on thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of detergent additives could be used as an interim measure to limit the additive contribution to CCD. Such a standard would be based on the premise that, to limit the additive contribution to CCD, a detergent additive must decompose at temperatures encountered in the combustion chamber. Any additive which does not decompose and burn in the combustion chamber may provide material for the formation of CCD. Thermogravimetric analysis is one method of determining the thermal characteristics of materials, and might be useful in determining what portion of detergent additive packages remain unburned and may contribute to the formation of CCD. One potential TGA-based standard would require that, as part of detergent certification testing, a TGA analysis would be performed on the detergent additive package. For a detergent to be certified, the residue of the detergent package left at the specified temperature would be required to not exceed a specified fraction by weight of the original sample. Specifying a testing temperature is a critical element in a potential TGA-based CCD control standard. Recent research indicates that the surface temperature in the combustion chamber may be the most important physical parameter in the formation of CCD.\9\ This research indicates that, with high surface temperatures, CCD will reach stabilized levels earlier and the total amount of deposits will be lower. It further indicates that the critical surface temperature beyond which no additional fuel-derived CCD form is 310 deg.C, and the critical surface temperature beyond which no oil-derived deposits form is approximately 60 deg.C higher. This research may be useful in helping to determine the proper test temperature specification for a TGA-based CCD control standard. EPA requests comment on an appropriate temperature specification. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\``A Physical Mechanism for Deposit Formation in a Combustion Chamber'', Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Technical Paper Series No. 941892. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment is also requested on the allowable fraction of the additive package which could remain as residue after the completion of the TGA analysis. EPA believes that, for a TGA-based standard to provide a meaningful measure of CCD control, the specification on the allowable amount of residue would need to be set in the range of 2 percent of the original sample. EPA requests comment on whether, alternately, it would be more appropriate to place an absolute specification on the allowed weight of detergent residue for a given quantity of additized gasoline, and what an appropriate specification would be. Comment is also requested on what procedural guidelines EPA should implement for the TGA test. The detergent additive package on which a TGA analysis was performed would be required to contain the maximum concentration of the detergent-active components covered under a registration. Use of these components at higher concentrations to fulfill gasoline detergency requirements would be prohibited. To enforce such a requirement, EPA could require that samples of detergent additive be tested by the additive manufacturer or submitted by the additive manufacturer for analysis by EPA. A violation would occur if this sample failed to satisfy the specified TGA-based limit. Alternately, a violation would occur if, through fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis, a sample was found to contain higher concentrations of detergent-active components than those specified in the registration. b. Use of Existing CCD Control Performance Data. One commenter suggested that, as an interim measure, EPA require vehicle/engine CCD control test data to be submitted by each detergent certifier without detailing any requirements regarding the acceptability of the data. EPA believes that such a requirement, while potentially encouraging responsible consideration of CCD control by industry, would not provide a meaningful measure of an additive's CCD control performance. EPA believes that CCD control performance testing is too ill defined to allow EPA to implement guidelines regarding its acceptability. The Agency encourages public comment on this and other options that EPA might adopt to control the potential adverse impacts of detergent additive overuse. D. Relationship to California Detergent Additive Program Under EPA's proposed detergent certification requirements, a detergent certified for use under the state of California's detergent program (Title 13, section 2257 of the California Code of Regulations) could be used to satisfy federal detergency requirements for gasoline sold in California. The detergent additive certification requirements currently implemented by the state of California include IVD/PFID control requirements but do not include any unwashed gums or other CCD control provisions. Therefore, if EPA were to implement an unwashed gum standard or reporting requirement, a detergent certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would need to satisfy these requirements in addition to complying with CARB's detergent certification program in order to be eligible for use in complying with federal detergency requirements in the state of California. III. Other Issues for Additional Comment A. Formulation of Certification Test Fuels The discussion in this notice regarding the formulation of certification test fuels pertains specifically to measures which EPA might take to account for yet-to-be-identified nonoxygenate fuel severity factors. Also discussed is the potential difference in the deposit forming tendency of ethanol produced by different processes, and measures that EPA might take to account for this variability. Other issues related to test fuel definition will be addressed in the detergent certification final rule. 1. Accounting for Unidentified Nonoxygenate Fuel Severity Factors a. Approach Proposed in the NPRM. Under the proposed requirements, certification testing for IVD/PFID control would normally be conducted using a matrix of four test fuels, although testing in as few as two fuels would be allowed under certain circumstances. Test fuels would be required to meet or exceed minimum specifications regarding the levels of the following four nonoxygenate fuel parameters which EPA believes affect the deposit forming tendency of gasoline (referred to as fuel severity factors): olefins, sulfur, aromatics, and T-90 distillation point. To account for the deposit forming tendency of oxygenates, one fuel would be required to contain 10 percent ethanol, and another would be required to contain 15 percent MTBE. The NPRM included provisions allowing other fuel parameters to be used to define certification test fuels if their effect on IVD/PFID fuel severity could be demonstrated. In the NPRM, EPA discussed concerns that specifications on these fuel severity factors may not completely define a gasoline's deposit forming severity. If this were the case, detergent certifiers might be able to locate or specially blend certification test fuels that meet the proposed compositional requirements but are still inappropriately mild in their deposit forming tendency. To help account for unknown factors in gasoline composition that may affect fuel severity, EPA proposed that gasoline samples for certification testing must be drawn from normal production gasoline stock (finished commercial gasoline) taken from normally operating refinery and/or terminal facilities. In addition, the multiple test fuels were to be drawn from separate production/distribution facilities. This requirement would increase the certainty that unknown severity factors will be represented by ensuring that various refinery stocks are tested. It would also tend to limit the opportunity to select test fuels from refineries that, for unidentified reasons, tend to produce gasoline with a relatively low deposit forming tendency. b. Public Comment on the Proposal. Comments submitted by API and CMA stated that requiring commercial fuels for testing would be extremely burdensome and would have impractical consequences with regard to the logistics and mechanics of obtaining non-additized fuel. Amoco, API, CMA, Nalco, Texaco, and Ashland stated that EPA should allow the use of refinery blend stocks that meet ASTM D4814 specifications to formulate certification fuels. It was also suggested that the finished certification test fuels should meet ASTM D4814 specifications. One commenter stated that, to help alleviate concerns regarding fuel blending, the identity of each blending component should be documented regarding its source and properties. AAMA stated that there might be characteristics that effect a gasoline's deposit forming tendency which are not represented by consideration of the five parameters proposed to define certification test fuels. AAMA acknowledged that there are no data available to determine which additional parameters would be appropriate to include in the test fuel specifications. However, AAMA stated that certification test fuels could be made more representative by requiring that the major refinery streams be represented in the blending stocks used to formulate these fuels. Such a practice would tend to help ensure that yet-to-be-identified fuel severity factors are represented in the certification test fuels. AAMA stated that requiring more than one certification test fuel would allow for the inclusion of more refinery streams in the formulation of certification test fuels, thereby enhancing the representativeness of the testing. Comments from API and CMA requested that EPA allow certification testing on a single fuel, formulated from refinery blend stocks, that contains each nonoxygenate fuel severity factor at its highest level in the proposed test fuel matrix, plus 10 percent ethanol. These commenters stated that the increase in gasoline deposit forming tendency resulting from the addition of 10 percent ethanol is more than enough to address concerns about the potential deposit forming tendency of MTBE. Hence, testing on a second MTBE-containing fuel should not be required. On the other hand, commenters from the automobile industry stated that testing on both ethanol- and MTBE-containing fuels should still be required to account for differences in their tendency to form deposits. c. Alternative Approaches that EPA Might Adopt. EPA is considering several approaches, in addition to those proposed in the NPRM, to help ensure the representativeness of the certification test fuels. Under the first option, specifications on fuel parameters in addition to the five that were proposed to be used to define certification test fuels (olefins, sulfur, aromatics, T-90 distillation point, and oxygenate content) would be added to better define the test fuels deposit forming tendency. The NPRM discussed other fuel parameters that might have an impact on a gasoline's tendency to form deposits. Several of these are refinements on the nonoxygenate fuel parameters already considered. The limited data available indicates that diolefins may affect a gasoline's tendency to form deposits more significantly than do mono- olefinic species. Certain species of sulfur, such as ditertiary butyl disulfide, may also have more of an impact on a gasoline's deposit forming severity than do other species of sulfur. In addition, limited data suggests that heavier, polycyclic aromatic species may have a greater impact on fuel severity than do other aromatic species. These additional fuel parameters might be used in place of, or in addition to, the less specific fuel parameters proposed in the NPRM (total olefins, total sulfur, and total aromatics). Data were also discussed in the NPRM suggesting that fuel nitrogen content might be useful in helping to define the deposit forming tendency of certification test fuels. Nevertheless, the data available appears to be insufficient to positively identify these fuel parameters as additional severity factors. Also, since levels of such fuel parameters as diolefins, ditertiary butyl disulfide, polycyclic aromatics, and fuel nitrogen are not commonly measured or reported, it would be difficult to determine what levels of these additional fuel parameters would be appropriate to require in certification test fuels. As noted earlier, the proposed test fuel specifications on the levels of sulfur, olefins, aromatics, and T90 were based on national gasoline survey data. EPA requests comments on what additional fuel parameters could be used to help better define the severity of certification test fuels, and on the levels of such fuel parameters that would be appropriate to require in the test fuels to ensure adequate deposit control. Given that it may not be feasible to use specifications on additional fuel parameters to better define the severity certification test fuels, EPA is considering several other alternatives to improve their representativeness. One such approach would be to specify the refinery blendstocks which must be used in the formulation of certification test fuels. Due to their potential impact on the deposit forming tendency of finished gasoline, EPA believes that specifications on the minimum proportions of the following gasoline blendstocks to be used in the formulation of certification test fuels may be useful in helping to better define test fuel severity: full range fluid catalytic-cracked (FCC) naphtha, full range reformate, full range straight run naphtha, and light coker naphtha. The relative proportions of these blendstocks required to be used in the formulation of certification test fuels could be based on the fraction at which they are used in blending finished gasoline in the U.S. In keeping with the proposed certification test fuel specifications, which require that each of the four nonoxygenate fuel severity factors must be represented at levels greater than their respective national average levels, it may be appropriate to require that the subject blendstocks be represented in the certification test fuels at proportions that exceed their average representation in finished U.S. gasoline. Based on this approach, appropriate specifications on the minimum percentage of the subject refinery blendstocks which must be used in formulating the certification test fuels are likely to fall within the following ranges: 25 to 40 percent full range FCC naphtha, 25 to 40 percent full range reformate, 1 to 3 percent full range straight run naphtha, and 1 to 3 percent light coker naphtha.\10\ These specifications would account for approximately 50 to 85 percent of the gasoline blendstocks used in formulating certification test fuels. The remaining blending components used in formulating the test fuels could be drawn from any type of refinery blendstock. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\For a review of the quantities of manufactured gasoline blendstocks blended into U.S. gasoline during the period of April 1 through September 30, 1989, see the National Petroleum Refiners Association Survey of U.S. Refining Industry Capacity to Produce Reformulated Gasolines, part A, January 1991. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA requests comment on the usefulness of this approach in accounting for yet-to-be-identified fuel severity factors and in preventing the use of certification test fuels with inappropriately mild deposit forming severity. EPA specifically requests comment on which refinery blend stocks should be included and on the proportions at which they should be represented in the test fuels. EPA also requests comment on the number of test fuels which would be needed to adequately represent all the relevant refinery blend stocks given the need to meet EPA's proposed fuel compositional specifications (regarding minimum required levels of olefins, sulfur, aromatics, T-90, and oxygenates). EPA believes that a single test fuel may not be adequate for this purpose. In addition, the Agency requests comment on the extent to which previous commenters concerns regarding potential logistical problems associated with EPA's proposal to require testing of finished commercial fuels also apply to the approach of formulating test fuels from specified proportions of particular refinery blend stocks. Another approach EPA is considering would involve raising the levels of the four nonoxygenate fuel parameters required in the certification test fuels. This approach may be useful in helping to limit the variability in fuel severity for a given fuel specification, because the extent of this variability may tend to decrease as levels of these fuel parameters increase. EPA is considering requiring that the 65th percentile levels of these four nonoxygenate fuel parameters must be present in the certification test fuels after the addition of oxygenates, rather than before their addition as was proposed. This approach is being considered due to public comment on the NPRM which indicated that allowing the levels of these fuel parameters to be diluted by the addition of oxygenate may inappropriately reduce test fuel severity. If EPA were to take such an approach, the resulting increase in fuel severity may tend to reduce concerns over the variability in fuel severity due to the effect of yet-to-be identified fuel parameters. EPA requests comment on the extent to which variability in test fuel severity would continue to be a concern if such an approach were adopted. EPA also requests comment on whether it would be appropriate to increase the required levels of the nonoxygenate fuel parameters still further to limit the variability. To this end, EPA is considering requiring that each of the nonoxygenate fuel parameters must be represented in the certification test fuels at their respective 70th percentile levels after the addition of oxygenate. Such comment should also address the potential that such an upward adjustment in test fuel severity may cause higher concentrations of detergent additive to be used, with an associated heightening of concerns regarding the additive contribution to the formation of CCD. Another approach EPA is considering would require that the deposit forming tendency of test fuels be demonstrated through testing of the non-additized fuels prior to their use for certification testing purposes. Under this approach, each test fuel would be evaluated for its tendency to form intake valve deposits using the BMW 318i test procedure (as adopted by EPA for certification testing). The cost of implementing such a requirement would naturally increase with the number of test fuels required, and its adoption would be most economical if only a single test fuel formulation were required. For a fuel to be acceptable for use in certification testing, a specified deposit weight would need to be accumulated during pre-certification testing of the fuel in an unadditized state. EPA is considering several alternative test fuel evaluation criteria. Under the first alternative, at least 150-250 mg of intake valve deposits (on average) would be required to be accumulated over the course of 10,000 test miles for a test fuel to be acceptable. Under the second alternative, at least 80- 120 mg of IVD would be required to be accumulated over the course of 5,000 test miles. Specific comment is also sought on point values within the two mg ranges presented above. EPA requests comment on whether this approach is a necessary and useful measure to ensure the representativeness of certification test fuels. Comment is requested on whether it would be useful to require that fuels meet compositional specifications if EPA were to require that they be tested to demonstrate adequate deposit forming severity prior to use for certification purposes. Specific comment is requested on the level of IVD that should be required to be generated for a test fuel to be acceptable as having an adequately severe deposit forming tendency. EPA also requests comment on whether it is necessary to require demonstration of a test fuel's tendency to form fuel injector deposits (PFID) and the appropriate test/standard which might be used to accomplish this purpose. One option under consideration is use of the Chrysler 2.2L vehicle in the ASTM test with the fuel required to generate a flow restriction in the range of 10-20 percent. Specific comment is requested on this option including a point in the range and also on whether a bench rig test may be sufficient to screen a test fuel for its tendency to form PFID. Comment is also requested on other measures which may be implemented to ensure the representativeness of certification test fuels. 2. Accounting for Potential Variability in the Deposit Forming Severity of Ethanol EPA proposed that the ethanol used in formulating certification test fuels must be of fuel-grade quality. Specially processed ethanol would not be acceptable for use in formulating certification test fuels. This requirement was proposed to account for the deposit forming tendency of other substances commonly found in fuel-grade ethanol. EPA now believes that depending on the processing method used to produce fuel-grade ethanol, various levels and types of impurities may be present. These varying levels of these impurities, such as fatty acids, might potentially effect the deposit forming severity of fuel-grade ethanol to different degrees. If this were the case, certification testing could be conducted using fuels blended with fuel-grade ethanol that has an inappropriately low tendency to increase gasoline forming tendency. EPA requests comment on the extent to which this is a concern and on potential approaches that EPA might take to ensure that the ethanol used during certification testing is representative of in-use ethanol blending stock in its tendency to from deposits. One approach would be to require that ethanol used for certification testing purposes must contain a minimum level of impurities. Specifications might also be necessary on the type of impurities which must be present. The maximum allowed levels of impurities specified in commercial standards for fuel-grade ethanol might be useful in determining the levels of impurities that must be present in ethanol used for certification testing. Potable and chemical grade ethanol as well as fuel grade ethanol which receives additional processing not common to all fuel grade ethanol could not be used in testing. EPA also requests comment on the extent to which the concerns discussed above may also apply to MTBE used in certification testing. EPA also asks for comment on whether the restrictions discussed above for ethanol should also be applied to MTBE. B. ASTM IVD and PFID Control Test Procedures In the NPRM, EPA proposed test procedures to evaluate IVD and PFID control that were largely based on draft procedures under evaluation by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) at the time of the proposal. EPA also proposed that the ASTM test procedures might be adopted in the detergent certification final rule if they were finalized by ASTM in time, and there were no changes that would require further public notice and comment.\11\ These test procedures have recently been finalized by ASTM and EPA anticipates their adoption under the detergent certification final rule.\12\ EPA requests comment this approach. EPA proposed an alternate IVD control standard at a 5,000 mile test length, in addition to the traditional 10,000 mile standard. Comment is requested on what addition to the ASTM IVD control procedure would be necessary to allow the use of a 5,000 mile test length as well as the 10,000 mile test length specified by ASTM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\Drafts of the ASTM IVD and PFID test procedures were placed in the public docket for review. \12\The ASTM procedures are designated as follows: ASTM test method D 5500, ``Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation'', and ASTM test method D 5598, ``Standard Test Method for Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling''. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Applicability of Gasoline Detergency Requirements The gasoline detergency requirements implemented by the interim detergent registration rule apply to all gasoline, leaded and unleaded, highway and off-road, including both reformulated and conventional gasolines, oxygenated gasoline, and the gasoline component of M85 and E85, as well as marine fuel and gasoline for military purposes. (M85 is a mixture of 85% methanol and 15% gasoline. E85 is a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.) Gasoline service accumulation fuel is also required to comply with gasoline detergency requirements, as is the gasoline component of alcohol blend service accumulation fuel. As noted in the detergent registration final rule, the following types of gasoline are exempted from compliance: aviation fuel, racing fuel, emissions certification fuel, and gasoline used for research and developmental purposes. Gasoline detergency requirements apply to all gasoline other than those types for which an exemption was specifically prescribed. As an example, although not specifically mentioned in the regulation, since it is to be used in highway motor vehicles factory fill fuel must comply with gasoline detergency requirements.\13\ Factory fill fuels must comply with these requirements despite the exemption from general fuel registration requirements noted for these fuels in 40 CFR 79.4(a)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\Factory fill fuels must comply with these requirements despite the exemption from general fuel registration requirements noted for these fuels in 40 CFR 79.4(a)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- An automobile manufacturer recently suggested to EPA that certain detergent additives used in the gasoline portion of E85 may contribute to the formation of deposits in vehicle fuel pumps in E85 vehicles.\14\ EPA requests comment on the potential incompatibility of certain detergent additives for use in the gasoline portion of E85, and on the regulatory measures which EPA could take to address such a problem if it exists. Comment is also requested on the extent to which such concerns might also apply to M85 fuel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\Memorandum entitled: ``Phone Call with Gerald Barnes of General Motors Regarding the Potential Incompatibility of Certain Detergent Additives for use in the Gasoline Portion of E85 fuel.'', Docket Item IV-E-34 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Aftermarket Detergent Additives The proposed detergent certification program did not cover the use of aftermarket detergent additives.\15\ EPA requests comment on whether any requirements regarding the deposit control efficiency of aftermarket additives should be implemented, and the authority under which EPA could act to implement such requirements. Specifically, EPA requests comment on what requirements might be necessary on aftermarket additives to limit their potential contribution to the formation of CCD. This is of particular concern since EPA believes that the manufacturers of such aftermarket additives advise their use at very high concentrations to remedy PFID/IVD related problems. As discussed earlier, potential interim CCD control options involve limiting the concentrations used of detergents which have a tendency to form CCD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\Aftermarket detergent additives are marketed directly to gasoline consumers for addition directly into the vehicle fuel tank. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Detergent Additives Certified for Use in California Phase-2 Reformulated Gasoline The interim detergent registration rule specified that data used to support the certification of detergent additives under California's detergent additive program, specifically for use in California Phase-2 Reformulated Gasoline, will be acceptable for use in demonstrating the performance of detergents used to comply with Federal detergent gasoline requirements only for gasoline sold within the state of California. During a workshop on the interim requirements for deposit control additives, held by the American Petroleum Institute (API) on October 26, 1994, commenters from the audience suggested that EPA should allow California Phase-2 reformulated gasoline that is additized with detergents certified under California's detergent additive program to be sold outside of California. EPA agrees that this approach is in keeping with the goals of this program. The addition of such a provision would also allow improved flexibility in the gasoline distribution system. Therefore, EPA proposes to amend the provisions of the interim detergent rule to provide that gasoline additized within the state of California in accordance with the requirements of the California Air Resource Board's (CARB's) detergent rule may also be sold outside of the state of California. Specifically, EPA proposes to amend section 80.141(e)(1) of the regulatory text to state that, under the interim program, CARB detergent certification data specific to California phase-2 reformulated gasoline will be accepted as adequate support of detergent effectiveness for detergent gasoline that is blended within the state of California in accordance with CARB's detergent program. F. Allowed Variation in the Concentration of Detergent-Active Components Within a Single Registration for a Detergent Additive Package During the workshop on the interim requirements for deposit control additives held by API, commenters from the audience requested clarification of the allowed variation in the concentration of detergent-active components in a detergent additive package under a single additive registration. They stated that it is not possible to comply with the requirements of section 80.141(c)(2), which state that no variation is allowed in the concentration of any of the detergent- active components under a single variation, given variability in manufacturing process. They further stated that upward variation in the concentration of these components should be allowed, since such variation would not compromise the additive's deposit control efficiency. Indeed, as suggested by these commenters, EPA intended the language of section 80.141(c)(2) to prevent downward variation in the concentrations of the detergent-active components from the minimum concentrations reported in the subject additive registration. It was not intended to prevent an upward variation in the concentration of these components. Therefore, to clarify this provision, EPA proposes to amend section 80.141(c)(2) to state that upward variation in the concentration of detergent active components would be permitted, provided that such variation is specified in the registration, and that such variability does not change the minimum recommended concentration reported to be necessary to control deposits. G. Enforcement Issues EPA has several enforcement issues for which comments are requested prior to the issuance of the certification final rule. EPA believes these issues are integral to successful enforcement of the detergent program, and will be addressing these issues in the certification final rule. 1. Meters a. Required Use of Meters on Automated Additization Systems. In the NPRM, the proposed mass balance (now volumetric additive reconciliation, or ``VAR'') formulas provided for three different additization systems: hand blending, meters on every injector, and a metering system that did not have meters on every injector. EPA requested comments on whether the certification rule should require, for the purpose of measurement accuracy, that automated additization equipment be equipped with meters on every injector. EPA received no comments specifically addressing this issue. However, API commented that the final automated VAR formulas should be flexible enough to permit the use of presently existing automated additization equipment, which includes meters on every injector, metered systems without meters on every injector, and automated systems without any meters that measure detergent use through tank inventory gauging. The VAR formula in the interim program final rule does not require automated detergent blenders to have metered measurement systems, in deference to lead time concerns. However, as was proposed in the NPRM, EPA does intend to require some form of metered measurements for automated detergent blenders in the certification program final rule. EPA is still interested in receiving comments about the value of requiring systems with meters on every injector, as opposed to permitting the use of metered systems that measure the flow from many injectors on one meter. A metered measurement system will be required in the certification program final rule because meters are unquestionably a more accurate measurement system than tank inventory gauging. Meters measure the actual flow of product going through them, while inventory gauges merely determine drop in tank volume. As API commented in its analysis of automated additization system errors, inventory measurement systems are subject to error both in measuring inventory as well as in measuring additions to inventory. API's own member survey, submitted to EPA as comment, suggested that metered systems would need a smaller accuracy tolerance range than inventory systems, i.e., an 8 to 10 percent tolerance based on metered system errors, as opposed to the greater 10 to 15 percent tolerance range based on inventory system errors. (Parenthetically, an enforcement tolerance was not provided in the interim program final rule and is not anticipated in the certification program final rule. This issue was addressed at length in the preamble to the interim program final rule.) The final detergent certification program rule, expected to be effective in mid-1996, will not have the lead time issues associated with implementation of the interim program. EPA therefore reconfirms its proposal that, under the final certification program, all automated detergent blenders using the automated formula be required to have metered measurements. Furthermore, to assure accuracy of the VAR measurements, EPA proposes that all metered systems must include meters on every injector. This more stringent proposal recognizes that not all metered systems can accurately establish whether gasoline is being appropriately additized. If the system merely has a master meter which measures, in the aggregate, the flow of detergent from the tank into a multitude of injectors, it is not possible to determine whether any particular injector is operating properly and dispensing the proper amount of detergent. To ensure that each injector is dispensing the appropriate detergent concentration, a meter would have to be installed on each injector. Obviously, EPA wants to fulfill its statutory mandate of ensuring the proper additization of gasoline to prevent deposits, and believes it is necessary to require all automated systems to be equipped with meters on every injector. However, the Agency is also concerned about the costs of such a requirement, and is therefore very interested in receiving comments about the number of automated blenders that would need to upgrade under such a requirement, the cost that would accrue to such blenders, as well as the aggregate cost. The Agency would then be interested in comparing these costs with the value received in additional additization accuracy expected to result from this requirement. b. Precision of Metered Measurements. The NPRM proposed that VAR detergent measurements for automated blenders be determined and recorded to one tenth of a gallon. API commented that detergent volume measurement should only be required to be recorded at the gallon level, since scaling back the determination to precision of a gallon would be necessary to accommodate all present additization systems. In deference to the concern that some parties would be unable to upgrade to systems with precision to at least one tenth of a gallon in time for the January 1, l995 implementation date of the interim program rule, the interim program requires VAR detergent measurements to be recorded only to the nearest gallon. EPA is now proposing that, under the certification program final rule, the VAR detergent measurements for automated blenders must be recorded to a precision of at least one tenth of a gallon. This provision is consistent with the proposal that all automated blenders using the automated VAR formula must be equipped with metered detergent measurement equipment. It is EPA's understanding that metered equipment is easily able to measure to the one tenth of a gallon precision standard, and it should not be difficult for regulated parties to meet this higher level of precision once the provisions of the certification program go into effect. Comments are requested about the measurement capabilities of metered measurement equipment and about the reasonableness of requiring recording accuracy to one tenth of a gallon. 2. The Use of a Per-Gallon Minimum Detergent Requirement within VAR Compliance Periods for Automated Detergent Blenders In the NPRM, EPA proposed that all detergent blenders conduct regular product reconciliations to determine the accuracy of their additizations. Hand blenders were proposed to perform this reconciliation on a per-batch basis, whereas automated blenders, not having the uniform capability to easily determine per-batch usage, were proposed to perform the reconciliations on a weekly basis.\16\ The detergent reconciliation proposed for automated blenders was, in effect, an averaging procedure, permitting automated blenders to calculate the accuracy of their additization throughout the compliance period on an averaged basis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\In fact, pursuant to comments, the interim program requires only a monthly reconciliation period for automated blenders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To limit the ability to average detergent usage, EPA also proposed in the NPRM that any intentional alteration of the detergent concentration within the compliance period would terminate the period and necessitate the start of a new period. Under this proposal, intentional compensation for under-additization discovered in the period would not be permitted. However, in its comments, API expressed concern that, without a significant enforcement tolerance to determine compliance with the VAR standard over the entire period, automated detergent blenders in some circumstances would be required to make concentration adjustments in order to stay in compliance. As explained in detail in the interim program final rule, EPA did not believe it was appropriate to create a VAR standard enforcement tolerance, but did decide to permit limited intentional compensation within the compliance period for discovered under-additizations. The permissible adjustment was limited to 10 percent above the concentration initially used in the period. The purpose of this limitation was to prevent blenders from attempting to compensate for substantial under-additizations (and thus avoid liability for such under-additizations) by means of intentionally over-additizing, to a significant degree, for the rest of the period. However, the Agency still has concerns that permitting averaging over the automated blender VAR compliance period will tolerate unacceptable amounts of per-gallon under-additization of gasoline. Depending on the amount of additized gasoline measured in the compliance period, it is clear that even the 10 percent adjustment limitation could permit some quantity of gasoline being non-additized or significantly under-additized. Even if serious under-additization occurred early in the period, the averaged compliance standard might still be attained by the blender through the permissible upward adjustment of the detergent concentration rate for the rest of the period. Naturally, EPA would like to ensure that all gasoline is additized at an effective detergent concentration rate, as established during certification testing. The VAR compliance procedures included in the interim program go a considerable way toward accomplishing this goal, but only on an average for the compliance period. Individual loads of gasoline may still be severely out of specification. Consequently, for the final certification program rule, EPA is proposing that, within the monthly compliance period for automated blenders, each load of the product must be additized at a rate that is at least 90 percent of the certified detergent treat rate. This 90 percent figure would allow for some lapse in equipment efficiency while providing assurance that each load in the averaging period will approximate the certification standard. The reasonableness of the proposed 90 percent minimum requirement is supported by on an API member survey which was submitted as a comment to EPA. This survey indicated that many blenders (73 per cent of proprietary systems, and 37 percent of non-proprietary systems) can apparently attain a monthly blending accuracy to within 10 per cent of the goal. The minimum per-gallon requirement within the averaged VAR compliance standard would not only provide greater assurance of across- the-period accurate additization, but would also provide EPA with a useful enforcement tool. With this per-gallon minimum, EPA would be able to sample and test additized gasoline for detergent program compliance at the facilities of any regulated party. Under the interim program, on the contrary, the testing of additized product may reveal complete non-additization without necessarily establishing a violation, since there is no minimum per-gallon requirement under the interim period's VAR procedures. Although extensive sampling and testing of additized product is not presently contemplated, the ability to conduct such testing on a case-specific basis and to establish violations based on such testing would be very useful. EPA is requesting comments on the proposed per-gallon minimum requirement within the VAR compliance procedures. The Agency is particularly interested in learning whether the 90 percent minimum requirement is considered attainable, what problems would be associated with this minimum requirement, what records would be useful in monitoring compliance with the requirement, and what the costs would be in attaining compliance with a minimum standard. Comment is also requested on an alternate per-gallon minimum requirement, with rationale to support its adoption instead of a 90 percent minimum requirement. If commenters believe the per-gallon minimum concept is not appropriate, EPA requests suggestions for alternative means to assure greater additization accuracy throughout the VAR compliance period. One such alternative option being contemplated by the Agency is the previously proposed weekly compliance period, which would obviously permit less extensive averaging than the longer, monthly period. 3. Presumptive Liability for VAR Violations Under the interim program final rule, only detergent blenders will be held liable for VAR violations. However, EPA stated in the preamble to interim program rule that this issue may be revisited in the detergent certification final rule. Although some commenters asserted that detergent blenders should be the only parties liable for VAR violations, EPA believes that parties other than, or in addition to detergent blenders, could cause VAR violations. Therefore, limiting liability for VAR violations to detergent blenders may allow culpable parties to evade liability for VAR violations that they have caused. For example, a party may cause VAR violations by providing inaccurate or incomplete blending instructions to detergent blenders, or by conspiring with detergent blenders to sell under-additized gasoline that violates VAR requirements. The latter scenario could come about if a retailer attempted to save money by intentionally purchasing cheaper, unadditized or under-additized gasoline from a terminal which was intentionally violating VAR requirements to produce such gasoline. In this scenario, the collusion would occur because the retailer would benefit from the lower cost of its purchased gasoline, and the terminal would benefit from the sale of the misadditized product to the retailer. Further, the newly proposed per-gallon minimum requirement within the VAR procedures would make it possible for EPA to effectively discover VAR per-gallon minimum violations downstream, at retail outlets or at other regulated parties receiving product from the detergent blenders. When such violations are found, EPA needs the ability to hold these parties liable for such VAR violations. As shown in the preceding paragraph, it clearly could be in the financial interest of these parties to cause VAR violations by colluding with detergent blenders to sell VAR violating, less expensive gasoline. EPA believes that parties who cause VAR violations should not escape liability for those violations. Therefore, EPA is considering as an option under the detergent certification final rule, that all parties in the misadditized product's distribution system, including detergent blenders but excepting upstream carriers, will be presumptively liable for such VAR violations. As is typically the case, carriers upstream to where a violation is found will be liable for such violations if EPA can establish that they caused the violation. The rationale for imposing a presumptive liability scheme for VAR violations would be the same as that which supports presumptive liability for other violations in the detergent program, and for violations of other EPA fuels programs such as reformulated gasoline, gasoline volatility, and lead contamination. Typically, many parties handle and control gasoline, detergent and detergent-additized post- refinery component, which are, often times, fungible products. Under these circumstances, it will be difficult for EPA to determine who, in addition to the detergent blender, might have caused the VAR violations. When multiple parties potentially may have caused a violation, the Agency needs a presumptive liability scheme to effectively enforce its regulatory program. All presumptively liable parties would have the right to establish an affirmative defence to such liability. EPA expects that the vast majority of VAR violations will be caused by detergent blenders, and in these cases, the blenders will be the only parties liable. EPA requests comments on the issue of presumptive liability for VAR violations, including comments regarding EPA's legal authority to impose such liability. Parties disagreeing with EPA's proposed approach are urged to submit alternative options to address the problem of multiple party causation of VAR violations. One alternative approach that EPA is considering, and is requesting comment on, is the imposition of an affirmative duty (with attendant penalties) on upstream parties transferring title to detergent or custody to those who will physically do the blending, to transfer accurate written blending instructions for use of that detergent. In addition, a new liability section would be created which would hold any regulated party liable for a VAR violation if EPA could establish that the party caused the violation. 4. Right of Entry to Inspect the Premises of Regulated Parties in the Detergent Distribution System Current regulations permit EPA to enter the premises of gasoline refiners, retailers, wholesale purchaser-consumers, distributors, and importers, and to make inspections, take samples, and conduct tests at such facilities to determine compliance with EPA requirements. See 40 C.F.R. 80.4. EPA is today proposing to amend this provision to include manufacturers, distributors, and carriers of detergent additives. To investigate possible violations of detergent specifications promulgated under Sections 211(l) and 211(c), and to ensure compliance with those specifications, it is necessary for EPA to have the ability to collect samples of detergent additives at the facilities of the detergent manufacturer, distributor, and carrier. Section 211(l) directs EPA to establish, by regulation, specifications for detergent additives that must be used to prevent the accumulation of engine or fuel system deposits. EPA must be able to sample the detergent additive before it is blended into gasoline to ensure that manufacturers produce detergents that comply with EPA regulations, and to ensure that distributors and carriers of detergents do not take actions that alter detergents in such a way that the requirements are not met. Further, this approach is consistent with the currently existing provision in Part 80 under which EPA may enter the facilities of gasoline refiners and other parties, and make inspections, take samples, and conduct tests at such facilities to determine compliance with the requirements of that part. Therefore, under EPA's broad authority under Section 301(a) to promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out the Agency's functions under the Act, and EPA's authority under Sections 114, 211(c), and 211(l), EPA is proposing to amend the currently existing right of entry provision in 40 C.F.R. 80.4 to include detergent manufacturers, distributors, and carriers. Also, see Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), recognizing EPA's broad authority to use reasonable means to carry out its investigatory function under the Act, including but not limited to Section 114. EPA invites comment on this proposed amendment. 5. The Use of Multiple Detergent Concentrations by Automated Detergent Blenders Under the proposed regulatory approach published in the NPRM, automated detergent blenders were not permitted to include several detergent concentrations in one VAR compliance record. Any change in concentration under the NPRM would have necessitated the start of a new VAR period. The purpose of this limitation was to prevent the attempt by blenders to compensate for significant under-additization within a compliance period by changing the rate of additization in the rest of the period. The Agency received a comment protesting this prohibition against the use of several detergent set rates in one VAR record. The commenter argued that this restriction would penalize blenders with sophisticated equipment that could automatically change set rates depending on the product being additized. According to this commenter, such a blender would be required to create a new VAR record every time his equipment automatically switched concentration rates to accommodate different grades of product being additized. EPA does not intend to discourage the use of sophisticated additization equipment by detergent blenders. Therefore, under the interim program EPA did not prohibit the use of several set rates on a single VAR record. However, blenders are required to meet the following conditions under the interim program to ensure additization accuracy: no concentration set rate can be set below the detergent's lowest additive concentration (LAC); each initial set rate used in the period must be recorded on the VAR record, along with the product to be additized with each rate; no adjustments to the initially set rates can be made in the period above 10 percent of the initial rate; the blender must maintain records of all adjustments to the set rates. These requirements protect additization accuracy, while at the same time, provide industry with the flexibility to use sophisticated additization equipment capable of automatically varying set rates. The Agency continues to believe that these VAR requirements are useful. However, further restrictions are necessary to ensure additization accuracy under the detergent certification final rule. Under the interim program, automated blenders can measure on a single VAR record product being additized by the same detergent under different set rates, as long as they meet the conditions stated above. Since VAR compliance under the interim program is an averaged compliance, there is no way to determine under this procedure if the product being additized at the lower rate is actually meeting its LAC requirements, because the product being additized at the higher rates would conceal any failure of the lower product to meet the averaged standard. This procedure of multi-rate averaging is thus not conducive to assuring the additization of all product. Consequently, EPA is proposing that, under the detergent certification final rule, automated blenders may continue to blend their detergent at multiple rates in one VAR period, but product being blended at each set rate must have its own VAR record. This would ensure that product additized at each rate meets the LAC standard. Further, the Agency is also proposing that a blender choosing to use different set rates within a single VAR period must have equipment that can accurately measure detergent use at each set rate, (e.g. meters which can switch to measuring different rates, meters on individual injectors measuring different rates, or other effective systems). This latter requirement will ensure that the accuracy of each set rate's additization can be effectively measured, not merely estimated or assumed. Comments are requested about these proposed changes to automated blender VAR requirements. Specifically requested is information about the cost associated with implementation of these changes, such as the number of blenders they would impact, the number of blenders that would be forced to upgrade their equipment to accommodate these changes, and the cost of such upgrades. If commenters are opposed to the implementation of these changes, they are urged to submit alternative plans to address the problem of ensuring proper additization of product additized at lower concentrations when multiple concentrations are being measured. 6. Regulation of Imported Additized Gasoline Under the NPRM, importers of gasoline are regulated parties, subject to the requirements of the detergent rule. They are thus subject to product transfer document requirements and the prohibitions against the transfer and sale of nonconforming product. They are permitted to import either additized or nonadditized product. If they additize the gasoline they import, they are considered detergent blenders, and are subject to VAR requirements for the gasoline. If they import additized gasoline but are not detergent blenders, they are not required to create and maintain VAR records establishing VAR compliance. However, if the product they import is sampled and shown to be under- additized, the importer would be presumptively liable for the violation. As a practical matter, it would be extremely difficult for the importer to effectively meet its affirmative defence requirements, unless it would provide EPA with the VAR records documenting proper additization of the product. The Agency believes the control over imported gasoline needs to be strengthened in regard to gasoline which is additized prior to importation. As was extensively discussed in the NPRM, enforcement of the detergent regulation will primarily be based on record review, since sampling and testing of additized gasoline for compliance will be difficult. Agency review of VAR records to determine accurate additization is thus critical to the success of the program. It is just as important for EPA to be able to review VAR records for imported gasoline which is additized, as it is to review those records for domestic product, given the sampling and testing limitation. Under the interim program, however, Agency review of VAR records for imported additized gasoline will be limited to those situations in which violations have already been discovered through testing or otherwise. This means that, in regard to imported gasoline, the Agency is deprived of its prime measures to determine detergent program violations. To correct this deficiency, EPA is proposing that the detergent certification final rule will amend the definition of detergent blender to include importers of additized gasoline within the definition. If importers choose to import additized product, they must be held accountable for its additization accuracy as detergent blenders. If not, those selling domestically additized gasoline will be at a disadvantage to importers, since VAR records establishing violations will not be generally available for EPA review. Including importers of additized product within the definition of detergent blender will make the importers responsible for the creation and maintenance of the VAR records verifying additization accuracy, as well as with compliance with the other VAR requirements that apply to domestically additized product. EPA requests comments about the proposed amendment of the definition of detergent blender. IV. Public Participation EPA has encouraged full participation of the regulated industry and other interested parties in the development of the rule to implement the statutory requirements and continues to do so. A public workshop was held on February 13, 1992 to initiate open discussion of the relevant issues and EPA met with numerous industry representatives separately to obtain their input. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published on December 6, 1993 (58 FR 64213) and a public hearing was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan on January 11, 1994. Comments on the NPRM were accepted until March 11, 1994. EPA received 31 written comments on the NPRM before the close of the initial comment period and has received additional comments since that time particularly with respect to the issues discussed in this notice. EPA encourages additional comment on the issues discussed in this notice through the close of the current comment period. (For the date on which the comment period closes see the Dates section in this notice.) EPA does not intend to hold an additional public hearing to discuss the issues raised in this notice. V. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents Electronic copies of this notice, and other documents associated with the detergent certification rule are available on the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS). Instructions for accessing TTNBBS and downloading the relevant files are described below. TTNBBS can be accessed using a dial-in telephone line (919- 541- 5742) and a 1200, 2400, or 9600 bps modem (equipment up to 14.4 Kbps can be accommodated). The parity of the modem should be set to N or none, the data bits to 8, and the stop bits to 1. When first signing on to the bulletin board, the user will be required to answer some basic informational questions to register into the system. After registering, proceed through the following options from a series of menus: (T) GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Board) (M) OMS (K) Rulemaking and Reporting (3) Fuels (4) Detergent Additives At this point, the system will list all available files in the chosen category in chronological order with brief descriptions. The following five ``.ZIP'' files are currently available: ``DCA__PRE.ZIP'' (Preamble from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) ``DCA__IFP.ZIP'' (Preamble to the final rule on the Interim Requirements for Deposit Control Additives) ``DCA__IFR.ZIP'' (Regulatory text for the final rule on the Interim Requirements for Deposit Control Additives) ``DCA__RIA.ZIP'' (Regulatory Impact Analysis) ``DCA__RCN.ZIP'' (Notice to Reopen the Comment Period) File information can be obtained from the ``READ.ME'' file. Choose from the following options when prompted: ownload, rotocol,
xamine, ew, ist, elp or to exit. To download a file, e.g., filename.ZIP, the user needs to choose a file transfer protocol appropriate for the user's computer from the options listed on the terminal. The user's computer is then ready to receive the file by invoking the user's resident file transfer software. Programs and instructions for de-archiving compressed files can be found under ystems Utilities from the top menu, under rchivers/de-archivers. Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the document and the software into which the document may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur. TTNBBS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week except Monday morning from 8-12 EST, when the system is down for maintenance and backup. For help in accessing the system, call the systems operator at 919-541-5384 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, during normal business hours EST. V. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for the regulation of gasoline detergent additives is granted to EPA by sections 211 (c) and (l) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 (c) and (k), and 7601. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 Environmental protection. Fuel additives, Gasoline detergent additives, Gasoline motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 19, 1994. Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 94-31815 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Document Information
- Published:
- 12/28/1994
- Entry Type:
- Uncategorized Document
- Action:
- Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
- Document Number:
- 94-31815
- Dates:
- Written comments on the specific issues discussed in this document will be accepted until January 27, 1995. EPA is not soliciting new comments on aspects of the original proposed rule that are not
- Pages:
- 0-0 (None pages)
- Docket Numbers:
- Federal Register: December 28, 1994, AMS-FRL-5128-9
- Supporting Documents:
- » Legacy Index for Docket A-91-77
- » Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Minor Revisions; Direct Final Rule
- » Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Certification Standards for Deposit Control Gasoline Additives
- » Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Deposit Control Gasoline Additives; Reopening of Comment Period
- » Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Deposit Control Gasoline Additives; Reopening of Comment Period
- » Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Interim Requirements for Deposit Control Gasoline Additives
- » Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Deposit Control Gasoline Additives
- » Gasoline Detergent Additives Regulations; Notice of Public Workshop
- CFR: (1)
- 40 CFR 60