Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Deposit Control Gasoline Additives
Federal RegisterDec 28, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
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
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.