OAR Box 1846 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

7) ll-B-4 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/18/2008 7:30:14 AM Sheet 7 of 93 

P.1 

ii 

j 

'I 

|l 

Ii 

I! 

,l 

j' 

!| 

I' 

I 

|l 

:i 
JL'-^^WP.2 

'

 X l 

MEMORANDUM 

LLLIJ M 

!!! 

/. >*_- < M. . * 

A qo-07 

SUBJECT: Summary of Public Hearing on ANPRM regarding Fuel 

and Fuel Additive Registration Regulations 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Judith Gray, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Richard D. Wilson, Director 

Office of Mobile Sources 

Glenn W. Passavant, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Chester J. France, Chief 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

On September 26, 1990, a public hearing was held in Ann 

Arbor, Michigan on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) under CAA Sections 211 (a), (b), and (e), regarding the 

determination of potential health, welfare, and emission 

control system effects of motor vehicle fuels and fuel 

additives. 

Charles Gray served as presiding officer. He was 

accompanied on the EPA panel by Glenn Passavant and Carolyn 

Krueger from the Emission Control Technology Division, Margaret 

Gilhooley from the Office of General Counsel, Heidi Siegelbaum 

from the Office of Toxic Substances, and Judy Graham from the 

Office of Research and Development. The hearing was attended 

by 45 individuals from the public sector, primarily 

representing the automobile, chemical, and petroleum 

industries. A number of interested EPA employees also attended. 

Following an opening statement delivered by Charles Gray, 

public testimony on the ANPRM was offered by representatives of 

four organizations: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., the 

SDSB:Gray:Cribbins:2565 Plymouth Rd.:X 574:10-2-90:ID# 9484W 

Last reviewed by Charles Gray: 
M 

P.3 

* t Arfterican Petroleum Institute, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers 

Association, and the Chemical Manufacturers Association. The 

central issues addressed in each of the four presentations are 

summarized below. 

Du Pont Corporation 

Testimony on two specific issues was presented by David C. 

Zimmerman, du Pont's Product Manager for Petroleum Additives. 

First, Mr. Zimmerman objected to the possibility of 

revenue-based program exemptions for small businesses, claiming 

that such exemptions would place unfair burdens on relatively 

small business units within larger parent companies. Second, 

he argued that many (if not all) fuel additives should be 

exempt from testing at the outset. He pointed out that fuel 

additives pose a low risk of direct exposure, are usually 

destroyed at combustion temperatures, and are present in such 

low concentrations relative to the fuels themselves that they 

contribute only negligibly to motor vehicle emissions. Mr. 

Zimmerman requested a 60-day extension of the comment period to 

allow time for preparing a more comprehensive and 

well-documented response to the ANPRM. 

American Petroleum Institute (API) 

The main presenter for API was Richard Cavalli, Manager of 

Product Safety and Health Risk Assessment for Chevron. The 

underlying theme of the API testimony was the need for defining 

program focus. In this regard, Mr. Cavalli maintained that the 

evaluation of fuel and fuel additive toxicities should be 

limited to' risks potentially associated with evaporative and 

tailpipe emissions, excluding direct exposure hazards covered 

by other programs. Further, he suggested that fuels and 

additives be grouped for evaluation according to their emission 

products, not their chemical composition or structure/activity 

relationships. He urged the EPA to take advantage of 

previously published test data, to use existing standardized 

testing guidelines, and to insure consistency with new fuel 

certification requirements under the pending CAA Amendments. 

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) 

Testimony was provided by Marcel Halberstadt, Director of 

the Environmental Department in the MVMA's Technical Affairs 

Division. Mr. Halberstadt encouraged rigorous testing of the 

short- and long-term effects of fuels and fuel additives on 

emission control systems, and stated that full responsibility 

for such testing should fall to the fuel and fuel additive 

manufacturers. 

Chemical Manufacturers Association, (CMA) 

Petroleum Additives Panel 

The CMA's representative was Charles Keller of Exxon 
P.4 

•CKemical, who called 

Section 211(b)(2)(A), 

ruling, particularly 

support, Dr. Keller 

constraints, 

ill-defined 

on the EPA to use its discretion under 

to significantly narrow the scope of the 

with respect to fuel additives. In 

cited limitations imposed by technical 

legislative intent, EPA statutory authority, 

program goals, and overlap with existing TSCA 

regulations. He contended that the language of Section 211 

conveys a specific focus on emission-based effects only, and 

pointed out that the 1990 CAA Amendments, implicitly 

recognizing the positive role of fuel additives in emission 

reduction, are likely to require increased dependence on 

additives for further control. In Dr. Keller's opinion, the 

broad-based program discussed in the ANPRM was a "solution in 

search of a problem", unlikely to be productive, and needlessly 

disruptive of the fuels and fuel additives marketplace. In 

concluding, he asked that the written comment period be 

extended to 60 days. 

Summary of Key Points 

The testimony tended to support the general concepts 

outlined in the ANPRM regarding both the tiered testing 

approach and the grouping of "substantially similar" fuels and 

additives. However, the ANPRM was perceived (perhaps 

incorrectly) as needlessly broad in scope, without regard to 

technical and practical considerations or identified needs. 

The EPA was urged to restrict the regulations to emission-based 

hazards and to establish effective pre-testing screens that 

would require laboratory testing only for those substances most 

likely to pose both high-toxicity and high-exposure risks. Two 

companies requested a longer comment period for the preparation 

of more detailed and useful suggestions related to these 

complex issues. 

9484W