# OAR Box 1834

Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 44 ) IV-F-0

2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 7

Printed 11/10/2008 2:14:35PM Sheet 44 of 61 p. 1

### P. 2 

# ILS 

# LUUU| | iv - 

## f-0 2
AI R ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

NAGENC Y

DOCKE T NO . A-90-0 7

TESTIMON

Y O N TH E FUEL S AN

D FUE L ADDITIVE S REGISTRATIO NPROGRA

M

NOTIC E O F PROPOSE D RULEMAKIN G (57FR13168 , Apri l 15 , 1992 )

Presente d befor e th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency Regulatio n Developmen t an d Suppor t Divisio n by :
Charle s Kelle r o n behal f o f th e CHEMICA L MANUFACTURER S ASSOCIATIO N Petroleu

mAdditive s Pane l

Ma y28 , 199 2 An n Arbor , M IP. 3

1 . INTRODUCTIO

N Today , I wil l b e presenting comment s o n behal f o f th e Chemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n (CMA ) Petroleu mAdditive s Panel . Th e Pane l represent s majo r manufacturer s o f performanc e additive s fo r gasolin e an d diese l fuel . Member s include : Amoc o Petroleu mAdditive s Co. ; BAS F Corp. ; Chevro n Chemica l Co. ; DuPont ; Ethy l Corp. ; Exxo n Chemica l Co. ; Lubrizo l Corp. ; Nalc o Chemica l Co. ; Mobi l Chemica l Co. ; Texac o Additiv e Co. ; Shel l Chemica l Co. ; Shel l International ; Roh mGmbH ; Roh

man d Haa s Co. ; an d Witc o Corp .
Manufacturer s represente d o n th e CM APane l produc e virtuall yal l o f th e "non-oxygenate " fue l additive s use d i n U.S . gasolin e an d diese l fuel . Th e Pane l ha s bee n activel yparticipating i n thi s rulemaking , an d remain s vitall yIntereste d i n it s outcome .
Fue l additive s ar e critica l t o th e operatio n o f moder n emission-controile d vehicles , an d w e believ e tha t additive s wil l gai n i n importanc e a s th e 199 0 Clea n Ai r Ac t i s implemented . W e therefor e believ e tha t an

yfue l additiv e regulatio n unde r s.211(b ) shoul d encourage , an

dcertainl yno t interfer e with , th e us e an d developmen t o f fue l additive s whic h ar e essentia l t o achieving critica l objective s o f th e 199 0 Clea n Ai r Act .P. 4

Pag e 2

II . OVERVIE

W

I n ou r reviewo f th e Apri l 1 5 Notic e o f Propose d Rulemaking , w e note d a broad spectru mo f technica l an

d procedura l issue s tha t wil l addres s i n ou r detaile d writte n comments . Today , I wil l focu s m y presentatio n o n a fe wkeypoints .
Whil e w e woul d lik e t o complimen t EP Ao n it s effort s thu s far , w e believ e tha t th e proposa l leave s a numbe r o f critica l issue s unresolved . I wil l b e covering tw o majo r area s i n m yremark s today :
1 . First , an

d mos t importantly , an yrulemaking unde r s.211(b ) shoul d no t b e an impedimen t t o achieving critica l objective s o f th e 199 0 Clea n Ai r Act . Th e additive s industr

yi s concerne d tha t regulator yoption s identifie d i n thi s proposa l coul d stifl e produc t innovatio n an

d registratio n o f newadditive s tha t can advanc e clea n ai r objectives . I n particular , w e fea r tha t some aspect s o f thi s propose d rulemaking coul d adversel yaffec t implementatio n o f regulation s unde r CA A s.211(1 ) - Detergen t Additiv e Specification s an d s.211(k ) - Reformulate d Gasoline . Th e additiv e industr y believe s tha t th e s.211(b ) registratio n requiremen t mus t b e consisten t wit h thes e tw o ne wregulations , bu t a t thi s junctur e w e thin k tha t EPAi s considering option s tha t ar e incompatibl e wit h thi s goal .P. 5 Pag e 3
2 . Second , th e Pane l support s EPA' s genera l approac h o f

grouping fuel s base d upo n characteristic s o f th e ra w product , an

d us e o f a tiere d approac h fo r submitting emission s an

d biologica l data .
I n addition , w e believ e th e Agencyha s appropriatel y focuse d th e rulemaking o n th e collectio n o f emission s informatio n rathe r than o n th e ra wfuel s an

d fue l additives . Although w e suppor t thes e genera l concepts , th e Pane l doe s hav e a numbe r o f concern s regarding th e specifi c proposal s i n th e propose d rule , an d w e wil l sugges t modification s t o th e "grouping " an d "tiering " procedures .

I' d no wlik e t o expan d o n thes e points , an d not e bot h th e area s o f agreemen t wit h th e approac h take n i n th e proposal , an d th e area s o f disagreement .
III . REQUIRED CONSISTENC YWITH OTHE

RCLEA N AI RAC T REGULATION S

On e o f th e Panel' s principa l concern s i s tha t regulatio n unde r s.211(b ) mus t b e consisten t wit h othe r curren t rulemaking unde r th e Clea n Ai r Act . Whil e w e hav e no t participate d i n th e s.211(k ) Reformulate d Gasolin e (RFG ) RegulatoryNegotiation , w e hav e observe d tha t th e curren t RF G proposa l take s an entirel ydifferen t regulator yP. 6 Page 4

approac ht o qualifyin g fuels . The RF Grulemakin g relie s upo nwha t EPA concede s i s a massive bod y o f dat a o nautomotive emission s t o creat e mathematica l model s fo r predictin g combustio nemission s fro m gasoline s o f varyin g composition . Fro m th e existin g data , EP A ha s already

derive da s o calle d"Simpl e Model " fo r RF Gemission , an dwil l b e issuin g a Fina l Rul e fo r a "Comple xModel " withi nnine (9 ) month s (Marc h1 , 1993) .
Whil e simila r model s have no t ye t bee ndevelope dfo r diese l fuels , we believ e ther e i s als o sufficien t dat a o ndiese l fue l emission s relativ e t o fue l composition .

I nth e RF Grulemaking , EP A ha s expresse da stron g preferenc e fo r usin g mathematica l model s rathe r tha nactua l vehicle emission s testing . I nfact , th e propose dRF Grul e allow s fo r testin g unde r onl y limite dcircumstances , an dfo r a limite dtime , a t whic hpoin t th e mathematica l mode l mus t b e used . I nth e cas e o f th e RF Grule , EP A ha s clearl y

indicate dtha t th e massive quantit y o f existin g dat a linkin g fue l compositio nandemission s i s a mor e reliabl e predicto r tha na nemission s testin g program o na singl e fuel .

I ncontrast , th e curren t proposa l fo r s.211(b ) regulatio nfocuse s upo nfuel s andfue l additive s testin g i npreferenc e t o use o f existin g data . Whil e the propose drul e indicate dtha t existin g dat a ca nb e submitte di nlie uo f Tie r 2 tes t data , w e believ e tha t EPA ha s structure dth e Rul e andit s timetable s o tha t n o manufacture r woul d tak e th e ris k o f havin g thei r fue l o r additive registration s voide di fP. 7 Page 5

EP A wer e t o decid e tha t th e existin g dat a di dno t mee t th e regulator y requirements .
The Pane l strongl y urge s EPA

t o conside r focusin g th e s.211(b ) regulation s mor e strongl y o nexistin g emission s data , rathe r tha n creatin g a regulator y scenari o tha t essentiall y force s manufacturer s t o conduc t testing , eve ni f equivalen t an dsufficien t informatio nalready exists .

A critica l timin g issu e fo r th e Pane l i s th e effec t o f s.211(b ) rulemakin g o nimplementatio no f s.211(1 ) Detergen t Additiv e Specification s an ds.211(k ) RFG . EPA i s currentl y

developin g regulation s unde r s.21 1 (1) , an dth e statut e require s tha t al l gasoline s contai nadditive s t o mee t thes e specification s b y Januar y

1 , 1995 . Sinc e i t i s anticipate dtha t th e s.211(b ) Fina l Rul e wil l no t be issue dunti l Ma y

1993 , thi s woul dgiv e additive manufacturer s a maximu m o f eightee n(18 ) month s t o develo pdat a fo r registratio no f a new additive . W e believe thi s wil l b e impossible . Hence , additive s manufacturer s wil l be unable t o registe r new additive s tha t wil l b e neede dt o mee t th e requiremen t o f th e s.211(1 ) Detergen t Additive regulations .
Whil e i t i s prematur e t o mak e absolute statements , we als o believ e tha t new

additives , an

dhence new

registrations , wil l be require dfo r reformulate dgasoline , whic hi s mandate dals o fo r Januar y 1995 . RF G wil l resul t i nadditiona l produc t performanc e challenge s fo r th e additive s industry , anda s wit hth e s.211(1 ) requirements , s.211(b )P. 8 Pag e 6
coul d imped e o r eve n preven t u s fro mresponding wit h th e bes t additiv e products .
W e believ e thi s "timing " effec t o f th e propose d s.211(b ) regulation s o n fuel s an d fue l additive s complianc e wit h s . 21 1 (1 ) an d (k ) i s a ver

yseriou s issue , wit h potentiall ydisastrou s consequence s fo r ou r industry . Th e propose d s.211(b ) regulation s coul d resul t i n an unintende d moratoriu mo n registratio n o f ne wproducts , jus t a t a tim e whe n newproduct s ar e neede d t o mee t ne wClea n Ai r Ac t initiatives .

Th e additive s industr ystrongl ybelieve s tha t th e highl ypositiv e environmenta l benefit s o f th e RF G an d gasolin e Detergen t Additiv e regulation s shoul d no t b e compromise d b yregulation s unde r s.211(b) . Clearly , EP

Amus t carefull yconside r th e broade r consequence s o f th e s.211(b ) rulemaking .
IV . LAC

KOF AVAILABLE FACILITIE S FO RBIOLOGICA

L TESTIN

G
Anothe r critica l timing issu e i s th e availabilit yo f testing facilitie s fo r s.211(b ) testing . Whil e w e believ e tha t ther e ar e contractor s capabl e o f conducting th e emission s speciatio n testing , ther e ar e n o contractor s wh o currentl yar e capabl e o f bot h generating combustio n emission s an d conducting biologica l testing . EP Acome s t o th e same conclusio n i n th e propose d rule .P. 9 Pag e 7
Give n th e lack o f facilities , w e ar e ver yconcerne d wit h th e propose d timetabl e fo r Tie r 2 dat a submission . Whil e w e recogniz e th e statutor

yconstraint s unde r s.211(e)(2)(B) , w e ar e afrai d tha t n o independen t laborator ywil l b e abl e t o construc t facilities , develo p protocols , an

d validat e testing withi n a time fram e whic h woul d allow th e industr

yt o submi t dat a withi n th e three-yea r window . W e believ e EP Amus t mor e thoroughl yevaluat e laborator yavailabilit yan

d gai n an understanding o f th e effor t require d t o develo p working protocols , t o validat e th e emission s generatio n system , an d t o become familia r wit h ne wtesting methods .

V . CM A SUPPORT S "GROUPING " AN D "TIERING " WITH SOM E MODIFICATION S

I' d no wlik e t o commen t o n EPA' s propose d approac h t o testing an d dat a submission . A s I indicate d earlier , th e Pane l support s EPA' s proposa l t o grou

p fuel s an

d t o utiliz e a "tiered " approac h t o testing an d dat a submission . W e believ e th e "grouping " an d th e "tiering " proposals , i n combinatio n wit h th e focu s upo n evaporativ e combustio n emissions , ar e a sensibl e solutio n t o collecting informatio n fo r thousand s o f registere d fuel s an d fue l additives . W e agre e wit h EP A tha t fue l grouping , according t o th e compositio n o f th e "raw " uncombuste d fuel , i s an appropriat e basi s fo r testing an d registration . W e als o agre e tha t th e tiere d approac h t o dat a submissio n allow s fo r th e mos t effectiv e us e o f resources , ye t allow s fo r a professional , scientifi c reviewo f th e data , an d fo r an assessmen t o f furthe r testing an d dat a needs .P.1 0 Page 8

Eve nthoug hw e strongly

suppor t th

e genera l concept s o f "grouping " an d"tiering" , th

e additive s industr y ha s severa l specifi c concern s whic hI woul dlik

e t o briefl y

discuss . Th

e Pane l wil l b

e submittin

g more detaile

dcomment s fo

r th e Docket .
1 . Baselin

e Fuel s Shoul dInclud e Typica l Additive s
First , w

e believ

e tha t gasoline an

ddiese l fue l additive s meetin g s.21 1 criteri a fo r "substantially

similar " (sub-sim ) shoul db

e explicitly

include

di nth e "baselin

e fuel " formulatio

nfo r eac hfue l family . For gasolin e additives , w

e believ

e tha t th

e additiv

e o r additive s i

nth e "baselin

e fuel " shoul dmee t th e upcomin

g requirement s o f th e s.211(1 ) Detergent Fue l Additiv e regulations , sinc e al l gasolin e wil l b

e require

dt o mee t th

e performanc e standar di n 199 5 an dbeyond .
Inaddition , w

e believ

e tha t "baselin

e gasoline " shoul dals o contai nadditive s necessar y fo r rus t protectio

nan dother essentia l functions . Similarly , "baseline " diese l fuel s shoul dcontai nadditive s typicall y use dincommercia l fuels , suc ha s flo

w improvers , cetan

e improvers , an

dcorrosio

n inhibitors . CM

A oppose s a specifi c requirement tha t th e tes t fuel s contai neither th e minima l require

dadditiv

e or th e "maximu m concentratio

nrecommended " b

y th e manufacturer , sinc e w e believ

e botho f thes e case s ma y no t b e representativ

e o f commercia l fuels .P.1 1 Page 9
Tie r 2 Dat a Submissio nShoul dNo t

Be Require di na Three-Yea r Time Frame

Second , CM

A believe s th e curren t proposa l o ntiere d submissio no f dat a need s t o be modifie di nligh t o f th e unavailabilit y

o f Tie r 2 biologica l testin g facilities , an d th e timin g problem wit hregistratio no f new additive s neede d fo r complianc e wit hs.211(k ) an d(1) . I t i s no t possible t o conduc t an

dsubmi t Tie r 2 testin g i ntime fo r eithe r th e 199 5 implementatio no f s.211(k ) an d(1) , o r befor e th e three-yea r statutor y

s.211(b ) deadline .

CM A believe s tha t EPA mus t reconside r th e scheme fo r Tie r 2 testin g an

dth e timetabl e fo r submissio no f thi s data . We suggest , rathe r tha nrequir e submissio no f bot hTie r 1 and2 data , tha t onl y

th e Tie r 1 informatio nbe require dwithi nth e three-yea r time frame . EPA coul dthe nevaluat e existin g o r new emissio nspeciatio ntes t dat a fo r eac hfue l grouping , comparin g i t t o baseline fuels , an dt o existin g dat a suc ha s th e extensiv e testin g bein g conducte dunde r th e Auto-Oi l Program . Base dupo nthi s assessment , EPA coul dthe nrequir e Tie r 2 testin g i f emissio ncharacterizatio nindicate dtha t a particula r fue l ha da nemissio nprofile whic hraise d potentia l healt hconcerns . However , we believ e a review o f Tie r 1 informatio nwil l indicate dtha t ther e i s n o nee dfo r additiona l testin g o f "sub-sim " gasolin e an ddiese l fuels .P.1 2 Pag e 1 0

CM

A believe s thi s alternat e approac hwoul db e mor e consisten t wit hothe r Clea nAi r Ac t regulations , wit hexistin g data , an d wit hth e statu s o f currentl y availabl e facilitie s an dtestin g protocols .
3 . Tie r 1 Dat a Ma y be Sufficien t

CM A believe s tha t EPA shoul dtak e a broade r view o f existin g dat a submitte di nTie r 1 a s a nalternative t o specifi c Tie r 2 tests . EPA

shoul daccep t existin g Tie r 1 dat a whic hma y be equivalen t (no t necessaril y identical ) t o Tie r 2 protocols . EP A recognize dth e extensiv e amoun t o f existin g dat a i nth e RF Grulemaking . Th e curren t s.211(b ) rulemakin g als o recognize s thi s existin g informatio nb y requirin g it s submissio ni nTie r 1 . However , th e propose drul e woul dsee m t o requir e Tie r 2 test s unles s thes e precis e test s wer e submitte di nTie r 1 .

I naddition , we believ e ther e ar e substantia l dat a available o nemissio nspeciatio no f "sub-sim " fuels , an dtha t additiona l Tie r 1 emissio ntestin g may no t be needed . W e believ e thi s i s to o narrow a napproach , an

dtha t EP A

need s t o conside r al l the available dat a usin g a "weigh t o f th e evidence " approach .Pag e 1 1
4 . CM ASupport s EPA' s Proposa l o n Testing Consorti a an d Dat a Compensatio n
CM Astrongl ysupport s EPA' s suggestio n tha t testing coul d b e conducte d b

ymanufacture r consortia . W e believ e tha t dat a submission s wil l i n fac t b e handle d b yconsortia , an

d reques t tha t EP Ainclud e i n th e regulation s provision s whic h suppor t thi s approach . However , industr yshoul d b e allowe d t o for m testing consorti a withou t Agencyinvolvement .
Ake yt o succes s wil l b e a workabl e mechanis mfo r "dat a compensation. " Whil e th e NPR M note s th e TSC

As. 4 procedure s fo r cost-sharing , w e d o no t believ e tha t TSC Aprovide s th e bes t mode l fo r obtaining funding fro mnon-participants . W e wil l propos e an alternat e approac h i n ou r writte n comments . Beyon d th e nee d fo r a dat a compensatio n mechanism , w e believ e EP Ashoul d allowindustr yt o for

mtesting consorti a withou t Agenc yinvolvement .
5 . CM A Strongl ySupport s "Optio n B " fo r Oxygenate d Fuel s

EP Arequeste d commen t o n th e inclusio n o f oxygenate d fue l i n th e baselin e formulatio n clas s fo r gasoline . Th e CM A additiv e manufacturer s strongl ysuppor t inclusio n o f wha t EPA identifie d a s "Optio n B. " W e believ e existing emissio n testing dat a generall ysuppor t inclusio n o f al l oxygenate dP.1 4
Pag e 1 2

fuel s int o a single group , althoug hwe hav e note dtha t thi s

issu e i s addresse di nth e recen t Supplementa l NPR M fo r RFG .

Fo r th e non-oxygenat e "sub-sim " performance additive s w e manufacture , we d o no t believe ther e i s an y poin t t o conductin g separat e testin g o f thes e additive s wit heac htyp e o f oxygenate dfuel . We believe a singl e tes t o f thes e additive s i na baseline formulatio ni s sufficient , a s i t i s expecte dtha t "sub-sim " additive s wil l no t adversel y impac t emissions .

IV . SUMMAR

Y
Whil e th e additive s industr y generall y

support s th e overal l approac ht o fuel s an dfue l additive s testin g propose di nth e Apri l 1 5 propose drule , w e ar e concerne dabou t some o f th e specifi c procedure s andrequirements . Ou r greates t concer ni s tha t th e propose dregulatio n woul dhave th e effec t o f inadvertentl y stiflin g th e innovatio nrequire d t o mee t othe r Clea nAi r Ac t fuel s requirements . We d o no t believ e tha t the ver y

importan t objective s o f s.211(k ) RF Gands.211(1 ) Detergen t Additiv e regulation s shoul dbe compromised , o r eve npu t a t risk , fo r th e more modes t objective s o f thi s s.211(b ) rulemaking . We .therefor e \ urge EP A

t o reconside r some o f th e issue s raise di nthi s proposa l i n ligh t o f th e RF GReg-Ne g outcome , an dth e principa l goa l o f improvin g fue l an

dfue l additiv e performance .P.1 5 

### ? A 

### • " - Pag e 1 3

W e believ e tha t s.211(b ) rulemakin g ca n b e consisten t wit hthes e othe r mor e critica l Clea n Ai r Ac t objectives , an d tha t th e genera l approac houtline d i n th e propose d rul e i s stil l applicable , a s lon g a s ke ymodification s ar e mad e i n th e "grouping " an d "tiering " procedures . Mos t importantly , w e believ e thi s ca n b e accomplishe d withou t compromisin g anysignifican t environmenta l o r healt hobjectives ,