OAR Box 1834 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

44) IV-F-02 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

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

p.1 
P.2 

ILS LUUU|| iv- f-0 2 

AIR 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

DOCKET NO. A-90-07 

TESTIMONY ON 

THE FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES REGISTRATION PROGRAM 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

(57FR13168, April 15, 1992) 

Presented before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Regulation Development and Support Division by: 

Charles Keller 

on behalf of the 

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

Petroleum Additives Panel 

May 28, 1992 

Ann Arbor, MI 
P.3 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Today, I will be presenting comments on behalf of the Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (CMA) Petroleum Additives Panel. The Panel 

represents major manufacturers of performance additives for gasoline 

and diesel fuel. Members include: Amoco Petroleum Additives Co.; BASF 

Corp.; Chevron Chemical Co.; DuPont; Ethyl Corp.; Exxon Chemical Co.; 

Lubrizol Corp.; Nalco Chemical Co.; Mobil Chemical Co.; Texaco Additive 

Co.; Shell Chemical Co.; Shell International; Rohm GmbH; Rohm and Haas 

Co.; and Witco Corp. 

Manufacturers represented on the CMA Panel produce virtually all 

of the "non-oxygenate" fuel additives used in U.S. gasoline and diesel 

fuel. The Panel has been actively participating in this rulemaking, 

and remains vitally Interested in its outcome. 

Fuel additives are critical to the operation of modern 

emission-controiled vehicles, and we believe that additives will gain 

in importance as the 1990 Clean Air Act is implemented. We therefore 

believe that any fuel additive regulation under s.211(b) should 

encourage, and certainly not interfere with, the use and development of 

fuel additives which are essential to achieving critical objectives of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act. 
P.4 

Page 2 

II. OVERVIEW 

In our review of the April 15 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we 

noted a broad spectrum of technical and procedural issues that will 

address in our detailed written comments. Today, I will focus my 

presentation on a few key points. 

While we would like to compliment EPA on its efforts thus far, we 

believe that the proposal leaves a number of critical issues 

unresolved. I will be covering two major areas in my remarks today: 

1. First, and most importantly, any rulemaking under 

s.211(b) should not be an impediment to achieving 

critical objectives of the 1990 Clean Air Act. The 

additives industry is concerned that regulatory options 

identified in this proposal could stifle product 

innovation and registration of new additives that can 

advance clean air objectives. In particular, we fear 

that some aspects of this proposed rulemaking could 

adversely affect implementation of regulations under CAA 

s.211(1) - Detergent Additive Specifications and 

s.211(k) - Reformulated Gasoline. The additive industry 

believes that the s.211(b) registration requirement must 

be consistent with these two new regulations, but at 

this juncture we think that EPA is considering options 

that are incompatible with this goal. 
P.5 

Page 3 

2. Second, the Panel supports EPA's general approach of 

grouping fuels based upon characteristics of the raw 

product, and use of a tiered approach for submitting 

emissions and biological data. 

In addition, we believe the Agency has appropriately 

focused the rulemaking on the collection of emissions 

information rather than on the raw fuels and fuel 

additives. Although we support these general concepts, 

the Panel does have a number of concerns regarding the 

specific proposals in the proposed rule, and we will 

suggest modifications to the "grouping" and "tiering" 

procedures. 

I'd now like to expand on these points, and note both the areas of 

agreement with the approach taken in the proposal, and the areas of 

disagreement. 

III. REQUIRED CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER CLEAN AIR ACT REGULATIONS 

One of the Panel's principal concerns is that regulation under 

s.211(b) must be consistent with other current rulemaking under the 

Clean Air Act. While we have not participated in the s.211(k) 

Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Regulatory Negotiation, we have observed 

that the current RFG proposal takes an entirely different regulatory 
P.6 

Page 4 

approach to qualifying fuels. The RFG rulemaking relies upon what 

EPA concedes is a massive body of data on automotive emissions to 

create mathematical models for predicting combustion emissions from 

gasolines of varying composition. From the existing data, EPA has 

already derived a so called "Simple Model" for RFG emission, and will 

be issuing a Final Rule for a "Complex Model" within nine (9) months 

(March 1, 1993). 

While similar models have not yet been developed for diesel fuels, 

we believe there is also sufficient data on diesel fuel emissions 

relative to fuel composition. 

In the RFG rulemaking, EPA has expressed a strong preference for 

using mathematical models rather than actual vehicle emissions 

testing. In fact, the proposed RFG rule allows for testing under 

only limited circumstances, and for a limited time , at which point the 

mathematical model must be used. In the case of the RFG rule, EPA 

has clearly indicated that the massive quantity of existing data 

linking fuel composition and emissions is a more reliable predictor 

than an emissions testing program on a single fuel. 

In contrast, the current proposal for s.211(b) regulation focuses 

upon fuels and fuel additives testing in preference to use of existing 

data. While the proposed rule indicated that existing data can be 

submitted in lieu of Tier 2 test data, we believe that EPA has 

structured the Rule and its timetable so that no manufacturer would 

take the risk of having their fuel or additive registrations voided if 
P.7 

Page 5 

EPA were to decide that the existing data did not meet the regulatory 

requirements. 

The Panel strongly urges EPA to consider focusing the s.211(b) 

regulations more strongly on existing emissions data, rather than 

creating a regulatory scenario that essentially forces manufacturers to 

conduct testing, even if equivalent and sufficient information already 

exists. 

A critical timing issue for the Panel is the effect of s.211(b) 

rulemaking on implementation of s.211(1) Detergent Additive 

Specifications and s.211(k) RFG. EPA is currently developing 

regulations under s.211 (1), and the statute requires that all 

gasolines contain additives to meet these specifications by January 1, 

1995. Since it is anticipated that the s.211(b) Final Rule will not be 

issued until May 1993, this would give additive manufacturers a maximum 

of eighteen (18) months to develop data for registration of a new 

additive. We believe this will be impossible. Hence, additives 

manufacturers will be unable to register new additives that will be 

needed to meet the requirement of the s.211(1) Detergent Additive 

regulations. 

While it is premature to make absolute statements, we also believe 

that new additives, and hence new registrations, will be required for 

reformulated gasoline, which is mandated also for January 1995. RFG 

will result in additional product performance challenges for the 

additives industry, and as with the s.211(1) requirements, s.211(b) 
P.8 

Page 6 

could impede or even prevent us from responding with the best additive 

products. 

We believe this "timing" effect of the proposed s.211(b) 

regulations on fuels and fuel additives compliance with s. 211 (1) and 

(k) is a very serious issue, with potentially disastrous consequences 

for our industry. The proposed s.211(b) regulations could result in an 

unintended moratorium on registration of new products, just at a time 

when new products are needed to meet new Clean Air Act initiatives. 

The additives industry strongly believes that the highly positive 

environmental benefits of the RFG and gasoline Detergent Additive 

regulations should not be compromised by regulations under s.211(b). 

Clearly, EPA must carefully consider the broader consequences of the 

s.211(b) rulemaking. 

IV. LACK OF AVAILABLE FACILITIES FOR BIOLOGICAL TESTING 

Another critical timing issue is the availability of testing 

facilities for s.211(b) testing. While we believe that there are 

contractors capable of conducting the emissions speciation testing, 

there are no contractors who currently are capable of both generating 

combustion emissions and conducting biological testing. EPA comes to 

the same conclusion in the proposed rule. 
P.9 

Page 7 

Given the lack of facilities, we are very concerned with the 

proposed timetable for Tier 2 data submission. While we recognize the 

statutory constraints under s.211(e)(2)(B), we are afraid that no 

independent laboratory will be able to construct facilities, develop 

protocols, and validate testing within a time frame which would allow 

the industry to submit data within the three-year window. We believe 

EPA must more thoroughly evaluate laboratory availability and gain an 

understanding of the effort required to develop working protocols, to 

validate the emissions generation system, and to become familiar with 

new testing methods. 

V. CMA SUPPORTS "GROUPING" AND "TIERING" WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS 

I'd now like to comment on EPA's proposed approach to testing and 

data submission. As I indicated earlier, the Panel supports EPA's 

proposal to group fuels and to utilize a "tiered" approach to testing 

and data submission. We believe the "grouping" and the "tiering" 

proposals, in combination with the focus upon evaporative combustion 

emissions, are a sensible solution to collecting information for 

thousands of registered fuels and fuel additives. We agree with EPA 

that fuel grouping, according to the composition of the "raw" 

uncombusted fuel, is an appropriate basis for testing and 

registration. We also agree that the tiered approach to data 

submission allows for the most effective use of resources, yet allows 

for a professional, scientific review of the data, and for an 

assessment of further testing and data needs. 
P.10 

Page 8 

Even though we strongly support the general concepts of "grouping" 

and "tiering", the additives industry has several specific concerns 

which I would like to briefly discuss. The Panel will be submitting 

more detailed comments for the Docket. 

1. Baseline Fuels Should Include Typical Additives 

First, we believe that gasoline and diesel fuel additives 

meeting s.211 criteria for "substantially similar" 

(sub-sim) should be explicitly included in the "baseline 

fuel" formulation for each fuel family. For gasoline 

additives, we believe that the additive or additives in the 

"baseline fuel" should meet the upcoming requirements of the 

s.211(1) Detergent Fuel Additive regulations, since all 

gasoline will be required to meet the performance standard in 

1995 and beyond. 

In addition, we believe that "baseline gasoline" should also 

contain additives necessary for rust protection and other 

essential functions. Similarly, "baseline" diesel fuels 

should contain additives typically used in commercial fuels, 

such as flow improvers, cetane improvers, and corrosion 

inhibitors. CMA opposes a specific requirement that the test 

fuels contain either the minimal required additive or the 

"maximum concentration recommended" by the manufacturer, 

since we believe both of these cases may not be 

representative of commercial fuels. 
P.11 

Page 9 

Tier 2 Data Submission Should Not 

Be Required in a Three-Year Time Frame 

Second, CMA believes the current proposal on tiered 

submission of data needs to be modified in light of the 

unavailability of Tier 2 biological testing facilities, and 

the timing problem with registration of new additives needed 

for compliance with s.211(k) and (1). It is not possible to 

conduct and submit Tier 2 testing in time for either the 1995 

implementation of s.211(k) and (1), or before the three-year 

statutory s.211(b) deadline. 

CMA believes that EPA must reconsider the scheme for Tier 2 

testing and the timetable for submission of this data. We 

suggest, rather than require submission of both Tier 1 and 2 

data, that only the Tier 1 information be required within the 

three-year time frame. EPA could then evaluate existing or 

new emission speciation test data for each fuel grouping, 

comparing it to baseline fuels, and to existing data such as 

the extensive testing being conducted under the Auto-Oil 

Program. Based upon this assessment, EPA could then require 

Tier 2 testing if emission characterization indicated that a 

particular fuel had an emission profile which raised 

potential health concerns. However, we believe a review of 

Tier 1 information will indicated that there is no need for 

additional testing of "sub-sim" gasoline and diesel fuels. 
P.12 

Page 10 

CMA believes this alternate approach would be more consistent 

with other Clean Air Act regulations, with existing data, and 

with the status of currently available facilities and testing 

protocols. 

3. Tier 1 Data May be Sufficient 

CMA believes that EPA should take a broader view of existing 

data submitted in Tier 1 as an alternative to specific Tier 2 

tests. EPA should accept existing Tier 1 data which may be 

equivalent (not necessarily identical) to Tier 2 protocols. 

EPA recognized the extensive amount of existing data in the 

RFG rulemaking. The current s.211(b) rulemaking also 

recognizes this existing information by requiring its 

submission in Tier 1. However, the proposed rule would seem 

to require Tier 2 tests unless these precise tests were 

submitted in Tier 1. 

In addition, we believe there are substantial data available 

on emission speciation of "sub-sim" fuels, and that 

additional Tier 1 emission testing may not be needed. We 

believe this is too narrow an approach, and that EPA needs to 

consider all the available data using a "weight of the 

evidence" approach. 
Page 11 

4. CMA Supports EPA's Proposal on 

Testing Consortia and Data Compensation 

CMA strongly supports EPA's suggestion that testing could be 

conducted by manufacturer consortia. We believe that data 

submissions will in fact be handled by consortia, and request 

that EPA include in the regulations provisions which support 

this approach. However, industry should be allowed to form 

testing consortia without Agency involvement. 

A key to success will be a workable mechanism for "data 

compensation." While the NPRM notes the TSCA s.4 procedures 

for cost-sharing, we do not believe that TSCA provides the 

best model for obtaining funding from non-participants. We 

will propose an alternate approach in our written comments. 

Beyond the need for a data compensation mechanism, we believe 

EPA should allow industry to form testing consortia without 

Agency involvement. 

5. CMA Strongly Supports "Option B" for Oxygenated Fuels 

EPA requested comment on the inclusion of oxygenated fuel in 

the baseline formulation class for gasoline. The CMA 

additive manufacturers strongly support inclusion of what EPA 

identified as "Option B." We believe existing emission 

testing data generally support inclusion of all oxygenated 
P.14 

Page 12 

fuels into a single group, although we have noted that this 

issue is addressed in the recent Supplemental NPRM for RFG. 

For the non-oxygenate "sub-sim" performance additives we 

manufacture, we do not believe there is any point to 

conducting separate testing of these additives with each type 

of oxygenated fuel. We believe a single test of these 

additives in a baseline formulation is sufficient, as it is 

expected that "sub-sim" additives will not adversely impact 

emissions. 

IV. SUMMARY 

While the additives industry generally supports the overall 

approach to fuels and fuel additives testing proposed in the April 15 

proposed rule, we are concerned about some of the specific procedures 

and requirements. Our greatest concern is that the proposed regulation 

would have the effect of inadvertently stifling the innovation required 

to meet other Clean Air Act fuels requirements. We do not believe that 

the very important objectives of s.211(k) RFG and s.211(1) Detergent 

Additive regulations should be compromised, or even put at risk, for 

the more modest objectives of this s.211(b) rulemaking. We .therefore \ 

urge EPA to reconsider some of the issues raised in this proposal in 

light of the RFG Reg-Neg outcome, and the principal goal of improving 

fuel and fuel additive performance. 
P.15 

?

 A

 • " - Page 13 

We believe that s.211(b) rulemaking can be consistent with these 

other more critical Clean Air Act objectives, and that the general 

approach outlined in the proposed rule is still applicable, as long as 

key modifications are made in the "grouping" and "tiering" 

procedures. Most importantly, we believe this can be accomplished 

without compromising any significant environmental or health objectives,