p.1 

OAR Box 1772 

Prepped by Ch armelle Math ews 

Document Number: 

FR 8/24/1989 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 12/2/2008 9:45:12 AM Sheet 47 of 117 
P.2 

fit - %<o-02> 

Thursday 

August 24, 1989 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 80 and 86 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives; 

Fuel Quality Regulations for Highway 

Diesel Fuel Sold in 1993 and Later 

Calendar Years; Proposed Rule 
35276 Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

P.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

A©IEN<gV• 

[AMS-FRL-3577-3] 

RIN 2060-ACOO 

Regulation ©. Fuels 

lighway Diss®! Fe_@! Sold in 11993 and 

A@EC.ev: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTIO-.: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

syMKlARV: EPA proposes in today's 

notice a new national program of diesel 

fuel quality control. The proposed action 

would require refiners to reduce the 

sulfur content of on-highway diesel fuel 

from current average levels of 

approximately 0.25 weight percent to 

levels not exceeding 0.05 percent by 

weight. The proposal would also require 

that on-highway diesel fuel aromatic 

levels be held at or below current 

average levels (approximately 34 

percent). The proposed mechanism for 

capping aromatics would be to set a 

minimum cetane index specification of 

40. Both requirements would take effect 

at all points throughout the distribution 

system on October 1,1993. These 

proposed actions would result in 

substantial reductions in emissions of 

particulate matter and sulftzr dioxide 

(SO.). 

Certification diesel fuel would be 

changed 4>eg___r__n3 with hcth the 1S91 

and 1994 model years io reflect the 

changes in -commercial Diesel fuel 

quality. Vehicles sold in model _yea_3 

1991 through 1993 would be certified 

using 13.10 weighl percEni salfar fuel, 

reflecting the average fuel sulfur level 

expected to be ased over these vehicles1 

useful lives (ns defined m C M title 40 

§ 86.085-2). Beginning with ths 1994 

model year, the certification fuel sulfur 

level would be that of commercial diesel 

fuel [i.e., not to exceed 0.05 weight 

percent). 

DATES: EPA has not scheduled a public 

hearing on this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. A hearing will be held if 

requested on or before September 7, 

1989. Comments on this proposal will be 

accepted through September 25,1989. 

Additional information on the 

submission of comments can be found 

under "Public Participation" in the 

Supplementary Information section of 

today's notice. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit written comments (in duplicate if 

possible) to: Air Docket Section (A-130), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Attention: Doclcet No. A-86-03, £01M 

Streel,SW., Washington, DC 2C560. 

MaSerials aslevant to this proposal 

have been placed in Docket No. A-C6-Q3 

by EPA. The docket is located a. the 

above address in Room M-1500, 

Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may 

be inspected between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. 

Monday through Friday. A reascneib 

fee may be charged by EPA for copying 

docket materials. 

FOR FURTHIB INFORMATION CONT&S7. 

Mr. Charles Moulis, Standards 

Development and Support Branch, 

Emission Control Technology Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105, Telephone: (313) 668-4229. 

gUPP_J_.KJEE.YARV INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

This preamble presents the major 

issues raised by today's proposed action 

and discusses EPA's rationale for each 

aspect of that action. The following 

sections of the preamble describe: {!) 

The background of die proposal, {2) the 

control options which were considered 

during the rulemaking development 

process, {3} the cost to the refining 

industry of die proposed diesel fuel 

requirements, {{fl the economic and 

environmental benefits of the proposed 

rulemaking, (5) the overall cost 

effectiveness of the proposed fuel 

regulations, (6) the leadtime issuss 

involved, p] the enforcement aspects cf 

the proposed rulemaking, (8) die issue of 

diesel engine certification, and p.) the 

aGtaal proposal in detail, with request 

for comments on specific issues. 

H.JEka;kgr®E_id 

In March of 1985, EPA promulgated 

particulate -amission standards of 6.25 

grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/ 

UHP-hrJ for heavy:duty trucks (greater 

than-8,500 R.3), und 0.10 g/BHP-hr for 

buses, effective beginning in the 1BS1 

model year; and 0.10 g/BHP-hr fbr 

heavy-duty trucks beginning in the 1994 

model year (50 FR 10606, March 15, 

1985). During the rulemaking process, 

manufacturers expressed concern that 

sulfur in diesel fuel could either plug the 

trap-oxidizers that EPA projected would 

be needed to meet the proposed 

particulate standard or generate 

significant particulate sulfate emissions 

that would make it difficult to meet the 

standards. To address this concern 

commenters recommended that EPA 

regulate the sulfur content of diesel fuel. 

In the preamble to the final rule, SPA 

responded that not enough was then 

known about the effect of diesel fuel 

sulfur on traps or particulate emissions 

to take regulatory action at that time, 

tet that it would continue to study Uie 

issue and, if warranted, consider 

regulating diesel fuel sulfur content. In 

Jane of 1986, EPA released for public 

comment a study prepared under 

contract for EPA by Energy and 

Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC), and 

SoboUca and Company, Inc. (SCI), 

Entitled "Diesel Fuel Quality Effects on 

Emissions, Durability, Performance, and 

C*C8ts'M51 FR 23437, June 27,1986). The 

draft Teport by ERC presented the 

important emission- performance- and 

fiurability-related properties of diesel 

fuel. A version of the Department of 

Energy's Refinery Evaluation Modeling 

System (REMS) was used by SCI to 

estimate the cost involved in making 

shangeo in fuel composition. 

As presented in the ERC report, the 

most important emission-related . 

properties of diesel fuel are its sulfur 

•and aromatics content. A reduction in 

feel sulfur would directly reduce SO2 

and sulfate particulate emissions, while 

reducing fuel aromatics would reduce 

carbonaceous and organic particulate 

laniissions. The report also concluded 

that back-end volatility [e.g., the 90-

#£rcent distillation point) does not 

significantly affect particulate 

emissions. 

ERC and SCI also concluded that, in 

addition to the emission benefit, a 

reduction of fuel sulfur from estimated 

present levels to 0.05 weight percent 

CTCuld reduce corrosive engine wear and 

«3rtend -engine life. A 30 percent 

extension in engine life was estimated 

and used in their cost-effectiveness 

analysis. This effect is difficult to 

quantify, however, as data which 

quantify the effect under in-use 

conditions with modern oils are scarce. 

According to the report, a reduction of 

fizsl aromatics content would improve 

ignition quality, which would in turn 

improve the ability of engines to start in 

•cold temperatures and reduce engine 

BGise. 

The REMS refinery model was used to 

estimate the cost of reducing fuel sulfur 

alone from estimated average levels of 

0-274 percent to 0.05 percent. The results 

of the model showed that by segregating 

the production of highway diesel fuel 

feom distillate burner fuels and by using 

existing desulfurization capacity, this 

sulfur reduction could be accomplished 

at a cost of about 1.2 cents per gallon. 

MiC claimed that this cost would be 

cer e than offset by the savings 

generated by the increased engine life 

sssulting from desulfurization. 

ERC aad SCI also concluded (although 

EPA disagreed with this conclusion) that 

&£ desulfurization process would effect 

a reduction in aromatics content to 
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1969 / Proposed Rules 35277 

about 20.3 volume percent varying from 

refinery to refinery. It was further 

estimated that an additional reduction 

of aromatics content to 17 percent would 

increase refining cost by an additional 

0.4 cent per gallon. 

Comments received from industry on 

the ERC/SCI study indicated that 

* I work was needed in 

estimating the ti stof 

controlling diesel fuel quality as well as 

in evaluating tlie effect of fuel sulfur 

control on engine life. As a result, EPA 

commissioned Southwest Research 

Institute (SWRI) and Bonner and Moore 

Consultants, Inc. (B&M) to investigate 

these areas further. A report prepared 

by SWRI entitled "Study of the Effects 

of Reduced Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content 

on Engine Wear" and a B&M report 

entitled "A Study on Restriction of 

Sulfur and Aromatics Content of 

Highway Diesel Fuel" were the result of 

this effort. 

The report by SWRI gave further 

indication that a reduction in fuel sulfur 

content might result in a substantial 

reduction in engine wear. Data in the 

literature were reviewed and 

summamed, and an analysis of used oil 

samples taken from engines operating 

on high and low sulfur fuel was 

performed. As documented in the report, 

it was found that in a large number of 

used oil samples the amount of wear 

particles was significantly lower in 

cases where low sulfur fuel had been 

used. After reviewing the report, 

members of industry cautioned thai still 

more investigation was needed before 

firm conclusions could be drawn 

regarding the effect of sulfur on engine 

life. 

The Bonner and Moore report 

examined the effect of fuel qt. 

regulations on the cost of producing 

diesel fuel. Tlie costs of controlling 

io 0.05 weight percent, controlling 

aromatics to 20 volume percent, and 

controUing both simultaneously were 

estimated. Two assumptions regarding 

the volume of fuel controlled were made 

in the study. One as was that 

the current degree of segregation (or 

lack thereof) of heating oil and 

"highway" diesel fuel would be 

maintained. The other was that all 

heating oil would be produced and 

•uted separately, and would 

therefore not need to meet "onhighway" fuel specifications. Fuel 

control cost estimates were developed 

for each segregation scenario. 

In addition to these contracting efforts 

EPA also engaged in a series of meetings 

with engine manufacturers. The purpose 

of these meetings was to monitor the 

progress being made toward meeting the 

1991 and 1994 heavy-duty diesel 

particulate emission standards. Engine 

manufacturers repeatedly expressed the 

need for a reduction in sulfur levels in 

commercial diesel fuel. 

Most recently, in a landmark 

initiative, members of the diesel engine 

manufacturing and petroleum refining 

i ies submitted a joint proposal for 

on highway diesel fuel modification to 

EPA. In the proposal, refiners stated that 

they could provide diesel fue) containing 

no more than 0.05 weight percent sulfur 

and meeting a minimum cetane index 

specification of 40 (as a means of 

capping aromatics at current levels) by 

October 1,1993. Diesel engine 

manufacturers expressed their belief 

that this level of fuel quality 

improvement would be sufficient to 

allow compliance with the 1994 

emission standards. To provide 

flexibility within the refining industry, it 

was suggested that only "on-highway" 

diesel fuel be required to meet these 

specifications, and that individual 

refiners be allowed to choose whether 

or not to market "on-highway" diesel. 

Engine manufacturers also stated that 

EPA should allow certification using low 

sulfur fuel beginning with the 1991 

model year to reflect upcoming changes 

in commercial fuel quality. 

The information received from 

members of industry and government 

contractors was incorporated into a 

more recent EPA study. The ma/or focus 

of the analysis was to determine the 

cost-effectiveness of a reduction in 

diesel fuel sulfur content alone, and of a 

subsequent reduction in diesel fuel 

aromatics. Thus assumptions were made 

that would result in the most 

conservative cost-effectiveness 

estimates. 

Specific topics which were evaluated 

in detail include the refinery cost of fuel 

control, the effect of fuel regulations on 

engin rs' compliance 

strate^ .fectoffui 

on engine wear, sir quality and health 

effects. 

This more recent study is published 

today as the Draft Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (Draft RIA) supporting this 

proposed rulemaking and has been 

placed in Docket A-86~Q3. as referenced 

above. Although the Draft RIA is now 

outd ne aspects, it still 

comprises the technical basis for today's 

prop; 

in. Control Options 

The control options which were 

considered in Ihe rulemaking process 

include several combinations of fuel 

sulfur and aromatics control. Sulfur 

control options were considered down 

to levels as low as 0.05 percent by 

weight. The primary sulfur control 

scenario which was evaluated 

quantitatively was a sulfur reduction to 

0.05 percent by weight with no change in 

aromatics. Intermediate levels of sulfur 

control were evaluated qualitatively 

relative to the 0.05 weight percent level. 

Aromatics control options ranging 

from no control to a reduction to 20 

volume percent were also considered. 

Since ! aromatics levels have 

lcreasing over past years (due to 

increased blending of high-aromatic 

cracked stocks into diesel fuel) and the 

oil industry proposed to eliminate this 

slippage, the prospect of merely capping 

aromatics content at current levels to 

avoid future deterioration was also 

considered. The primary scenario 

evaluated quantitatively was a 

reduction in aromatics to 20 volume 

percent subsequent to a reduction of fuel 

sulfur to 0.05 percent by weight. Both 

primary control scenarios are evaluated 

in detail in the Draft RIA. 

IV. Cost of Fuel Control 

To date, several independent analyses 

of the cost and feasibility of diesel fuel 

quality control have been prepared. 

These include studies performed for 

EPA under contract by SCI and Bonner 

and Moore Management Consultants. 

Inc., and a survey conducted by the 

National Petroleum i Association 

(NPRA) of member refineries. The 

results of these different studies show 

some disagreement over the total co. 

diesel fuel modifications due to: (1) 

Uncertainties involw modeling 

process, and (2) ur. the 

analytical techniques and assumptions 

made by tlie NPRA members in their 

survey responses. The major areas of 

modeling uncertainty include: (i) The 

amount of desulfur uipment 

currently in place in the refining 

industry, (2) the a\ 

perfor 

aromatics control, and of 

the refining ind 

•f.ution syslem to segregate "anllate 

fuels. The degi ch the cost of 

diesel fuel modifif ".pendent on 

these areas of un. is discussed 

in more detail below. 

Oft! hesegre* 

most important. According 

to the NPRA survey, if current fot 

; maintained, 

about 2.4 : Tela per day (I 

day) of distillate would have to meet the 

low sulfur requirement. Of these 2.4 

million bbl/day, however, only 1.2 

million bbl/day are used on highways. If 

refiners and distributors co 

completely segregate the on- snd offhighway portions of the distillate pool. 
Fosfeal Kegiste / Vol.. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

P.5^ 

the controlled volume (and regulatory 

cost) could be cut nearly in half. In the 

joint industry proposal for on-highway 

diesel fuel specifications, it was strongly 

requested that only on-highway fuel be 

regulated and that individual refiners be 

allowed to determine whether or not to 

market on-highway diesel fuel. The joint 

industry proposal also contained 

provisions for distinguishing between 

on-highway and off-highway diesel fuel 

[i.e., fuel dying). Although EPA is unable 

to accurately estimate the quantity of 

distillate that would be segregated, the 

language of the joint industry proposal 

indicates Uiat increased segregation of 

distillate fuels is likely. To bracket this 

likelihood, a range of costs will be 

presented: One assuming complete 

segregation of on-highway fuel and die 

other assuming current segregation 

practices. 

A. Sulfur Reduction 

Diesel fuel sulfur reduction is 

accomplished by the 

hydrodesulfurization process. Hydrogen 

is introduced at elevated temperature 

and pressure in distillate hydrotreaters, 

resulting in a reduction in fuel sulfur 

content. The technology is commercially 

proven and is currendy employed to a 

large degree by the refining industry. 

Thus, regulation of fuel sulfur would 

merely require the extended application 

of an existing technology. 

The near term cost of mandatory 

removal of sulfur from diesel fuel is 

affected significandy by two factors: 

The amount of excess desulfurization 

capacity diat cuitently exists in the 

refining industry, and the degree to 

which refiners can segregate the 

production of on-highway diesel fuel. 

The amount of excess desulfurization 

capacity available will certainly effect 

the amount of capital investment 

required for compliance with sulfur 

regulations. The degree to which the 

refining industry can segregate distillate 

fuel types will impact both capital 

investment and operating cost 

requirements. 

In 1986, NPRA surveyed member 

refineries to determine the cost of 

making changes in fuel quality. The 

results of the survey showed that while 

65 of the 139 refiners which responded 

had no distillate desulfurization 

capacity, a significant amount of 

desulfurization capacity did exist. It was 

estimated that full practical utilization 

of existing facilities could result in the 

production of 315,785 bbl/day of 0.05 

weight percent sulfur fuel in 1991. NPRA 

also concluded that increased 

segregation of distillate fuels would take 

place in some refineries, but only to a 

marginal degree. The NPRA survey 

estimated that controlling diesel fuel 

sulfur to 0.05 weight percent would 

require capital expenditures of $3.3 

billion and would cost approximately 

3.11 cents per gallon of diesel fuel 

controlled. 

This cost is higher than that estimated 

by the EPA contractor studies. SCI, in an 

analysis performed subsequent to the 

ERC/SCI report, estimated that costs for 

sulfur control could be as low as 1.41 

cents per gallon. This cost estimate was 

generated assuming that only 69 percent 

of current desulfurization capacity is 

utilized and that "on-highway" diesel 

fuel could be segregated. SCI estimated 

a cost of 2.28 cents per gallon of 

controlled fuel assuming no excess 

desulfurization capacity exists and no 

increased segregation of distillate 

products is feasible. 

Bonner and Moore Consultants Inc. 

recently completed another study for 

EPA on the cost of modifying diesel fuel 

quality. The results of that study showed 

that diesel fuel sulfur control would cost 

2.69 cents per gallon controlled 

assuming no excess desulfurization 

capacity is available and no increase in 

segregation would take place. The cost 

per gallon of controlled fuel was 

estimated to be about die same under an 

inci-eased segregation scenario (offhighway diesel quality was not allowed 

to deteriorate in the model). 

The NPRA survey's estimate of 

current excess desulfurization capacity 

and Bonner & Moore's sulfur reduction 

cost estimates (adjusted for after tax 

real rate of return on investment) were 

used to develop a final estimate of sulfur 

control costs. The Bonner and Moore 

costs incorporated and addressed 

comments which were received on the 

earlier SCI work, and thus were used 

preferentially here. These adjusted costs 

were calculated by EPA to be about 2.3 

cents per gallon of controlled fuel 

assuming no increased segregation of 

distillate products over the base case. 

This figure is close to that calculated by 

SCI, as indicated above. A cost of 1.8 

cents per gallon of controlled fuel was 

estimated for die complete (100 percent) 

segregation scenario. 

B. Aromatics Control 

There are a number of technical 

options for the removal of aromatics 

from diesel fuel. Hydrocracking, a 

technology in widespread use, can be 

used to mildly reduce aromatic levels in 

distillate fuels. A more severe process, 

hydrodearomatization, can also be used, 

although commercial experience is 

limited. Solvent extraction can also be 

used for aromatics removal and is also 

commercially available, but may not be 

practical in many refining situations. 

The Mobil "methanol-to-olefin-todistillate" process can also be used to 

produce a low aromatic distillate fuel. 

Whatever process is used, significant 

capital investment would be required. 

The 1986 NPRA survey results 

Indicated diat, not only would aromatics 

control be expensive, but that 53 of the 

139 refineries reporting would be 

financially unable to install the 

equipment necessary to produce low 

aromatics fuel. The control of sulfur and 

aromatics would require capital 

investment of an additional $3.34 billion 

beyond that necessary for sulfur control 

($6.65 billion total). This investment Plus 

operating expenses would raise diesel 

fuel prices by an additional 3.24 cents 

per gallon (6.35 cents per gallon for both 

sulfur and aromatics control). 

In an analysis performed after the 

initial ERC/SCI report, SCI estimated 

aromatic control costs, assuming solvent 

extraction would be the technology 

employed for aromatics removal. Costs 

for controlling aromatics to 20 percent 

after controlling sulfur to 0.05 weight 

percent were estimated in its report to 

be 0.48 cent per gallon assuming 100 

percent segregation. A control cost 

estimate of 1.26 cents per gallon was 

generated assuming no increase in fuel 

segregation [i.e., NPRA segregation 

assumption). 

The recently completed Bonner & 

Moore report estimated costs for 

controlling aromatics, with 

hydrodearomatization used as the 

principal technology for aromatics 

reduction. Incremental costs for 

aromatics control (the difference 

between sulfur and sulfur/aromatics 

control costs) were projected to be 2.5 

cents per gallon of controlled fuel 

assuming no increase in fuel 

segregation, and 2.6 cents per gallon of 

controlled fuel in the increased 

segregation case. 

Using information contained in all 

three of these studies, EPA estimates 

that, with NPRA segregation, aromatics 

control would cost on additional 2.1 

cents per gallon of treated fuel with 0.05 

weight percent sulfur control already in 

place. With 100 percent distillate fuel 

segregation, aromatics control would 

cost an additional 2.4 cents per gallon of 

treated fuel. 

V. Benefits of Fuel Conta.1 

Reductions in diesel fuel sulfur and 

diesel fuel aromatics would result in a 

number of benefits (both financial and 

environmental) which can be weighed 

against the refining cost of modification. 

As will be described in Section A, 

improvements in fuel quality would 

allow engine manufacturers to comply 
P.6 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 35279 

more easily with future heavy-duty 

diesel particulate standards and would 

reduce the cost and complexity of 

engine hardware necessary for 

particulate control. In Section B, the 

relationship between fuel sulfur and 

engine wear will be described and 

possible economic benefits will be 

quantified. The projected nationwide 

emission and air quality benefits will be 

presented in Section C. In Sections D 

and E. the projected health effects and 

visibility effects of emission reductions 

resulting from fuel control will be 

presented. 

A. Exhaust Aftertreatment Technology 

Benefits 

The 0.1 g/BHP-hr particulate 

emissions standard promulgated for 

heavy-duty diesel vehicles for tlie 1994 

model year (50 FR 10606, March 15,1985) 

will likely necessitate the use of some 

type of exhaust aftertreatment device. 

The design and the cost of the device 

will be affected by the quality of the fuel 

used. The purpose of this section is to 

identify the impact that the proposed 

fuel control will have on exhaust 

aftertreatment technology requirements. 

The benefits of sulfur control in this 

area are two-fold. First of aU, fuel sulfur 

contributes to particulate emissions 

directly via formation of sulfate in the 

engine exhaust. On average, about 2 

percent of the sulfur in the fuel is 

emitted as sulfate particulate, or about 

0.06-O08 g/BHP-hr (including the weight 

of bound water). Tlie proposed fuel 

sulfur regulations would reduce this 

amount by roughly 80 percent, greatly 

enhancing engine manufacturers' 

abilities to comply with the particulate 

standards. 

Secondly, the use of some 

aftertreatment devices, particularly flow 

through catalysts or catalyzed traps is 

effectively prohibited by the current 

levels of sulfur in fuel. While a catalyst 

would significantly reduce organic 

particulate emissions, a highly active 

catalyst would also greatly increase the 

amount of sulfate particulate produced 

in the exhaust, thus negating the 

beneficial effects of the catalyst. When 

fuel sulfur is reduced, however, this 

effect becomes less pronounced, as the 

concentration of sulfur species in the 

exhaust is reduced proportionally. A 

less active catalyst formulation may be 

able to avoid this problem, albeit with a 

loss of efficiency in controlhng orgamc 

particulates. 

A smaller emissions benefit can also 

be achieved by aromatics control. 

Engine test results show that reductions 

in fuel aromatics levels result in lower 

emissions of carbonaceous (RCP) and 

soluble organic fraction (SOF) 

particulates. Hence, a reduction in fuel 

aromatics would reduce particulate 

formation, and subsequently reduce the 

need for exhaust treatment devices. 

A projection of exhaust aftertreatment 

technology requirements was made for 

heavy-duty diesel vehicles for the 1994 

and later model years under various fuel 

control scenarios. The Hkely 

aftertreatment technology mixes were 

determined by evaluating tbe costeffectiveness of each technology type 

with respect to particulate control, for 

each heavy-doty vehicle class. 

The first step in this process was to 

establish a distribution of baseline 

particulate emission levels and 

compositions, based on available test 

data, for each vehicle class. Next, 

various aftertreatment technologies 

were applied incrementally to engines in 

each heavy-duty class according to the 

cost-effectiveness of control, until 

aftertreatment application was sufficient 

to insure compliance with the 

particulate standards (assuming 

averaging within each heavy-duty 

subclass). 

For 1994 and later model year heavyduty diesels, due to the large 

contribution of sulfates to engine-out 

particulate, comp be 0.1 g/ 

Bl iP-hr particulate standard will likely 

require fleetwide trap-oxidizer 

application if no fuel controls are 

implemented. The only exception is the 

heavy-heavy-duty engine class, where, 

with averaging, it is projected that 

y under 90 percent of vehicles will 

require traps. 

With sulfur control, the 1994 picture is 

projected to be somewhat different. The 

enhanced feasibility of high-activity 

flow-through oxidation catalysts with 

sulfur control would allow ; 

displacement of some traps by oxidation 

catalysts. On average, tt is projected 

that approximately 35 percent of engines 

would require traps in all vehicle 

classes while an additional 29 to 55 

percent, depending on engine subclass, 

would require flow-through oxidation 

catalysts. 

Further reduction of aromatics to 2< 

volume percent would displace traps 

from an additional 5 percent of all 

engines and also decrease oxidation 

catalyst requirements. The only 

exception would be the medium heavyduty diesel engine subclass, where trap 

displacement would be about 9 percent, 

but oxidation catalyst usage would 

increase about 8 percent. 

The fuel economy, hardware, and 

maintenance costs savings associated 

with sulfur control for 1994 would be 

$324 for light-heavy duty diesels 

(LHDDEs), $651 for medium-heavy duty 

diesels (MHDDEs). $752 for heavy-heavy 

duty diesels (HHDDEs), and $700 for 

urban buses. The subsequent reduction 

in fuel aromatics to 20 percent would 

result in further savings of $31 for 

LHDDEs, $87 for MHDDEs, $78 for 

HHDDEs. and $94 for urban buses. 

An analysis to determine the savings 

in aftertreatment costs for 1991-93 

model year engines was also performed 

and is described in the Draft RIA. This 

analysis was initiated some time ago 

and assumed that traps would be used 

on a substantial number of 1991-93 

engines. Presently, h t appears 

that manufacturers will not use traps to 

comply with Ihe 1991 model year truck 

standard, but instead rely on enginerelated controls. The adoption of a 0.10 

percent sulfur level for certification fuel 

is expected to reduc i tion 

emissions by about 0.03-0.04 g/BHP-hr 

from what they would have been, using 

a 0.25 percent sulfur fuel and thus ease 

the manufacturers' attempts to achieve 

the 1991 standards. Nevertheless, since 

manufacturers' plana for 1991 engines 

are already largely fixed, EPA does not 

expect fuel control to a:: 

manufacturers' plans for engine-related 

controls in this timeframe. 

n-use emissions would 

remain unaffected. Some truck 

manufacturers not able to comply with 

the standard without fuel control might 

choose to pay nonconformance 

penalties (NCPs). However, since NCPs 

are not a net cost to society, but rather a 

"transfer payment" from one sector of 

society to another, no afiertrcatmentrelated societal savings can be claimed 

for fuel control on these engines. 

Traps are still expected to be the 

primary technology used by bus engine 

manufacturers lo comply with the 0.10 

g/BHP-hr 1991 bus s f an 

alternative fuel, sue; may 

flU;o be employed. Some reduced usage 

of traps is likely if certification fuel 

sulfur were reduced. However, due to 

the fact that a relatively small number of 

bus engines would be certified over the 

3-year period, this s .e to fuel 

control was n. ed. 

B. Wear Benefits 

An extensive body of data exists in 

the literature documenting the 

ip between diesel fuel si 

and conosive engine wear. Because of 

this effect, engine oils typically co; 

alkaline additives which work to 

neutralize the acidic sulfur species 

present in the combustion chamber. As 

was postulated in the ERC/SCI study, 

current oil formulations m.!y not be 

sufficient to completely control 

corrosive wear. and. consequently, a 

reduction in fuel sulfur levels may 
P.7 

isteg / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

significandy reduce engine wear rates. 

Based on data available at the time, the 

ERC/SCI report predicted that the 

reduction in wear as a result of fuel 

sulfur controls would increase engine 

life by approximately 30 percent. 

After die ERC/SCI report was 

released, Southwest Research Institute 

(SwRI) was commissioned by EPA to 

study the issue further. As stated in its 

report, SwRI found that engines which 

had operated on both high and low 

sulfur fuels in Southern California 

exhibited a reduction in wear particles 

found in used oil samples when 

operated on low sulfur fuel. While the 

effect of low sulfur fuel differed among 

engines and fleets, the vast majority of 

the data showed diat a fuel sulfur 

reduction from roughly 0.3 to 0.05 weight 

percent resulted in a 30 to 40 percent 

reduction in wear particles [i.e., oil iron 

content). 

Based on these data, EPA calculates 

that a reduction in sulfur level to 0.05 

weight percent from the national 

average baseline sulfur level of 0.25 

weight percent would result in a wear 

rate reduction of about 18 percent. 

Estimating die financial savings to 

consumers of such a decrease in engine 

wear rates, however, is a more difficult 

task. Engines are currendy rebuilt for a 

number of reasons, including excessive 

oil consumption, loss of power, and 

major engine failures. While those 

engines which fail due to cylinder wear-' 

related factors would realize a benefit, 

many engines may not. For instance, if 

an engine experiences a major failure, 

items such as piston rings and cylinder 

liners will normally be replaced during 

rebuild. This would effectively eliminate 

any benefit of reduced corrosive wear 

which would have been realized had 

another engine component not failed. 

Further, the relative contributions of 

corrosive and abrasive wear to engine 

life is not well understood. Whde both 

types of wear contribute to deterioration 

in engine performance and life, it is 

possible that abrasive wear contributes 

more to loss of oil control than does 

corrosive wear. With these factors in 

mind, an attempt to quantify die 

economic benefits of reduced engine 

wear was made. 

Three different approaches were 

taken to this problem. The first was 

based on the assumption that lower fuel 

sulfur levels would allow engine 

manufacturers to extend recommended 

oil change intervals, with no resulting 

change in engine life. The second 

approach assumed diat reduced 

corrosive wear would result in an 

extension in the life of the engine. The 

third approach was to assume that a 

reduction in wear would extend the life 

of both the engine and vehicle chassis. 

These methods provided three 

independent estimates of the potential 

cost savings. 

Using the first approach, information 

on lifetime mileage, od change interval, 

and vehicle life was used to estimate the 

annual number of oil changes for each 

diesel vehicle class. It was then 

assumed that oil change intervals could 

be extended by 18 percent, resulting in 

oil cost savings for owners. The results 

of this analysis showed present value 

savings of 1.60/gal for light-duty diesel 

vehicles (LDDVs), 1.20/gal for light-duty 

diesel trucks (LDDTs), 0.80/gal for 

LHDDEs, 1.30/gal for MHDDEs, 0.90/gal 

for HHDDEs, and 1.8$/gal for urban 

buses. The benefit was assumed to 

apply, beginning in 1994, only to 1988 

MY and later LDDVs and LDDTs, and to 

1991 MY and later HDDVs. Vehicles 

produced in previous model years 

exhibit much higher particulate 

emissions, which may contaminate die 

oil and eliminate die ability to extend oil 

change intervals. 

The second approach was to assume 

that there would be no change in oil 

change interval, but that reduced wear 

rates would lead to,a longer engine life. 

The reduction in engine wear was 

expected to result in longer rebuild 

intervals only in engines which are 

rebuilt for reasons related to high oil 

consumption. Based on data obtained 

from an EMA survey of rebuild 

practices, it was estimated that 42 

percent of trucks would realize the 18 

percent increase in engine life as a 

result of sulfur control. This 18 percent 

increase in engine life translates into an 

economic benefit for the owner by 

delaying rebuild maintenance costs. 

Estimated cost savings under this 

scenario (averaged over the entire fleet) 

were 2.510/gal of diesel fuel consumed 

for MHDDEs, 2.52$/gal for HHDDEs and 

1.980/gal for urban buses. LDDVs, 

LDDTs and LHDDEs received no benefit 

since diese engines are not normally 

rebuilt and tiiere was no credit taken for 

extended vehicle life under this 

scenario. 

The third approach was to estimate 

the cost savings assuming that reduced 

engine wear would result in both an 

extension in rebuild intervals and in 

total vehicle life. Under this approach, 

the economic benefits include both 

delaying maintenance costs and 

delaying subsequent vehicle purchases. 

Once again using information on rebuild 

practices, rebuild costs, and vehicle 

costs, an estimate of the cost savings on 

a per gallon fuel consumed basis was 

generated. Total costs savings estimates 

were 300/gal for LDDVs, 260/gal for 

LDDTs, 230/gal for LHDDEs, 11.70/gal 

for MHDDEs, 8.40/gal for HHDDEs. and 

11:5$/gat for urban buses. These 

estimates represent the highest cost 

savings which could potentially result 

from sulfur control. 

In summary, EPA estimates the 

potential for reduced engine wear from 

low-sulfur fuel under tiiree alternative 

truck manufacturer/owner response 

scenarios: (1) Extended oil change 

intervals with no increase in engine life, 

(2) no change in oil change intervals but 

an increase in engine life, and (3) no 

change in oil change intervals widi 

increases in both engine and total 

vehicle Ufe. EPA has no data to 

determine which scenario is most likely 

to occur. The annual benefits of 

decreased engine wear in year 2010 are 

estimated at between $400 million and 

$3.7 billion; fuel costs, however, are 

estimated to increase between $540 

million and $1.3 billion. 

Based on these estimates, the annual 

net benefit accruing directly to truck 

owners from reduced engine wear alone 

could be over $2 billion. Under this 

scenario, truck owners would be willing 

to pay over $2 billion more per year for 

low-sulfur diesel fuel than it would cost 

refiners to produce it. To the extent that 

these estimates accurately reflect the 

effects of the proposed regulation, there 

must be a reason why such large 

potential net gains have not 

materialized based on market forces 

alone. EPA seeks <_omment on this issue. 

One possible explanation is that there 

are significant costs to truck owners of 

determining the actual effects of 

reduced sulfur fuels on engine wear. 

Since the effects take place inside 

engines over fairly long periods of time, 

it may not be easy to observe, isolate, 

and measure the effects of reduced 

sulfur fuels. If these information costs 

are sufficiently large, they could 

outweigh the potential net benefits of a 

move to low-sulfur fuel resulting from 

market forces alone. Under these 

circumstances, the information costs 

would effectively prevent the 

introduction of low-sulfur fuel. 

While these cost savings estimates 

indicate that substantial societal 

benefits may result from sulfur control, 

it is fair to include the caveat that the 

data base behind this analysis is 

limited. It has even been argued that 

sulfur control would have no impact on 

engine wear. However, as will be seen 

in. Section VI of today's notice, fuel 

sulfur control is desirable even without 

the inclusion of reduced engine wear 

benefits. 
P.8 

Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules S528H 

C. Emissions and Air Quality 

The diesel fuel quality changes being 

considered would result in substantial 

reductions in S02 emissions and 

particulate matter formation beyond the 

reductions resulting from the 1994 0.1 

g/BHP-hr particulate standard. In 

addition, emissions of CO and HC will 

be indirectiy affected by fuel quality 

modification, due to die changes in 

aftertreatment technology strategies 

used by engine manufacturers to comply 

with the 1994 particulate standards. The 

projected nationwide emission 

reductions under the two extreme 

distillate fuel segregation scenarios (100 

percent and NPRA segregation) resulting 

from fuel sulfur and aromatics control 

are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Because 

the effect of diesel fuel control on 

vehicle emissions changes with model 

year, the overall emissions and air 

quality impacts of fuel control varies 

over time. Because of this, both the near 

and long term effects of fuel control 

were evaluated. 

As shown in Table 1, fuel sulfur 

control would result in additional 

reductions in direct particulate matter 

(PM) from baseline levels [i.e., 

particulate matter emitted from the 

exhaust) over that accomplished by the 

HDD particulate standards alone. This 

is because fuel sulfur control will result 

in particulate reductions from pre-1991 

HDD and light-duty diesel engines, as 

well as, depending on the degree of 

segregation, off-highway sources. In 

addition, a large reduction in diesel S02 

emissions would result, representing an 

80 percent reduction from baseline 

levels for those emission sources where 

diesel fuel is controlled. This would 

represent a reduction of 1.0-2.5 percent 

in total national SO_ emissions. Beyond 

that, as described in more detail in the 

Draft RIA, it was estimated that 

approximately 12 percent of urban S02 

emissions are converted to sulfate 

particulates in the urban atmosphere. 

These atmospherically-formed 

particulate are referred to as indirect 

PM. Thus, the reduction in SQ_ 

emissions would result in substantial 

indirect PM reductions in both the short 

and long term as well. 

TABLE 1.—PROJECTED NATIONWIDE EMISSION REDUCTIONS DUE TO DIESEL FUEL 

SULFUR CONTROL 

[1000 tons/yr] 

TABLE 1.—PROJECTED NATIONWIDE EMISSION REDUCTIONS DUE TO DIESEL FUEL 

SULFUR CONTROL—Continued 

[1000 tons/yr] 

Pollutant 

HC 

CO 

1995 

14 

141 

2015 

88 

916 

"Lower end of range result of 100% distillate 

segregation, upper ena result of current segregation 

practices. 

The emission impacts of controlling 

fuel aromatics to 20 volume percent 

were also evaluated and are shown in 

Table 2. Total particulate emission 

reductions range from 10,000 tons per 

year in 1995 to 600 tons per year in 2015. 

Small HC and CO emission reductions 

would also result from aromatics 

control. These particulate reductions are 

a factor of 10 to 20 smaller in the short 

term than those resulting from sulfur 

control. Due primarily to the steady 

state nature of off-highway diesel 

operation, emissions from off-highway 

sources should not be strongly affected 

by fuel aromatics levels. Thus, estimated 

emission reductions are constant over 

the range of distillate segregation 

scenarios. 

TABLE 2.—PROJECTED NATIONWIDE EMISSION REDUCTIONS DUE TO SUBSEQUENT 

DIESEL FUEL AROMATICS CONTROL 

Direct PM.. 

SOa 

HC 

CO 

[1000 tons/yr] 

Pollutant 1995 

10 

0 

38 

69 

2015 

0.6 

0 

15 

98 

Pollutant 

SO. 

1995 

"99-196 

10-29 

89-167 

310-580 

2015 

159-321 

3-35 

156-286 

542-993 

Should the degree of segregation of 

distillate fuels increase significantly, if 

is possible that refiners may change 

blending practice to direct low sulfur 

and aromatic blend stocks to the onhighway pool. Directionally, this 

practice would have the undesirable 

side effect of increasing the sulfur and 

aromatic content of non-highway 

distillate fuels, thus decreasing 

environmental benefits. Although this 

practice might take place to some 

extent, EPA expects the primary 

approach fo meeting this standard 

would be to desulfurize on-highway 

diesel fuel blend stocks. Roughly 70 

percent of home heating oil is marketed 

in northeastern states, where limits on 

the sulfur content of home heating oils 

would effectively prohibit the shifting to 

high sulfur blendstocks to the offhighway pool. Thus, most of the home 

heating oil market is not even 

potentially available for such a change. 

The costs for fuel control presented in 

this preamble were generated under the 

assumption that the sulfur and 

aromatics content of die off-highway 

pool would not increase. To the extent 

the sulfur content of off-highway 

distillate does increase in reality, actual 

refining costs and emission reductions 

will be commensurately lower. 

The air quality impacts of today's 

proposed rulemaking were also 

evaluated using a lead-surrogate model 

developed for previous analyses 

supporting diesel particulate emission 

standards (explained in the Draft RIA). 

Concentrations of various pollutants in 

urban areas of various sizes were 

projected. Model results indicate that by 

the year 2015, in large metropolitan 

areas (greater than 1,000,000 residents), 

annual arithmetic mean particulate 

concentrations would decrease by an • 

additional 2.3-6.3 mg/ms as a result of 

sulfur control. Reductions in annual 

arithmetic mean concentrations of SOa 

ranging from 7.0-16.7 mg/m3 are also 

projected. (These compare to current 

PMio and SQ_ concentrations in urban 

areas ranging from 18-90 mg/m3 and 3-

67 mg/m3, respectively.) 

Results of similar modeling for 

subsequent diesel fuel aromatics control 

indicate that for large metropolitan 

areas (greater than 1,000,000 residents) 

in the year 2015, aromatics control 

would result in particulate reductions of 

only 0.01 mg/m3. A more detailed 

analysis of die air quality impacts of 

today's proposal is presented in the 

Draft RIA. 

D. Health Effects 

As presented above, the fuel controls 

proposed today will result in reductions 

in emissions of diesel particulate, SO_ 

and HC, and at the same time decrease 

the levels of ambient particles that are 

atmospheric products of SOa emissions. 

Because of the adverse health effects of 

PM, and SO., EPA has developed 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Insofar as an area is out of 

compliance with these standards, a 

reduction of these regulated pollutants 

would reduce healtii risk. The 

quantitative degree of benefit cannot be 

calculated precisely since it depends on 

current levels in a locality and the 

precise decrease in levels. Nevertheless, 

the health effects that can be caused by 

these compounds is very briefly 

discussed below to illustrate the utility 

of reducing any existing unacceptable 

risk. 

Short- and long-term exposure to SQ_ 

in association with particles causes 

excess mortality and morbidity. People 
P.9 

35282 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

___B__a___B_a______________n_______________________________M_HKH 

with cardiorespiratory diseases are at 

higher risk for .mortality following longterm exposure. The increase in 

morbidity from long-term exposure is 

reflected as an increase in the 

prevalence of respiratory symptoms in 

children and adults and die frequency of 

respiratory illness in children. Acute . 

exposure to low levels of SO2 alone 

causes pulmonary function changes in 

asthmatics. 

Upon atmospheric transformation, 

SOa can form a class of particles called 

acidic sulfates, which include 

ammonium sulfate (the least acidic), 

ammonium bisulfate, and sulfuric acid 

(the most acidic). Acute exposure of 

asthmatics to sulfuric acid can cause 

pulmonary function changes, and it 

appears that adolescent asthmatics may 

be more responsive. Acute exposure of 

animals andliumans changes the ability 

of the lung to clear particles. Animals 

exposed for long terms to sulfuric acid 

exhibit alterations in lung function, 

structure, and clearance; a few of these 

changes may be permanent. Given the 

nature of these changes, some scientists 

have hypothesized (but not proved) that 

chronic sulfuric acid exposure may lead 

to chronic bronchitis. Preliminary 

estimates from an epidemiological study 

also raise concern about possible 

chronic effects. Another significant issue 

relates to the effects of exposure to 

sulfuric acid plus pther chemicals. A 5-

year exposure of animals to a 

combination of SOa plus sulfuric acid 

caused pulmonary function decrements 

and structural damage to the lungs. In 

some animal studies, acute exposure to 

sulfuric acid mixed widi particles has 

been found to be synergistic for some 

types of pulmonary effects. 

The non-xancer effects of exposure to 

low levels of diesel particles such as 

might occur in the ambient air are not 

well understood. High levels have been 

observed to cause effects in 

occupational situations and in animal 

studies, but for non-cancer effects, itis 

not currendy possible to quantitatively 

extrapolate to lower levels. 

The non-cancer health effects of 

exposure to light aromatic and shortchain aliphatic hydrocarbons are not 

well understood. Persons chronically 

exposed to some hydrocarbon mixtures 

have complained of dizziness, 

drowsiness, headacheB, confusion, and 

general lethargic feeling. Animal studies 

of some hydrocarbons show neurotoxic 

and odier effects. When such effects are 

observed, scientists often become 

concerned about whether children's 

developing nervous systems may be 

effected. 

Although this discussion focuses on a 

few chemicals present in emissions that 

also serve.as precursors to other 

potentially toxic atmospheric chemicals, 

there are likely to lie more complex 

alterations that will have an unknown 

impact on health risk. For example, 

changes in the chemistry of a diesel 

particle has the potential to alter its 

health risk, i.e., potency of a particle, 

which needs to be evaluated separately 

from a simple reduction in the mass of 

particles emitted. While it is clear that 

the emissions of some toxic chemicals 

will be decreased, the net health impact 

of all the changes involved can only be 

assessed with an appropriate research 

program. 

Another area of concern related to 

diesel particulate control is.that of 

cancer impacts. It might be argued that, 

since today's proposal will reduce 

sulfate emissions, there would be a 

corresponding increase in organic 

particulate emissions as manufacturers 

adjusted their control strategies to keep 

the same total emission rate. In fact, this 

assumption is the basis of the analysis 

of the cancer impacts contained in the 

draft RIA. However, based upon a .more 

current assessment of expected 

manufacturer control strategies, the 

Agency no longer expects this to be the 

case. The position of engine 

manufacturers is that the 1994 standard 

is not feasible without sulfur control, in 

part because the sulfur itself contributes 

to ihe particulate level requiring control. 

The Agency, therefore, expects that the 

emission reductions associated with 

lower sulfur fuels will be used by 

manufacturers not to increase nonsulfate emissions, but to permit 

certification of their engines at levels 

sufficiently below the standard to 

ensure in-use compliance. 

There is a isecond impact of lower 

sulfur fuels as it relates to available 

technology for controlling engine-wit 

emissions. The switch to low sulfur fuel 

will allow the use of catalyzed devices, 

both catalyzed traps and flow through 

reduction catalysts, which could not be 

used without sulfur control. This change 

will tend to reduce the organic fraction 

of particulate emissions, because 

catalyzed devices operate preferentially 

on the organics. Thus, rather than 

increasing cancer incidences, sulfur 

control may actually reduce them a 

small amount. However, at this time 

there is inadequate information to make 

a quantitative estimate of the impact 

and update die analysis in the draft RIA. 

The Agency desires to make it clear that 

EPA no longer believes that the cancer 

impacts of sulfur control developed in 

the draft RIA are correct and 

specifically requests comment on this 

matter and how the question of cancer 

impacts should be analyzed. In addition, 

comments are requested regarding 

whether regulatory measures should be 

taken to encourage catalyzed devices 

for maximum control of die organic 

emissions. 

The proposed cap on die aromatics 

levels of diesel fuel is not expected to 

have a significant impact on cancer 

incidence since it serves only to prevent 

the levels from increasing in the future. 

However, to the extent that average 

aromatics levels drop as the result of 

this cap, there could be a very small 

reduction in cancer due to DO th a 

decrease in total particulate emissions, 

and a decrease in the average 

carcinogenic potency of tiie particulates. 

More stringent control of aromatics 

would result in a somewhat larger 

reduction in cancer incidence. The 

cancer-related benefit of such stringent 

aromatics control is discussed further in 

Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, and interested readers are 

referred to that chapter for more 

information. Unlike the analysis of the 

cancer impacts of sulfur, EPA believes 

the analysis for aromatics control is still 

fundamentally sound. 

_?. Visibility 

Because particulate matter bodi 

scatters and absorbs light, a change in 

urban visibility is also projected to 

resultirom the diesel fuel modifications 

proposed in today's notice. The 

projected changes in urban ambient 

particulate concentrations described 

above were used in conjunction with a 

visibility model developed to support 

previous rulemakings implementing 

diesel particulate emission standards to 

project visibility impacts. 

Baseline visibilities were determined 

for the year 1990 for Tour ranges of city 

size as well as for rural areas. The 

percent change in average visibility by 

the year 2015 for each population 

category was then determined assuming 

no change in non-distillate related 

particulate. It is projected that, with 

sulfur control, visibility in the year 2015 

will improve by amounts ranging from 

0.6 to 4.3 percent in urban areas, and 

will improve by 1.0 percent in rural 

areas, relative to baseline 2015 levels. 

An additional reduction of fuel 

aromatics to 20 volume percent would 

have little visibility impact. 

VI. Cost-Effectiveness 

The cost effectiveness of pollution 

control is defined as the net societal . 

cost per ton of pollutant removed and is 

used to rank pollution control programs. 

The projections of pollutant reductions 

and the cost and credit elements 

described above were used in estimating 
P.10 

Federal Register j Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

the cost-effectiveness of diesel fuel 

control according tp a calendar year 

approach discounted over a 33-year 

period. The proposed reduction of diesel 

fuel sulfur would have impacts on the 

emissions of a number of different 

pollutants, including particulates (PM), 

HC, CO, and SOa. However, since PM 

control is the major focus of this 

proposal, in the cost-effectiveness 

analysis the net cost per ton of PM 

controlled was determined and used in 

evaluating the various fuel control 

options. The net societal cost consists of 

the refinery cost of the fuel control and 

any fuel composition-related fuel 

economy penalty, less any societal cost 

savings "credits" resulting from fuel 

control. These societal cost savings 

include utilization of less expensive new 

engine technology, decreased fuel 

consumption as a result of reduced trap 

usage, and savings associated with 

reduced engine wear. 

Since the fuel controls proposed in 

today's notice would affect different 

model years' vehicles at the same time, 

and to varying degrees, a calendar year 

approach to cost-effectiveness was used 

[i.e., net costs and emission reductions 

were estimated for each calendar year). 

Since the effectiveness of the control 

changes dramatically over time (due to 

fleet and technology turnover) the costeffectiveness was estimated over a 33-

year period using a discount rate of 10 

percent. The cost-effectiveness, 

including and excluding various wear 

credits and gaseous pollutant credits, is 

shown in Table 3. 

TABLE 3.—33-YEAR URBAN COSTEFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 

Sulfur Control 

Maximum wear 

credit included. 

Minimum wear credit 

included. 

No wear credit 

included. 

Aromatics Control 

Primary Analysis 

High Emission 

Reduction 

Sensitivity 

Analysis. 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ 

ton) 

-68,148 to -19,253. 

-3,906 to 4,304. 

2,826 to 6,773. 

310,751 to 560,378. 

135,789 to 244,868. 

As can be seen in Table 3, even if 

savings from reduced wear are not 

counted, the cost-effectiveness, of fuel 

sulfur control is at most $6,773 per ton, 

and is significantly less when engine 

wear credits are included. Table 3 

shows that aromatics control is much 

less cost-effective than sulfur control (or 

the particulate standards themselves). 

The 33-year cost-effectiveness for 

aromatics control to 20 percent was 

calculated to be $310,000-560,000 per 

ton. 

Intermediate sulfur control levels 

would be less costly to refiners. A small 

amount of sulfur removal can be 

obtained very inexpensively, since the 

necessary equipment already exists and 

need only be operated. However, any 

substantial degree of sulfur control will 

entail the building of new 

desulfurization capacity with roughly a 

constant cost per ton of sulfur removal. 

Since the resulting diesel emission 

reductions are proportional to the fuel 

sulfur level, the cost per ton of sulfurous 

emission controlled is relatively 

constant down to 0.05 weight percent. 

The use of catalytic exhaust treatment 

devices requires fuels with very low 

sulfur levels, certainly below 0.10 weight 

percent and probably quite near the 0.05 

weight percent level. ITius, for any 

sulfur level above 0.05 weight percent, 

much of the technology credit is lost and 

the cost-effectiveness would be worse 

than that for 0.05 weight percent. This, 

coupled widi die, oil and engine 

industries' own proposal of the 0.05 

weight percent level, indicates that no 

lesser amount of control appears 

appropriate. 

Likewise, a sulfur standard below 0.05 

weight percent would not appear 

appropriate at this time. While such 

control is likely feasible for some 

combinations of refineries, crude oil 

slates, and product slates, EPA lacks 

evidence that such a standard would be 

feasible for all or even most refineries. 

Also, 0.05 weight percent appears to be 

sufficient to permit compliance with the 

1994 diesel particulate standard. 

With respect to aromatics control, 

EPA would expect some improvement in 

the cost-effectiveness of aromatics 

control as the standard were increased 

from 20 volume percent. However, like 

sulfur control, for any substantive 

degree of control, we expect such 

improvement to be much less than a 

factor of two, leaving the 33-year costeffectiveness well above $150,000 per 

urban ton of PM control. Further, EPA's 

assessment is that fuel aromatics control 

is not necessary for compliance with 

emission standards, and, in fact, that 

any emissions effect, or overall 

environment benefit, would be small or 

negligible. Therefore, EPA believes it 

would be inappropriate to propose more 

stringent controls at this time. 

At the same time, capping aromatics 

at current'levels would likely entail only 

operational adjustments within the 

refinery and no need for new equipment. 

Coupled with control of only on-. 

highway diesel fuel, we expect such a 

cap to entail little cost. EPA believes it 

is appropriate to propose such a cap 

today and has chosen a minimum cetane 

specification (recommended in the joint 

industry proposal) as a means of so 

doing. However, it is uncertain whether 

setting a cetane index specification is 

the most effective method of capping 

aromatics. As described more 

thoroughly in Section X of this 

preamble, EPA is requesting comments 

on the adequacy of tiiis proposed 

specification as a means of capping 

aromatics. 

VII. Leadtime 

The effective date of the diesel fuel 

regulations proposed in today's 

rulemaking is based on two factors. 

One, refiners need time to design, 

purchase, and install the required 

processing equipment. Two, the benefits 

of sulfur control in expanding the 

technological options for compliance 

with the 1994 heavy-duty diesel 

particulate regulations make it highly 

desirable that today's proposed 

regulations take effect prior to the 

introduction of the 1994 model year. EPA 

contracted with SCI to study the 

leadtime necessary for complying with 

the proposed regulations, taking into 

account the potential burden to die 

refining industry of the RVP regulations 

proposed in 1987 (52 FR 31274). 

Considering the amount of capital 

equipment necessary, SCI concluded 

that, if on-highway and off-highway 

diesel fuel could be segregated, 

compliance could be achievable by late 

1993, given promulgation of a final rule 

by mid-1930. If segregation of diesel 

fuels proved infeasible, SCI concluded 

that compliance might require a longer 

leadtime. 

In the joint industry proposal 

submitted to EPA, the oil refiners 

proposed that diesel fuel containing no 

greater than 0.05 percent sulfur by 

weight could be supplied by October 1, 

1993. The proposal indicated that 

segregation of on-highway and offhighway diesel would likely occur to 

some extent. Thus, both those 

organizations responsible for the joint 

industry proposal and SCI agree that 

compliance could take place by late 

1993. Therefore, an effective date for 

today's proposed regulations of October 

1,1993 appears appropriate. 

VIII. Enforcement Options and Selection 

A. Introduction 

The environmental goal of motor fuel 

regulation is to improve or protect air 

quality by controlling the type of fuel 

used in motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
P.11 

E<eg_§.<3_f / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989./ Proposed Rules 

engines. Environmental benefits can be 

lost through misfueling, when a 

noncomplying or inappropriate fuel is 

uoed in a motor vehicle. Regulations 

could forbid misfueling itself CT seek to 

prevent misfueling by controlling fuel 

distribution. To reach the environmental 

goal with the most efficient use of 

enforcement resources, motor fuel 

regulations are best targeted at the fuel 

distribution network. 

As in all regulations controlling the 

marketing of motor fuels, the fact that 

motor fuel passes through the control of 

many parties, from refiner to retailer, 

before reaching the consumer, raises 

questions of responsibility and control 

when violations are identified. This 

aspect of the distribution system raises 

two principal issues pertaining to 

enforcement: (1) At what point in the 

distribution network should diesel fuel 

be required to meet standards, and (2) 

which parties should be held legally 

responsible for violations of these 

standards at the various points in the 

distribution network. Each of these 

issues will be discussed in turn. 

B. Point of Application 

An important consideration affecting 

enforcement is the issue of where in the 

distribution network standards will be 

applied. The options considered by die 

Agency in deciding where the diesel fuel 

standards should apply include: 

1. At-all sites in the distribution, 

network; 

2. Only sites Tinder the control of 

"downstream" parties, including TetaU 

outlets and wholesale purchaserconsumers; 

3. Only sites imder the control of 

"upstream" parties, including refiners 

and importers; 

4. Sites controlled by both 

"downstream" and "midstream" parties, 

including retail outlets, wholesale 

purchaeer-consumers, blending 

facilities, bulk terminals, and bulk 

plants; and 

5. Sites controlled by both "upstream" 

and "midstream" parties, including 

refineries, import and blending facilities,, 

bulk terminals, and bulk plants. 

In choosing among these options, 

some of the factors which were 

considered by the Agency were: (1) 

Which plan offers the best chance of 

preventing a noncomplying fuel from 

reaching consumers, (2) the amount of 

resources needed for successful 

enforcement of the regulations, taking 

into consideration the number of 

facilities that will have to be monitored 

and the difficulty of identifying the party 

who initially introduced die 

noncomplying fuel into the distribution 

network, and {3) "W inch plan would most 

effectively encourage quality control 

measures and discourage fuel switching 

(the use of less expensive noncomplying 

diesel fuel). 

Highway diesel engines can operate 

equally well on either off-highway or onhighway diesel fuel. Only on-highway 

diesel fuel, however, will bear the cost 

of additional processing required for 

compliance with today's proposed 

standards. Thus, it is likely that there 

will be a possibility of, and an economic 

incentive for, fuel switching at each 

point in the distribution network. 

Therefore, in order to ensure that 

unregulated diesel fuel is not used in 

highway vehicles, the Agency today 

proposes a diesel fuel standard that is 

applicable throughout the entire 

distribution network. This approach is 

consisted with that used in .the lead in 

gasoline and recently promulgated 

volatility regulations. 

C. Legal Responsibility for Violations 

In general, there are three options for 

the assignment of legal responsibility for 

diesel fuel standards violations. The 

first option is to place legal 

responsibility only on the party who 

originally introduced the noncomplying 

diesel fuel into commerce. This would 

be the party who manufactured, 

blended, or initially mislabeled 1he 

noncomplying diesel fuel. Under this 

option, when a violation is found, the 

responsible party must be identified by 

tracing the noncomplying diesel fuel 

back through the distribution chain to its 

source. 

A second option is fo hold liable the 

regulated party offering for sale, 

supplying or transporting a 

noncomplying diesel fuel. Under this 

enforcement approach, the source of the 

noncomplying diesel fuel need not be 

identified. Every regulated party selling, 

supplying or transporting diesel fuel or 

offering to sell or supply, would 

effectively be responsible for monitoring 

the diesel fuel to verify that the fuel 

complies with standards. 

The third option includes both types 

of liability described above but goes one 

step further to include a vicarious 

liability provision. Vicarious liability, 

for purposes of diesel fuel regulation, 

means that parties upstream in the 

distribution chain can be held 

responsible if or violations 'Which are 

found at downstream facilities over 

which they could exercise some control, 

vicarious liability raises a presumption 

of liability, that can be rebutted by the 

regulated party, as specified in'the 

defenses included in the. proposed 

regulations. 

The Agency proposes 1hat the third 

option, with die vicarious liability 

provisions, be implemented. This 

approach has been used by the Agency 

in its fuel contamination liability 

regulations (40 CFR 89.23). It has also 

been adopted in the recently 

promulgated volatility control 

regulations (40 CFR 80.27). While these 

two sets of regulations cover gasoline 

and include specifications different from 

those proposed in this regulation, 

essentially the same parties are covered 

by all three sets of regulations. 

Therefore, it is appropriate that these 

proposed regulations covering diesel 

fuel contain the same liability scheme 

which has previously been applied to 

the regulated parties. The commonality 

of these enforcement schemes simplifies 

the industry's ability to comply and 

enhances the Agency's enforcement of 

the regulations. 

D. Compliance Monitoring 

In the case of the lead in gasoline 

control regulations, industry compliance 

with the regulations is monitored 

through a combination of auditing and 

spot sampling in the field. The gasoline 

volatility regulations will be enforced 

primarily tiirough spot sampling at all 

points in the distribution chain. 

Monitoring compliance "with the diesel 

fuel standards, however, presents some 

enforcement problems which differ from 

those of gasoline. As the diesel fuel 

industry notes in the proposal it and 

other related industries and associations 

submitted to the Agency, the diesel fuel 

industry's past experience with the 

collection of fuel excise taxes has 

shown that the greater the number of 

suppliers and resellers, the more 

difficult, costly and ineffective auditing 

can be. 

Another of the difficulties in verifying 

compliance with diesel fuel standards is 

distinguishing between diesel motor fuel 

which is intended for on-highway use 

and meets standards for on-highway 

diesel fuel, and diesel fuel which is 

intended for off-highway use and is not 

in compliance with on-highway diesel 

fuel standards. The .sulfur content and 

cetane index of diesel fuel can only be 

determined through sophisticated 

laboratory tests which will make field 

compliance testing impossible. 

To address this problem, the diesel 

fuel industry suggests that off-highway 

diesel fuel be dyed as a way of marking 

or labeling the off-highway diesel fuel. 

The Agency finds the industry's 

suggestion to be a practical one. 

Therefore, the Agency proposes to 

establish the presumption that any 

diesel fuel in the control of a regulated 

party is on-highway diesel fuel and 

subject to the standards of this proposed 
P.12 

Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1S39 / Proposed Rules 35285 

regulation, unless it ia visibly dyed. 

More specifically, EPA proposes (hat 

any diesel fuel which does not show 

visible evidence of being dyed with 1,4 

dialkylamino-anthraquinone (which has 

a characteristic blue color and is 

currently used in some grades of 

aviation gasoline), will be considered to 

be subject to the proposed standards. 

Comments are requested on this 

approach, including the Agency's cl 

of dye an.t ration of 

dye should be specified along with the 

visible color n 

stag will place the 

the industry b 

at the 

I the diesel Fuel will 

be used i> motor vehicle 

purposes. I is added to the nonhighway riieuei fue;. • be 

•n if 

:tly used for motor 

ng of complying and 

mplying

 : H also be 

apparent. Requiring that on-highway 

diesel fuel be dyed, on the other hrsnd, 

would pennit distributors to wait to the 

last point in the distribution chain to dye 

the fuel, preventing EPA from enforcing 

the s. BBA and aromatics 

• 

chain. However, with the off-high 

fuel dyed, tbe decision to produce or 

import complying fuel will probably be 

madt* import faci 

and no dye would be added. 

In addition to the usual con 

afforded by the use of dyes, tl 

will also collect diesel fuel samples at 

button chain. 

Tiiese samples will be collected 

accort ied in 

Appendix G of diese pn 

regulations. These samples will then be 

ig to the A 

test me_hod_> for sulfur percentage 

i'M-2622-82) and cetane im 

(ASTM-976). The ASTM methodsindex and 

percentage will be 

reference in the final rule. 

IX. Diesel Engine Certification Fuel 

EPA has COP ^ed thai 

diesel fuel for *nd 

subsequent compile, g) be 

representative of commercially 

available diesel fuel. At 

appropriate to propose that the su 

I of fuel used to certify 1: 

later engines be no more than 0.05 

weig' i- (The current 

specification for aromatics and cetane 

appears adequate, so no change fa 

appears necessary.) However, 1991-03 

engines would operate on bodi current 

fuel (roughly 0.25 weight percent sn 

and controlled fuel, so the question 

arises as to which fuel, or a combination 

thereof, should be uaed in certification. 

The joint industry proposal requested 

that 1991-93 certification fuel contain no 

more than 0.05 weight percent sulfur. 

EPA believes this would be 

inappropriate since these engines would 

be operated on high uulfur fuel for much 

•• useful Uvea • amissions 

could exci ! standards during 

Ime, while just meeting tlie 

standards on low-suifu. fuel. However, 

it also appears inappropriate to ig! 

the fact that ihese engines would be 

operated on low-sulfur fuel for e portion 

of their useful lives. Thus, EPA believes 

it is appropriate to require these engines 

to certify on a a si.flur level 

representing an average of what will be 

used over the engines' useful life. We 

considered doing this for each model 

year individually, but this would be 

costly and very complex logistically, as 

each 1 would have to mn; 

stocks of five diesel fuels for many years 

to come. Thus, we piopose that a single 

:ge sulfur level fuel be used for 

1991-93 certification. Based on mileage 

-ulation data taken from heavyduty d , this average st 

level is 0.10 we ent 1 Thus the 

1-1993 model 

the 

average in-use emissions over the full 

uJ life of these engines. It is 

important to note, however, that EPA 

believes that, for the reasons discussed 

previously, actual in-use emissio; 

these vehicles >e affected by 

this change to the * on fuel 

X. Description of the Proposal 

This section summarizes in detail the 

proposed control measures contained in 

toda< led 

req; wind in th 

;

*ty in the proposed regulations 

published with today's notice. 

r

ds 

er September 30.1993. a 

red for sali 

• ted in any 

;esel 

• 

and shali 

a mi; of 40. EPA is 

it the effective da? 

compli ill be prior to 

c.use the on-

• • • • • ' . 

available throughout the distribution 

system by 

1901-93 Mode! Ys*. y Dlei«__•.•• Timothy 

Sprik ••«_». 

2. Su .visions 

a. O erne. The 

• ed enforcement provisions in this 

notice are based on the requireme-

• 

number cf at least 40 and that the 

percentage of sulfur by weight b» 

greater than 0.05 percent at oil points in 

the distribution network. All paths distribution network are cove.' 

these regulations, including refin< 

importers, distributors, 

reseliera, retail and whi 

purchaser-consumers. Any di 

for use m motor vehicles must con 

with these is when imrod 

into commerce, sold, offered for sale, 

supplied, oi supply, c 

fuel has been introduced into the 

i network, the . 

comply with these standards at all 

points up to and including '.he time it 

leaves the pump. 

The proposed regulations define 

cetane sel fuel, s 

percentage, refinery, retail outlet, 

distribution, reselling, wholesale 

purchaser-consumer and car 

Methods of determining cetane index 

and sulfur per. 

incorporated by reference to 40 CFR 

Part 80 and are ASTM standard ti 

method and 7622-82, respectively. 

notice also sets forth proposed 

ling presumptions of 

rties found w 

noncoinplv 

fields 

certain upstrt 

sponsible for 

violations at downstrean - over 

sed seme 

are in- ihe proposed regulations. 

b. S The 

propos 

nozzle sampling, 

mam 

the sampling n 

' e of the 

ted. 

* 

me the 

hod 

V- The second test. 

r standard test method, is a 

g the ASTM Comdex of the diesel fuel from Uie API 

gravity and mid-boiling p 

The issue of what enfoi 

i be allowed when using 
P.13 

35286 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

these test methods will be addressed in 

a manner consistent with other mobile 

source related standards. The diesel fuel 

refiners and other regulated parties will 

be expected to meet the applicable 

sulfur and cetane limits as established 

by the regulations when finalized. They 

must take test variability into account in 

producing and marketing diesel fuel and 

cannot rely on the Agency to 

automatically provide an enforcement 

tolerance in addition to the absolute 

standards established for sulfur or 

cetane limits. If the sulfur content of 

motor vehicle diesel fuel were found to 

contain 0.08 weight percent sulfur and 

the applicable standard were 0.05 

weight percent sulfur, this would be 

considered a violation of the regulatory 

standard that could subject liable 

parties to enforcement action. 

d. Liability provisions. The proposed 

liability Provisions (40 CFR 80.29 

through 80.31) are patterned after the 

liability scheme used in the Agency's 

lead contamination regulations, at 40 

CFR 80.23 and are almost identical to 

the volatility regulations, at 40 CFR 

80.27. One of the main features of these 

provisions is the presumption of liability 

where regulated parties are found 

offering for sale, supplying, or 

transporting diesel fuel which fails to 

meet the requirements for sulfur 

percentage or cetane index. It is the 

responsibility of the regulated party to 

monitor the diesel fuel which is being 

offered for sale, supplied or transported 

control to verify that the fuel complies 

with standards. 

Another important feature of the 

diesel fuel enforcement provisions is the 

inclusion of vicarious liability 

provisions, much like those used 

successfully in the lead contamination 

regulations and recenUy promulgated in 

the volatility regulations. Vicarious 

liability means that parties upstream 

from the site of the violation can be held 

responsible for violations found at 

downstream facilities over which they 

can exercise some control. The proposed 

regulations will also extend vicarious 

liability for violations at non-branded 

retail outlet and wholesale purchaserconsumers to refiners and importers. 

This change from previous schemes 

places all parties on the same level in 

terms of oversight for assuring product 

quality. Years of enforcement 

experience with the gasoline regulations 

have shown that a far larger percentage 

of violations occur at non-branded 

facilities. 

Defenses to vicarious liability are set 

forth in the proposed regulations. 

Basically, an upstream party can avoid 

vicarious liability if that party can show 

that the violation was caused by actions 

of someone other than that party's 

employees or agents. For the purpose of 

these proposed regulations, carries will 

be presumed to be the agents of 

distributors and are also presumptively 

liable. The specific evidence required to 

support this defense varies depending 

on which party is raising the defense, 

but in general a party must show proof 

of some kind of oversight program, such 

as records of testing on the diesel fuel or 

a contractual obligation between the 

upstream and the downstream parties 

involved. 

B. Fuel Specifications for Vehicle 

Certification and Other Compliance 

Testing 

Certification fuel used for 1991-1993 

model year engines would contain 0.10 

sulfur percentage by weight (%0.02 

weight percent). Beginning with the 1994 

model year, certification fuel would 

have a sulfur content ranging from 0.03 

to 0.05 sulfur percentage by weight. All 

other compliance testing (e.g., recall, 

selective enforcement audits) would be 

conducted using test fuels containing the 

same amount of sulfur as the test fuel 

used in certifying the particular model 

year vehicle being tested. That is, 1991-

1993 model year engines would be 

tested with fuel containing 0.10 sulfur 

percentage by weight (±0.02 weight 

percent) and 1994 and later model year 

engines would be tested with fuel 

having a sulfur content ranging from 0.03 

to 0.05 sulfur percentage by weight. 

C. Requests for Comment on Specific 

Issues 

We request and encourage general 

and specific comments with supporting 

data and analysis on the following 

issues. 

1. In the Draft RIA, the cost and 

feasibility of fuel sulfur and aromatics 

control was evaluated over the entire 

range of on-highway and off-highway 

distillate segregation scenarios. EPA 

requests comments on all elements of 

the refining cost analysis as presented in 

the Draft RIA. EPA specifically requests 

comments on the feasibility of and 

extent to which such segregation would 

likely take place, as well as the likely 

cost of so modifying the fuel distribution 

system. Comments on the amount of 

excess desulfurization capacity 

available and the time period over 

which it will be available are also 

requested. To the extent that increased 

capacity is required, comments are also 

requested on the potential for increased 

VOC or other emissions from refineries. 

2. EPA has assessed the impact of a 

sulfur reduction on engine manufacturer 

ability to comply with the 1994 

particulate standard. This assessment 

was based on projections of likely 

engine-out emissions and their 

composition and estimates of specific 

aftertreatment device costs, feasibilities 

and efficiencies. Please provide specific 

comments on each of the elements of 

this analysis. 

3. Please comment on the effect of fuel 

sulfur reductions on diesel emissions. 

4. We request comments on the effect 

of aromatics control on particulate, HC, 

CO, and NOx emissions, particularly the 

relative effect of different aromatic 

species [e.g., mono-, di-, tri-cyclic) on 

emissions, and how this effect varies 

between older, high-emitting engines • 

and future, low-emitting engines. We 

also request comment on whether 

cetane index or aromatics content is the 

cause of the occasional NOx emission 

effect and whether this effect would 

occur in-use with aromatics control. 

5. We request specific comments on 

the assumptions and methodology used 

in the analysis of the effects of a fuel 

sulfur reduction on engine and vehicle 

life. 

6. We request specific comments on 

EPA's analysis of the amount of urban 

sulfate particulate produced from SO2 

emissions. 

7. We request comments on the 

credits used to value the control of 

emissions of gaseous pollutants in the 

cost effectiveness analysis presented in' 

the Draft RIA. 

8. An analysis of the potential 

economic benefits of trading and 

banking of sulfur credits in the context 

of this proposed regulation was 

performed for EPA by SCI. The SCI 

analysis was based on creating credits 

by providing fuel with lower sulfur 

levels than current average fuel sulfur 

content levels for each of the five 

PADDs. Results of the study (available 

in Public Docket A-86-03) showed that a 

significant savings to the refining 

industry would result if credits could be 

created and banked prior to the 

imposition of controls in October 1993. 

However, refining industry members, in 

the joint industry proposal to EPA, 

specifically stated that banking and 

trading would not be desirable. EPA's 

previous experience with lead trading 

and banking under the lead phasedown 

regulations has shown that enforcement 

of a bank and trading scheme applicable 

to sulfur content would be extremely 

difficult to enforce. 

EPA requests comments on the merits 

and demerits of phased and "nonphased" (as defined by the SCI analysis) 

sulfur regulations, in which refiners 

could earn credits for achieving lower 

than certain specified levels of sulfur in 
P.14 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 35287 

diesel fuel prior to October 1,1993, in 

exchange for permission to sell higher 

than 0.05 percent on-highway diesel fuel 

for a period thereafter. It should be 

recognized that if the engine exhauBt 

characteristics of the pre- and post 

diesel fleet are likely to differ, full credit 

may not be granted, [i.e., the credits 

could be required to be exchanged at 

other than 1:1 after 1994). EPA is 

interested in comments as to whether 

in diesel sulfur prior to 

October 1,1993, are sufficiently valuable 

to merit the implementation of a credit 

banking and trading system. Does the 

0.10 sulfur percentage ce; fuel 

specification for 1991-93 engines affect 

the dt of credit trades? V. 

reporting requirements would be 

necessary to enforce a banking and 

trading program? 

I of the enforcement scheme 

outlined in this preamble, EPA has 

prop .Is intended 

exclusively for off-highway use could be 

distinguished by tlie addition of 1,4-

, lamino-anthraquinone dye. The 

Agency is interested in comments from 

the industry aa to the practicality of this 

Specific issues upon which 

comments are sought include what 

fie dyes should be used and 

ter these dyes present any h. 

based risk either in the fuel or when 

isled? Is any test beyond the 

proposed v ird required to 

;y dyed fuel? Will the inclusion of 

such a dye pre*: oblems to the 

users of off-highway diesel fuel? Where 

in the distribution system car: 

approach be implemented. Is the dyeing 

rule feasible to apply to imported 

distillates? If so, how would it be 

impl operationally? Do any 

ries currendy use a dyeing 

program for diesel fuel control purpose? 

!f so, what experience have the refiners 

had with the success of the_>e programs? 

Cost? 

10. EPA has proposed setting a 

minimum cetane index specification of 

40 as a means of capping fuel aromatics 

at current levels. However, fuel survey 

data Bhows that diesel fuel arom.. 

correlates rather poorly with cetane 

index, and may not be a sufficient 

safeguard against future aromatics 

increases. EPA requests specific 

comments on tlie effectiveness w 

which the Proposed cetane in 

specification would control fuel 

aromatics and also on the merits and 

;io86ib_e means of 

:g fuel aromatics. including direct 

nurement of diesel aromatics by 

Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption (FIA). 

EPA requests comments on whether the 

level of such a cap should be set at 

current average aromatic lev 

he control of fuels which are 

tly liigher age), or at less 

stringent levels (e.g., 75th pe> 

90th percentile, et. 

XI. Public Participation 

Comments and the I cket 

As in past rulemaking actions, EPA 

public participati* 

arriving at our final decisions. In 

addition to those areas where specific 

comment has been requested earlier in 

this preamble, EPA solicits comments on 

all aspects of today's proposal from all 

interested parties. Wherever applicable, 

full supporting data and detailed 

analyses should also be submitted to 

allow EPA torn of the 

comments. Commenters are especially 

encouraged to provide spoci 

suggestions for changes to any asj i 

of the proposal that they brieve need to 

be modified or improved. All comments 

should be directed to the EPA Air 

Docket Section, Docket No. A-88-03 

(see "ADDRESSE8"). 

The Agency will base its decision on 

the discloseable public record. However, 

the Agency realizes that Borne 

manufacturers may want EPA to 

consider pertinent information that may 

be proprietary. Commenters desiring to 

I proprietary information for 

consii iiould clearly distinguish 

such information from other comments 

to the greatest possible exlent, and 

clearly label it "Confidential Business 

Information." Submissions containing 

•roprietary information should be 

sent directly to the contact person listed 

above, and not to the public docket, to 

ensure that proprietary information is 

not inadvertently placed in the docket. If 

a commenter wants EPA to base tlie 

final rule in part on a submission 

labeled as confidential business 

information, then a nonconfidential 

version of the document wh: 

summarizes the key data or information 

should be sent to the docket. 

Information covered by a claim of 

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA 

only to the extent allowed and by the 

set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If 

no claim ol'confic! (..companies 

omission when it is received by 

EPA, it may be made available to the 

lie without further notice to the 

commenter. 

XII. Statutory Authority 

Authorit' otions proposed in 

is granted to EPA by sections 

114. 202. 206. 207. 208. 211, and 301 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7525. 

Xm. List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part SO 

?s, Diese I or 

-ting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

P 

Adm and 

procedures, Air pollution control, Diesel 

Motor vehicles, Labeling, IA 

vehicle pollution, P nd 

recordkeep 

XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Section 605 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires EPA b 

an analysis of the imparl sed 

regulations on small entities when a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of such entities would occur. An 

is of this issue was perform*'-

EPA by SCI. According to'the SCI 

report 74 esei.tinp 

percent of the total U.S. crude 

distillation capacity, were classified as 

small refiners at the beg: 1980. 

SCI used aggregate refinery model 

estimate the cost of modifying fuel 

quality a I these facilities. The modeling 

results showed that, for those refineries 

which could finance the necessary 

equipment, sulfur contr' ere 

nearly the same for small refiners as for 

the rest of the U.S. refining in 

Control costs to reduce both sulfur and 

aromatics were from 26 to 51 percent 

higher for small refiners. 

SCI did state that the investments 

required for fuel control might be 

difficult for some small refiners to 

finance, and might cause some small 

refiners to discontinue the production of 

highway diesel fuel. This sbouid not be 

an insurmountable problem, however, 

since these refiners should be able to 

shift tiieir product slates to meet "offhighway" distillate needs in i 

geographi hile other refiners 

with hydrodesulfurization capacity (or 

the financial ability to build it) would 

increase"' 

production. The request for product 

slate flexibility in the joint industry 

proposal suggests that this approach 

would be taken by some Thus, 

this proposed regulation should not have 

a 8ij; ual 

number of smai gnegation 

in the dist; vstem takes place. 

XV. Administrative Designation and 

Regulatory An;-

The Administrator ha:; ad 

constitute a major regulation, and 

iingiy a Draft I pact 

Analysis 1 . required 
35288 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

under Executive Order 12291. This 

analysis includes detailed assessments 

of the estimated economic and 

environmental impacts of the 

regulations proposed here, as well as 

thorough analyses of the technological 

feasibility of the proposed emission 

standards and other regulatory 

provisions and the alternatives tiiat 

were considered in the development of 

this proposal. 

The Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis 

has been placed in the public docket 

referenced at the beginning of today's 

notice. In addition, interested parties 

may obtain single copies through a 

written request to the public contact 

listed previously. 

This proposed regulation was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review as 

required by Executive Order 12291. Any 

written comments from OMB and any 

EPA response to those comments are in 

the public docket for this-rulemaking. 

XVI. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

impose any reporting or record keeping 

requirements, and thus is not subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. 

Dated: August 11,1989. 

William K. Reilly, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, parts 80 and 86 of Tide 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations are 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS 

AND FUEL ADDITIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 80 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of 

the Clean Air Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 

7545 and 7601(a). 

2. Section 80.2 is proposed to be 

amended by adding new paragraphs 

(w), (x), (y), (z), (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd) and 

(ee) to read as follows: 

80.2 Definitions. 

* * * * 

(w) "Cetane index" or "Calculated 

cetane index" is a means for directly 

estimating the ASTM cetane number (a 

number representing the ignition 

properties of diesel engine fuel oils) of 

distillate fuels from API gravity and 

mid-boiling point. 

(x) "Diesel fuel" means any fuel sold 

in any State and suitable for use in 

diesel motor vehicles and diesel motor 

vehicle engines, and which is commonly 

or commercially known or sold as diesel 

fuel. 

(y) "Sulfur percentage" is the 

percentage of sulfur by weight in diesel 

fuel as determined by ASTM standard 

test method D-2622-82. 

(z) "Refinery" means a plant at which 

diesel fuel is produced. 

(aa) "Retail outlet" means any 

establishment at which diesel fuel is 

sold or offered for sale for use in motor 

vehicles. 

(bb) "Distributor" means any person 

who transports or stores or causes the 

transportation or storage of diesel fuel 

at any point between any diesel fuel 

refinery and any retail outlet or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer's 

facilities. 

(cc) "Reseller" means any person who 

purchases diesel fuel identified by the 

corporate, trade, or brand name of a 

refiner from such refiner or a distributor 

and resells or transfers it to retailers or , 

wholesale purchaser-consumers 

displaying the refiner's brand, and 

whose assets or facilities are not 

substantially owned, leased, or 

controlled by such refiner. 

(dd) "Wholesale purchaser-consumer" 

means any organization that is an 

ultimate consumer of diesel fuel and 

which purchases or obtains diesel fuel 

from a supplier for use in motor vehicles 

and receives delivery of that product 

into a storage tank of at least 550-gallon 

capacity substantially under the control 

of that organization. 

(ee) "Carrier" means any distributor 

who transports or stores or causes the 

transportation or storage of diesel fuel 

without taking title to or otherwise 

altering either the quality or quanity of 

the diesel fuel. 

3. New § 80.29 is proposed to be 

added, to read as follows: 

§ 80.29 Controls and prohibitions on 

diesel fuel quality. 

(a) Prohibited activities. Beginning 

October 1,1993, no refiner, importer, 

distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer shall 

manufacture, introduce into commerce, 

sell, offer for sale, supply, dispense, 

offer for supply, or transport any diesel 

fuel for use in motor vehicles unless the 

diesel fuel is free of visible evidence of 

the dye 1,4-dialkylamino-anthraquinone 

and has a cetane index of at least 40 and 

a sulfur percentage no greater than 0.05 

percent. 

(b) Determination of compliance. Any 

diesel fuel which does not show visible 

evidence of being dyed with 1,4-

dialkylamino-anthraquinone (which has 

a characteristic blue color) shall be 

considered to be available for use in 

diesel motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

engines, and shall be subject to the 

prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this 

section. Compliance with the standards 

listed in paragraph (a) of this section 

shall be determined by the use of one of 

the sampling methodologies Specified in 

Appendix G tb this part. • • 

Note: The testing methodologies specified 

for sulfur percentage, ASTM DT2622-82, 

and cetane index, ASTM D-976, will be 

incorporated by reference in the final 

regulation. 

(c) Liability. Liability for violations of 

paragraph (a) of this section shall be 

determined according to the provisions 

of § 80.30. 

(d) Penalties. Penalties for violations . 

of paragraph (a) of this section shall be 

determined according to the provisions 

of §80.5. 

4. New § 80.30 is proposed to be 

added, to read as follows: 

§ 80.30 Liability for violations of diesel 

fuel.control and prohibitions. 

(a) Violations at refiners drimporters 

facilities. Where a violation of a diesel' 

fuel standard set forth in § 80.29 is 

detected at a refinery or importer's 

facility, the refiner or importer shall be 

deemed in violation. 

(b) Violations at carrier facilities. 

Where a violation of a diesel fuel 

standard set forth in § 80.29 is detected 

at a carrier's facility, whether in a 

transport vehicle, in a storage facility, or 

elsewhere at the facility, the following 

parties shall be deemed in violation: 

(1) The carrier, except as provided in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section; and 

(2) The refiner or importer at whose 

refinery or import facility the diesel fuel 

was produced or imported, except as 

provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section. 

(c) Violations at branded distributor 

or reseller facilities. Where a violation 

of a diesel fuel standard set forth in 

§ 80.29 is detected at a distributor or 

reseller's facility which is operating 

under the corporate, trade or brand 

name of a refiner or any of its marketing 

subsidiaries, the following parties shall 

be deemed in violation: 

(1) The distributor or reseller, except 

as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section; 

(2) The carrier (if any), if the carrier 

caused the diesel fuel to violate the 

standard by fuel switching, blending, 

mislabeling, or any other means; and 

(3) The refiner under whose corporate, 

trade, or brand name (or that of any of 

its marketing subsidiaries) the 

distributor or reseller is operating, 

except as provided in paragraph (g)(4) of 

this section 
P.16 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 35289 

(d) Violations at unbranded 

distributor facilities. Where a violation 

of a diesel fuel standard set forth in 

§ 80.29 is detected at the facility of a 

distributor not operating under a 

refiner's corporate, trade, or brand 

name, or that of any of its marke; 

subsidiaries, the following shall be 

deemed in violation: 

(1) The distributor, except as provided 

in paragraph (g)(3) of this section; 

(2) The carrier (if any), if the carrier 

caused the diesel fuel to violate the 

standard by fuel switching, blending, 

mislabeling, or any other means; and 

(3) The refiner or importer at whose 

refinery or import facility the diesel fuel 

was produced or imported, except as 

provided in paragraph (g)(2) of t) 

section. 

(e) Violations at branded retail 

outlets or wholesale purchaserconsumer facilities. Where a violation 

of a ! standard set forth in 

§ 80.20 is detected at a retail outlet or at 

a wholesale purchaser-consumer facihty 

displaying the corporate, trade, or brand 

name of a refiner or any of its marketing 

subsidiaries, tbe following parties shall 

be deemed ln violation: 

(1) The retailer or wholesale 

purchaser-consumer, except as provided 

in paragraph (g)(5) of this section; 

(2) The distributor and/or reseller (if 

any), except as provided in paragraph 

(g)(3) of this section; 

(3) The carrier (if any), if the car 

caused the diesel fuel to violate the 

standard by fuel switching, blending, 

mislabeling, or any other means; and 

(4) The refiner whose corporate, trade, 

or brand name, or that of any of its 

marketing subsidiaries, is displayed at 

the retail outlet or wholesale purchaserconsumer facility, except as provided in 

paragraph (g)(4) of this section. 

(f) Violations at unbranded retail 

outlets or wholesale purchaserties. Where a violation 

of a diesel fuel standard set forth in 

§ 80.29 is detected at a retail outlet or at 

a wholesale purchaser-consumer facility 

not displaying the corporate, trade, or 

brand name of a refiner or any of its 

marketing subsidiaries, the following 

parties shall be deemed in violation: 

(1) Tlie retailer or wholesale 

purchaser-consumer, except as provided 

in paragraph (g)(5) of this section; 

(2) The distributor (if any), except as 

provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this 

seel-

(3) The carrier (if any), if the car 

caused the diesel fuel to violate the 

standard by fuel switching, blending, 

mislabeling, or any other mean; and 

(4) The refiner or importer at whose 

refinery or import facility the diesel fuel 

was produced or imported, except as 

provided in paragraph (g)(2) of ti 

m. 

(g) Defenses. (1) In any case in which 

a carrier would be in violation under 

>h (b)(1) of this section, the 

carrier shall not be deemed in violation 

if he can demonstrate: 

(i) Bills of lading, invoices, delivery 

tickets, loading tickets or other 

documents from the refiner or importer 

at whose refinery or import facility the 

diesel fuel was produced or imported, or 

the carrier, reseller, or distributor from 

whom the diesel fuel was received, 

which represented to tlie carrier that the 

diesel fuel was in compliance with the 

diesel fuel standards; and 

(ii) Evidence of an oversight program 

conducted by the carrier, for monitoring 

the diesel fuel stored or transported by 

that carrier, such as periodic sampling 

and testing of the cetane index and 

sulfur percentage of incoming die9el 

fuel, or any other evidence that shows 

th.-it care was taken to avoid blending 

the diesel fuel with anything which 

would change its cetane index or sulfur 

percentage; and 

(iii) That the violation was not caused 

by the carrier or his employee or agent. 

(2) In any case in which a refiner or 

importer would be in violation under 

paragraph (b)(2), (d)(3). or (f)(4) of this 

section, the refiner or importer shall not 

be deemed in violation if he can 

demonstrate: 

(i) That the violation was not caused 

m or his employee or agent; and 

Test results, performed in 

lance with the sampling and 

testing methodologies set forth in 

Appendix G to this part, ASTM test 

method D-2622-82 for sulfur percentage, 

or ASTM test method D-978 for cetane 

index, which evidence that the diesel 

fuel determined to be in violation was in 

compliance with the diesel fuel 

standards when it was delivered to the 

next party in the distribution scheme. 

(3) In any case in which a distributor 

or reseller would be in violation under 

paragraph (c)(1). (d)(1). (e)(2) or (0(2) of 

Ihis section, the distributor or resshall not be deemed in violation k 

can demonstrate: 

(i) That the violation was not caused 

by him or his employee or agent; and 

(ii) Bills of lading, invoices, delivery 

tickets, loading tickets or other 

documents from the refiner at whose 

refinery the diesel fuel was produced, 

the Importer at whose facility the diesel 

fuel was imported, or the ca: i 

reseller cr distributor from whom the 

diesel fuel was received, which 

represented to the distributor or reseller 

that the diesel fuel was in compliance 

with the diesel fuel standards when 

delivered to the distributor or rest 

and 

(iii) Evidence of an oversight program 

conducted by the distributor or reseller, 

such as periodic sampling and testing 

diesel fuel, for monitoring the sulfur 

percentage and cetane index of the 

diesel fuel that the distributor or reseller 

sells, supplies, offers for sale or supply, 

or transports. 

(4) In any case in which a refiner 

would be in violation under paragraph 

(c)(3) or (e)(4) of this section, the refill 

shall not be deemed in violation if he 

can demonstrate all of the following: 

(i) Test results, performed in 

accordance with Uie sampling and 

testing methodologies set forth in 

Appendix G to this part, ASTM test 

method D-2622-82 for sulfur percent. 

or ASTM test method D-976 for cel 

Index, at the refinery at which the diesel 

fuel was produced, which evident 

the diesel fuel determined to be in 

violation was in compliance with the 

diesel fuel standards when transported 

from the refinery; 

(ii) That the violation was not caused 

by him or his employee or agent and 

(iii) That the violation: 

(A) Was caused by an act in viol, 

of law (other than the Act or this p 

or an act of sabotage or vandalism, 

whether or not such acts are v 

of law in the jurisdiction where the 

violation of the requirements of this part 

occurred, or 

(B) Was caused by the action of a 

reseller or a retailer supplie:' 

reseller, in violation of a contract 

g imposed by the refiner on 

such reseller designed to prevent such 

action, and despite reasonable efforts by 

the refiner (such as periodic samn' 

and testing) to Insure compliance with 

such contractual obligation, or 

(C) Was caused by the action of a 

ho is supplied directly b; 

refiner (and not by a reseller), ln 

violation of a contractual undertaking 

imposed by the refiner o: toiler 

designed to prevent such action, and 

despite reasonable efforts by th 

(such as periodic sampling and testinp) 

to insure compliai' jch 

contractual obligation, or 

(D) Was caused by the action ol 

ributor subject to a contract with 

refiner for transportation of diesel fuel 

from a terminal to a distributor, retailer 

or wholesale purchaser-consumer, in 

violation of a contractual undertaking 

imposed by the refiner on such 

distributor designed to prevent such 

action, and despite reasonable effoi 

the refiner (such as periodic sampling 

and testing) to ensure compliance with 

such contractual obligation. 
P.17 

3E2S© Federal Ssgiste / Vol.-54, No. 183 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

(E) Was caused by a carrier or other 

distributor not subject to a contract with 

the refiner but engaged by him for 

transportation of diesel fuel from a 

terminal to a distributor, retailer or 

wholesale purchaser-coi-sumer. despite 

reasonable efforts by tha refiner (such 

as specification or inspection of 

equipment) to prevent such action, or 

(F) Occurred at a wholesale 

purchaser-consumer facility: Provided, 

however, that if such wholesale 

purchaser-consumer was supplied by a 

reseller, the refiner must demonstrate 

that the violation could not have been 

prevented by such reseller's compliance 

with a contractual undertaking imposed 

by the refiner on such reseller as 

provided in paragraph (g)(4)(iii)(B) of 

this section. 

(iv) In paragraphs (g)(4)(iii) (A) 

through (E) of this section, the term 

"was caused" means that tha refiner 

must demonstrate by reasonably 

specific showings, by direct or 

circumstantial evidence; that the 

violation was caused or must have been 

caUsed by another. 

(5) In any case in which a retailer or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer would 

be in violation under paragraph (e)(1) or 

(f)(1) of this section, the retailer or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer shall not 

be deemed in violation if he can 

demonstrate that the violation was not 

caused by him or his employee or agent 

(6) In paragraphs (g)(l)(iii), (g)(2)(i), 

(g)(3)U). [siWC-i) and (g)(5) of this 

section, the respective party must 

demonstrate by reasonably specific 

showings, by direct or circumstantial 

evidence, that it or its employee or agent 

did not cause the violation. 

5. New Appendix G is proposed to be 

added to read as follows: 

Appendix G-^Sazapfcg Froosdares lot 

Diesel Fusl 

1. Scope 

1.1 This method covers procedures for 

obtaining representative samples of diesel 

fuel for the purpose of testing for compliance 

with the cetane index and sulfur percentage 

standards set forth in § 80.29. 

2. Summary of Method 

2.1 It is necesEary that the samples be 

truly representative of the diesel fuel in 

question. The precautions required to ensure 

the representative character of the samples 

are numerous and depend upon the tank, 

carrier, container or line from which the 

sample is being obtained, the type and 

cleanliness of the sample container, and the 

sampling procedures that era to be used. A 

summary of the sampling procedures and 

their application is presented in table 1. Each 

procedure is suitable for sampling a material 

under definite storage, transportation, or. 

container conditions. The basic principle of. 

each procedure.is.to.obtain a sample.in such , 

manner and fr 9<5_. • puch locations to the tank . 

or other container that the sample will be 

truly representative of the diesel fuel. 

3. Description of Terms 

3.1 "Average sample" is one that consists 

of proportionate parts from all sections of the 

container. 

3.2 "All-levels sample" is one obtained by 

submerging a stoppered beaker or bottle to a 

point as near as possible tc the draw-off 

level, then opening the sampler and raising it 

at a rate such that it is about % full 

(maximum 85 percent) as it emerges from the 

liquid. An all-levels sample is not necessarily 

an average sample because the tank volume 

may not be proportional to the depth and 

because the operator may not be able to raise 

the sampler at the variable rate required for 

proportionate filling. The rate of filling is 

proportional to the square root of the depth of 

immersion. 

3.3 "Running sample" is one obtained by 

lowering an unstoppered beaker or bottle 

from the top of the gasoline to the level of the 

bottom of the outlet connection or swing line, 

and returning it to the top of the top of the 

diesel fuel at a uniform rate of speed such 

that the beaker or bottle is about % full when 

withdrawn from the diesel fuel. 

3.4 "Spot sample" is one obtained at some 

specific location in the tank by means of a 

thief bottle, or beaker. 

3.5 'Top sample" is a spot sample 

obtained 6 inches (150 mm) below the top 

surface of the liquid (Figure 1). 

3.6 "Upper sample" is a spot sample 

taken at the mid-point of the upper third of 

the tank contents (Figure 1). 

37 "Middle sample" is a spot sample 

obtained from the middle of the tank contents 

(Figure 1). 

3.8 "Lower sample" is a spot sample 

obtained at the level df the fixed tank outlet 

or the swing line outlet (Figure 1). 

3.9 "Clearance sample" is a spot sample 

taken 4 inches (100 mm) below the level of 

the tank outlet (Figure 1). 

3.10 "Bottom sample" is one obtained 

from the material oh the bottom surface of 

the tank, container, or line at its lowest point. 

3.11 "Drain sample" is one obtained froni 

the draw-off or discharge valve. 

Occasionally, a drain sample may be the 

same as a bottom sample, as in the case of a 

tank car. 

3.12 "Continuous sample" is one obtained 

from a pipeline in such manner as to give a 

representative average of a moving stream. 

3.13 "Mixed sample" is one obtained after 

mixing or vigorously stirring the contents of 

the original container, and then pouring out 

or drawing off the quantity desired. 

3.14 "Nozzle sample" is one obtained 

from a diesel pump nozzle which dispenses 

diesel fuel from a storage tank at a retail 

outlet or a wholesale purchaser-consumer 

facility. 

4. Sample Containers 

4.1 Sample containers may be clear or 

brown glass bottles, or cans. The clear glass 

bottle is advantageous because it may be 

examined visually for cleanliness, and also 

allows visual inspection pf the sample for 

free water or solid impurities. The brown 

glass bottle affords some protection from 

light. The only cans permissible are those 

. with the seams soldered on the exterior 

surface with a flux of rosin in a suitable 

solvent. Such a flux is easily removed with * 

gasoline, whereas many others are very 

difficult to remove. 

4.2 Container closure. Cork, rubber or 

glass stoppers, or screw caps, of plastic or 

metal, may be used for glass bottles; screw * 

caps only shall be used for cans to provide a 

vapor-tight closure seal. Any closure method 

will be satsifactory as long as no leakage will 

occur nor will the stopper or cap affect 

sample results. 

4.3 Cleaning procedure. All sample 

containers must be absolutely clean and free 

of water, dirt, lint, washing compounds, 

naphthas, or other solvents, soldering fluxes 

or acids, corrosion, rust, and oil. 

5. Regular Sampling Apparatus 

5.1 Sampling apparatus is described in 

detail under each of the specific sampling 

procedures. Clean, dry, and free all sampling 

apparatus from any substance that might 

contaminate the material, using the procedure 

described in 4.3. 

6. Time and Place of Sampling 

6.1 When loading or discharging diesel 

fuel, take samples from both shipping and 

receiving tanks, and from the pipeline if 

required. 

6.2 Ship or barge tanks. Sample each 

product after the vessel is loaded or just 

before unloading. 

6.3 Tank cars. Sample the product after 

the car is loaded or just before unloading. 

Note: When taking samples from tanks 

suspected of containing flammable 

atmospheres, precautions should be taken to 

guard against ignitions due to static 

electricity. Metal or conductive objects, such 

as gage tapes, sample containers, and 

thermometers, should not be lowered into or 

suspended in a compartment or tank which is 

being filled or immediately after cessation of 

pumping. A waiting period of approximately 

one minute will generally permit a 

substantial relaxation of the electrostatic 

charge; under certain conditions a longer 

period may be deemed advisable. 

7. Obtaining Samples 

7.1 Directions for sampling cannot be 

made explicit enough to cover all cases. 

Extreme care and good judgement are 

necessary to ensure samples that represent 

the general character and average condition 

of the material. Clean hands are important. 

Clean gloves may be worn but only when 

absolutely necessary, such as in cold 

weather, or when handling materials at high 

temperature, or for reasons of safety. Select 

wiping cloths so that lint is not introduced, 

contaminating samples. 

7.2 As many petroleum vapors are toxic 

and flammable, avoid breathing them or 

igniting them from an open flame or a spark 

produced by static. Follow all safety 

precautions specific to the material being 

sampled. 

8. Handling Samples 

8.1. Container outage. Never completely 

fill a sample container, but allow adequate 

room for expansion, taking into consideration 

the temperature of the liquid at the time of 

filling and the probable maximum 

temperature to.which the filled container may 

be subjected.,.. 
P.18 

Federal Register / Vol, 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 35291 

9. Shipping Sc: 

9.1 To prevent loss I u ring 

shipment, and to protect against moisture and 

dust,. ''le vapor tight a 

The caps of all containers must be screwed 

down tightly and checked for leakage. Postal 

and express office regulations applying to the 

shipment of flammable liquids must be 

•pie Containers 

Label the container home. 

a sample Is obtained. Use waterproof and 

oilproof ink or a pencil hard enough to 

ig, since soft pencil and ordinary ink 

markings are subject to obliteration from 

moisture, oil smearing and handling. Include 

the following information: 

i Date and time (the pe; iod elapsed 

-.tinuous samplii 

of the sample; 

101.3 Name or number a* >f the 

I. car. or container, 

10.1.4 Brand and grade of material; and 

5 Reference symbol or identification 

number. 

11. Sampling procedures 

ll.l The standard sampling procedures 

ed is this method are summarized in 

Table 1. Alternative sampling procedures 

e used ifa mutually satisfactory 

agreement has been reached by the party(ies) 

ed and EPA and such agreement has 

been put in writing and signed by auth-

• i IS . 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF DIESEL FUEL 

SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND APPLICABILITY 

Type ot Container 

Storage tanks, ship 

and barge tanks. 

tank cars. lank 

trucks. 

Storage tanks with 

taps. 

Pipe and line-, 

Retail outlet and 

whole-sale 

purchaserconsumer fa 

storage tanks. 

Procedure 

Bottle samp i 

Tap sampling 

Continuous line 

sampling. 

Nozzle samp 

Paragraph 

. H.2 

113 

114 

11.5 

11.2 Bottle or: .pling. The bottle 

or beaker sampling procedure is apph 

for sampling liquids of 10 pounds (1.12 kgf/ 

cm2) RVP oi 

tanks, ship tanks, and barge tanks. 

11.2.1 Apparatus. A suitable sampling 

as shown in Figure 2 

requi 

11.2.2 P: 

11.2.2.1 All-levels sample. Lower the 

weighted, stoppered bottle or beaker as near 

as possible to the draw-off level, pull out the 

- with a sharp jerk of the cord Ql 

!e at a uniform rate so that 

it is about % full as It emerges from Ihp 

liquid. 

11.2.2.2 Running sample -

unstoppered bottles or beaker as ne;. 

possible to the level of the bottom of 

• tion or swing line and thei 

le or beaker to the top of the gasoline 

at a uniform rate of speed such that it is 

-«full when wit1: 

Upper, middle, and h 

samples. Lower the weighted, stoppered 

bottle to the proper depths (Figure 1) as 

follows: 

Upper sample—middle of upper third of the 

ota 

Middle sample—middle of the 

>mple—level of the fixed tank 

outlet or the swing-line out 

At the selected level pull out the stopper 

with a sharp jerk of the cord or chain and 

allow the bolde or beaker to fill completely, 

as evidenced by the cessation of air bubbles 

' J 11, raise the bottle or beaker, pour off 

a small amount, and stopper immediately. 

11.2.2 4 Top sample. Obtain this sample 

1) in the same manner as specified in 

inches (150 mm) below the 

top surface of the tank contents. 

11.2.2.5 I .andling. Stopper and label 

umples immediately after taking them, 

und deliver to the laboratory In the original 

sampling bottles. 

11.3 Tap sampling. The tap sampling 

ire is applicable for sampling liquids 

K pounds (1.83 kgf/cm2) RVP or 

less in tanks which are equipped with 

suitable sampling taps or lines. The assembly 

for tap sampling is shown in Fig; 

I l Apparatus. 

11.3.1.1 Tank taps. The tank should be 

equipped with at least three sampling taps 

iistant throughout the lank height 

and extending at least three feet (0.9 meter) 

inside the tank shell. A standard Vi inch pipe 

with suitable valve is satisfactory. 

11.3.1.2 Tube. A delivery tube that will 

;.laminate the product being sampled 

and long enough to reach to the bottom of the 

sample container is required to allow 

submerged filling. 

11.3.1.3 Sample containers. Use clean, dry 

glass bottles of convenient size and strength 

or metal containers to receive \he samples. 

.2 Procedure. 

11.3.2.1 Before a sample is drawn, flush 

the tap (or gage glass draincock) and line 

until they are purged completely Connect the 

clean delivery tube to the tap. Draw upper, 

middle, or lower samples directly from the 

:;ve taps after tlie flushing operation. 

•per and label the sample container 

after filling, and to the 

<ory. 

11.4 Continuous sampling. nuous 

.'•ng procedure is applicable for 

sampling liquids of 16 pounds (1.12 kgf/cm2) 

is and semiliquids in pipeli* 

filling lines, and transfer lines. The 

continuous sampling may b*< idlly 

using automatic devices. 

11.4.1 Apparatus. 

11.4.1.1 Sampling probe. The function of 

the sampling probe is to withdraw from the 

flow stream a portion that will be 

tive of the entire stream. The 

apparatus assembly for continuous sampling 

is shown in Figure 4. Probe designs that are 

commonly used are as follows: 

n.4.1.1.1 A tube extending to the center 

of the line and beveled at a 45 degree angle 

g upstream (Figure 4(a)). 

11.4.1.1.2 A long-radius forged elbow or 

pipe bend extending to the center line i 

pipe and facing upstream. The» 

probe should be reamed to give a sharp 

entrance edge (Figure 4(b)). 

11.4.1.1.3 A closed-end tube v. 

orifice spaced near tbe closed end wi 

should be positioned in such a way thai 

is in tlie center of the pipeline a 

facing the stream as shown in Figure I 

11.4.1.2 Probe location. Since the fluid to 

be sampled may not In all cases be 

homogeneous, the location, I 

the size of the sampling probe should be such 

as to minimize stratification or dropping out 

of heavier particles within the tube oi 

displacement of the product with 

as a result of variation in gravity of the 

flowing stream. The sampling probe sh 

be located preferably in a vertical run of pipe 

and as near as practicable to the 

the product passes to the rea 

should always be in a horizontal pos* 

11.4.1.2.1 The sampling lines should 

short as practicable and should b 

before any samples are taken. 

11.4.1.2.2 Where adequate flowing 

velocity ia not available, a suitable demixing the fluid flow to ensure a 

homogeneous mixture at all rates of fl" 

to eliminate stratification should be installed 

upstream of the sampling tap, Some ef!* 

devices for obtaining a homogen 

are as follows: Reduction in pipe st/. 

series of baffles; orifice or perforated ; 

and a combination of any of these me;! 

11.4.1.2.3 The design or sizing oft' 

B is optional with the user, as long as 

the flow past the sampling polnl 

homogeneous and stratification Is ettmi 

11.4.1.3 To control the rate at whirl 

sample is withdrawn, the probe or probes 

should be fitted with valves or plug cocks. 

11-4.1.4 Automatic sampling de 

meet the standards set out in 11.4.1.5 D 

used in obtaining samples of die;* 

quality of sample collected must be of 

sufficient size for analysis, and its 

composition should be identical 

composition of the batch flowing in tin 

while the sample is being taken. An 

automatic sampler installation neces'. 

includea not only the automatic sampling 

icte the samples from 

line, but also a suitable probe, conneel 

lines, auxiliary equipment, and a cont.i: 

which the sample is collected. A 

lassified as fo 

11.4.1.4.1 Continuous sampler, time i 

(nonproportional) type. A sai 

and operated in such a manner tl 

transfers equal increments of liquid frm 

pipeline to the sample container at a uniform 

rate of one or more increments per minute is 

a continuous sampler. 

11.4.1.4.2 Continuous sampler, flow 

uttiva (proportional) type. A Ban 

operated in Buch a 

manner that it will automatically 

y of sample in proportion to the rate of 

flow is a flow-responsive (proportional) 

sampler. Adjustment of the quantity of 

sample may be made either by varying the 

icy of transferring equal in 

sample to the sample container, or by v 
P.19 

egiste / VoL 54, No, 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

the volume of the increments while 

maintaining a constant frequency of 

transferring the increments to the sample 

container. The apparatus assembly for 

continuous sampling is shown in Figure 4. 

11.4.1.4.3 Intermittent sampler. A sampler 

that is designed and operated in such a 

manner that it transfers equal increments of 

liquid from a pipeline to the sample container 

at a uniform rate of less than one increment 

per minute is an intermittent sampler. 

11.4.1.5 Standards of installation. 

Automatic sampler installations should meet 

all safety requirements in the plant or area 

where used, and should comply with 

American National Standard Code for 

Pressure Piping, and other applicable codes 

(ANSI B31.1). The sampler should be so 

installed as to provide ample access space 

for inspection and maintenance. 

11.4.1.5.1 Small lines connecting various 

elements of the installation should be so 

arranged that complete purging of the 

automatic sampler and of all lines can be 

accomplished effectively. All fluid remaining 

in the sampler and the lines from the 

preceding sampling cycle should be purged 

immediately before the start of any given 

sampling operation. 

11.4.1.5.2 In those cases where the 

sampler design is such that complete purging 

of the sampling lines and the sampler is not 

possible, a small pump should be installed in 

order to circulate a continuous stream from 

the sampling tube past or through the sampler 

and back into the line. The automatic sampler 

should then withdraw the sample from the 

sidestream through the shortest possible 

connection. 

11.41.5.3 Under certain conditions, there 

may be a tendency for water and heavy 

particles to drop out in the discharge line 

from the sampling device and appear in the 

sample container during some subsequent 

sampling period. To circumvent this 

possibility, the discharge pipe from the 

sampling device should be free of pockets or 

enlarged pipe areas, and preferably should be 

pitched downward to the sample container. 

11.4.1.5.4 To ensure clean, free-flowing 

lines, piping should be designed for periodic 

cleaning. 

11.4.1.6 Field calibration. Composite 

samples obtained from the automatic sampler 

installation should be verified for quantity 

performance in a manner that meets with the 

approval of all parties concerned (including 

EPA), at least once a month and more often if 

conditions warrant. In the case of time-cycle 

samplers, deviations in quantity of the 

sample taken should not exceed ±five 

percent for any given setting. In the case of 

flow-responsive samplers, the deviation in 

quantity of sample taken per 1,000 barrels of 

flowing stream should not exceed ±5 

percent. For the purpose of field-calibrating 

an installation, the composite sample 

obtained from the automatic sampler under 

test should be verified for quality be 

comparing on the basis of physical and 

chemical properties, with either a properly 

secured continuous nonautomatic sample or 

tank sample. The tank sample should be 

taken under the following conditions: 

11.4.1.8.1 The batch pumped during the 

test interval should be diverted into a clean 

tank and a sample taken within one hour 

after cessation of pumping. 

11.4.1.8.2 If the sampling of the delivery 

tank is to be delayed beyond one hour, then 

the tank selected must be equipped with an 

adequate mixing means. For valid 

comparison, the sampling of the delivery tank 

must be completed within eight hours after 

cessation of pumping, even though the tank is 

equipped with a motor-driven mixer. 

11.4.1.6.3 When making a normal full-tank 

delivery from a tank, a properly secured 

sample may be used to check the results of 

the sampler if the parties (including EPA) 

mutually agree to this procedure. 

11.4.1.7 Receiver. The receiver must be a 

clean, dry container of convenient size to 

receive the sample. All connections from the 

sample probe to the sample container must 

be free of leaks. Two types of container may 

be used, depending upon service 

requirements. 

11.4.17.1 Atmospheric container. The 

atmospheric container shall be constructed in 

such a way that it retards evaporation loss 

and protects the sample front extraneous 

material such as rain, snow, dust, and trash. 

The construction should allow cleaning, 

interior inspection, and complete mixing of 

the sample prior to removal. The container 

should be provided with a suitable vent 

11.4.1.7.2 Closed container. The closed 

container shall be constructed in such a 

manner that it prevents evaporation loss. The 

construction must allow cleaning, interior 

inspection and complete mixing of the sample 

prior to removal. The container should be 

equipped with a pressure-relief valve. 

11.4.2 Procedure. 

11.4.2.1 Nonautomatic sample. Adjust the 

valve or plug cock from the sampling probe 

so that a steady stream is drawn from the 

probe. Whenever possible, the rate of sample 

withdrawal should be such that the velocity 

of liquid flowing through the probe is 

approximately equal to the average linear 

velocity of the stream flowing through the 

pipeline. Measure and record the rate of 

sample withdrawal as gallons per hour. 

Divert the sample stream to the sampling 

container continuously or intermittently to 

provide a quantity of sample that will be of 

sufficient size for analysis. 

11.4.2.2 Automatic sampling. Purge the 

sampler and the sampling lines immediately 

before the start of a sampling operation. If the 

sample design is such that complete purging 

is not possible, circulate a continuous stream 

from the probe past or through the sampler 

and back into the line. Withdraw the sample 

from the side stream through the automatic 

sampler using the shortest possible 

connections. Adjust the sampler to deliver 

not less than one and not more than 40 

gallons (151 liters) of sample during the 

desired sampling period. For time-cycle 

samplers, record the rate at which sample 

increments were taken per minute. For flowresponsive samplers, record the proportion of 

sample to total stream. Label the samples and 

deliver them to the laboratory in the 

containers in which they were collected. 

11.5 Nozzle sampling. The nozzle 

sampling procedure is applicable for 

sampling diesel fuel from a retail outlet or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer facility 

storage tank. 

11.5.1 Apparatus. Sample containers 

conforming with 4.1 Bhould be used. A spacer, 

if appropriate, and a nozzle extension as 

shown in Figures 6 and 7 shall be used when 

nozzle sampling. 

11.5.2 Procedure. Immediately after diesel 

fuel has been delivered from the pump and 

the pump has been reset, deliver a small 

amount of product into the sample container. 

Rinse sample container and dump product 

into waste container. Insert nozzle extension 

(Figure 7) into sample container and insert 

pump nozzle into extension with slot over air 

bleed hole. Fill slowly through nozzle 

extension to 70-80 percent full (Figure 8). 

Remove nozzle extension. Cap sample 

container at once. Check for leaks. 

12. Special Precautions and Instructions. 

12.1 Precautions. Official samples should 

be taken by, or under the immediate 

supervision of, a person of judgement, skill, 

and sampling experience. Never prepare 

composite samples for this test. Make certain 

that containers which are to be shipped by 

common carrier conform to applicable 

Interstate Commerce Commission, state, and 

local regulations. When flushing or purging 

lines or containers, observe the pertinent 

regulations and precautions against fire, 

explosion, and other hazards. 

12.3 Sample containers. Use containers of 

not less than one quart (0.9 liter) nor more 

than two gallons (7.6 liters) capacity, of 

sufficient strength to withstand the pressure 

to which they may be subjected. Open-type 

containers have a single opening which 

permits sampling by immersion. Closed-type " 

containers have two openings, one in each 

end (or the equivalent thereof), fitted with 

valves suitable for sampling by water 

displacement or by purging. 

12.4 Transfer connections. The transfer 

connection for the open-type container 

consists of an air tube and a liquid delivery 

tube assembled in a cap or stopper. The air 

tube extends to the bottom of the container. 

One end of the liquid delivery tube is long 

enough to reach the bottom of the diesel fuel 

chamber while the sample is being 

transferred to the chamber. The transfer 

connection for the closed-type container 

consists of a single tube with a connection 

suitable for attaching it to one of the openings 

of the sample container. The tube is long 

enough to reach the bottom of the diesel 

chamber while the sample is being 

transferred. 

12.5 Sampling open tanks. Use clean 

containers of the open type when sampling 

open tanks and tank cars An all-level sample 

obtained by the bottle procedure described in 

11.2 is recommended. Before taking the 

sample, flush the container by immersing it in 

the product to be sampled. Then obtain the 

sample immediately. Pour off enough so that 

the container will be 70-60 percent full and 

close it promptly. Label the container and 

deliver it to the laboratory. 

12.6 Sampling closed tanks. Containers of 

either the open or closed type may be used to 

obtain samples from closed or pressure tanks. 

If the closed type is used, obtain the sample 

using the water displacement procedure 

described in 12.8 or the purging procedure 

described in 12.9. The water displacement 
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1969 / Imposed Rules 35293 

P.20 

procedure is preferable because the Re 

product involved in the purging procedure 

may be hazardous. 

12.8 Water displacement procedu 

Completely fill the closed-type container with 

water and di ves. While pen 

a small amount of product to flow through the 

fittings, connect tlie top or inlet valve of the 

isr to the tank sampling tap or v 

Then open all valves on the inlet side of the 

ner. Open the bottom or outlet valve 

slightly to allow the water to be displaced 

slowly by the sample entering the con). 

Regulate the flow so that thffite is no 

appreciable change in pressure within the 

container. Close the outlet valve as soon as 

diesel fuel discharges from the outlet; then in 

succession close the inlet valve and 

sampl in the tank. Disconnec 

I withdraw enough of tlie 

contents so that it will be 70-80 percent full. 

If the vapor pressure of the product is not 

high enough to force liquid from the 

container, open both the upper and lower 

valves slightly to remove the excess. 

• tiy seal and lal>et the con'. 

r it to the laboratory. 

12.9 Purging procedure. C. inlet 

valve of the closed-type container to the tank 

sampling tap or valve. Throttle the outlet 

ol the container so that the pressure in 

•natoly equal to that in the 

tner being sampled. Allow a volume of 

product eq east twice that of the 

container to flow through the sampling 

system. Then close all valves, the outk 

•••: inlet va!' 

and the tank sampling valve last, and 

disconnect the container immediately. 

Withdraw enough of the contents so that tbe 

container will be 70-80 percent full. If 

tl.e vapor pressure of tlie product is not high 

ner, 

open both the upper and lowe- valves t 

>ve the excess. P 

the con 

For the reuse. h in the 

i b le, part 86 of title 40 of the Code 

of Faderal Regulations is revised to read 

as se! forth below: 

6. The authority citation for part 88 

continues to read a?: 

Authority: Sees. 202. 203.206. 207, 208 

is Amend 

U.S.C. 7521, 7522. 7524. 75 

7550 and 76 

7. A new § 88.113-91 is proposei: 

to subpart R to read as foil' 

§36.113-91 Fud specifications. 

(a) (' . (l) Gasoline 

wing specifications will 

be used by the Adm: 

and evaporative emission testing of 

petroleum-fueled Otto-cycle vehh 

Gasoline having the following 

speci*; 

Adr. i. shall be used by 

rer in exhaust 

evaporative testing except tl: 

specifications do not apply. 

item 

ASTM test 

method No. 

Octane, research, mn 

Sennithrty. irtn _. 

Lead (organic). g/U.S. gal 

(g/liter) 

DistiKatSon Range: 

IBPf23. °F.. 

(*C) 

10 pet. point. 

SOpctpctm. 

90 pet point 

tro 

EP. (max.) T 

CO. Sullur, weight pet, max 

Phosphorus, max. g/U.S. gat 

(y/lrto. | 

RVP13.4]. psi 

(hPa! 

arbon composition: 

Cretins, max pet 

Aromatics, max pet 

Saturates 

DS69C 

D3237 

086 

D66 

D86 

066 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D3231 

01310 

D1310 

01319 

Value 

93 

75 

0.05011] 

(001 

75-95 

(23,9-35) 

120-135 

(48.9-57.2) 

200-230 

(93.3-110) 

300-325 

(148.0-162.8) 

415 

(212.6) 

0.10 

0005 

(0.0013) 

8.7-9.2 

(60 0-63 4) 

10 

35 

15) 

[11 Maximum. 

(2) For testing at altrtudes above 1.219 m (4.000 ft) the specified tange is 75- -40.3 'Q. 

[31 For testing which ts unrelated to evapo»ativ» emission oontrol. the specified range is 6.0-9.2 psi (55.2-63.4 kPa) 

..raiudes above 1.210 m (4.000 tt) the speaited ranga a 7.0-9.2 r»si (54.^-63.4 kPa) 

lamatnder. 

(2J Unleaded gasoline representative 

of commercial gasoline which will be 

illy available through retail outlets 

shall be used in service accumulation 

troleum-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles. 

Leaded gasoline will not be used in 

service accumulation, 

(i) The octane rating of the gasoline 

shall be no higher than 1.0 

octane number above the 

mum recommended by the 

manufacturer and have a minimum 

sensitivity of 7.5 octane numbers, where 

is defined as the Research 

minus the Motor o< 

number. 

The Reid Vapor Pressure of the 

.ed shall be characteiis! 

itor fuel used during the season in 

which the service accumulation takes 

place. 

[3] Methanol fuel used for exbaust and 

evaporative emission testing and 

0 accumulation of methanol 

Otto-cycle vehicles shall be 

sentative of commercially 

available methanol fuel and shall 

consist of at least 50 percent methanol 

by volunte. 

(i)! 

the mi el to be us 

and service accumulation in accordance 

on. 

(ii) The Administrator shall detei 

the methanol fuel to be us 

and service accumulation. 

(4)0 ianol fuels ma 

for testing and service * 

ied: 

(i) They are commercially a 

and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to 

Administrator, is pr< 1 
35294 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

P.21 

only the designated fuel would be used 

in customer service, and 

(iii) Use of a fuel listed under 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section would 

have a detrimental effect on emissions 

or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 

must be provided prior to the start of 

testing. 

(5) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraphs (a)(2), 

(a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section shall be 

reported in accordance with § 86.090-

21(b)(3). 

(b) Diesel test fuel. (1) The petroleum 

fuels employed for testing diesel 

vehicles shall be clean and bright, with 

pour and cloud points adequate for 

operability. The petroleum fuel may 

contain nonmetallic additives as 

follows: cetane improver, metal 

deactivator, antioxidant, dehazer, 

antirust, pour depressant, dye, 

dispersant and biocide. 

(2) Petroleum fuel for diesel vehicles 

meetinq the following specifications, or 

substantially equivalent specifications 

approved by the Administrator, shall be 

used in exhaust emission testing. The 

grade of petroleum fuel recommended 

by the engine manufacturer, 

commercially designated as "Type 2-D" 

grade diesel, shall be used. 

Item 

Cetane Number.. 

Distillation 

range: 

IBP, "F 

CO 

10 pet. point 

"F. 

(°C) 

50 pet. point 

"F. 

(°C) 

90 pet. point, 

•F. 

co 

EP, "F 

CO 

Gravity, "API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Hydrocarbon 

composition. . 

Aromatics, 

min. pet. 

Paraffins, 

naphthenes, 

olefins. 

Flashpoint min. 

•F. 

CO 

Viscosity, 

centistokes. 

ASTM test 

method No. 

D613 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D1319 

D93 

D445 

Type 2-D 

42-50 

340—400 

(171.1-204.4) 

400-460 

(204.4-237.8) 

470-540 

(243.3-282.2) 

560-630 

(293.3-332.2) 

610-690 

(321.1-365.6) 

32-37 

0.08-0.12 

27 

['] 

130 

(54.4) 

2.2-3.4 

['] Remainder. 

(3) Petroleum fuel for diesel vehicles 

meeting the following specifications, or 

substantially equivalent specifications 

approved by the Administrator, shall be 

used in service accumulation. The grade 

of petroleum diesel fuel recommended 

by the engine manufacturer, 

commercially designated as "Type 2-D" 

grade diesel fuel, shall be used. 

Item 

Cetane Number.. 

Distillation 

range: 

90 pet point, 

•F. 

co 

Gravity, "API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Flashpoint min. 

•F. 

co 

Viscosity, 

centistokes. 

ASTM test 

method No. 

0613 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

093 

D455 

Type 2-D 

38-58 

540-650 

(282.2-343.3) 

30-39 

0.08-0.12 

130 

(54.4) 

1.5-4.5 

(4) Methanol fuel used for exhaust and 

evaporative emission testing and in 

service accumulation of methanol-fueled 

diesel vehicles shall be representative of 

commercially available methanol fuel 

and shall consist of at least 50 percent 

methanol by volume. 

(i) Manufacturers shall recommend 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(ii) The Administrator shall determine 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation. 

(5) Other fuels may be used for testing 

and service accumulation provided: 

(i) They are commercially available, 

and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided to show that 

only the designated fuel would be used 

in customer service, and 

(iii) Use of a fuel listed under 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) or (b)(4) of 

this section would have a detrimental 

effect on emissions or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 

must be provided prior to the start of 

testing. 

(6) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraphs (b)(2), 

(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of this section 

shall be reported in accordance with 

§ 86.090-21(b)(3). 

(c) Fuels not meeting the 

specifications set forth in this section 

may be used only with the advance 

approval of the Administrator. 

(d) Mixtures of petroleum and 

methanol fuels for flexible fuel vehicles. 

(1) Mixtures of petroleum and methanol 

fuels used for exhaust and evaporative 

emission testing and service 

accumulation for flexible fuel vehicles 

shall be within the range of fuel 

mixtures for which the vehicle was 

designed. 

(2) Manufacturer testing and service 

accumulation may be performed using 

only those mixtures (mixtures may be 

different for exhaust testing, evaporative 

testing, and service accumulation) 

expected to result in the highest 

emissions, provided: 

(i) The fuels which constitute the 

mixture will be used in customer 

service, and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided by the 

manufacturer to show that the 

designated fuel mixtures would result in 

the highest emissions, and 

(iii) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 

must be provided prior to the start of 

testing. 

(3) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section shall be reported in accordance 

with § 86.090-21(b)(3). 

8. A new § 86.113-94 is proposed to be 

added to Subpart B, to read as follows: 

§ 86.113-94 Fuel specifications. 

(a) Otto-cycle test fuel. (1) Gasoline 

having the following specifications will 

be used by the Administrator in exhaust 

and evaporative emission testing of 

petroleum-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles. 

Gasoline having the following 

specification or substantially equivalent 

specifications approved by the 

Administrator, shall be used by the 

manufacturer in exhaust and 

evaporative testing except that octane 

specifications do not apply. 

Item 

Octane, research, 

min.. 

Sensitivity, min 

Lead (organic), g/ 

U.S. gal.. 

(g/liter) 

Distillation Range: 

IBP.2], °F 

CC) 

10 pet. point, "F 

CQ : 

50 pet. point, "F .... 

CC) 

90 pet point, *F 

CC) 

EP, (max.)°F 

CC) 

Sulfur, weight pet, 

max.. 

Phosphorus, max. 

g/U.S. gal.. 

(g/liter) 

RVPC3.4], psi 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon 

composition: 

Olefins, max. pet.,. 

Aromatics, max. 

pet.,. 

Saturates 

ASTM test 

method no. 

D2699 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D3231 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

Value 

93 

7.5 

0.05011] 

(0.013)111 

75-95 

(23.9-35) 

120-135 

(48.9-57.2) 

200-230 

(93.3-110) 

300-325 

(148.9-162.8) 

415 

(212.8) 

0.10 

0.005 

(0.0013) 

8.7-9.2 

(60.0-63.4) 

10 

35 

[51 

C11 Maximum. 

[21 For testing at altitudes above 1,219 m (4,000 

ft) the specified range is 75°-105 *F (23.9"-40.6 °C). 

[3] For testing which is unrelated to evaporative 

emission control, the specified range is 8.0-9.2 psi 

(55.2-63.4 kPa). 

[4] For testing at altitudes above 1,219 m (4,000 

ft) the specified range is 7.9-9.2 psi (54.5-63 4 kPa). 

[5] Remainder. 
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 35295 

(21 Unleaded gasoline representative 

of commercial gasoline which will be 

generally available through retail outlets 

shall be used in service accumulation 

for petroleum-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles. 

Leaded gasoline will not be used in 

service accumulation. 

(i) The octane rating of the gasoline 

used shall be no higher than 1.0 

Research octane number above the 

minimum recommended by the 

manufacturer and have a minimum 

sensitivity of 7.5 octane numbers, where 

sensitivity is defined as the Research 

octane number minus the Motor octane 

number. 

(iij The Reid Vapor Pressure of the 

gasoline used shall be characterise 

the motor fuel used during the season in 

which the service accumulation takes 

place. 

(3) Methanol fuel used for exhaust and 

evaporative emission testing and in 

emulation of methanol-fueled 

Otto-cycle vehicles shall be 

representative of commercially 

available methanol fuel and shall 

consist of at least 50 percent methanol 

by volume. 

(i) Manufacturers shall recommend 

the methanol fuel to be used For te 

and service accumulation in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

Iii) The Administrator shall determine 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation. 

(4) Other methanol fuels may be used 

for testing and service accumula' 

provided: 

(i) They are commercially available. 

and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided to show that 

only the designated fuel would be used 

in customer service, and 

(iii) Use of a fuel listed under 

;raph (a)(3) of this section would 

have a detrimental effect on emissions 

or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the 

Adraii : fuel specifications 

must be provided prior to the start of 

testing 

(5)1 • >f the fuels 

to be use .iragraphs (a); 

(a)(3), and ; n shall be 

reported in na. with § 86.090-

(b) .'• fuel. (l)Tlic | 

d for testing di 

•••• clean and bright, with 

pour and cloud points adequate for 

operabilr uel may 

s as 

follows: Cetane improver, metal 

h 

antirust, pour lye, 

dispersant and bioi 

(2) Petroleum fuel for diesel vehicles 

meeting the following specifications, or 

substantially equivalent specifications 

approved by the Administrator, shall be 

used in exhaust emission testing. The 

grade of petroleum fuel recommended 

by the engine manufacturer, 

commercially designated as 'Type 2-4)" 

grade diesel, shall be used. 

ttem 

Cetane Number 

Cetane Inde. 

won range: 

IBP, -F._. 

CO 

10 pet point, "F... 

(•Cl 

50 pet point, "F... 

(•q 

90 pet point *F... 

(•c; 

EP, I 

cc) 

Gfavrty. "API 

Total sullur, pet 

Hydrocarbon 

composition. 

Aromatlcs, ntin. 

pet.. 

Parafins, 

naphthenes, 

olefins. 

Flashpoint, mm. "F.„ 

Viscocentistrof.es. 

ASTM test 

mefeod No. 

D613 

D976 

086 

086 

086 

086 

D86 

0287 

D2622 

01319 

D93 

0445 

Type 2-D 

40-48 

40 48 

340-400 

(171.1-204.4) 

400-460 

(204.4-237.8) 

470-540 

(243.3-282.2) 

560-630 

(283.3-332J>) 

610-690 

f321.1-365.6) 

32-37 

0.03-0.05 

27 

t l ] 

130 

(54.4) 

2.2-3.4 

[1) Ri 

(3) Petroleum fuel for diesel vehicles 

ig the following specifications, or 

substantially equivalent specifications 

approved by the Administrator, shall be 

used in service accumulation. The grade 

of petroleum diesel fuel recommended 

by the engine manufacturer, 

commercially designated as "Type 2-D" 

grade diesel fuel, shall be used. 

ttem 

Cetane Number.... 

Distillation range: 

90 pet. point, *F.... 

Gravity. 'API 

Total sultur. pel.... 

Ftashp*.* 

CC). 

Viscosity. 

centistrokes. 

ASTMlesl 

method No. 

D613 

D86 

D287 

02822 

093 

D455 

Type 2-D 

38-58 

540-630 

(282.2-343.3. 

30-39 

0.03-0.05 

130 

(54.4) 

1 5-4.5 

(4) Methanol fuel used for exhaust and 

evap mission testing and in 

e accumulation of methanol-fueled 

shall be r* 

comr. 

and shall consist of at le rcent 

methanol by volume. 

(i)Manu inmend 

ting 

.-vice accumulation in accori 

with paragraph (b)(4) of this sec! 

(ii) The Administrator i 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

cumulation. 

(5) Other fuels may be used 

and service accumulation provided: 

(i) They are commerce 

and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided to show th 

only the designated fuel would be u9ed 

in customer service, and 

k\ Use of a fuel listed un 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) or (b)(4) of 

this section would have 

effect on emissions or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel 

must be provided prior to the std' 

testing. 

i he specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraphs (b)(2). 

(b)(3). (b)(4). and (b)(5) o tion 

shall be reported in accordance v 

§86.090-21(bi; 

(c) Fuels not meeting the 

specifications set forth in th> 

may be used only with the advar 

approval of the Administra', 

(d) Mixtures of petroleum and 

methanol fuels for flexible fuel vehicles. 

(1) Mixtures of petroleum and methanol 

fuels used for exhaust and evaporative 

emission testing and service 

accumula! xible fuel vehicles 

shall be within the range of fuel 

mixtures for which the veh* 

desig. 

id service 

accumulation may be performed using 

only those mixtures (mixtures may be 

different for exhaust testing, evaporal 

testing, and service B 

expected to result in the highest 

emissions, provided: 

(i) The fuels which s the 

mixture will be used in customer 

service, and 

(ii) Infn .; to the 

Administrator, is pr the 

manufacturer to show tl 

designated fuel mixtures would result in 

the ^ 

Administrator of the fuel s; ins 

must be pi i of 

testi 

to be used un ihis 

sed 

9. A ne w § 0!i 

1313-91 Fuel specifications. 

(a) ( 

:_ Table 

N90-1 will be used by !' itor 
35296 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

P.23 

in exhaust emission testing petroleumfueled Otto-cycle engines. Gasoline 

having these specifications or 

substantially equivalent specifications • 

approved by the Administrator, shall be 

used by the manufacturer in exhaust 

emission testing, except that the octane 

specification does not apply. 

TABLE N91-1 

Item 

Octane, research, min. 

Sensitivity, min 

Lead (organic), g/U.S. 

(g/liter)..... 

Distillation range: 

IBP,'F..„ 

CC) 

10 pet. point, °F.... 

•CC) 

50 pet. point °F...._... 

CC) 

90 pet point *F.TM 

CC) 

EP, max. "F 

CQ 

Sulphur, max. wt. pet... 

Phosphorus, max., g/ 

U.S. gal.. 

(g/liter) :.... 

RVP, psi. ...: 

(kPa).~ 

Hydrocarbon 

composition: 

Olefins, max. pet... 

Aromatics, meet 

pet. 

Saturates 

ASTM 

D2699 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

086 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D323 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

Value 

93 

7.5 

(0.050) [11 

(0.013) [1] 

75-95 

(23.9-35) 

120-135 

(48.9-57.2) 

200-230 

(93.3-110) 

300-325 

(148.9+162.8) 

415 

(212.8). 

0.10 

0.005* 

(0.0013) 

8.0-9.2 

(60.0-63.4) 

10 

35 

[2] 

[11 Maximum. 

[23 Remainder. 

(2) Unleaded gasoline representative 

of commercial gasoline which will be 

generally available through retail outlets 

shall be used in service accumulation. 

(i) The octane rating of the gasoline 

used shall be not higher than one 

Research octane number above the 

minimum recommended by the 

manufacturer and have a minimum 

sensitivity of 7.5 octane numbers, where 

sensitivity is defined as the Research 

octane number minus the Motor octane 

number. 

(ii) The Reid Vapor Pressure of the -

gasoline used shall be characteristic of 

the motor fuel used during the season in 

which the service accumulation takes 

place. 

(3) Methanol fuel used for exhaust and 

evaporative emission testing and in 

service accumulation of methanol-fueled 

Otto-cycle engines shall be 

representative of commercially 

available methanol fuel and shall 

consist of at least 50 percent methanol 

by volume. . 

(i) Manufacturers shall recommend 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(ii) The Administrator shall determine 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation. 

(4) Other methanol fuels may be used 

for testing and service accumulation 

provided: * 

(i) They are commercially available, 

and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided to show that 

only the designated fuel would be used 

in customer service, and 

(iii) Use of a fuel listed under 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section would 

have a detrimental effect on emissions 

or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 

must be provided prior io the start of 

testing. 

(5) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraphs (a)(2), 

(a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section shall be 

reported in accordancewith § 86.090- i 

21(b)(3). .. . 

(b) Diesel test fuel. (1) The petroleum 

fuels for testing diesel engines employed 

for testing shall be clean and brignt, 

with pour and cloud points adequate for 

operability,. The petroleum fuel may 

contain nonmetallic additives as 

follows: Cetane improver, metal 

deactivator, antioxidant, dehazer, 

antirust, pour depressant, dye, 

dispersant, and biocide. 

(2) Petroleum fuel for diesel engines 

meeting the specifications in Table 

N90-2, or substantially equivalent 

specifications approved by the 

Administrator, shall be used in exhaust 

emissions testing. The grade of 

petroleum fuel recommended by the 

engine manufacturer commercially 

designated as "Type 1-D" or "Type 

2-D" grade diesel fuel shall be used. 

TABLE N91-2 

Item ASTM Type 1-D Type 2-D 

Cetane.. 

Distillation range: 

IBP,°F _ 

co......: : 

10 pet. point °F 

CC)... ; 

50 pet point, °F 

CC) 

90 pet point °F 

CQ 

EP,"F 

CQ 

Gravity, "API 

Total sulfur, pet 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Aromatics, pet 

Parafins, Naphthenes, Olefins.. 

Flashpoint min., *F 

CC) 

Viscosity, centistokes 

D613 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D1319 

D1319 

D93 

D445 

48-54 

330-390 

(165.6-198.9) 

370-430 

(187.8-221.1) 

410-480 

(210-248.9) 

460-520 

(237.8-271.1) 

500-560 

(260-293.3) 

40-44 

0.08-0.12 

811] 

[21 

120 

(48.9) 

1.6-2.0 

42-50 

340-400 

(171.1-204.4) 

' 400-460 

(204.4-237.8) 

470-540 

(243.3-282.2) 

560-630 

(293.3-332.2) 

610-690 

(321.1-365.6) 

32-37 

0.08-0.12 

27[1] 

[2] 

130 

(54.4) 

2.2-3.4 

[1] Minimum. 

[2] Remainder. 

(3) Petroleum fuel for diesel engines 

meeting the specifications in Table N90-: 

3, or substantially equivalent 

specifications approved by the 

Administrator, shall be used in service 

accumulation. The grade of petroleum 

diesel fuel recommended by the engine 

manufacturer, commercially designated 

as "Type 1-D" or 'Type 2-D" grade 

diesel fuel shall be used: 
P.24 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24,1989 / Proposed Rules 35297 

TABLE N91-3 

Item ASTM Type 1-D Type 2-D 

Cetane Number 

Distillation range: 

80 pet point *F_ 

CC). 

Gravity, °API — 

Tots) sulfur, pet 

Flashpoint min., °F...~ 

(•C) 

Viscosity, centistohes.. 

D613 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D93 

D455 

42-56 

440-530 

(226.7-276.7) 

39-45 

0.08-0.12 

120 

(48.9) 

1.2-2.2 

30-58 

540-630 

(282.2-332.2) 

30-42 

0.08-0.12 

130 

(54.4) 

1.5-4.5 

(4) Methanol fuel used for exhaust and 

evaporative emission testing and in 

service accumulation of methanol-fueled 

diesel engines shall be representative of 

commercially available methanol fuel 

and shall consist of at least 50 percent 

methanol by volume. 

(i) Manufacturers shall recommend 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(ii) The Administrator shall determine 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation. 

(5) Other fuels may be used for testing 

and service accumulation provided: 

(i) They are commercially available, 

and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided to show that 

only the designated fuel would be used 

in customer service, and 

(iii) Use of a fuel listed under 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) or (b)(4) of 

this section would have a detrimental 

effect on emissions or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 

must be provided prior to the start of 

testing. 

(6) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraphs (b)(2), 

(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of this section 

shall be reported in accordance with 

§ 86.0SO-21(b)(3). 

(c) Fuels not meeting the 

specifications set forth in this section 

may be used only with the advance 

approval of the Administrator. 

(d) Mixtures of petroleum and 

methanol fuels for flexible fuel vehicles. 

(1) Mixtures of petroleum and methanol 

fuels used for exhaust and evaporative 

emission testing and service 

accumulation for flexible fuel vehicles 

shall be within the range of fuel 

mixtures for which the vehicle was 

designed. 

(2) Manufacturer testing and service 

accumulation may be performed using 

only those mixtures (mixtures may be 

different for exhaust testing, evaporative 

testing, and service accumulation) 

expected to result in the highest 

emissions, provided: 

(i) The fuels which constitute the 

mixture will be used in customer 

service, and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided by the 

manufacturer to show that the 

designated fuel mixtures would result in 

the highest emissions, and 

(iii) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 

must be provided prior to the start of 

testing. 

(3) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section shall be reported in accordance 

with § 86.090-21(b)(3). 

10. A new § 88.1313-94 is proposed to 

be added to Subpart N, to read as 

follows: 

TABLE N94-1—Continued 

§ ©S.H3 H3-S4 

(a) Otto-cycle test fuel. (1) Gasoline 

having the specifications listed in Table 

NS0-1 will be used by the Administrator 

in exhaust emission testing petroleumfueled Otto-cycle engines. Gasoline 

having these specifications or 

substantially equivalent specifications 

approved by the Administrator, shall be 

used by the manufacturer in exhaust 

emission testing, except that the octane 

specification does not apply. 

TABLE N94-1 

Item 

Octane, research, min 

Sensitivity, min 

Lead (organic), g/U.S. 

gal. 

(g/litsr) 

Distillation range: 

IBP, "F 

CC) 

10 pot point 'F....... 

CC) 

50 pet point "F 

CC) 

SO pet point, °F 

CC) 

EP, max. °F 

CC) -

Sulphur, max. vrt. pet.... 

Phosphorus, max., g, 

U.S. gal. 

(g/liter) 

RVP, psi -

ASTM 

D2699 

D3237 

D86 

oes 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D323 

Value 

93 

7.5 

(0.050)[1_ 

(0.013)[11 

75-65 

(23.9-35) 

120-135 

(48.9-57.2) 

200-230 

(93.3-110) 

300-325 

(148.9-162.8) 

415 

(212.8) 

0.10 

0.005 

(0.0013) 

8.0-9.2 

Item 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon 

composition: 

Olefins, man. pet....... 

Aeromatics, max. 

pet. 

Saturates 

ASTM 

D1319 

D13I9 

D1319 

Value 

(60.0-63.4) 

10 

35 

[23 

[1] Maximum. 

[2] Remainder. 

(2) Unleaded gasoline representative 

of commercial gasoline which will be 

generally available through retail outlets 

shall be used in service accumulation. 

(i) The octane rating of the gasoline 

used shall be not higher than one 

Research octane number above the 

minimum recommended by the 

manufacturer and have a minimum 

sensitivity of 7.5 octane numbers, where 

sensitivity is defined as the Research 

octane number minus the Motor octane 

number. 

(ii) The Reid Vapor Pressure of the 

gasoline used shall be characteristic of 

the motor fuel used during the season in 

which the service accumulation takes 

place. 

(3) Methanol fuel used for exhaust and 

evaporative emission testing and in 

service accumulation of methanol-fueled 

Otto-cycle engines shall be 

representative of commercially 

available methanol fuel and shall 

consist of at least 50 percent methanol 

by volume. 

(i) Manufacturers shall recommend 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(ii) The Administrator shall determine 

the methanol fuel to be used fo? testing 

and service accumulation. 

(4) Other methanol fuels may be used 

for testing and service accumulation 

provided: 

(i) They are commercially available, 

and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided to show that 
35298 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24,1989 / Proposed Rules 

_____• •_• ! II _llll___ I IMI — IIIIIIIII I nil«IIITII**M*MT^rirn~*l*____ITI l<_____TT~n~IT*rM«_l*»***^MII ll*___*1__i-| ••|l__«ll lll»IITTTWMIIM*****__i*ll llllllll*i_r___l»llll_____l_ill_lll_____llWI_i I • • • • — lllll w I ••__• •!__• !•_____• ••__•_• !______••__•• ••______• 

only the designated fuel would be used 

in customer service, and 

(iii) Use of. a fuel listed under, 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section would 

have a detrimental effect on emissions 

or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 

must be provided prior to tiie start of 

testing. 

(5) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraphs (a)(2), 

(a)(3), and (a)(4) of this cection shall be 

reported in accordance with § 88.090-

21(b)(3). 

(b) Diesel test fuel. (1) The petroleum 

fuels for testing diesel engines employed 

for testing shall be clean arid bright, 

with pour and cloud points adequate for 

operability. The petroleum fuel may 

contain nonmetallic additives as 

follows: Cetane improver, metal 

deactivator, antioxidant, dehazer, 

antirust, pour depressant, dye, 

dispersant, and biocide. 

(2) Petroleum fuel for diesel engines 

meeting the specifications in Table N94-

2, or substantially equivalent 

specifications approved by the 

Administrator, shall be used in exhaust 

emissions testing. The grade of 

petroleum fuel recommended by tha 

engine manufacturer commercially 

designated as 'Type 1-D" or "Type 2-

D" grade diesel fuel shall be used. 

TABLE N94-2 

Item ASTM Type 1-D Type 2-0 

Cetane Number 

Cetane Index 

Distillation range: 

IBP. "F 

CC) 

10 pet point °F.... 

CC) 

50 pet. point "F.... 

CC). 

90 pet. point "F.. 

CC) 

EP, "F—.. 

rc> — 

Gravity, "API... 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Aromatics, pot -..~ -

Parafins, Naphthenes, Olefins.. 

Flashpoint min, *F 

(•C) 

Viscosity, centistokes. 

D613 

D976 

086 

D36 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D1319 

D1319 

D93 

0445 

40-54 

' 40-42 

330-390 

(165.6-198.9) 

370-430 

(187.8-221.1) 

410-480 

(210-248.9) 

460-520 

(237.8-271.1) 

500-560 

(260.0-293.3) 

40-44 

0.03-0.05 

8t1] 

[2] 

120 

(48.9) 

1.6-2.0 

40-48 

40-48 

340-400 

(171.1-204.4) 

400-460 

(204.4-237.8) 

470-540 

(243.3-282.2) 

560-630 

(293.3-332.2) 

610-690 

(321.1-335.6) 

32-37 

0.03-0.05 

27[1] 

[21 

130 

(54.4) 

2.0-3.2 

[1] Minimum. 

[2] Remainder. 

(3) Petroleum fuel for diesel engines 

meeting the specifications in Table N94-

3, or substantially equivalent 

specifications approved by the 

Administrator, shall be used in service 

accumulation. The grade of petroleum 

diesel fuel recommended by the engine 

manufacturer, commercially designated 

TABLE N94-3 

as "Type 1-D" or "Type 2-D" grade 

diesel fuel shall be used: 

Item ASTM Type 1-D Type 2-0 

Cetane Number 

Distillation range: 

90 pet point "F.... 

CC) 

Gravity, "API 

Total sulfur, pet 

Flashpoint min., "F.. 

CC). 

Viscosity, centistokes.. 

D613 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

093 

0455 

40-56 

440-530 

(228.7-276.7) 

39-45 

0.03-0.05 

120 

(48.9) 

1.2-2.2 

30-58 

540-630 

(282.2-332.2) 

30-42 

0.03-0.05 

130 

(54.4) 

1.5-4.5 

(4) Methanol fuel used for exhaust and 

evaporative emission testing and in 

service accumulation of methanol-fueled 

diesel engines shall be representative of 

commercially available methanol fuel 

and shall consist of at least 50 percent 

methanol by volume. 

(i) Manufacturers shall recommend 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(ii) The Administrator shall determine 

the methanol fuel to be used for testing 

and service accumulation. 

(5) Other fuels may be used for testing 

and service accumulation provided: 

(i) They are commercially avaUable, 

and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided to show that 

only the designated fuel would be used 

in customer service, and 

(iii) Use of a fuel listed under 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) or (b)(4) of 

this section would have a detrimental 

effect on emissions or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 
P.26 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24,1989 / Proposed Rules 35299 

must be provided prior to the start of 

testing. 

(6) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraphs (b)(2), 

(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of this section 

shall be reported in accordance with 

§ 86.090-21(b)(3). 

(c) Fuels not meeting the 

specifications set forth in this section 

may be used only with the advance 

approval of the Administrator. 

(d) Mixtures of petroleum and 

methanol fuels for flexible fuel vehicles. 

(1) Mixtures of petroleum and methanol 

fuels used for exhaust and evaporative 

emission testing and service 

accumulation for flexible fuel vehicles 

shall be within the range of fuel 

mixtures for which the vehicle was 

designed. 

(2) Manufacturer testing and service 

accumulation may be performed using 

only those mixtures (mixtures may be 

different for exhaust testing, evaporative 

testing, and service accumulation) 

expected to result in the highest 

emissions, provided: 

(i) The fuels which constitute the 

mixture will be used in customer 

service, and 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the 

Administrator, is provided by the 

manufacturer to show that the 

designated fuel mixtures would result in 

the highest emissions, and 

(iii) Written approval from the 

Administrator of the fuel specifications 

must be provided prior to the start of 

testing. 

(3) The specification range of the fuels 

to be used under paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section shall be reported in accordance 

with § 86.09O-21(b)(3). 

[FR Doc. 89-19616 Filed 8-23-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING COOE 6560-50-M