P.1 

OAR Box 1812 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

203) lll-A-1 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 11/3/2008 7:52:05 AM Sheet 203 of 280 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

P.2 

40 CFR Parts 80 and 86 

[AMS-FRL-. 

EPA ASR DQCKET 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 

Fuel Quality Regulations for Highway Diesel Fuel 

Sold in 1993 and Later Calendar Years 

AGENCY: 

ACTION: 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Notice o 

f proposed Rulemaking. 

co. in today's notice a new national 

NUMMARY: EPA proposes m toaay 

sunnA * .„„, The proposed 

nroaram of diesel fuel quality control. P 

approximately 0.25 weight percent to leveis 

" , pe^ t * weigbt. The proposa* «ould aiso re ^ 

tha t on-hig ^ aiesei *_ . aromatic !_*_.. be heic 

belo w current average U-. U <—* * 3, percent^ 

T h e propose* -___ - for capping _•_-*«« wouid be 
P.3 

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 sulfur dioxide (S02). 

Certification diesel fuel would be changed beginning 

with both the 1991 and 1994 model years to reflect the 

changes in commercial diesel fuel quality. Vehicles sold 

in model years 1991 through 1993 would be certified using 

0.10 weight percent sulfur fuel, reflecting the average 

fuel sulfur level expected to be used over these vehicles' 

useful lives (as defined in CFR Title 40 §86.085-2). 

Beginning with the 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 [date 14 days after Federal Register 

publication]. Comments on this proposal will be accepted 

through [date 30 days after Federal Register 

publication]. Additional information on the submission of 

comments can be found under "Public Participation" in the 

Supplementary Information section of today's notice. 

-2-
P.4 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments 

(in duplicate if possible) to: 

Air Docket Section (A-130) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Attention: Docket No. A-86-03 

401 M Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Materials relevant to this proposal have been placed 

in Docket No. A-86-03 by EPA. The docket is located at 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 reasonable fee may be charged by 

EPA for copying docket materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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 

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 

-3-
P.5 

preamble describe: 1) the background of the proposal, 2) 

the control options which were considered during the 

rulemaking development process, 3) the cost to the refining 

industry of the proposed diesel fuel requirements, 4) the 

economic and environmental benefits of the proposed 

rulemaking, 5) the overall cost effectiveness of the 

proposed fuel regulations, 6) the leadtime issues involved, 

7) the enforcement aspects of the proposed rulemaking, 8) 

the issue of diesel engine certification, and 9) the actual 

proposal in detail, with request for comments on specific 

issues. 

II. Background 

In March of 1985, EPA promulgated particulate emission 

standards of 0.25 grams per brake horsepower-hour 

(g/BHP-hr) for heavy-duty trucks (greater than 8,500 lbs), 

and 0.10 g/BHP-hr for buses, effective beginning in the 

1991 model year; and 0.10 g/BHP-hr for 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-ozidizers 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 

-4-
P.6 

content of diesel fuel. In the preamble to the final rule, 

EPA 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, but that 

it would continue to study the issue and, if warranted, 

consider regulating diesel fuel sulfur content. In June of 

1986, EPA released for public comment a study prepared 

under contract for EPA by Energy and Resource Consultants, 

Inc. (ERC), and Sobotka and Company, Inc. (SCI), entitled 

"Diesel Fuel Quality Effects on Emissions, Durability, 

Performance, and Costs" [51 FR 23437, June 27, 1986]. The 

draft report by ERC presented the important emissionperformance- and durability-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 changes 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 fuel sulfur would 

directly reduce S02 and sulfate particulate 

emissions,while reducing fuel aromatics would reduce 

carbonaceous and organic particulate emissions. The report 

also concluded that back-end volatility (e.g., the 

90-percent distillation point) does not significantly 

affect particulate emissions. 

-5-
P.7 

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 would reduce 

corrosive engine wear and extend 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 fuel aromatics content would 

improve ignition quality, which would in turn improve the 

ability of engines to start in cold temperatures and reduce 

engine noise. 

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 from 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. ERC 

claimed that this cost would be more than offset by the 

savings generated by the increased engine life resulting 

from desulfurization. 

ERC and SCI also concluded (although EPA disagreed 

with this conclusion) that the desulfurization process 

would effect a reduction in aromatics content to about 20.3 

-6-
P.8 

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 additional work was needed in estimating the 

refinery cost of controlling diesel fuel quality as well as 

in evaluating the 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 summarized, 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 

-7-
P.9 

reviewing the report, members of industry cautioned that 

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 quality regulations on the cost of producing diesel 

fuel. The costs of controlling sulfur to 0.05 weight 

percent, controlling aromatics to 20 volume percent, and 

controlling both simultaneously were estimated. Two 

assumptions regarding the volume of fuel controlled were 

made in the study. One assumption 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 distributed 

separately, and would therefore not need to meet 

"on-highway" 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. 

-8-
P.10 

Most recently, in a landmark initiative, members of 

the diesel engine manufacturing and petroleum refining 

industries submitted a joint proposal for on-highway diesel 

fuel modification to EPA. In the proposal, refiners stated 

that they could provide diesel fuel 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 major 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. 

-9-
P.11 

Specific topics which were evaluated in detail include the 

refinery cost of fuel control, the effect of fuel 

regulations on engine manufacturers' compliance strategies, 

and the effect of fuel control on engine wear, air 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-86-03, 

as referenced above. Although the Draft RIA is now 

outdated in some aspects, it still comprises the technical 

basis for today's proposal. 

Ill. Control Options 

The control options which were considered in the 

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 

-10-
P.12 

diesel fuel aromatics levels have been increasing 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 Refiners Association (NPRA) of member 

refineries. The results of these different studies show 

some disagreement over the total cost of diesel fuel 

modifications due to: 1) uncertainties involved in the 

modeling process, and 2) uncertainties in the analytical 

techniques and assumptions made by the NPRA members in 

their survey responses. The major areas of modeling 

uncertainty include: 1) the amount of desulfurization 

equipment currently in place in the refining industry, 2) 

-11-
P.13 

the availability and performance of technology required for 

aromatics control, and 3) the ability of the refining 

industry and fuel distribution system to segregate 

"on-highway" and "off-highway" distillate fuels. The 

degree to which the cost of diesel fuel modification is 

> 

dependant on these areas of uncertainties is discussed in 

more detail below. 

Of these uncertainties, the segregation issue is the 

most important. According to the NPRA survey, if current 

fuel distribution practices are maintained, about 2.4 

million barrels per day (bbl/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 could completely 

segregate the on- and off-highway portions of the 

distillate pool, 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 

-12-
P.14 

indicates that 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 the 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 

currently 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 significantly by two factors: the 

amount of excess desulfurization capacity that currently 

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. 

-13-
P.15 

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. 

-14-
P.16 

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 the 

same under an increased segregation scenario (off-highway 

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 the 

complete (100 percent) segregation scenario. 

-15-
P.17 

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-to-distillate" 

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 that, 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). 

-16-
P.18 

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. 

-17-
P.19 

V. Benefits of Fuel Control 

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 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 the 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 

•18-
P.20 

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 all, 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 0.06-0.08 g/BHP-hr (including the weight of bound 

water). The 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 controlling 

organic particulates. 

-19-
P.21 

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 

reguirements was made for heavy-duty diesel vehicles for 

the 1994 and later model years under various fuel control 

scenarios. The likely aftertreatment technology mixes were 

determined by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of each 

technology type with respect to particulate control, for 

each heavy-duty 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). 

-20-
P.22 

For 1994 and later model year heavy-duty diesels, due 

to the large contribution of sulfates to engine-out 

particulate, compliance with the O.l g/BHP-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 slightly 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 the displacement of some traps by 

oxidation catalysts. On average, it 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 20 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 heavy-duty 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 

-21-
P.23 

$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, however, 

it appears that manufacturers will not use traps to comply 

with the 1991 model year truck standard, but instead rely 

on engine-related controls. The adoption of a 0.10 percent 

sulfur level for certification fuel is expected to reduce 

certification 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' plans 

for 1991 engines are already largely fixed, EPA does not 

expect fuel control to affect manufacturers' plans for 

engine-related controls in this timeframe. Consequently, 

in-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, 

-22-
but rather a "transfer payment" from one sector of society 

to another, no aftertreatment-related 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 to comply with the 0.10 

g/BHP-hr 1991 bus standard; use of an alternative fuel, 

such as methanol, may also 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 savings due to fuel control was not quantified. 

B. Wear Benefits 

An extensive body of data exists in the literature 

documenting the relationship between diesel fuel sulfur and 

corrosive engine wear. Because of this effect, engine oils 

typically contain 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 may not be sufficient to 

completely control corrosive wear, and, consequently, a 

reduction in fuel sulfur levels may significantly 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. 

-23-
P.25 

After the 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 that 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 the financial savings to consumers of such a 

decrease in engine wear rates, however, is a more difficult 

task. Engines are currently 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. 

-24-
Further, the relative contributions of corrosive and 

abrasive wear to engine life is not well understood. While 

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 

the 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 that 

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, oil 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 1.6#/gal for light-duty 

-25-
P.27 

diesel vehicles (LDDVs), l.2#/gal for light-duty diesel 

trucks (LDDTs), 0.80/gal for LHDDEs, 1.3^/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 

the oil and eliminate the 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 2.5l#/gal of 

diesel fuel consumed for MHDDEs, 2.52#/gal for HHDDEs and 

1.98^/gal for urban buses. LDDVs, LDDTs and LHDDEs 

received no benefit since these engines are not normally 

rebuilt and there was no credit taken for extended vehicle 

life under this scenario. 

-26-
P.28 

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, 23#/gal for LHDDEs, 11.7^/gal for 

MHDDEs, 8.4^/gal for HHDDEs. and 11.5^/gal 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 three 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 with 

increases in both engine and total vehicle life. 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. 

-27-
P.29 

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 comment 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 

-28-
P.30 

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. 

C. Emissions and Air Quality 

The diesel fuel quality changes being considered would 

result in substantial reductions in SO, 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 indirectly 

affected by fuel quality modification, due to the 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 l 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) 

-29-
P.31 

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 SO, 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 SO, emissions are 

converted to sulfate particulates in the urban atmosphere. 

These atmospherically-formed particulate are referred to as 

indirect PM. Thus, the reduction in SO, emissions would 

result in substantial indirect PM reductions in both the 

short and long term as well. 

-30-
P.32 

Table l 

Projected Nationwide Emission Reductions due to 

Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control (1000 tons/yr) 

Pollutant 

Total Particulate 

Directly Emitted 

Indirect 

SO2 

HC 

CO 

1995 

99-196* 

10-29 

89-167 

310-580 

14 

141 

2015 

159-321 

3-35 

156-286 

542-993 

88 

916 

Lower end of range result of 100% distillate 

segregation, upper end 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 

-31-
P.33 

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 (1000 tons/yr) 

Pollutant 1995 2015 

10 

0 

38 

69 

0 . 6 

0 

15 

98 

Direct PM 

S02 

HC 

CO 

Should the degree of segregation of distillate fuels 

increase significantly, it is possible that refiners may 

change blending practice to direct low sulfur and aromatic 

blend stocks to the on-highway 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 to 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 off-highway pool. Thus, 

most of the home heating oil market is not even potentially 

-32-
P.34 

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 the 

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 

3 

Ug/m as a result of sulfur control. Reductions in 

annual arithmetic mean concentrations of SO, ranging from 

3 

7.0-16.7 Ug/m are also projected. (These compare to 

current

 PM I Q

 an<*** S02 concentrations in urban areas 

3 3 

ranging from 18-90 Ug/m and 3-67 Ug/m , 

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, 

-33-
P.35 

aromatics control would result in particulate reductions of 

3 

only 0.01 Ug/m . A more detailed analysis of the 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 SO, emissions. Because of the adverse health 

effects of PM, and S02, 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 health 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 SO, in association 

with particles causes excess mortality and morbidity. 

People with cardiorespiratory diseases are at higher risk 

for mortality following long-term exposure. The increase 

in morbidity from long-term exposure is reflected as an 

-34-
P.36 

increase in the prevalence of respiratory symptoms in 

children and adults and the frequency of respiratory 

illness in children. Acute exposure to low levels of S02 

alone causes pulmonary function changes in asthmatics. 

Upon atmospheric transformation, SO, 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 and humans 

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 other chemicals. 

A 5-year exposure of animals to a combination of S02 plus 

sulfuric acid caused pulmonary function decrements and 

structural damage to the lungs. In some animal studies, 

acute exposure to sulfuric acid mixed with particles has 

been found to be synergistic for some types of pulmonary 

effects. 

-35-
P.37 

The non-cancer 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, it is not currently 

possible to quantitatively extrapolate to lower levels. 

The non-cancer health effects of exposure to light 

aromatic and short-chain aliphatic hydrocarbons are not 

well understood. Persons chronically exposed to some 

hydrocarbon mixtures have complained of dizziness, 

drowsiness, headaches, confusion, and general lethargic 

feeling. Animal studies of some hydrocarbons show 

neurotoxic and other 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 be 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 

-36-
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 the 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 non-sulfate emissions, but to 

permit certification of their engines at levels 

sufficiently below the standard to ensure in-use compliance. 

There is a second impact of lower sulfur fuels as it 

relates to available technology for controlling engine-out 

emissions. The switch to low sulfur fuel will allow the 

use of catalyzed devices, both catalyzed traps and flow 

-37-
P.39 

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 the 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 the organic emissions. 

The proposed cap on the 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 both 

a decrease in total particulate emissions, and a decrease 

in the average carcinogenic potency of the particulates. 

More stringent control of aromatics would result in a 

somewhat larger reduction in cancer incidence. The 

-38-
P.40 

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. 

E. Visibility 

Because particulate matter both scatters and absorbs 

light, a change in urban visibility is also projected to 

result from 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 four 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 

-39-
P.41 

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 the 

cost-effectiveness of diesel fuel control according to 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 

S02< 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. 

-40-
P.42 

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 

cost-effectiveness 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 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 

Sulfur Control 

Maximum wear credit included 

Minimum wear credit included 

No wear credit included 

Cost-Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

-68,148 to -19,253 

-3,906 to 4,304 

2,826 to 6,773 

Aromatics Control 

Primary Analysis 

High Emission Reduction 

Sensitivity Analysis 

Cost-Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

310,751 to 560,378 

135,789 to 244,868 

-41-
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. Thus, for any sulfur level above 0.05 

weight percent, much of the technology credit is lost and 

-42-
P.44 

the cost-effectiveness would be worse than that for 0.05 

weight percent. This, coupled with the 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 

cost-effectiveness 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. 

-43-
P.45 

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 this 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 

-44-
P.46 

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 

the 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-1990. 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 l, 1993. The proposal indicated that 

segregation of on-highway and off-highway 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. 

-45-
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 engines. 

Environmental benefits can be lost through misfueling, when 

a noncomplying or inappropriate fuel is used in a motor 

vehicle. Regulations could forbid misfueling itself or 

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: l) 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. 

-46-
P.48 

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 the Agency in 

deciding where the diesel fuel standards should apply 

include: 

1. At all sites in the distribution network; 

2. Only sites under the control of "downstream" 

parties, including retail outlets and wholesale 

purchaser-consumers; 

3. Only sites under the control of "upstream" 

parties, including refiners and importers; 

4. Sites controlled by both "downstream" and 

"midstream" parties, including retail outlets, wholesale 

purchaser-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. 

-47-
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 the noncomplying fuel into the 

distribution network, and 3) which 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 on-highway 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. 

-48-
P.50 

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 the 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 to 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. 

-49-
P.51 

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 

for 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 that the third option, with the 

vicarious liability provisions, be implemented. This 

approach has been used by the Agency in its fuel 

contamination liability regulations (40 CFR 80.23). 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. 

-50-
P.52 

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 through 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. 

-51-
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 regulation, unless it is 

visibly dyed. More specifically, EPA proposes that 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 choice of dye and 

whether a concentration of dye should be specified along 

with the visible color requirement. 

This scheme of dyeing will place the impetus on the 

industry to add the dye at the earliest possible point once 

the decision is made that the diesel fuel will be used for 

other than motor vehicle purposes. Once dye is added to 

the non-highway diesel fuel, it cannot be removed later in 

the distribution chain if the fuel is subsequently used for 

motor vehicles. Any mixing of complying and noncomplying 

blends will also be apparent. Requiring that on-highway 

diesel fuel be dyed, on the other hand, would permit 

distributors to wait to the last point in the distribution 

chain to dye the fuel, preventing EPA from enforcing the 

sulfur content and aromatics standards earlier in the 

-52-
P.54 

distribution chain. However, with the off-highway fuel 

dyed, the decision to produce or import complying fuel will 

probably be made at the refinery or import facility and no 

dye would be added. 

In addition to the usual control afforded by the use 

of dyes, the Agency will also collect diesel fuel samples 

at any point in the distribution chain. These samples will 

be collected according to the procedures outlined in 

Appendix G of these proposed regulations. These samples 

will then be tested according to the ASTM standard test 

methods for sulfur percentage (ASTM-2622-82) and cetane 

index (ASTM-976). The ASTM methods for determining cetane 

index and sulfur percentage will be incorporated by 

reference in the final rule. 

IX. Diesel Engine Certification Fuel 

EPA has consistently required that diesel fuel for 

certification (and subsequent compliance testing) be 

representative of commercially available diesel fuel. As 

such, it is appropriate to propose that the sulfur level of 

fuel used to certify 1994 and later engines be no more than 

0.05 weight percent. (The current specification for 

aromatics and cetane appears adequate, so no change here 

appears necessary.) However, 1991-93 engines would operate 

on both current fuel (roughly 0.25 weight percent sulfur) 

and controlled fuel, so the question arises as to which 

fuel, or a combination thereof, should be used in 

certification. 

-53-
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 sulfur fuel 

for much of their useful lives and their emissions could 

exceed the PM standards during this time, while just 

meeting the standards on low-sulfur fuel. However, it also 

appears inappropriate to ignore the fact that these engines 

would be operated on low-sulfur fuel for a portion of their 

useful lives. Thus, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

require these engines to certify on a fuel with a sulfur 

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 laboratory would have to 

maintain stocks of five diesel fuels for many years to 

come. Thus, we propose that a single average sulfur level 

fuel be used for 1991-93 certification. Based on mileage 

accumulation data taken from heavy-duty, diesel vehicles, 

this average sulfur level is 0.10 weight percent. Thus 

the certification levels of 1991-1993 model year engines 

would represent the average in-use emissions over the full 

useful life of these engines. It is important to note, 

"Calculation of Average Fuel Sulfur Level of 1991-93 

Model Year Heavy-Duty Diesels," Timothy Sprik, EPA, 

December, 1988. 

-54-
P.56_ 

however, that EPA believes that, for the reasons discussed 

previously, actual in-use emissions of these vehicles will 

not be affected by this change to the certification fuel. 

X. Description of the Proposal 

This section summarizes in detail the proposed control 

measures contained in today's notice. The detailed 

requirements may be found in their entirety in the proposed 

regulations published with today's notice. 

A. Commercial Fuel Requirements 

1. Standards 

After September 30, 1993, all diesel fuel sold, 

supplied, offered for sale or supply, dispensed, or 

transported in any state for use in on-highway diesel 

vehicles shall contain no more than 0.05 percent sulfur by 

weight, and shall have a minimum cetane index of 40. EPA 

is aware that the effective date of compliance for refiners 

will be prior to September 30, 1993, because the on-highway 

diesel fuel must be fully available throughout the 

distribution system by that date. 

-55-
2. Enforcement Provisions 

a* Overall Enforcement Scheme. The proposed 

enforcement provisions in this notice are based on the 

requirement that on-highway diesel fuel have a cetane index 

number of at least 40 and that the percentage of sulfur by 

weight be no greater than 0.05 percent at all points in the 

distribution network. All parties in the distribution 

network are covered by these regulations, including 

refiners, importers, distributors, carriers, resellers, 

retail and wholesale purchaser-consumers. Any diesel fuel 

for use in motor vehicles must comply with these standards 

when introduced into commerce, sold, offered for sale, 

supplied, offered for supply, dispensed, or transported. 

Basically, once diesel fuel has been introduced into the 

distribution network, the fuel must comply with these 

standards at all points up to and including the time it 

leaves the pump. 

The proposed regulations define cetane, cetane index, 

diesel fuel, sulfur percentage, refinery, retail outlet, 

distribution, reselling, wholesale purchaser-consumer and 

carrier. Methods of determining cetane index and sulfur 

percentage will be incorporated by reference to 40 CFR Part 

80 and are ASTM standard test method and 7622-82, 

respectively. 

-56-
P.58 

This notice also sets forth proposed regulations 

establishing presumptions of liability for parties found 

with noncomplying fuel. There is also a vicarious 

liability provision which holds certain upstream parties in 

the distribution network responsible for violations at 

downstream facilities over which they could have exercised 

some control. Defenses to vicarious liability are included 

in the proposed regulations. 

b. Sampling Methodology. The proposed sampling 

methodology is set forth in Appendix G. The sampling 

procedures include nozzle sampling, bottle sampling, tap 

sampling, and manual line sampling. The purpose of the 

sampling methodology is to assure that the sample taken is 

true and unaltered and is representative of the diesel fuel 

being tested. 

c. Testing Methodologies. Two testing 

methodologies have been proposed. The first one, ASTM 

standard test method 2622-82, determines the percentage of 

sulfur in the diesel fuel by means of X-ray spectrometry. 

The second test, ASTM standard test method, is a method for 

estimating the ASTM cetane index of the diesel fuel from 

the API gravity and mid-boiling point. 

The issue of what enforcement tolerance should be 

allowed when using these test methods will be addressed in 

-57-
P.59 

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 0.06 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. 

-58-
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 recently 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 

purchaser-consumers 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 

-59-
P.61 

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 certifitying 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. 

-60-
l. 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. 

•61-
P.63 

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 

S02 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. 

-62-
P.64 

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 "non-phased" (as defined by the SCI analysis) 

sulfur regulations, in which refiners could earn credits 

for achieving lower than certain specified levels of sulfur 

in 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 exhaust characteristics of 

the pre- and post-1994 diesel fleet are likely to differ, 

full credit may not be granted, (i.e., the credits could be 

-63-
required to be exchanged at other than 1:1 after 1994). 

EPA is interested in comments as to whether reductions 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 

certification fuel specification for 1991-93 engines affect 

the desirability of credit trades? What reporting 

requirements would be necessary to enforce a banking and 

trading program? 

9. As part of the enforcement scheme outlined in 

this preamble, EPA has proposed that diesel fuels intended 

exclusively for off-highway use could be distinguished by 

the addition of 1, 4 - dialkylamino - anthraquinone dye. 

The Agency is interested in comments from the industry as 

to the practicality of this approach. Specific issues upon 

which comments are sought include what specific dyes should 

be used and whether these dyes present any health-based 

risk either in the fuel or when combusted? Is any test 

beyond the proposed visibility standard required to 

identify dyed fuel? Will the inclusion of such a dye 

present any problems to the users of off-highway diesel 

fuel? Where in the distribution system can this approach 

be implemented. Is the dyeing rule feasible to apply to 

imported distillates? If so, how would it be implemented 

operationally? Do any countries currently use a dyeing 

program for diesel fuel control purpose? If so, what 

experience have the refiners had with the success of these 

programs? Cost? 

-64-
P.66 

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 shows that 

diesel fuel aromatics correlates rather poorly with cetane 

index, and may not be a sufficient safeguard against future 

aromatics increases. EPA requests specific comments on the 

effectiveness with which the proposed cetane index 

specification would control fuel aromatics and also on the 

merits and demerits of other possible means of capping fuel 

aromatics, including direct measurement 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 levels (requiring the control 

of fuels which are currently higher than average), or at 

less stringent levels (e.g., 75th percentile, 90th 

percentile, etc.). 

XI. Public Participation 

Comments and the Public Docket. As in past rulemaking 

actions, EPA desires full public participation in 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 to make maximum use of the 

-65-
comments. Commenters are especially encouraged to provide 

specific suggestions for changes to any aspects of the 

proposal that they believe need to be modified or 

improved. All comments should be directed to the EPA Air 

Docket Section, Docket No. A-86-03 [see "Addresses"]. 

The Agency will base its decision on the discloseable 

public record. However, the Agency realizes that some 

manufacturers may want EPA to consider pertinent 

information that may be proprietary. Commenters desiring 

to submit proprietary information for consideration should 

clearly distinguish such information from other comments to 

the greatest possible extent, and clearly label it 

"Confidential Business Information." Submissions 

containing such proprietary 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 the final rule in part on a submission 

labeled as confidential business information, then a 

nonconfidential version of the document which 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 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of 

confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is 

-66-
P.68 

received by EPA, it may be made available to the public 

without further notice to the commenter. 

XII. Statutory Authority 

Authority for the actions proposed in this notice is 

granted to EPA by sections 114, 202, 206, 207, 208, 211, 

and 301 of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7525, 

7541, 7542, 7545, and 7601]. 

XIII. List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 80 

Fuel additives, Diesel fuel, Motor vehicle pollution, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 86 

Administrative practice and procedures. Air pollution 

control, Diesel fuel, Motor vehicles, Labeling, Motor 

vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

-67-
P.69 

XIV. Requlatory Flexibility Analysis 

Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 

EPA to perform an analysis of the impact of proposed 

regulations on small entities when a significant impact on 

a substantial number of such entities would occur. An 

analysis of this issue was performed for EPA by SCI. 

According to the SCI report, 74 refineries, representing 

8.4 percent of the total U.S. crude distillation capacity, 

were classified as small refiners at the beginning of 

1986. SCI used aggregate refinery modeling to estimate the 

cost of modifying fuel quality at these facilities. The 

modeling results showed that, for those refineries which 

could finance the necessary equipment, sulfur control costs 

were nearly the same for small refiners as for the rest of 

the U.S. refining industry. 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 should not be 

an insurmountable problem, however, since these refiners 

should be able to shift their product slates to meet 

"off-highway" distillate needs in their geographic area, 

while other refiners with hydrodesulfurization capacity (or 

-68-
P.70 

the financial ability to build it) would increase 

"on-highway" diesel production. The request for product 

slate, flexibility in the joint industry proposal suggests 

that this approach would be taken by some refiners. Thus, 

this proposed regulation should not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small entities, if 

segregation in the distribution system takes place. 

XV. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis 

The Administrator has determined that this proposed 

action would constitute a major regulation, and accordingly 

a Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis has been prepared as 

required 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 that 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. 

-69-
-E7ZJL 

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. 

DATE ADMINISTRATOR 

-70-
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Parts 80 and 

86 of Title 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 ahd 

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. 

-2-
P.74 

(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 section 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. 

-3-
P.75 

(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). Compliance with the standards listed in 

paragraph (a) shall be determined by the use of one of the 

sampling methodologies specified in Appendix G to this 

part. [The testing methodologies specified for sulfur 

percentage, ASTM D-2622-82, 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 Section 80.30 is proposed to be added, to 

read as follows: 

§ 80.30 Liability for violations of diesel fuel control 

and prohibitions. 

-4-
P.76 

(a) Violations at refiners or importers 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: 

-5-
P.77 

(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. 

(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 marketing 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 

-6-
P.78 

(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 this section. 

(e) Violations at branded retail outlets or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. 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 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) 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 carrier 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 

purchaser-consumer facility, except as provided in 

paragraph (g)(4) of this section. 

-7-
P.79 

(f) Violations at unbranded retail outlets or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. 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) The 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 section; 

(3) The carrier (if any), if the carrier 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 this section. 

-8-
(g) Defenses. (l) In any case in which a carrier 

would be in violation under paragraph (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 the 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 diesel fuel, or any other evidence that shows that 

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. 

-9-
P.81 

(2) In any case in which a refiner or importer would 

be in violation under paragraphs (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 by him or his 

employee or agent; and 

(ii) Test results, performed in accordance 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-976 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 paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1), 

(e)(2) or (f)(2) of this section, the distributor or 

reseller shall not be deemed in violation if he can 

demonstrate: 

(i) That the violation was not caused by him or his 

employee or agent; and 

-10-
P.82 

(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 

carrier, reseller or 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 

reseller; and 

(iii) Evidence of an oversight program conducted by 

the distributor or reseller, such as periodic sampling and 

testing of 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 paragraphs (c)(3) or (e)(4) of this 

section, the refiner shall not be deemed in violation if he 

can demonstrate all of the following: 

(i) Test results, performed in accordance 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-976 for cetane index, at 

-11-
P.83 

the refinery at which the diesel fuel was produced, which 

evidence that 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 violation of law (other 

than the Act or this part), or an act of sabotage or 

vandalism, whether or not such acts are violations 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 supplied by such reseller, in violation of a 

contractual undertaking imposed by the refiner on such 

reseller designed to prevent such action, and despite 

reasonable efforts by the refiner (such as periodic 

sampling and testing) to insure compliance with such 

contractual obligation, or 

(C) Was caused by the action of a retailer who is 

supplied directly by the refiner (and not by a reseller), 

in violation of a contractual undertaking imposed by .the 

-12-
P.84 

refiner on such retailer designed to prevent such action, 

and despite reasonable efforts by the refiner (such as 

periodic sampling and testing) to insure compliance with 

such contractual obligation, or 

(D) Was caused by the action of a distributor 

subject to a contract with the 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 efforts by the refiner (such as periodic 

sampling and testing) to ensure compliance with such 

contractual obligation, or 

(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-consumer, 

despite reasonable efforts by the 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 

-13-
P.85 

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 the 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 paragraphs 

(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)(i), 

(g)(4)(ii) 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: 

-14-
APPENDIX G— SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR DIESEL FUEL 

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 necessary 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 are 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 from 

such locations in the tank or other container that the 

sample will be truly representative of the diesel fuel. 

-15-
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 to the draw-off level, then opening the sampler 

and raising it at a rate such that it is about 3/4 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 3/4 full when withdrawn from the diesel 

fuel. 

-16-
P.88 

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 

(150mm) below the top surface of the liquid (Figure 1 of 

Appendix D). 

3.6 "Upper sample" is a spot sample taken at the 

mid-point of the upper third of the tank contents (Figure 1 

of Appendix D). 

3.7 "Middle sample" is a spot sample obtained from 

the middle of the tank contents (Figure l of Appendix D). 

3.8 "Lower sample" is a spot sample obtained at the 

level of the fixed tank outlet or the swing line outlet 

(Figure 1 of Appendix D). 

3.9 "Clearance sample" is a spot sample taken 4 

inches (100 mm) below the level of the tank outlet (Figure 

1 of Appendix D). 

3.10 "Bottom sample" is one obtained from the 

material on the bottom surface of the tank, container, or 

line at its lowest point. 

-17-
P.89 

3.11 "Drain sample" is one obtained from 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 "Continous 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 of 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 

-18-
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, naphths, or other solvents, soldering fluxes or 

acids, corrosion, rust, and oil. 

-19-
P.91 

5. 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 

-20-
P.92 

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. 

-21-
P.93 

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. 

9. Shipping Samples 

9.1 To prevent loss of liquid during shipment, and 

to protect against moisture and dust, cover with suitable 

vapor tight caps. 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 observed. 

10. Labeling Sample Containers 

10.1 Label the container immediately after a sample 

is obtained. Use waterproof and oilproof ink or a pencil 

hard enough to dent the tag, since soft pencil and ordinary 

ink markings are subject to obliteration from moisture, oil 

smearing and handling. Include the following information: 

-22-
P.94 

10.1.1 Date and time (the period elapsed during 

continuous sampling); 

10.1.2 Name of the sample; 

10.1.3 Name or number and owner of the vessel, 

car, or container; 

10.1.4 Brand and grade of material; and 

10.1.5 Reference symbol or identification number. 

11. Sampling procedures 

11.1 The standard sampling procedures described in 

this method are summarized in Table 1. Alternative 

sampling procedures may be used if a mutually satisfactory 

agreement has been reached by the party(ies) involved and 

EPA and such agreement has been put in writing and signed 

by authorized officials. 

-23-
P.95 

Table 1 

Summary of Diesel Fuel Sampling 

Procedures and Applicability 

Type of Container Procedure Paragraph 

Storage tanks, ship 

and barge tanks, 

tank cars, tank 

trucks. 

Storage tanks with 

taps 

Pipe and lines 

Retail outlet and 

whole-sale 

purchaserconsumer facility 

storage tanks. 

Bottle 

sampling 

Tap sampling 

Continuous 

line 

sampling 

Nozzle 

sampling 

11.2 

11.3 

11.4 

11.5 

-24-
P.96 

11.2 Bottle or beaker sampling. The bottle or beaker 

sampling procedure is applicable for sampling liquids of 16 

pounds (1.12 kgf/cm ) RVP or less in tank cars, tank 

trucks, shore tanks, ship tanks, and barge tanks. 

11.2.1 Apparatus. A suitable sampling bottle or 

beaker as shown in Figure 2 of Appendix D is required. 

11.2.2 Procedure. 

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 stopper with a sharp jerk of 

the cord or chain and raise the bottle at a uniform rate so 

that it is about 3/4 full as it emerges from the liquid. 

11.2.2.2 Running sample. Lower the unstoppered 

bottles or beaker as near as possible to the level of the 

bottom of the outlet connection or swing line and then 

raise the bottle or beaker to the top of the gasoline at a 

uniform rate of speed such that it is about 3/4 full when 

withdrawn from the diesel fuel. 

-25-
P.97 

11.2.2.3 Upper, middle, and lower samples. Lower 

the weighted, stoppered bottle to the proper depths (Figure 

1 of Appendix D) as follows: 

Upper sample middle of upper third of the tank 

contents 

Middle sample.... middle of the tank contents 

Lower sample level of the fixed tank outlet or 

the swing-line outlet 

At the selected level pull out the stopper with a 

sharp jerk of the cord or chain and allow the bottle or 

beaker to fill completely, as evidenced by the cessation of 

air bubbles. When full, raise the bottle or beaker, pour 

off a small amount, and stopper immediately. 

11.2.2.4 Top sample. Obtain this sample (Figure 1 

of Appendix D) in the same manner as specified in 11.2.2.3 

but at six inches (150 mm) below the top surface of the 

tank contents. 

11.2.2.5 Handling. Stopper and label bottle 

samples immediatley after taking them, and deliver to the 

laboratory in the original sampling bottles. 

-26-
11.3 Tap sampling. The tap sampling procedure is 

applicable for sampling liquids of twenty-six pounds (1.83 

2 

kgf/cm ) RVP or less in tanks which are equipped with 

suitable sampling taps or lines. The assembly for tap 

sampling is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix D. 

11.3.1 Apparatus 

11.3.1.1 Tank taps. The tank should be equipped 

with at least three sampling taps placed equidistant 

throughout the tank height and extending at least three 

feet (0.9 meter) inside the tank shell. A standard 1/4 

inch pipe with suitable valve is satisfactory. 

11.3.1.2 Tube. A delivery tube that will not 

contaminate 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 recieve the samples. 

11.3.2 Procedure 

-27-
P.99 

11.3.2.1 Before a sample is drawn, flush the tap 

(or gage glass drain cock) and line until they are purged 

completely. Connect the clean delivery tube to the tap. 

Draw upper, middle, or lower samples directly from the 

respective taps after the flushing operation. Stopper and 

label the sample container immediately after filling, and 

deliver it to the laboratory. 

11.4 Continuous sampling. The continuous sampling 

procedure is applicable for sampling liquids of 16 pounds 

2 

(1.12 kgf/cm ) RVP or less and semiliquids in pipelines, 

filling lines, and transfer lines. The continuous sampling 

may be done manually or by 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 representative of the entire stream. 

The apparatus assembly for continuous sampling is shown in 

Figure 4 of Appendix D. Probe designs that are commonly 

used are as follows: 

11.4.1.1.1 A tube extending to the center of the line 

and beveled at a 45 degree angle facing upstream (Figure 

4(a) of Appendix D). 

-28-
P.1 

11.4.1.1.2 A long-radius forged elbow or pipe bend 

extending to the center line of the pipe and facing 

upstream. The end of the probe should be reamed to give a 

sharp entrance edge (Figure 4(b) of Appendix D). 

11.4.1.1.3 A closed-end tube with a round orifice 

spaced near the closed end which should be positioned in 

such a way that the orifice is in the center of the 

pipeline and is facing the stream as shown in Figure 4(c) 

of Appendix D). 

11.4.1.2 Probe location. Since the fluid to be 

sampled may not in all cases be homogeneous, the location, 

the position and the size of the sampling probe should be 

such as to minimize stratification or dropping out of 

heavier particles within the 'tube or the displacement of 

the product within the tube as a result of variation in 

gravity of the flowing stream. The sampling probe should 

be located preferably in a vertical run of pipe and as near 

as practicable to the point where the product passes to the 

receiver. The probe should always be in a horizontal 

position. 

11.4.1.2.1 The sampling lines should be as short as 

practicable and should be cleared before any samples are 

taken. 

-29-
P.2 

11.4.1.2.2 Where adequate flowing velocity is not 

available, a suitable device for mixing the fluid flow to 

ensure a homogeneous mixture at all rates of flow and to 

eliminate stratification should be installed upstream of 

the sampling tap. Some effective devices for obtaining a 

homogeneous mixture are as follows: Reduction in pipe 

size; a series of baffles; orifice or perforated plate; and 

a combination of any of these methods. 

11.4.1.2.3 The design or sizing of these devices is 

optional with the user, as long as the flow past the 

sampling point is homogeneous and stratification is 

eliminated. 

11.4.1.3 To control the rate at which the sample is 

withdrawn, the probe or probes should be fitted with valves 

or plug cocks. 

11.4.1.4 Automatic sampling devices that meet the 

standards set out in 11.4.1.5 may be used in obtaining 

samples of diesel fuel. The quality of sample collected 

must be of sufficient size for analysis, and its 

composition should be identical with the composition of the 

batch flowing in the line while the sample is being taken. 

An automatic sampler installation necessarily includes not 

only the automatic sampling device that extracts the 

-30-
P.3 

samples from the line, but also a suitable probe, 

connecting lines, auxiliary equipment, and a container in 

which the sample is collected. Automatic samplers may be 

classified as follows: 

11.4.1.4.1 Continuous sampler, time cycle 

(nonproportional) type. A sampler designed and operated in 

such a manner that it transfers equal increments of liquid 

from the pipeline to the sample container at a uniform rate 

of one or more increments per minute is a continous sampler. 

11.4.1.4.2 Continuous sampler, flow-responsive 

(proportional) type. A sampler that is designed and 

operated in such a manner that it will automatically adjust 

the quantity 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 

frequency of transferring equal increments of sample to the 

sample container, or by varying 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 of Appendix D. 

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 

-31-
P.4 

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. 

-32-
P.5 

11.4.1.5.3 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 verifed for quality 

be comparing on the basis of physical and chemical 

-33-
P.6 

properties, with either a properly secured continuous 

nonautomatic sample or tank sample. The tank sample should 

be taken under the following conditions: 

11.4.1.6.1 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. 

11.4.1.6.2 If the sampling of the delivery tank is to 

be delayed beyond one hour, then the tank selected must be 

equipped with an adquate 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. 

-34-
P.7 

11.4.1.7.1 Atmospheric container. The atmospheric 

container shall be constructed in such a way that it 

retards evaporation loss and protects the sample from 

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 

-35-
P.8 

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 flow-responsive 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. 

-36-
P.9 

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 should be used. A spacer, if appropriate, and a 

nozzle extension as shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Appendix D 

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 of 

Appendix D) 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 of 

Appendix D). 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, 

-37-
P.10 

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. 

-38-
P.11 

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 70-80 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 procedure is preferable 

because the flow of product involved in the purging 

procedure may be hazardous. 

12.8 Water displacement procedure. Completely fill 

the closed-type container with water and close the valves. 

While permitting a small amount of product to flow through 

the fittings, connect the top or inlet valve of the 

container to the tank sampling tap or valve. Then open all 

valves on the inlet side of the container. Open the bottom 

or outlet valve slightly to allow the water to be displaced 

-39-
P.12 

slowly by the sample entering the container. Regulate the 

flow so that there 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 the sampling valve on the tank. 

Disconnect the container and withdraw enough of the 

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. Promptly seal and 

label the container, and deliver it to the laboratory. 

12.9 Purging procedure. Connect the inlet valve of 

the closed-type container to the tank sampling tap or 

valve. Throttle the outlet valve of the container so that 

the pressure in it will be approximately equal to that in 

the container being sampled. Allow a volume of product 

equal to at least twice that of the container to flow 

through the sampling system. Then close all valves, the 

outlet valve first, the inlet valve of the container 

second, and the tank sampling valve last, and disconnect 

the container immediately. Withdraw enough of the contents 

so that the sample container 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. Promptly seal 

and label the container, and deliver it to the laboratory. 

-40-
P.13 

For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, Part 86 of Title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is revised to, as set forth 

below: 

6. The authority citation for Part continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Sees.202, 203, 206,207, 208, 215, 301(a), of the 

Clean Air Act as Amended; 42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524, 7525, 

7541, 7542, 7549, 7550 and 7601(a). 

7. A new Section 86.113-91 is proposed to be added to 

Subpart B, to read as follows: 

§86.113-91 Fuel specifications. 

(a) Otto-cycle test fuel. (l) 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. 

-41-
P.M 

Item 

Octane, research, 

Sensitivity, 

Lead (organic), 

Distillation Range: 

IBP[2], 

10 pet. point, 

50 pet. point, 

90 pet. point, 

EP, (max.) 

Sulfur, weight pet. 

Phosphorus, max. 

RVP[3,4], 

ASTM Test 

M 

min. 

min. 

g/U.S. gal. 

(g/litter) 

°F 

(°C) 

°F 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

, max. 

g/U.S. gal. 

(g/liter) 

psi 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Olefins, 

Aromatics, 

Saturates 

max. pet., 

max. pet., 

ethod No. 

D2699 

.... 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D3231 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

Value 

93 

7.5 

0.050[1] 

(0.013M1] 

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 

[5] 

[1] Maximum. 

[2] For testing at altitudes above 1,219 m (4,000 ft) the 

specified range is 75°-l05°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. 

-42-
P.15 

(2) 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 l. 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. 

(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 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 (3). 

-43-
P.16 

(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 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. (l) The petroleum fuels 

employed for testing diesel vehicles shall be clean and 

-44-
P.17 

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 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-D" grade diesel, shall be used. 

Item 

Cetane Number 

Distillation range: 

IBP, 

10 pet. point, 

50 pet. point, 

90 pet. point, 

EP, 

Gravity, 

Total sulfur, 

op 

<°C) 

op 

CO 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

°API 

pet. 

Hydrocarbon composition 

Aromatics, min. pet. 

Paraffins, naphthenes, 

olefins 

Flashpoint, min. 

Viscosity, centistokes 

op 

(°C) 

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 

400-460 

(204.4-237 

470-540 

(243.3-282 

560-630 

(293.3-332 

610-690 

(321.1-365 

32-37 

0.08-0.12 

27 

[1] 

130 

(54.4) 

2.2-3.4 

4) 

8) 

2) 

• 2) 

.6) 

[1] Remainder 

-45-
P.18 

(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 

Gravity, 

Total sulfur, 

Flashpoint, min. 

Viscosity, 

°F 

(°C) 

°API 

pet. 

op 

CC) 

centistokes 

ASTM Test 

Method 

D613 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D93 

D455 

No. 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 (4). 

(ii) The Administrator shall determine the methanol 

fuel to be used for testing and service accumulation. 

-46-
P.19 

(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. 

-47-
P.20 

(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) . 

-48-
P.21 

8. A new Section 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. 

-49-
P.22 

Item 

Octane, research, 

Sensitivity, 

Lead (organic), 

Distillation Range: 

IBP[2], 

10 pet. point, 

50 pet. point, 

90 pet. point, 

EP, (max.) 

Sulfur, weight pet., 

Phosphorus, max. 

RVP[3,4], 

ASTM Test 

Method No. 

min. 

m m. 

g/U.S. gal. 

(g/litter) 

op 

CC) 

op 

CC) 

op 

CC) 

op 

CC) 

op 

CO 

max. 

g/U.S. gal. 

(g/liter) 

psi 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Olefins, 

Aromatics, 

Saturates 

max. pet., 

max. pet., 

D2699 

.... 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D3231 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

Value 

93 

7.5 

0.050[1] 

(0.013H1] 

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 

[5] 

[1] Maximum. 

[2] 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. 

-50-
P.23 

(2) 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. 

(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 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 (3). 

-51-
P.24 

(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 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 

-52-
P.25 

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 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-D" grade diesel, shall be used. 

Cetane 

Cetane 

Item 

Number 

Index 

Distillation range: 

10 pet. 

50 pet. 

90 pet. 

Gravity 

IBP, 

point, 

point, 

point, 

EP, 

t 

Total sulfur, 

op 

CC) 

op 

CC) 

op 

CC) 

op 

C C) 

op 

C C) 

°API 

pet. 

Hydrocarbon composition 

Aromatics, min. pet. 

Paraffins, naphthenes, 

olef 

Flashpo 

Viscosi 

ins 

int, min. 

ty, centistokes 

op 

C C) 

ASTM Test 

Method No. 

D613 

D976 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D1319 

D93 

D445 

Type 2-D 

40-48 

40-48 

340-400 

(171.1-204 

400-460 

(204.4-237 

470-540 

(243.3-282 

560-630 

(293.3-332 

610-690 

(321.1-365 

32-37 

0.03-0.05 

27 

[1] 

130 

(54.4) 

2.2-3.4 

4) 

8) 

2) 

2) 

• 6) 

[1] Remainder 

-53-
P.26 

(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 

Gravity, 

Total sulfur, 

Flashpoint, min. 

Viscosity, 

op 

CC) 

"API 

pet. 

op 

C C) 

centistokes 

ASTM Test 

Method 

D613 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D93 

D455 

No. 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 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 (4). 

(ii) The Administrator shall determine the methanol 

fuel to be used for testing and service accumulation. 

-54-
P.27 

(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. 

-55-
P.28 

(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). 

-56-
P.29 

9. A new Section 86.1313-91 is proposed to be added to 

Subpart N, to read as follows: 

§86.1313-91 Fuel specifications. 

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

specifications listed in Table N90-1 will be used by the 

Administrator in exhaust emission testing petroleum-fueled 

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. 

-57-
P.30 

Table 

Item 

Octane, research, min. 

Sensitivity, min. 

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

(g/liter) 

Distillation range: 

IBP, °F 

CO 

10 pet. point, °F 

CC) 

50 pet. point, °F 

C C) 

90 pet. point, °F 

C C) 

EP, max. °F, 

CO 

Sulphur, max. wt. pet. 

Phosphorus, max., g/U.S. gal. 

(g/liter) 

RVP, ps i 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Olefins, max. pet. 

Aeromatics, max. pet. 

Saturates 

N91-1 

ASTM 

D2699 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D323 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

Value 

93 

7.5 

(0.050H1] 

(0.013H1] 

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] 

[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 

•58-
P.31 

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 (3). 

(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 

-59-
P.32 

(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 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 for testing diesel engines 

employed for testing 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. 

li -60-
P.33 

(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. 

Item 

Cetane 

Distillation range: 

IBP, °F 

CO 

10 pet. point, °F 

CO 

50 pet. point, °F 

CO 

90 pet. point, °F 

CO 

EP, °F 

CO 

Gravity, "API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Aromatics, pet. 

Parafins, Naphthenes 

Olefins 

Flashpoint, min., °F, 

CO 

Viscosity, centistokes 

Table N91 

ASTM 

D613 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D1319 

J 

D1319 

D93 

D445 

-2 

Type 1-D 

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 

(260.0-293.3) 

40-44 

0.08-0.12 

8[1] 

[2] 

120 

(48.9) 

1.6-2.0 

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[1] 

[2] 

130 

(54.4) 

2.2-3.4 

[1] Minimum. 

[2] Remainder, 

-61-
(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: 

Item 

Cetane Number 

Distillation range: 

90 pet. point, °F 

C C) 

Gravity, °API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Flashpoint, min., °F, 

CO 

Viscosity, centistokes 

Tabl e N91-

ASTM 

D613 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D93 

D455 

3 

Type 1-D 

42-56 

440-530 

Type 2-D 

30-58 

540-630 

(226.7-276.7)(282.2-332.2) 

39-45 

0.08-0.12 

120 

(48.9) 

1.2-2.2 

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 (4). 

-62-
P.35 

(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). 

-63-
P.36 

(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. 

-64-
P.37 

(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). 

-65-
P.38 

10. A new Section 86.1313-94 is proposed to be added to 

Subpart N, to read as follows: 

§86.1313-94 Fuel specifications. 

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

specifications listed in Table N90-1 will be used by the 

Administrator in exhaust emission testing petroleum-fueled 

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. 

-66-
P.39 

Table 

Item 

Octane, research, min. 

Sensitivity, min. 

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

(g/liter) 

Distillation range: 

IBP, °F 

CC) 

10 pet. point, °F 

CO 

50 pet. point, °F 

CO 

90 pet. point, °F 

CC) 

EP, max. °F, 

CC) 

Sulphur, max. wt. pet. 

Phosphorus, max., g/U.S. gal. 

(g/liter) 

RVP, psi 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Olefins, max. pet. 

Aeromatics, max. pet. 

Saturates 

N94-1 

ASTM 

D2699 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D323 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

Value 

93 

7.5 

(0.050)[1] 

(0.013M1] 

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] 

[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 

-67-
P.40 

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 (3). 

(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 

-68-
P.41 

(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 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 for testing diesel engines 

employed for testing 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. 

-69-
P.42 

(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 the engine manufacturer commercially 

designated as "Type 1-D" or "Type 2-D" grade diesel fuel 

shall be used. 

Table N94-2 

Item 

Cetane Number 

Cetane Index 

Distillation range: 

IBP, °F 

CO 

10 pet. point, °F 

CO 

50 pet. point, °F 

CC) 

90 pet. point, °F 

CC) 

EP, °F 

CO 

Gravity, °API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Aromatics, pet. 

Par af ins, Naphthenes, 

Olefins 

Flashpoint, min., °F, 

CO Viscosity, centistokes 

ASTM 

D613 

D976 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D1319 

D1319 

D93 

D445 

Type 1-D 

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 

8[1] 

[2] 

120 

(48.9) 

1.6-2.0 

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 

(293.3-332.2) 

610-690 

(321.1-365.6) 

32-37 

0.03-0.05 

27[1] 

[2] 

130 

(54.4) 

2.0-3.2 

[1] Minimum. 

[2] Remainder. 

-70-
P.43 

(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 as "Type 1-D" or "Type 2-D" grade diesel fuel 

shall be used: 

Item 

Table N94-3 

ASTM Type 1-D Type 2-D 

Cetane Number 

Distillation range: 

90 pet. point, °F 

CO 

Gravity, °API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Flashpoint, min., °F, 

CO 

Viscosity, centistokes 

D613 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D93 

D455 

(226. 

0 

40-56 

440-530 

7-276.7)(282 

39-45 

.03-0.05 ( 

120 

(48.9) 

1.2-2.2 

30-58 

540-630 

.2-332.2) 

30-42 

3.03-0.05 

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 (4). 

•71-
(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). 

-72-
(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. 

-73-
P.46 

(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). 

-74-
P.47 

Background 

EPA has- initiated a rulemaking which would implement 

sulfur controls for on-highway fuels. Since, under this 

proposal, EPA is regulating only fuels intended for highway 

use, one of the outcomes of the rulemaking will be the 

introduction of separate grades of diesel fuel for on-highway 

and off-highway uses. As noted in EPA's proposal, the degree 

to which refiners and/or marketers will segregate on-highway 

and off-highway fuels is unclear. Representatives of the 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America have expressed 

concerns that the need to segregate diesel fuel will have 

adverse impacts on their members. 

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential 

effects of EPA's proposed regulation for on-highway diesel fuel 

on small independent fuel marketers for such areas as cost of 

product, changing market shares or plant closings. The general 

approach will be to characterize key aspects of this segment of 

the fuel distribution industry and to use a "model plant" 

analysis to evaluate the economic impacts of various possible 

responses to EPA's requirements. There will be three phases to 

this project: identification of key variables relevant to the 

analysis and collection of associated data, characterization of 

model plants, and a cash flow analysis of appropriate responses 

of each of the model plants. EPA is not only interested in 

potential adverse impacts on affected marketers but also in 

potential benefits. Comments submitted by the Petroleum 

Marketers Association of America and individual marketers to 

EPA should be used as background on the issues of concern. 
P.48 

Task Description 

Fulfillment of this work assignment requires the following: 

I. Characterize the pertinent economic and regulatory aspects 

of the marketing of diesel fuel, especially those 

operators independent of the major refiners. Special 

attention should be paid to those marketers servicing both 

on-highway and one or both of off-highway or home heating 

oil customers (marketers not handling both on-highway and 

unregulated fuel types are not expected to be affected by 

the new requirements). This characterization should 

proceed in two steps: 

A. Identify key parameters bearing on the analysis and 

formulate an overall approach to the work assignment. The 

characteristics considered should include, but not be 

limited to, the following items: 

a. The sizes of the independent marketers of diesel 

fuel. 

b. The types of products carried by independent 

marketers. 

c. The ability of independent marketers to use any 

existing capacity to handle segregated diesel fuel. 

d. The ability of independent diesel fuel marketers to 

absorb capital costs needed to handle segregated 

diesel fuel. 

e. The competitive situation of the independent 

marketers of diesel fuel. 

f. Relevant economic parameters such as debt to equity 

ratios, profit margins, cost structure (fixed vs. 

variable), constraints on financing additional 

facilities, net income before taxes, and rate of 

return on investment. For each of the items in this 

section, identify the median and the range to be 

used in this analysis. 

Prior to data collection, obtain the approval of the 

work assignment monitor for the overall approach, 

variables to be studied and the anticipated sources for 

the data. 

B. Proceed with approved data collection. 

II. In consultation with EPA, develop a small number of 

representative categories, or "model plants," into which 

the operations of affected independent diesel fuel 

marketers can be classified and parameterize the relevant 

economic factors for each model plant. Identify the model 

plant type discriminators based upon the key factors 

affecting the response of that segment of the industry. 

The work assignment monitor must approve the model plant 

criteria and parameterization before work proceeds to step 

III. 
P.49 

III. For each of the model plants, perform a discounted cash 

flow analysis 'to evaluate the impacts of possible 

responses to EPA's proposal. As financial data may not be 

readily available, this may require a good deal of 

informed judgment. Possible industry responses would 

include: 

a. Carrying low-sulfur diesel fuel as a separate 

segregated product by utilizing current capacity or 

developing new capacity to store and distribute 

product. 

b. Distributing only low-sulfur fuel to all customers, 

even those not required to use it by the proposed 

regulations. 

c. Dropping either the on-highway or off-highway and 

heating fuel portion of current customers and 

handling only one grade of diesel fuel. 

Modeling results should evaluate the economic 

implications of these choices (within the context of other 

known constraints) on small marketers. Among other 

aspects of the evaluation, outputs should include 

equivalent cost changes per gallon of fuel sold 

necessitated by each response, an assessment of the 

ability of the marketer to pass these costs through to 

customers and effects on plant profitability and market 

share. Based upon market shares represented by each model 

plant category and by the affected independent fuel 

marketers as a whole, model plant results should be 

compiled separately for both individual segments as well 

as industry wide aggregate. Results should assess overall 

impacts, including likely degree of product segregation, 

fuel price impact, profitability, availability of 

on-highway fuel to consumers, potential plant closures, 

resulting employment impacts and any losses or increases 

of market share. Results should identify benefits as well 

as potential adverse impacts. The report should also 

contain the data collected and the inputs to the cash flow 

analysis in an appendix.