P.1 

OAR Box 1140 

Prepped by RyanDugan 

Document Number: 

41) IV-H-1 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 4/23/2008 7:58:42 AM Sheet 41 of 48 
P.2 

Standard Form 83 

(Rev September 1983) 

AUG 22 

Hor Review 

/J-£6-63 

12 -H- / 

Important 

Read instructions before completing form. Do not use the same SF 83 

to request both an Executive Order 12291 review and approval under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Answer all questions in Part I. If this request is for review under E.O. 

12291. complete Part II and sign the regulatory certification. If this 

request is for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 

1320. skip Part II, complete Part III and sign the paperwork certification. 

Send three copies of this form, the material to be reviewed, and for 

paperwork—three copies of the supporting statement, to: 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Attention: Docket Library, Room 3201 

Washington, DC 20503 

PART I.—Complete This Part for All Requests. 

1. Oepartment/agency and Bureau/office originating request 2. Agency code 

EPA/OAR 

2 0 6 0 

3. Name of person who can best answer questions regarding this request 

Willia m W. Damico FTS 374-8278 

Telephone number 

(313 ) 668-4278 

4. Title of information collection or rulemaking 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Fuel Quality Regulations for Highway Diese l 

Fuel Sold in 1993 and Later Calendar Years 

5. Legal authority for information collection or rule (cite United States Code. Public Law, or Executive Order) 

42 use 7414,7521,752 5 or 

7541,7542,7545 and 7601 

6. Affected public (check all that apply) 

1 Q Individuals or households 

2 Q State or local governments 

3 O Farms 

4 0 Businesses or other for-profit 

Federal agencies or employees 

6 IZ! Non-profit institutions 

7 &] Small businesses or organizations 

PART II.—Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291 

7. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

j 0 69 _ — _^° 0 or, None assigned D 

8. Type of submission (check one in each category) 

Classification 

1 S Major 

2 LJ Nonmajor 

Stage of development 

1 LJ Proposed or draft 

2 IXJ Final or interim final, with prior proposal 

3 LJ Final or interim final, without prior proposal 

Type of review requested 

1 Q2 Standard 

2 D Pending 

3 LJ Emergency 

4 [ J Statutory or judicial deadline 

9. CFR section affected 

4 0 r.fa 8 0 & 8 6 

10. Does this regulation contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements that require OMB approval under Ihe Paperwork Reduction Act 

and 5 CFR 13207 

1 D Yes 2 D No 

Certification for Regulatory Submissions 

In submitting this request for OMB review, the authorized regulatory contact and the program official certify that the requirements of E.O. 12291 and any applicable 

policy directives have been complied with. • 

Signature of program official 

jre of authorised regulatory contact 

Richard D. Wilson, Director 

Office of Mobile Sources 

Oate 

MAY 2 5 1990 

Signature < 

12. (OMB use only) 

Previous editions obsolete 

NSN 754000-634-4034 

83-108 Standard Form 83 (Rev. 9-83) 

Prescnoea Oy OMB 

5 CFR 1320 ana EO 12291 
P.3 

A - s^*3 

ML - H- f 

v»EPA 

United States Environmental Protection Aoancy 

Washington, DC 20460 

Federalism Review* 

Name of Action 

Final Rule for Fuel Quality Regulations for Hghway Diesel Fuel Sold In 1993 And Later 

Yoaro : — • • — Program Office 

OAR, OMS 

We have reviewed this action for federalism effects. Our finding is as follows: 

| **\ No federalism effects. Federalism assessment Is not required. _^ 

Federalism assessment Is not required. Action is mandated by statute (explain below). 

Federalism assessment Is not required. Action is necessary to carry out statutory requirement (explain below). 

Federalism assessment Is required (attached). 

Explanation 

Under the Clean Air Act, regulations pertaining to national standards for motor fuels 

are the responsibility of the federal government. 

*See "Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 12612: Federalism.' 

EPA Form 3720-11 (1-89) 
P.4 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 80 and 86 

f\~<&(,'°3 

[AMS-FRLRegulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Fuel Quality Regulations for 

Highway Diesel Fuel Sold in 1993 and 

Later Calendar Years 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: Today's Final Rule implements a new national program 

of diesel fuel quality control, completing action on a recent 

EPA proposal (54 FR 35276, August 24, 1989). This action 

requires that refiners reduce the sulfur content of on-highway 

diesel fuel from current average levels of approximately 0.25 

weight percent to levels not exceeding 0.05 weight percent. 

This action also requires that on-highway diesel fuel have a 

minimum cetane index specification of 40 (or meet a maximum 

aromatics level of 35 percent). Both requirements will take 

effect at all points throughout the distribution system on 

October 1, 1993. Special provisions providing for a phasing-in 

of these requirements for small domestic refineries are also 

included. 

Certification diesel fuel will also be changed beginning 

with both the 1991 and 1994 model years to reflect the above 

mentioned changes in commercial diesel fuel quality. Vehicles 
P.5 

sold in model years 1991 through 1993 will be certified using 

0.10 weight percent sulfur fuel, reflecting the average fuel 

sulfur level expected to be used over these vehicles' useful 

lives. 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) and a minimum cetane 

index value of 40 will be established. 

DATES: This Final Rule is effective on [insert date 30 days 

following publication]. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by 

the Director of the Federal Register as of 

Judicial Review - Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 

EPA hereby finds that these regulations are of national 

applicability. Accordingly, judicial review of this action is 

available only by filing a petition for review in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

within 60 days of publication. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 

Act, the requirements which are the subject of today's notice 

may not be challenged later in judicial proceedings brought by 

EPA to enforce these requirements. 

ADDRESSES: Material relevant to this final rule is contained 

in Public Docket No. A-86-03. The docket is located in Room 

M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The 

-2-
P.6 

docket 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. William Damico 

Emission Control Technology Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2565 Plymouth Road 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Telephone (313) 668-4278 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Review of Proposal 

In March of 1985, EPA promulgated particulate emission 

standards of 0.25 gram per brake horsepower-hour (g/BHP-hr) for 

heavy-duty diesel trucks (greater than 8,500 lbs.) and 0.10 

g/BHP-hr for urban buses, effective in the 1991 model year; and 

0.10 g/BHP-hr for heavy-duty diesel trucks beginning in the 

1994 model year (50 FR 10606, March 15, 1985). During the 

rulemaking process, engine manufacturers expressed concern that 

sulfur in diesel fuel could either plug the trap-oxidizers that 

EPA projected would be needed to meet the proposed particulate 

standards or generate significant particulate sulfate emissions 

that would make it difficult to meet the standards. Thus, 

commenters recommended that EPA regulate the sulfur 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 

-3-
P.7 

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). In 

addition to showing that a reduction in diesel fuel sulfur 

content would directly reduce SO_ and sulfate particulate 

emissions, this study showed that reducing fuel aromatics would 

reduce carbonaceous and organic particulate. Also, a 30 

percent extension of engine life was estimated due to reduced 

engine wear with low sulfur fuel. The cost of reducing the 

fuel sulfur level to 0.05 weight percent was estimated to be 

1.2 cents per gallon. 

Further studies of the refinery cost and engine life 

issues were undertaken and a report by Southwest Research 

Institute (SwRI) entitled "Study of the Effects of Reduced 

Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content on Engine Wear" as well as a report 

by Bonner and Moore Consultants, Inc. (B&M) entitled "A Study 

on Restriction of Sulfur and Aromatics Content on Highway 

Diesel Fuel" were released. The SwRI report further 

substantiated the possibility of reduced engine wear with lower 

sulfur fuel. The B&M report assessed the costs of controlling 

sulfur to 0.05 weight percent, controlling aromatics to 20 

volume percent, and controlling both simultaneously. Also 

assessed in the B&M report was the effect of the degree of 

-4-
P.8 

segregation of heating oil and "highway" diesel fuel on control 

cost. 

Subsequent to these studies, 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. This proposal included a 

maximum sulfur level of 0.05 weight percent and a minimum 

cetane index of 40 (as a means of capping aromatics at current 

levels) to be implemented by October 1, 1993. Also included 

was a provision to allow engine certification on low sulfur 

fuel beginning with the 1991 model year to reflect upcoming 

changes in commercial fuel. 

All of this activity culminated in the publication of a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to on-highway 

diesel fuel quality (54 FR 35276, August 24, 1989). This 

proposal included a maximum sulfur content of 0.05 weight 

percent and a minimum cetane index of 40 for all on-highway 

diesel fuel beginning on October 1, 1993. The control options 

considered; cost, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of fuel 

control; leadtime; enforcement issues; and certification fuel 

were all discussed in the NPRM preamble as summarized below. 

These topics were evaluated in detail in the Draft Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (Draft RIA) which was published in support of 

the NPRM. 

A variety of control options were considered in the 

rulemaking development process. Sulfur control of varying 

levels down to 0.05 weight percent were considered with no 

-5-
P.9 

'"I 

change in aromatics. Additionally, aromatics-control options 

ranging from no control to a reduction to 20 volume percent 

were evaluated. Based upon analyses of costs, benefits and 

cost effectiveness, the Agency decided to propose sulfur 

control to 0.05 weight percent. Significant aromatics control 

below current levels was not proposed since the analysis of the 

benefits of associated particulate reductions, which did not 

include cancer benefits, did not demonstrate the cost 

effectiveness, from a national perspective, of reducing the 

content of aromatics in diesel fuel at this time. EPA 

proposed instead to cap aromatics at current levels so as to 

prevent a rise in the future. This was proposed to be done by 

establishing a minimum cetane index specification of 40. 

The cost of controlling diesel-fuel quality is dependent 

on a number of things, most notable the degree to which 

segregation would occur between on-highway and off-highway 

diesel fuel and the amount of desulfurization equipment 

currently in place in the refining industry. In the NPRM the 

cost of sulfur control (to 0.05 weight percent) was projected 

to be about 2.3 cents per gallon at current rates of 

segregation and 1.8 cents per gallon for the complete (100 

percent) segregation scenario. 

There are a number of benefits (both financial and 

environmental) which can be attributed to diesel fuel sulfur 

control. The first area of benefits is in exhaust 

aftertreatment technology. The 0.1 g/BHP-hr particulate 

standard promulgated for heavy-duty diesel vehicles for the 

-6-
P.10 

1994 model year will likely necessitate the use of exhaust 

aftertreatment devices. Reductions in fuel sulfur would result 

in small reductions in engine-out particulate, making it 

somewhat easier to comply with the stringent 1994 particulate 

standard. Additionally, the use of some aftertreatment devices 

such as flow-through catalysts and catalyzed traps is 

effectively prohibited by current fuel sulfur levels as these 

devices tend to generate sulfate particulate from the fuel 

sulfur. Reducing fuel sulfur for 1994 was projected to result 

in per vehicle fuel economy, hardware, and maintenance cost 

savings of $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 second area of benefits from fuel quality control was 

that of reduced engine wear with low sulfur fuel. Depending 

upon the method used to evaluate these benefits, and the 

vehicle class evaluated, EPA estimated cost savings from sulfur 

control ranging from 0.8^/gal to 30^/gal. 

The third area of benefits attributed to fuel quality 

control was that of emissions and air quality. Substantial 

reductions in SO- and particulate matter emissions beyond the 

reductions resulting from the 1994 0.1 g/BHP-hr particulate 

standard were projected to result from fuel sulfur control. 

Additionally, some reductions of HC and CO were expected 

as an indirect result due to the changes in aftertreatment 

technology strategies used by the engine manufacturers to 

comply with the 1994 particulate standards. The reductions 

estimated in the NPRM are shown in Table 1. 

-7-
Table 1 

Projected Nationwide Emission Reductions 

Due to Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control 

[1000 tons/yr] 

p.n 

Pollutant 1995E1] 2015m 

Total 

Particulate 

Directly 

Emitted 

Indirect 

SO2 

HC 

CO 

99-196 (19%-38%)t2] 

10-29 (3%-10%) 

89-167 (43%-80%) 

310-580 (43%-80%) . 

14 3%[3] 

141 8% 

159-321 (23%-46%) 

3-35 (1%-10%) 

156-286 (44%-80%) 

542-993 (44%-80%) 

88 12% 

916 27% 

[1] Lower end of range result of 100 percent distillate 

segregation, upper end result of current segregation 

practices. 

[2] Figures in parenthesis represent percent reduction 

from baseline emissions of number two fuel oil use. 

[3] Figures represent percent reduction from baseline for 

mobile sources. 

The resulting air quality impacts of fuel control were 

also analyzed in the NPRM. It was projected that by the year 

2015, in large metropolitan areas (greater than 1,000,000 

residents), sulfur control would reduce annual arithmetic mean 

concentrations of particulate by 2.3 6.3 mg/m (in 

comparison to current levels of 18 - 90 mg/m ) and SO_ by 

7.0 - 16.7 mg/m_ (in comparison to current levels of up to 67 

3 

mg/m ). Air quality benefits in the areas of health effects 

-8-
P.12 

and visibility were also described. 

The final environmental analysis does not contain an 

assessment of the potential for affecting cancer risks by 

regulating diesel fuel quality. The Draft Regulatory Impact 

Analysis did contain a preliminary analysis; however, this 

analysis has been removed due to significant errors found in 

the methodology. The effect of diesel fuel quality on cancer 

risks will be addressed by the Agency in a separate rulemaking 

which deals with the control of fuel related air toxics. 

Cost-effectiveness of pollution control is defined as the 

control cost (net of cost credits) per ton of pollutant 

removed. It can be used to identify the least cost way of 

achieving a given pollution control objective. In this 

regulation, cost-effectiveness analysis is used to rank 

pollution control alternatives. Since particulate control was 

the major focus of the proposal, the cost-effectiveness of 

particulate reduction attributable to diesel fuel quality 

control was estimated using a calendar-year approach discounted 

over a 33-year period. Particulate emission reductions were 

discounted in the same fashion as the costs, neglecting any 

factors which might tend to increase the value of those 

reductions in future years. The cost-effectiveness of sulfur 

control as developed in the proposal is shown in Table 2. 

-9-
P.13 

Table 2 

33-Year Urban Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 

': Sulfur Control1 

Wear Credit Scenario 

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 

Analysis is per ton of particulate matter with no 

credits taken for other emissions reductions. Ranges 

reflect impact of segregation. See draft RIA. 

The effective date of the diesel fuel regulations was 

proposed to be October 1, 1993. This date was consistent with 

the joint industry proposal submitted to EPA by the engine 

manufacturers and oil refiners. Additionally, an EPA 

contracted study by SCI on the leadtime issue concluded that 

the proposed regulations could be met by late 1993. Finally, 

it was highly desirable to have the regulations in effect prior 

to the introduction of the 1994 model year in order to expand 

the technological options available to the engine manufacturers 

for compliance with the 1994 heavy-duty diesel particulate 

regulations. 

A variety of enforcement options were presented in the 

-10-
P.14 

NPRM, covering point of application, legal responsibility and 

compliance monitoring. It was proposed that the fuel quality 

regulations should be applicable at all points in the 

distribution network from refiners and importers to retail 

outlets. In terms of liability, a liability scheme was chosen 

whereby the regulated party anywhere in the distribution chain 

offering for sale, supplying or transporting a noncomplying 

fuel would be held liable. Additionally, a vicarious liability 

provision was included such 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. A provision was also included whereby 

off-highway diesel fuel not meeting the proposed on-highway 

fuel standards must be visibly dyed in order to distinguish it 

from on-highway diesel fuel. 

Finally, the proposed fuel to be used for certification 

testing was defined. For 1994 and later model-year engines, 

certification fuel would meet the same specifications proposed 

for in-use fuel. That is, it would contain no more than 0.05 

weight percent sulfur and would have a minimum cetane index of 

40. For 1991-1993 model-year engines, the certification fuel 

would contain 0.10 weight percent sulfur fuel. This value 

represented EPA's estimate of the average commercial fuel 

sulfur level these engines would see over their useful life 

given that commercial fuel would have about 0.25 weight percent 

sulfur in 1991 - 1993 and no more than 0.05 weight percent 

sulfur for 1994 and later. 

-11-
II. Public Participation 

Following the August 24, 1989 publication of EPA'S 

proposal (54 FR 35276), a public hearing was held to solicit 

comments. This hearing was held on October 11, 1989 and was 

followed by a thirty day comment period. During the public 

comment period, which ended November 10, 1989, comments were 

received from more than 40 parties. Some additional comments 

were also received after the close of the comment period and 

are included in the discussions below. 

EPA has carefully reviewed all of the comments received. 

In general, the comments were supportive of the rulemaking 

although many of the comments requested that modifications to 

the proposed rulemaking be made. More than twenty of the 

entities commenting on the proposed rulemaking expressed strong 

support. Commenters supporting the rule included four 

government agencies including the states of New York, Colorado 

and California; eight refiners and refiners organizations 

including the American Petroleum Institute (API), the National 

Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA), and the Rocky Mountain 

Oil and Gas Association; seven manufacturers or manufacturers 

organizations including the Engine Manufacturers Association 

(EMA), Ford, General Motors, Navistar, and Volkswagen; the 

American Truckers Association (ATA); and two private citizens. 

The following sections review the substantive issues raised 

concerning changes to the proposal and provide EPA's responses 

to each. Major issues addressed include: the potential for 

adverse impacts on small marketers; impacts on small refiners; 

-12-
the appropriateness of the levels of control proposed; the use 

of lighter grades of fuel as a blendstock to improve fuel 

properties in cold weather; methods of testing fuel sulfur 

levels; the use of the cetane index as a method of capping 

aromatics levels; dyeing of off-highway fuels; the schemes of 

liability chosen for enforcement; the importation of dyed 

Canadian fuel; variability in compliance testing methodologies; 

enforcement against misfuelers; and the applicability to Hawaii 

and the Pacific Territories. 

issue: Small Marketer impacts 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking and the draft 

regulatory impact analysis, EPA did not specifically analyze 

the potential impacts of the rule on the segments of the 

distribution system downstream of the bulk terminals. 

Commenters argued that the rule does indeed have the potential 

for some severe impacts on small marketers in the downstream 

segment of the distribution system. 

Summary of the Comments 

Commenters submitted extensive comments on this issue, 

touching on many aspects of the rule's potential impacts. In 

its review, EPA identified five basic issues which seem to 

underlie the concerns of small independent marketers. These 

issues are: a belief that EPA had not adequately evaluated the 

potential impacts of the rule on small marketers, the costs for 

small marketers to comply with EPA's proposal, the possibility 

of small marketers being placed at a competitive disadvantage 

-13-
P.17 

compared to the major integrated petroleum companies, a desire 

for a uniform standard for the entire pool of number two 

diesel, and concerns about the supply of fuels after the rule 

goes into effect. Comments were also received on the impact of 

the vicarious liability enforcement provisions on small 

marketers. These enforcement-related comments are discussed 

later in connection with other enforcement issues. 

The Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association 

(IFTOA), Empire State Petroleum Association (ESPA), New England 

Fuel Institute (NEFI), Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America (PMAA), Small Business Administration (SBA), and 

Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers Association (SIGMA) 

all argued that EPA must conduct an analysis of the potential 

impacts of the rule on downstream marketers. All of these 

various entities claimed that the rule would have potentially 

severe impacts on the segments of the industry downstream of 

bulk terminals. Most notably, they called for a study of the 

impacts of having a segregated fuel system and the impacts this 

system would have on the competitive situation of the various 

entities in the petroleum marketing industry. 

PMAA, NEFI, and ESPA all argued that the financial impacts 

of the rule on small marketers could be great. The primary 

concern was increased costs in storing, transporting, and 

marketing segregated number two distillate fuels. PMAA argued 

that it would cost an average of $40,000 to upgrade storage 

facilities to handle segregated fuel and an average of $60,000 

to handle the delivery of segregated fuels with the average 

•14-
JJM8 

cost to handle segregated fuels being about 1.5 cents per 

gallon. Marketers for whom the increased cost to handle 

segregated fuels would be prohibitive would be faced with 

significant losses of customers accompanied with significant 

losses of revenues according to PMAA. 

Both ESPA and PMAA believe that the rule will place small 

marketers at a competitive disadvantage compared to their 

larger competitors. PMAA claims that larger terminals and 

plants are more likely to be able to handle segregated fuels 

and would therefore have a considerable advantage in being able 

to add to their customer base by picking up customers lost by 

other marketers. Furthermore, they claim that it is rather 

commonplace for small marketers to compete directly with their 

suppliers. The main fear associated with this situation is 

that suppliers may be able to restrict the availability of one 

or both fuels to the small marketers and use this leverage to 

take over some of the markets served by the small marketers. 

For a variety of reasons, many commenters expressed a 

desire for the entire pool of diesel fuel to be subject to 

uniform standards. ESPA, PMAA, SBA, Gresham Petroleum Co., 

SIGMA, and the Delta Council all would like to see a uniform 

standard because of the benefits small marketers would derive. 

Since the majority of the potential small marketer impacts 

result from the need to handle two segregated diesel fuels, the 

adoption of uniform standards was seen as desirable since it 

avoids the need to segregate diesel fuels. ATA and a private 

citizen both expressed concern about intentional misfueling as 

•15-
P.19 

a means of gaining competitive advantages and wanted uniform 

standards to prevent this. ATA also expressed concern that the 

creation of a price differential between on-highway and 

off-highway fuels would upset the current competitive balance 

between truck transportation and rail and ship transportation. 

Finally, many commenters expressed a desire to have the new 

standards extended to off-highway fuels so that further 

environmental and other benefits can be captured. ESPA cited a 

letter from a manufacturer of heating equipment which stated 

that reducing the sulfur content of the fuel would not only 

reduce emissions but also greatly extend the useful life of 

heating equipment. PMAA, SBA, the City of New York, the State 

of New York and the State of Colorado all argued that the 

opportunity to gain further environmental benefits by extending 

the regulations should be pursued. New York and Colorado even 

went so far as to argue that the rule should be phased in early 

as low-sulfur fuel becomes available. On the other hand, NEFI 

felt that the extension of fuel sulfur regulations to the 

entire pool could push up the price of heating oil to a point 

where it would be less competitive with other heating fuels and 

therefore opposed a uniform fuel standard. 

The comments on the issue of supply shortages were 

wide-ranging. PMAA noted several ways in which supply could be 

affected. First, they stated that larger working inventories 

will be needed since shifting heating oil to on-highway use 

will no longer be possible, and shifting low-sulfur fuel to 

home heating will probably not be economical. Second, they 

-16-
suggested that, due to capital constraints, many refiners may 

choose to not produce on-highway fuel; and that many of these 

refiners may be concentrated in a single region of the country, 

resulting in regional shortages. Finally, PMAA stated that 

many marketers will discontinue sales of one or the other 

grades of diesel. This could be regionally problematic, they 

suggest. For example, they noted that, in the Northeast, 

on-highway diesel fuel comprises a relatively small fraction of 

both the total distillate sales and the distillate sales of 

many individual marketers. Thus, PMAA believes that many of 

these marketers may discontinue sales of on-highway fuel, which 

PMAA argues would result in shortages. Furthermore, ESPA 

argued that EPA had not evaluated the capabilities of lateral 

pipelines to handle segregated fuels and that the smaller 

lateral pipelines may not be able to handle two grades of 

diesel fuel, which would create supply shortages of one or the 

other grade of fuel. 

Analysis of Comments 

Given the potential for impacts on the distribution system 

identified by commenters and the general lack of solid 

information with which to make sound analyses, EPA decided to 

fund a contractor study of the potential affects of the rule on 

small marketers.[2] The study used a "model plant" approach to 

[2] Impacts of Fuel Desulfurization on Distillate Marketers, 

March 13, 1990, ICF Incorporated. 

-17-
P.21 

analyze the potential impacts of the rule on small marketers. 

Using this approach, data was gathered on the characteristics 

of small marketers, key attributes of the marketers were 

identified, the industry was grouped into a number of model 

plants according to trends in the key traits, and the potential 

impact of the rule was analyzed for each model plant under 

various likely marketing scenarios. Overall, the study 

concluded that the impacts on small marketers would be low. 

The following paragraphs briefly describe the ICF study and its 

results. 

The contractor first gathered data on the size and 

operating characteristics of petroleum marketing firms as well 

as the overall attributes of the market. In addition, 

information was gathered on the various costs associated with 

purchasing new equipment and carrying on operations with 

segregated fuel. Based on the data gathered, several key 

attributes of the marketers were identified. . One of the most 

important was the marketer's size. To gauge the effects of 

firm size, four different size classifications were 

developed. Marketers were modeled as having annual distillate 

sales of $400,000, $1 million, $2.5 million, or $5 million. 

Given that the annual distillate sales of some marketers can be 

as high as $20 million, it can be seen that the study was 

focused on smaller firms more likely to be adversely impacted 

by the new rule. In addition, firms were classified as being 

in either a strong or weak financial position. "Strong" firms 

were modeled using median financial data for each group while 

-18-
"weak" firms represent the lowest quartile. data. Other 

characteristic variables which were used in the modeling 

included existing equipment (single or multiple distillate 

storage tanks, possession or non-possession of 

compartmentalized delivery trucks), degree of fit between the 

sizes of any existing multiple tanks and the sales distribution 

of the fuels, and the proportion of distillate sales coming 

from on-highway fuel. 

In terms of the marketing environment, it was decided that 

there were two main market characteristics which needed to be 

modeled. These two characteristics were the density of 

marketers in the given market area and the relative sales of 

on- and off-highway fuels in the region. Markets were 

described as having either a high density of marketers (typical 

of urban areas) or a low density of marketers (i.e., rural 

areas). This parameter affected the competitive environment 

faced by individual firms and was also associated with such 

things as the ability of a marketer to find alternative 

customers should it wish to specialize in only one type of 

fuel. As for the sales split between on- and off-highway fuel, 

ICF identified two characteristic markets. One was the New 

England area, where widespread use of home heating oil results 

in on-highway fuel being a relatively small portion of total 

sales. For other areas of the country, sales are more nearly 

balanced, although off-highway use still has a small edge for 

the customers serviced by small marketers. Based on the 

collected data, ICF identified sales splits of 80 percent 

-19-
off-highway/20 percent on-highway and 60 percent off-highway/40 

percent on-highway as being appropriate for modeling the 

relative sales. Therefore, the four characteristic markets 

used in the analysis consist of markets with a high 

concentration of marketers with either predominantly 

off-highway sales or relatively even sales splits and markets 

with a low concentration of marketers with either of the two 

splits between on- and off-highway sales. 

Cost estimates were developed for a number of factors 

necessary to analyze the possible responses of marketers. 

These included costs of adding new tanks, costs of modifying 

piping so that existing multiple tanks could handle segregated 

fuels, costs of compartmentalizing delivery trucks, additional 

costs of operating compartmentalized trucks, and costs of 

finding and servicing new customers over a wider area. These 

cost estimates were combined with the various market 

characteristics to calculate the incremental cost in cents per 

gallon of fuel handled to maintain sales of an equal amount of 

fuel using three possible responses to the introduction of 

low-sulfur fuel. These responses were: specializing in only 

one fuel, segregating products by adding piping to demanifold 

existing multiple tanks, or segregating by adding a new tank. 

In each of the four market scenarios, the most prevalent 

groupings of marketer characteristics were analyzed for costs 

of responses. 

In general, the study found that in areas with a high 

density of marketers and predominantly off-highway sales, most 

-20-
marketers would find specializing in off-highway fuel and 

expanding delivery areas to make up for lost customers to be 

the least cost option. This approach was found to add about 

one tenth of a cent per gallon to the fuel cost. However, 

there would be insufficient demand for off-highway fuel for all 

marketers, to select this option. Segregating was also a fairly 

inexpensive option with costs of as low as one fourth of a cent 

per gallon, so that a premium for on-highway fuel of as little 

as one third of a cent per gallon above any differences in base 

fuel, costs would be sufficient to entice many marketers to 

segregate or to specialize in on-highway fuels. Marketers in 

urban areas with relatively even demand for both on- and 

off-highway fuels would generally find specializing in either 

on- or off-highway fuels to be the lowest cost option at about 

one fourth of a cent per gallon, although larger marketers 

would find segregating to be a cost competitive option. 

Marketers in rural and predominantly off-highway sales areas 

would face costs ranging from fifteen hundredths of a cent per 

gallon to four tenths of a cent per gallon. Some marketers 

would find specializing in off-highway sales to be the lowest 

cost option while others would find segregating to be the 

cheapest response. In areas with a low density of marketers 

and relatively even sales of on- and off-highway fuels, most 

marketers would find segregating to be the least costly option 

with costs ranging from two to four tenths of a cent per 

gallon. Thus, in all cases the costs were relatively small. 

ICF's analysis of the market conditions showed that most 

-21-
P.25 

of the cost increases should pass through to consumers without 

significant decreases in the demand for fuel. Consequently, 

most marketers should be able to cope with the additional costs 

without significant i'mpacts on their businesses, although some 

of the weaker firms may experience some difficulties. It 

should also be noted that there were two possible market 

responses not specifically analyzed by ICF which would 

represent lower cost solutions for marketers in some cases. 

First, marketers located near terminals could increase the 

amount of deliveries made directly from terminals, thus 

bypassing some of the need for investments in capital equipment 

and possibly reducing handling costs for the fuel. Second, 

depending on the responses of refiners and pipeline/terminal 

operators, it is possible that some markets or even regions of 

the country will switch exclusively to using low-sulfur fuel, 

thereby completely eliminating the need for marketers to change 

the way distillate fuels are handled. The extent to which 

these two options will occur is difficult to predict. Further, 

at least for increasing deliveries direct from terminals, it is 

difficult to estimate their cost impact. Therefore, these two 

options were not included in the analysis done by ICF. 

However, it should be noted that, due to their omission from 

the study, the results of the study may overstate the potential 

impacts of the rule on small marketers. 

To summarize the results of the study, costs to small 

marketers associated with the introduction of low-sulfur 

on-highway fuel should be fairly low, generally in the range of 

-22-
a few tenths of a cent per gallon even when installing new 

storage tanks. For the most part, additional costs to the 

marketers will pass through to the consumers. Therefore, most 

marketers will see very little impact from this rule. These 

conclusions were reached even though, as noted earlier, the 

analysis focused on the small end of the market where the 

changes would have the greatest potential for adverse impacts. 

As discussed later in this Preamble, today's action 

contains a two-year extension for qualifying small refiners. 

This small refiner extension is not expected to adversely 

affect small marketers. Although a third class of diesel fuel 

will be created, marketers will not be required to carry this 

fuel, so they will only do so if it is to their advantage. 

Furthermore, the volume of this third class of fuel sold during 

the short period of the exemption is not expected to be great 

enough to disadvantage marketers choosing to not carry the fuel. 

Regarding the possibility for competitive disadvantages 

with larger marketers and terminals, results of the ICF study 

show that the competitive position of small marketers is not 

likely to be degraded compared to larger marketers as a result 

of this rule. ICF found that these two groups serve 

characteristically different portions of the diesel fuel 

market. Larger marketers and terminal operators serve mainly 

large accounts capable of receiving full tank truck loads of 

3,000 to 7,000 gallons on a regular basis. On the other hand, 

small marketers primarily serve smaller accounts receiving 

partial truck loads of as little as 200 gallons. Furthermore, 

-23-
larger marketers have historically shown little interest in 

expanding their operation into markets currently served by 

smaller marketers. Even if they were so inclined, the ICF 

study found that larger marketers appear to be at least as 

ill-equipped to handle segregated fuels as small marketers. 

Therefore, the study concludes that no significant shift in the 

competitive environment should result from this rule. 

Concerning the issue of establishing a uniform standard 

for the entire pool of diesel fuel, EPA does not find this to 

be a feasible option at present. First of all, while EPA has 

authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources under 

certain circumstances, EPA currently lacks direct authority to 

set national standards with respect to the content of fuel not 

used for highway purposes. Furthermore, the available leadtime 

between now and 1994 is probably insufficient for refiners to 

make the required capital investments to desulfurize the entire 

fuel pool. Finally, no assessment has been done of the 

appropriate control to implement for the off-highway market. 

This would involve the development of additional cost and 

benefit information for dealing with off-highway fuels. In 

addition, since no such action has been proposed, it would 

involve developing a new rulemaking proposal. This is a 

lengthy process, arid it would clearly not be possible to 

regulate the sulfur content of these fuels by 1994. Nor could 

the Agency delay implementation of on- highway fuel control 

beyond 1994. Implementation of control by 1994 is necessary 

because of the expected introduction in that year of control 

-24-
hardware on heavy-duty diesel engines which will require 

low-sulfur fuel for proper functioning. 

While it is not feasible to require the entire pool to be 

desulfurized, it should be pointed out that there is no 

prohibition against the off-highway use of low-sulfur fuel. 

Low- sulfur fuel can be used for any desired application. 

Indeed, if the market forces are such that it is more 

economical for much of the fuel pool to meet the standards for 

on-highway fuel, then that is what will likely happen. The 

rule as proposed provides the maximum flexibility for the 

handling of off-highway fuels and heating oils. 

Concerning the possible upsetting of the competitive 

balance between on-highway truck transportation and rail and 

ship transportation, EPA does not believe that the rule will 

have a significant effect on this balance. EPA has seen no 

evidence that a small difference in fuel prices would lead to 

truck transportation being non-competitive with other means of 

transportation. More importantly, in many instances, rail or 

ship transportation would not be able to replace truck 

transportation. 

Regarding the issue of misfueling, EPA agrees that having 

a uniform standard would greatly simplify the prevention of 

misfueling. However, as has already been explained, it is not 

possible to mandate a uniform standard at this time. 

Therefore, EPA has constructed an enforcement scheme (described 

later in this preamble) which should minimize the potential for 

misfueling. 

-25-
"T-'J '• " 'r'T«vi| 

Marketers have argued that setting-up a segregated fuel 

system would involve an increase in inventory since the two 

products would not be readily interchangeable. No quantitative 

estimates of the need for increased inventory were made by 

marketers, nor was the claim of resultant shortages 

substantiated. EPA believes that the factors affecting the 

amount of inventory kept by marketers are complex and that 

increases in inventory are not an inevitable outcome of this 

rule. However, assuming that increases in inventory might 

occur, the Agency has attempted to estimate their potential 

impacts. According to the ICF small marketers study, marketers 

presently keep an average inventory of approximately a two week 

supply (or about 3.8 percent of the annual volume sold). For 

the worst case, the Agency assumed that all marketers would add 

the same type of fuel (i.e., on-highway) as a new segregated 

fuel without decreasing inventories of off-highway distillate. 

The Agency further assumed that inventories of on-highway fuel 

would be established over approximately a three month period as 

tanks were constructed and the new fuel became available. For 

this case, demand for on-highway fuel would not increase more 

than fifteen percent above the normal baseline for that 

period. Such an increase in demand should be readily 

manageable for the short time before inventories were 

established and demand returned to normal levels. 

With respect to regional production, the only area which 

has been identified that appears to be potentially affected is 

the Rocky Mountain region. This area, unlike the rest of the 

-26-
country, is fairly reliant on fuel produced by small 

independent refiners, which may have some difficulty meeting 

the sulfur requirement by October 1993. However, the extension 

being provided for small refineries to alleviate leadtime 

constraints should also mitigate shortages in the Rocky 

Mountains. (See discussion in separate section.) For other 

regions, API comments indicate that the producers of the fuel 

will be able to supply sufficient amounts of low-sulfur fuel. 

In fact, according to API, in its July 19, 1988 statement, many 

refiners will produce only low-sulfur fuel (which can be used 

in all applications) to avoid the burdens of segregation. 

Thus, EPA is convinced that refiners will be able to produce 

enough on-highway fuel for all regions of the country. 

According to PMAA, many small marketers would discontinue 

sale of one product if faced with segregated products, leading 

to shortages of on-highway fuel due to too many marketers 

specializing in off-highway fuel. However, results of the ICF 

small marketer study do not support this contention. According 

to the ICF study, the costs of either segregation or 

specialization should be small. Thus, even in those areas 

where many marketers might favor specialization, only a small 

increase in the price of on-highway fuel should be sufficient 

to ensure that marketers will continue to supply both types of 

fuels. It is also worth noting that ICF found that in areas 

with low competition, segregation to supply both types of fuels 

was often the lowest cost option. Additionally, the urbanized 

areas where specialization is most likely to occur are 

-27-
P.31 

characterized by nearness to terminals and the presence of 

major marketers. Both of these elements should act as 

stabilizing forces since on-highway fuel sales could be made 

directly from the terminal or through marketing outlets of the 

major oil companies. 

The last issue raised concerned the effect of this rule on 

small lateral pipelines. Contrary to ESPA's claims, the report 

done by SCI examining the effect of EPA's proposal on the 

product distribution network did look at the ability of lateral 

pipelines to handle segregated fuels.[3] SCI indicated that if 

these entities were to have a problem with compliance, it would 

be in storing the segregated products at the end of the 

pipeline, a problem similar to that faced by small marketers. 

However, SCI found that segregation of high- and low-sulfur 

distillate throughout the product distribution and storage 

chain of pipelines and terminals was feasible at low cost. 

Furthermore, pipeline companies are also generally larger 

entities than the small marketers described earlier. Thus, the 

conclusion of the small marketer study that small marketers 

should be able to handle products with little impact should 

also be valid for lateral pipelines. Therefore, no problems 

with the capability of lateral pipelines to handle segregated 

products is anticipated. 

[3] Effects of Diesel Fuel Standards on Transportation and 

Bulk Terminal Storage of Distillate Fuels, SCI, 

December 17, 1987. 

-28-
Issue: Small Refiner Impacts 

Prior to issuing the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA 

contracted with Sobotka Consultants Inc. (SCI) to evaluate the 

impacts of sulfur control on small refiners. Using an 

aggregate refining model, this study concluded that, for those 

small refineries capable of financing the necessary equipment, 

costs to produce low-sulfur fuel should be comparable to those 

of the rest of the U.S. refining industry. However, this same 

report also acknowledged that some segments of the industry 

would be economically unable to comply or could be somewhat 

economically disadvantaged. In any case, it was reasoned that 

refiners unable to comply with the rule would still be able to 

continue production by selling the fuel produced into the 

off-highway market. Comments on the proposal argued strongly 

that the small refiners impacts would be much worse than 

projected by EPA, and that adequate off-highway markets would 

not exist. 

Summary of Comments 

Many commenters, all of whom either were or represented 

small refiners, took issue with the SCI analysis of the 

situation of small refiners. A total of eleven commenters 

claimed the SCI study had significantly underestimated the 

costs for small refiners to produce low-sulfur fuel. For 

example, Frontier Refining estimated its cost to produce 

low-sulfur fuel at four cents per gallon rather than the 1.8 

cents per gallon estimated for the controlled fuel under 100 

percent segregation estimated in the NPRM. The Sunbelt/Huntway 

-29-
Refining Company further claimed that capital costs would be 

$4,000 per barrel of capacity for small refiners compared to 

$650 per barrel of capacity for larger refineries based on 

survey data from NPRA. 

Small refiners commenting on the NPRM also indicated that 

many of the small refiners desiring to comply with the rule 

would not be able to do so by October 1, 1993. Most notably, 

small refiners complained that they would have difficulty 

getting permits and arranging financing. 

According to the American Independent Refiners Association 

(AIRA), small refiners are at a disadvantage in generating 

capital or arranging financing to purchase needed equipment. 

Frontier Refining argued that it could finance the equipment 

but that its capital budget was already under strain from 

gasoline volatility (RVP) and RCRA requirements. Frontier 

argued that EPA's own leadtime analysis indicated that small 

refiners would find it more difficult than large refiners to 

comply with both RVP and sulfur control in the same time 

period. Witco further requested that EPA allow extensions for 

cases in which delays are caused by difficulties in obtaining 

necessary construction permits. 

Reflecting an overall concern with leadtime, small 

refiners as a group seemed to believe that an extension or 

exemption would be the most appropriate form of relief. 

Fifteen commenters asked for either an extension or an 

exemption. Requests for extensions argued for as much as five 

additional years (Frontier Refining). The AIRA submitted a 

-30-
proposal for a three year extension for small refineries and 

indicated a willingness to segregate fuels and allow sales to 

be limited to 1993 model year and earlier vehicles. Sinclair 

Oil Co., representing a group of Rocky Mountain refiners 

consisting of Crysen Refining Inc., Flying J Petroleum Inc., 

Frontier Refining, and Sinclair Oil, submitted a proposal for a 

three year extension which included caps on the allowable 

sulfur levels starting at 0.15 weight percent in the first year 

and declining to 0.10 weight percent in the third year. This 

proposal, however, did not require the fuels to be segregated. 

In addition to commenters requesting some form of 

extension or exemption, four refiners expressed an interest in 

banking, trading, and/or averaging of sulfur credits, while the 

API and the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) opposed any 

banking and trading programs. Sinclair Oil Co. proposed a 

detailed sulfur banking and trading program to be applied to 

small refiners as an alternate form of relief. On the other 

hand, API opposed any such plan as being too difficult to put 

into place and as being open for abuse, while EMA objected to 

banking and trading programs on the grounds that such programs 

would allow fuels with potentially damaging levels of sulfur to 

be sold to 1994 and later vehicles. Furthermore, API and NPRA 

both objected to extension of any form of relief to small 

refiners on the basis that these refiners were participants in 

developing the original agreement and were sufficiently 

protected by its provisions leaving the off-highway market 

unregulated. 

-31-
Furthermore, commenters argued that some regions of the 

country do not have significant off-highway markets for diesel 

fuel and that the off-highway market is likely to become 

depressed in price due to a projected increase in competition 

for off-highway markets. For instance, AIRA claimed that many 

of its members would find it very difficult to find off-highway 

markets. Also, Sunbelt/Huntway Refining Co. stated that 

off-highway markets are very limited in Arizona. Witco, on the 

other hand, already serves a large off-highway market but is 

hoping to be able to switch to the on-highway market because of 

a belief that the off-highway market will become uneconomical. 

Analysis of Comments 

The SCI study indicated that it was possible that the 

ability of small refiners to remove sulfur from the fuel at 

costs comparable to the rest of the industry may have been 

overstated. On the other hand, API as well as some major 

refiners argued that the costs for major refiners to remove 

sulfur from the fuel may have been underestimated also. EPA 

has not undertaken new analyses to confirm or deny any of the 

cost estimates presented. However, it is apparent that even if 

the fuel costs were substantially higher, the rule would still 

be quite cost effective. For example, if the average actual 

fuel costs were double those estimated by EPA, the cost 

effectiveness would be at most $13,546/ton, which is still less 

than the $18,700/ton (in 1986 dollars) estimated for the 1994 

particulate standards adopted in 1985. 

Regardless of uncertainties on costs, EPA concurs with 

-32-
small refiner groups arguing that small refiners may need more 

leadtime beyond 1994 to comply with the rule. Even for major 

refineries, the leadtime is already short. API, Chevron, and 

Phillips all indicated in comments submitted to the docket that 

the failure to finalize the rule prior to 1990 has already made 

it difficult for larger refineries to purchase and install the 

necessary capital equipment in time to meet the requirements of 

the rule. In fact, in a January 10, 1990 letter to EPA, 

Phillips further indicated its belief that continuing delays 

will force refiners to purchase foreign-made equipment. 

According to Phillips, "US engineers, shop fabricators and 

constructors will be strained to simultaneously fill all orders 

resulting from EPA's final rule." 

EPA believes that in such an environment small refiners 

would be at a definite disadvantage and may indeed face greater 

delays in arranging for construction and engineering expertise 

and in getting permits than larger refiners. The EPA leadtime 

analysis pointed to construction and engineering availability 

constraints as being a possible bottleneck in the procurement 

of equipment to comply with the rule, especially with 

simultaneous demands from RVP requirements. This indication 

that construction and engineering resources are likely to be 

taxed supports the argument that small refiners would have 

difficulty arranging for these services in time to comply with 

the rule. Again, the comments from Phillips would indicate 

that the construction and engineering industry is going to be 

strained to meet the demands of the major refiners for new 

-33-
equipment prior to October 1, 1993. Furthermore, many small 

refiners may not have been aware of the agreement being 

developed by the engine manufacturers and the oil industry and 

therefore were unable to begin advanced planning and design 

until quite recently. 

Finally, smaller refiners are more likely to face delays 

in raising capital or arranging financing for the necessary 

engineering and construction of the desulfurizing equipment 

than are major refiners. The EPA leadtime analysis was based 

on the assumption that raising capital would not be a 

constraint because it presumed integrated companies where 

capital spending for refinery upgrades is only a portion of the 

total capital budget. However, this assumption is less 

applicable to small refiners than it is to major oil 

companies. Indeed, the EPA leadtime analysis acknowledged that 

firms that operate purely or principally in refining would tend 

to have the greatest difficulty in raising the capital required 

by environmental regulations. Furthermore, smaller refineries 

are less likely to have any existing desulfurization capacity 

and therefore are faced with a proportionately bigger task at 

proportionately greater expense than major refiners. 

Given these facts, the Agency believes it would be 

appropriate to provide small refiners a limited extension 

before requiring full compliance with the rule. However, EPA 

believes that the amount of time requested by small refiners is 

excessive and that the situation does not justify an extension 

of more than two years. For example, actions taken by the 

-34-
California Air Resources Board (CARB) indicate that small 

refiners in California are expected to need only a one year 

extension to meet the same sulfur standard in that State. In 

the 1989 rulemaking in which CARB established a diesel fuel 

sulfur standard of 0.05 weight percent scheduled to go into 

effect at the same time as this rule, small refiners were 

allowed a one year extension for meeting the sulfur 

specification. However, it should be noted that, in the case 

of California, small refiners not able to comply by the end of 

the extension period could still sell into the on-highway 

markets in neighboring states. Thus, some time beyond that 

provided by California may be appropriate for the case of a 

Nationwide standard. 

On the other hand, two additional years should be fully 

adequate to meet the needs of small refiners. A two year 

extension would provide a total of five years of leadtime, 

which the SCI report indicated would be sufficient to allow 

enough facilities to be built to desulfurize the entire fuel 

pool. The rule, therefore, allows up to a two year extension, 

although it seeks to provide significant incentives, in the 

form of interim caps on the sulfur content, for refiners to 

comply as quickly as possible.[4] 

[4] It should be clear from this discussion that EPA is not 

taking the position that small refiners are regularly 

entitled to extra leadtime. EPA's decision is a narrow 

one, based solely on consideration of the merits of this 

particular situation. 

-35-
In addition to requiring small refiners to meet some 

interim levels of control, either through use of existing 

desulfurization capacity or through fuel blending with 

low-sulfur blendstock, EPA believes it is necessary to prevent 

the use of this fuel in vehicles equipped with 1994 or later 

model year diesel engines. Many of these engines are expected 

to employ advanced emissions control technology which is 

sensitive to excess sulfur in the fuel. The use of fuel with 

sulfur levels above 0.05 weight percent could seriously impair 

the functioning of these devices and must, therefore, be 

prevented. It is also important to limit the extension to 

those small refiners who will actually use it to aid in 

complying with the rule. That is, refiners who plan to 

eventually discontinue sale of on-highway fuel rather than 

install new equipment should not be eligible for an extension. 

Finally, any extension should be structured to prevent small 

refiners from selling more on-highway fuel under the terms of 

the extension than they sold in prior years. This is needed 

both to limit the excess emissions from the use of higher 

sulfur fuel and to guard against any incentive for small 

refiners to increase sales and profits because of possibly 

favorable market positions created by the extension. With 

these goals in mind, EPA has developed a limited small refinery 

extension. The details of the extension follow. 

Fuel with a sulfur content greater than 0.05 weight 

percent but which meets the appropriate sulfur limit described 

in Table 3 and meets the other specifications for on-highway 

-36-
P.40 

diesel fuel described in this rule, may be produced by small 

refiners according to the eligibility requirements described 

below. Such fuel will be referred to as exempted on-highway 

diesel fuel. 

Table 3 

Sulfur Limits For Small Refiners 

Date Sulfux kimit 

October 1, 1993 0.25 weight percent 

October 1, 1994 0.10 weight percent 

October 1, 1995 0.05 weight percent 

The sulfur levels specified in Table 3 actually represent 

significant reductions from the current sulfur levels of small 

refiners. Current sulfur levels of diesel fuels produced by 

small refiners average more than 0.25 weight percent and in 

many cases approach 0.5 weight percent, so these levels will 

force small refiners to make interim reductions in the sulfur 

content of their fuels. Small refiners will be forced to 

either make better use of existing desulfurization equipment or 

blend their output with low-sulfur diesel stock in order to 

comply with the interim sulfur standards. Thus, although the 

full benefit of the 0.05 weight percent standard will not be 

-37-
P.41 

realized for small refiners during the extension period, there 

will be significant reductions from current levels. 

Small refineries will be defined according to the size 

criteria established for small refiners in the lead phase-down 

provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. This 

definition is spelled out in Section 211 (g) of the Act and 

requires that: 

a. the total crude oil or bonafide feedstock capacity 

of the refiner be 137,500 barrels per day or less, 

and 

b. the crude oil or bonafide feedstock capacity of 

individual qualifying refineries be 50,000 barrels 

per day or less. 

The above capacities shall be measured in terms of the 

average of the actual daily feedstock use of the affected 

refiners or refineries during the period January 1, 1988 to 

December 1, 1989. These averages will be calculated as barrels 

per calendar day. 

The extension will be limited to qualifying U.S. domestic 

small refineries. In order to qualify, a small refiner must 

also demonstrate a commitment to produce diesel fuel with a 

maximum sulfur content of 0.05 weight percent by October 1, 

1995, as follows. By July 1, 1993, the refiner must show that 

capital commitments to make the necessary modifications to 

supply low sulfur fuel have been made. Evidence of capital 

commitments to make modifications shall include copies of 

executed and binding contracts for design and construction, and 

-38-
copies of approved permits for construction of the equipment. 

In addition, to qualify for the second year of the extension, 

the small refiner must provide evidence by July 1, 1994 that 

on-site construction has begun. These provisions will ensure 

that only refiners intending to make modifications allowing 

them to produce complying fuel at the end of the extension 

period will be allowed to make use of the extension period. 

To ensure that the volume of on-highway fuel sold does not 

increase under the terms of the extension, the exempted volume 

sold by a refinery during either of the two years of the 

exemption will be limited to the average of the annual amount 

of on-highway fuel produced at the refinery during the period 

October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1990. On-highway fuel 

production will be estimated from amounts reported as 

on-highway diesel fuel for Federal excise tax purposes. This 

amount can include fuels for which the refinery reported the 

sales as well as a portion of the fuel sold through licensed 

re-sellers. The on-highway portion of the fuels sold through 

licensed re-sellers may be assumed to be the same as the 

average on-highway fraction of sales reported by that customer, 

unless suitable evidence, acceptable to the Administrator, 

indicates otherwise. 

In addition, to prevent the use of fuels with sulfur 

contents of more than 0.05 weight percent in 1994 and later 

model year vehicles, any exempted fuel produced for on-highway 

consumption which has a sulfur content of greater than 0.05 

weight percent will be segregated from fuel of sulfur content 

-39-
of less than 0.05 weight percent. The segregation program will 

contain the following provisions: 

1. The fuel must be dyed to distinguish it from both 

fuel intended for off-highway use and fuel intended 

for general on-highway use; the dye for this purpose 

is a purple dye mixture of approximately 38 percent 

by volume xylene, 50 percent by volume Color Index 

(CI) solvent blue 99 and 12 percent by volume CI 

solvent red 166 at a minimum concentration of 20 

parts per million by volume. 

2. Any wholesaler or retailer who sells exempted 

on-highway fuel must also offer for sale fuel with a 

sulfur content of less than 0.05 weight percent. 

3. In addition, retailers carrying exempted fuel must 

meet the following requirements: 

prominently label diesel fuel pumps as to the 

type of fuel dispensed from each, 

place low and high sulfur fuel pumps on 

separate fuel dispensing islands at facilities 

which dispense diesel fuel at more than one 

fuel dispensing island. In this case, 

retailers must also prominently label the 

islands as to the type of diesel fuel at the 

given island. 

4. It should also be noted that no marketer or retailer 

is required to carry exempted on-highway diesel fuel 

under these regulations. 

-40-
EPA believes that the proposed extension for small 

refineries provides relief that is fair and equitable while 

still recognizing manufacturer concerns regarding recall 

liability. This extension should permit small refiners who 

intend to comply with the rule but who may need additional time 

to comply to do so without seriously disrupting their 

operations. On the other hand, small refiners would not gain a 

windfall in profits from expanding sales or by selling lower 

grade products into a premium market on an equal footing. 

At the same time, EPA recognizes that there may be some 

increase in the possibility of misfueling in the short term. 

However, the Agency believes that the segregation provisions, 

the limits on sulfur content and the vehicle labeling 

provisions will minimize both the likelihood and the impacts of 

misfueling. It is plausible that recall actions where possible 

sulfur contamination is an issue could be complicated because 

it could be difficult for manufacturers to determine whether or 

not a vehicle had been misfueled. EPA will consider this 

factor in working with manufacturers in resolving such 

implementation issues. 

In an analogous setting, EPA exempted small refineries 

from the lead content rules for a limited time, in regulations 

issued under CAA §211, "in recognition of the special leadtime 

problems faced by this group." 38 Federal Register 33740 

(1976), see 40 CFR §80.-20(b)(1976). The lead regulation was 

upheld with respect to several other issues in Ethyl Corp. v. 

EPA, 541 F.2d (D.C. Cir)(en banc), cert, denied, 426 U.S. 941 

-41-
(1976). Congress later specifically provided by statute for a 

limited exemption for small refiners from the lead content 

requirement- under CAA §211(g), see Small Ref. Lead Phase-Down 

Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 

In connection with the lead content regulations, the 

Agency required retailers to sell unleaded fuel and also issued 

other provisions applicable to the retailer. See 40 CFR 80.22 

(1989). This affirmative sale requirement was upheld in Amoco 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 501 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1974). In the present 

case, the retailer has the option whether or not to sell 

exempted fuel, but if exempted fuel is sold both types of fuel 

must be sold and be properly labeled for the reasons discussed 

above. These and the other requirements applicable to 

retailers already in the rule as proposed are needed to promote 

the aim of §211(c) of preventing impairment of the emission 

control systems from the sulfur content of diesel fuel. Thus, 

as these regulatory examples indicate, Section 211(c) of the 

CAA provides clear authority for the small refiner exemption 

and the requirements governing retailers who sell fuel covered 

by the exemption, as well as for the other provisions included 

in this Final Rule. 

The above extension to the rule should provide small 

refiners with sufficient additional leadtime so that those 

refiners actually intending to comply with the rule will be 

able to do so. Therefore, a sulfur banking and trading program 

is not necessary to assist small refiners in complying with the 

rule. Such a program is also undesirable from the standpoint 

-42-
that it would be difficult to implement and enforce in this 

setting where different types of fuel are available at the same 

time. It would also increase the risks of fuel with a sulfur 

content of greater than 0.05 weight percent being sold to 

vehicles manufactured in 1994 and later. 

The proposed extension should also alleviate some of the 

problems faced by refiners located in regions with limited 

off-highway markets. However, it should also be pointed out 

that lack of a local market for off-highway fuel would not 

necessarily preclude a refiner from selling fuel intended for 

off-highway uses. As ESPA and IFTOA have pointed out, regions 

with large demands for off-highway fuel also tend to import 

large amounts of such fuel over great distances. With the 

conversion of many of the larger refineries to production of 

low-sulfur fuel, it should be possible for small refiners to 

ship off-highway fuels to these regions and still be able to 

recapture the increased shipping costs. 

Issue: Levels of the Standards 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA presented 

justifications for the levels of control selected for both 

sulfur and aromatics. Some commenters, however, expressed the 

opinion that the levels of control selected may not have been 

the optimal ones. 

Summary of the Comments 

Most commenters believed that the levels of control 

selected for both sulfur and aromatics were appropriate. EMA, 

-43-
API, most manufacturers and most refiners supported both the 

0.05 weight percent limit for sulfur and the 40 cetane index 

cap for aromatics. However, there were a few commenters who 

would have liked to have seen a higher limit on sulfur content 

as well as a few government agencies who requested tighter 

controls on aromatics. 

IFTOA, ESPA, NEFI, and Frontier Refining all questioned 

whether or not the sulfur level of 0.05 weight percent was 

optimized. IFTOA and NEFI both claimed that having a uniform 

sulfur level for the entire pool would be desirable but only if 

the allowable sulfur level was higher than 0.05 weight 

percent. Both organizations indicated that requiring heating 

oil to meet a sulfur standard of 0.05 weight percent would 

increase the cost of heating oil too much to be tolerable. 

ESPA claimed that EPA had failed to live up to its obligation 

to find the optimal sulfur level citing the Energy and 

Resources Consultants and Sabotka Consultants Inc. report 

stating that the sulfur level of 0.05 weight percent was not 

optimized. Frontier Refining (referring to the difficulties 

faced by small refiners in complying with the rule) asked EPA 

to evaluate the feasibility of a higher limit for sulfur 

claiming that any loosening of the sulfur requirements would 

ease the burdens on small refiners. 

The States of Colorado and California as well as the City 

of Denver requested that tighter controls be placed on 

aromatics (in addition to asking for direct measurement of 

aromatics levels as the means of control). California would 

-44-
like to see consistency with its own rules for diesel fuel 

quality which specify a maximum aromatics content of 10 volume 

percent. Denver and the State of Colorado are attempting to 

gain the emissions benefits of reduced aromatics contents as a 

means of combating their serious air pollution problems. 

Analysis of Comments 

EPA believes that, from a national perspective, the sulfur 

level of 0.05 weight percent is indeed the best level of sulfur 

control which can be selected with currently available 

knowledge. A primary driving force for the proposal of this 

rule was to enable engine manufacturers to use aftertreatment 

technology which is crucial to meeting the stringent 

particulate emissions standards which will go into effect in 

1994. Currently, there is insufficient knowledge of the 

workings of these devices to know precisely what sulfur level 

will be tolerable in the long term. However, EMA, in 

supporting this rule, indicates its belief that a 0.05 weight 

percent standard is sufficiently low to provide the necessary 

protection. EMA also believes that higher levels would not be 

acceptable. From the refiners' perspective, API has supported 

the proposed standard as reasonable and cost effective. Nor 

does EPA believe it is appropriate to raise the sulfur level in 

order to ease compliance by small refiners (see separate 

discussion of the small refiner issue). Finally, with respect 

to establishing a single standard for all middle distillate, as 

has previously been discussed, EPA would not be able to rely on 

the authority it has used for this rule and it would need to 

-45-
institute a new proceeding if any such effort were to be 

undertaken. Therefore, this final rule retains the sulfur 

standard as proposed. 

Regarding the selection of a more stringent standard for 

aromatics control, as indicated in the proposal, EPA believes 

that, on a national basis, the costs of reducing the aromatics 

level are not currently justified by the concomitant reduction 

in particulate emissions. EPA concluded that reducing the 

aromatics level to 20 volume percent would cost an incremental 

3.24 cents per gallon. At the same time, the additional 

reductions in particulate matter emissions would be only 

marginal. EPA calculated the cost effectiveness of reducing 

the aromatics level to 20 volume percent to be between $310,751 

and $560,378 per ton of particulate matter compared to a 

maximum of $6,773 per ton of particulate matter for sulfur 

control. In 1995, for instance, control of sulfur content to 

0.05 weight percent is expected to result in a net reduction of 

19 percent of the particulate attributable to the on-highway 

use of diesel fuel while control of aromatics content to 20 

volume percent would result in a reduction of only two 

percent. However, this analysis does not include an assessment 

of the potential impact on cancer risk, which is an issue that, 

as noted earlier, will be addressed by EPA in a separate 

rulemaking. Therefore, EPA is not attempting to reduce 

aromatics content in diesel fuel with this action. 

Furthermore, additional leadtime would be required if such a 

requirement were to be imposed, which would further delay the 

effective date of this rule. 

-46-
Issue: Winter-time—blending of iet-A, kerosene, or number 

one fuftl oil to rpHVrp the cloud pnipt-. and pour point 

of number two diesel fuel 

During winter months, diesel fuel is typically blended 

with jet-A, kerosene, or number one fuel oil to lower the cloud 

point in cold climate regions. Undiluted number two diesel 

fuel typically has a cloud point (the temperature at which a 

cloud of wax crystals first appears) of around 12°F. Since the 

consequences of such solids plugging fuel lines or other engine 

parts are catastrophic, operators and fuel suppliers take the 

precaution of blending number two diesel fuel with lighter 

fuels to ensure that the mixture will not reach its cloud 

point. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA required that 

all fuels used as on-highway diesel fuel meet the sulfur and 

aromatics specifications, regardless of the time of year, 

without specifically stating how fuels blended with on-highway 

diesel fuels would be handled. 

Summary of the Comments 

The Empire State Petroleum Association (ESPA) and the 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) expressed 

concern about the availability of a sufficient supply of 

low-sulfur kerosene, jet-A, and number one diesel for blending 

into on-highway diesel fuel. PMAA points out that the amount 

of fuel blended can be quite substantial, reaching 30 percent 

blendstock in New Jersey and 40 percent blendstock in Minnesota. 

Phillips Petroleum, the Tosco Corporation, Chevron, and 

the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association all submitted 

comments requesting a winter-time exemption to allow the 

-47-
P.51 

blending of kerosene-type fuels, which may have a sulfur 

content of greater than 0.05 weight percent, into the 

on-highway diesel fuel market. Chevron pointed out that, while 

the ASTM sulfur specification for jet-A fuel is 0.3 weight 

percent, the national average for sulfur content of this common 

blending fuel has remained nearly constant averaging between 

0.05 and 0.06 weight percent for the past ten years. Chevron 

proposed that EPA finalize the rule with a winter-time blending 

exemption for blended on-highway fuels. The exemption would be 

in effect from November 1 to March 31 with a maximum sulfur 

content for the blended fuel to be set by a cooperative testing 

program with EMA to determine the maximum fuel sulfur content 

which 1994 and later engines and aftertreatment devices can 

tolerate without permanent damage. The California Air 

Resources Board, on the other hand, commented that there was no 

technical need for winter exemptions for blended fuels. 

The American Petroleum Institute included a discussion of 

the handling of winter-time blending of kerosene-type fuels 

into number two diesel fuel in its comments. API addressed the 

possibility of the dyeing requirement for fuels not meeting the 

0.05 weight percent sulfur standard including the pool of fuels 

used for winter-time blending. API urged that the dyeing 

requirement not be extended to this pool pointing out that the 

blended fuel would still be required to meet the sulfur limit 

of 0.05 weight percent. 

Analysis of Comments 

EPA believes that it is necessary for all on-highway 

-48-
diesel fuels to meet the 0.05 weight percent sulfur limit at 

all times. First of all, to relax this requirement for part of 

the year would jeapordize many of the environmental benefits of 

this rule. More importantly, though, the use of on-highway 

diesel fuel with a sulfur content of more than 0.05 weight 

percent could damage the emissions control technology of 1994 

and later model year vehicles. Therefore, EPA will not allow 

any seasonal exemptions from the sulfur levels. 

Concerning the handling of kerosene and jet-A, EPA 

generally agrees with the position put forth by API. The ASTM 

specifications and average properties of jet-A, kerosene, and 

number one diesel tend to group these fuels into a separate 

classification from number two diesel fuel. Since the proposed 

regulations only include fuels intended for use as an 

on-highway motor fuel, jet-A and kerosene will not be covered 

by the regulations unless they have been designated as being 

intended for use as a diesel fuel. The dyeing requirement is 

to distinguish diesel fuel which, but for the sulfur content or 

cetane index/aromatics level not meeting the specifications for 

on-highway fuel, would be indistinguishable from on-highway 

diesel fuel. Since the jet-A and kerosene blendstocks have 

physical properties which naturally distinguish them from 

number two diesel fuel, and as such inherently require them to 

be segregated from number two diesel fuel, they would not need 

to be dyed to distinguish them from on-highway diesel fuel. In 

addition, since kerosene and jet-A type fuels cost about five 

cents per gallon more than number two diesel fuel, dyeing 

-49-
should not be needed as an incentive for keeping these fuels 

segregated from the on-highway diesel fuel market. Number one 

diesel fuel, however, would be covered by the dyeing 

requirements due to its designation as a diesel fuel. 

EPA also believes that there will be sufficient stocks of 

fuels for blending which have a low enough sulfur level to be 

blended into the on-highway market. Surveys taken by the 

National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER) 

indicate that the average sulfur contents of jet-A and number 

one diesel are fairly close to 0.05 weight percent, which would 

indicate that there is a sufficient supply of these fuels with 

a sulfur content of less than 0.05 weight percent to cover the 

needs for winter blending with on-highway diesel fuel. The 

national average for sulfur content in jet-A fuel in 1988 was 

0.054 weight percent and, as API pointed out, this sulfur 

content has been fairly consistent over the past decade. For 

number one diesel, which has an ASTM specification for sulfur 

content of 0.5 weight percent, the national average for sulfur 

content in 1989 was 0.064 weight percent. However, only the 

area designate by NIPER as the central region had an average 

sulfur content of greater than 0.06 weight percent. Given the 

broad national distribution of fuels suitable for blending with 

number two diesel fuel, EPA believes that the market will be 

able to supply sufficient quantities of blending fuels with low 

sulfur contents to meet the needs of the on-highway market. 

Therefore, winter-time exemptions of blended fuels from the 

sulfur requirements do not appear to be necessary and all 

-50-
on-highway diesel fuel, blended or not, will be required to 

meet the 0.05 weight percent sulfur standard. 

Issue: Testing of Fuel Sulfur Levels 

EPA proposed using ASTM standard test method D-2622 for 

its own determination of sulfur levels in diesel fuel. It was 

also specified as the appropriate method for establishing a 

defense to an alleged violation. However, other test methods 

not specifically mentioned, with varying complexity and 

accuracy, are available. 

Summary of the Comments 

Navistar supported the Agency's selection of D-2622, 

saying it was the "best method" for these regulations. Amoco 

also supported this selection. Penzoil and Princeton 

Gamma-Tech (PGT), however, suggested that EPA allow the use of 

ASTM D-4294, which is an energy dispersive x-ray technique. 

They claimed that it is less expensive and provides equivalent 

accuracy. Chevron also suggested that D-4294 is acceptable for 

use with careful quality control. PGT also suggested that 

round robin testing of such alternative test procedures be 

performed to establish equivalency to ASTM D-2622. Chevron, 

Conoco and PGT recommended that EPA use the ASTM D-2622 test as 

the reference test. Amoco and Phillips also suggested that the 

Agency allow the use of other methods. 

Analysis of the Comments 

The test method proposed by EPA represents the method 

which will be used by the Agency for enforcement compliance 

-51-
purposes. Defenses contained in the proposed regulations 

required that sulfur testing according to ASTM D-2622 be 

completed by refiners or importers to establish a defense to an 

alleged violation of the rule. No specific test method 

requirements were proposed for other affected parties. As 

noted by the commenters, the equipment necessary to complete 

ASTM D-2622 is costly. The alternative test method recommended 

by Penzoil and Princeton Gamma-Tech, ASTM D-4294, may be 

essentially as accurate as ASTM D-2622, yet costs are 

significantly less. The Agency recognizes that it may be 

desirable for many of the regulated parties to be able to 

procure the ASTM D-4294 equipment for oversight testing. 

Therefore, EPA has decided that for purposes of establishing a 

defense to an alleged violation of the sulfur percentage, a 

regulated party may use the ASTM standard test method D-4294. 

The defendant will be responsible to support its data with a 

quality control plan and demonstrate the ability to accurately 

perform this test method. Furthermore, parties using this test 

method for defense purposes must have evidence from the 

manufacturer or others that it reliably produces results 

substantially equivalent to the test method specified by EPA. 

EPA will continue to use the ASTM D-2622 test for enforcement 

purposes and will rely on those test results in any enforcement 

action. 

All regulated parties are free to use any test procedure 

for determining, to their own satisfaction, compliance with the 

regulation. Only the ASTM D-2622 method will be used by EPA 

-52-
for enforcement purposes and the ASTM D-4294 test method will 

be considered as a defense only if it can be properly qualified 

with supporting documentation. 

Issue: Use of Cetane Index to Cap Aromatics Levels 

In its proposal, the Agency cited evidence that higher 

aromatics levels in diesel fuel could potentially contribute to 

higher emissions. The Agency thus saw it as desirable to 

prevent the aromatics levels of diesel fuels from increasing in 

the future. However, since direct measurement of aromatics is 

a somewhat complicated procedure, EPA chose to use a minimum 

cetane index of 40 as a surrogate for capping aromatics. 

Summary of the Comments 

Witco Corporation suggested that the minimum cetane index 

would be inappropriate for its on-highway diesel fuel because 

it uses a highly napthenic San Joaquin crude as a feedstock. 

Diesel fuels distilled from this crude, it was argued, have 

naturally low cetane indices, and require cetane improvers to 

be marketable; and that lowering aromatics would do nothing to 

increase the cetane index above the minimum value of 40. 

Witco, therefore, requested that a maximum aromatics level of 

45 percent be established as an alternative to the minimum 

cetane index of 40. 

Phillips Petroleum was also concerned about the use of the 

cetane index; arguing that when sulfur is removed from diesel 

fuel, the cetane index may be a very poor estimate of the 

actual cetane rating of the fuel. (The cetane rating, or 

-53-
cetane number, of a fuel is a measure of engine performance 

using the fuel and is taken directly from engine tests, while 

the cetane index is an estimate of the cetane rating that is 

calculated from fuel properties.) To prevent the occurrence of 

in-use fuels with low cetane ratings, Phillips suggested that 

EPA might raise its minimum cetane index. Mobil also stated 

that the cetane index is not the best indicator of engine 

combustion performance, and that EPA should establish an 

optional minimum cetane number specification of 40. Under this 

option, Mobil added that cetane improver additives should be 

allowed. Volkswagen of America also requested the addition of 

a cetane number specification, although Volkswagen suggested 

that the appropriate cetane number should be 45. 

Navistar supported the minimum cetane index standard, and 

the use of ASTM-D976 for its determination. It went further, 

however, to suggest that, because of the minimum cetane index 

(which was established to cap aromatics levels), the Agency 

should also include a maximum aromatics level of 43% for its 

diesel test fuels. 

Analysis of the Comments 

The Agency's goal in establishing a minimum cetane index 

of 40 for on-highway diesel fuel was to control the aromatics 

content of the fuel at approximately current levels. The 

cetane index, as measured by ASTM test method D 976, was 

selected because of its simplicity in use, acceptance by the 

industry, and the fact that it is most directly controlled by 

the density of the fuel which is strongly influenced by the 

-54-
aromatics content of the fuel. However, there is nothing 

unique about the cetane index which would preclude the 

alternative use of other methods of controlling the aromatics 

content of diesel fuel. Thus, in response to Witco's comment, 

EPA has no abjections to the establishment of an optional 

maximum aromatics specification. The Agency cannot, however, 

establish the maximum as 45 percent since this is well above 

current average levels. The results of MVMA's surveys of 

diesel fuel show that the average aromatics levels in recent 

years have been in the 30 to 35 percent range. Therefore, this 

final rule provides an optional standard for the maximum 

aromatics content of on-highway fuel of 35 percent as an 

alternative to meeting the cetane index specification. The 

aromatics content shall be determined using ASTM test method 

D-1319, as is currently used for EPA test fuel specification. 

Concerning the comments by Phillips, Mobil and Volkswagen, 

EPA notes that the purpose of the cetane index specification 

established here is to cap aromatics at approximately current 

levels. The Agency, therefore, sees no reason for it to 

establish a performance-based specification; either a higher 

cetane index, or a cetane number specification. These concerns 

have, in the past, been addressed by the market, and EPA sees 

no reason that this should be changed by this rule. 

Finally, EPA disagrees with Navistar who argued that it is 

appropriate to include a maximum aromatics level of 43 percent 

for certification fuels to maintain consistency with the 

minimum cetane index of 40 which was proposed. The Agency's 

-55-
goal for test fuels is that they be representative of in-use 

fuels. Thus, since the only limit on the aromatics content of 

in-use fuels is that imposed by the minimum cetane index 

specification, the Agency will establish no other limit for its 

certification test fuels. 

Issue: Dyeing of Off-Hiohwav Fuel 

The Agency proposed that any diesel fuel which does not 

show visible evidence of being dyed shall be considered to be 

available for use in diesel motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

engines. Since the diesel fuel standards are proposed to be 

applicable at all sites in the distribution network, this 

implies that the dye must be added at the refiner or importer 

facility to avoid noncompliance by undyed product which may be 

used for other purposes. 

Summary of the Comments 

The Mobil Corporation stated that they "fully support" the 

dyeing proposal. Amoco, Phillips Petroleum, the Rocky Mountain 

Oil and Gas Association, and the Petroleum Marketers 

Association of America (PMAA) all expressed support for dyeing 

of off-highway diesel fuel at the refinery. The American 

Independent Refiners Association believed that dyeing at the 

refinery level would be difficult whereas the Independent Fuel 

Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA) recommended that dyeing 

be done at the terminal level to prevent supply problems. The 

New England Fuel Institute (NEFI) was concerned about the point 

of dyeing. The IFTOA and Amoco recommended that the Agency 

-56-
specify required dye concentrations. 

IFTOA and Amoco believed the dye named in the proposal is 

an appropriate dye. Amoco stated that no adverse health 

effects are known for the proposed dye while NEFI expressed 

concern over the potential cost and health effects of the dye 

but cited no specific information to show there were adverse 

health effects. The American Trucking Association believed the 

dye chosen may not be a good one since it believes the dye is 

expensive. The Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association 

(IFBCA) and Amoco both pointed out that the specified dye will 

appear green when mixed with diesel fuel and not blue as stated 

in the proposal. Both the IFBCA and the IFTOA indicated that 

current premium diesel fuel is dyed red or purple to 

distinguish it as a premium product to their customers. The 

Empire State Petroleum Association (ESPA) and PMAA questioned 

possible contamination of low sulfur fuel with either sulfur or 

dye from residual amounts of off-highway fuel left in trucks 

and lines following deliveries. 

Phillips Petroleum recommended that the specified dye 

comply with pipeline standards for water haze in diesel fuel. 

PMAA and NEFI both expressed concern that the use of dye 

for off-highway diesel fuel is being done for tax purposes. 

PMAA suggested that the regulation state that dye not be 

indicative for tax purposes as undyed fuel is not exclusively 

for on-highway uses. 

Analysis of the Comments 

EPA proposed the dyeing of off-highway diesel fuel as a 

•57-
P.61 

means to visually determine if diesel fuel was intended for 

off-highway use and not in compliance with the sulfur 

percentage and minimum cetane index standards. The intent was 

for the dye to be added at the earliest point in the 

distribution network, namely by the refiner or importer, so 

that this visual clue would facilitate detection of misfueling 

or blending of noncomplying diesel fuels at all points. 

Although the presence of dyed fuel will be an indicator of 

off-highway, or potentially noncomplying, diesel fuel, it will 

not be the basis for enforcement action. Enforcement will be 

based on actual analysis of diesel fuel samples according to 

the ASTM test methods specified in this regulation. 

Support by Mobil, Phillips, and Amoco clearly indicates 

that the refining industry supports the dyeing concept. This 

approach has been widely used in Europe and Canada, although 

for other reasons, for many years. Available information shows 

no adverse health effects or mechanical problems attributable 

to the specific dye required by the regulations. Cost of the 

dye and dyeing equipment is kept minimal if it is added at the 

refinery or importer facility. This will reduce the potential 

cost burden at the terminal or distributor level. Supply 

problems or shortages should also not occur as the clear diesel 

fuel may also be sold for off-highway use if a temporary 

shortage of dyed fuel occurs. 

EPA is aware that the specific dye required by the 

regulations will not normally be blue when added to diesel 

fuel. Due to the characteristic yellowish color of diesel fuel, 

-58-
upon dyeing the fuel will appear green. This is satisfactory, 

as it will indicate that the required dye has been added and 

will be the color which field personnel will be looking for. 

The Agency will not recommend specific dye concentrations to be 

used, as the regulation requires visible evidence of the dye 

being added. Liable parties bear the burden of adding 

sufficient dye to accomplish the goal of the dyeing program or 

risk fuel being tested as on-highway fuel. As several 

commenters pointed out, red or purple dye is currently added to 

their premium diesel fuel for customer recognition. Assuming 

that these fuels comply with the sulfur percentage and cetane 

index requirements, the practice will not be prohibited. These 

colors will clearly not be confused with blue or green and 

alleged violations will, in any case, be based on analysis and 

not colors. 

Several parties pointed out that the possibility exists 

that residual dye may be present from deliveries of off-highway 

fuel when a truck is subsequently used for on-highway fuel. 

However, based upon typical dye concentrations used> the 

presence of the dye will not be a problem as a small amount 

diluted in a subsequent truck load would not generally be 

visible. In fact, again based upon typical dye concentrations 

and sulfur levels, if enough residual fuel were present to 

cause visible coloration, the 0.05 weight percent sulfur 

standard would also be exceeded. In any event, for enforcement 

purposes, color alone would not be used to establish a 

violation. A fuel sample would be analyzed and if the sulfur 

-59-
or cetane standards were exceeded, then a violation would have 

occurred. If residual sulfur content is high enough to raise 

the level of the on-highway shipment above the standard, then a 

violation has occurred. 

Phillips Petroleum's concern regarding water haze in 

diesel fuel caused by the dye was not raised by any other 

commenters. Furthermore, Phillips failed to supply any data to 

support its concerns. There is no information available to the 

Agency which indicates that this is a significant problem and 

therefore, unless specific data is provided by Phillips or 

other parties to support this issue in the future, it will not 

be considered further. 

Although the addition of dye to diesel fuels is used by 

other countries as a means to discourage tax evaders, it is 

not EPA's function to initiate such a program here. EPA 

agrees with the commenters pointing out that undyed fuel will 

in many cases be used for off-highway applications as well as 

on-highway. Therefore, it would not be accurate to consider 

all undyed fuel to be on-highway fuel for tax purposes. 

Issue: Enforcement Liability Scheme 

EPA proposed an option for the presumption of legal 

liability for diesel fuel standards violations which covered 

all parties in the distribution chain. The scheme also 

included a vicarious liability provision whereby parties 

upstream in the distribution chain can be held responsible for 

violations which are found at downstream facilities over which 

-60-
they could exercise some control. Specific defenses were 

outlined in the proposal to rebutt the presumption of 

liability, including sampling and testing of product. 

Summary of the Comments 

The Mobil,Corporation and Phillips 66 Company opposed the 

vicarious liability provision where upstream parties could be 

held responsible for violations at downstream facilities over 

which they could exercise some control. Phillips stated that 

these provisions will present a far greater burden to industry 

than similar provisions of the RVP and lead phasedown 

regulations. Phillips had additional concerns over the huge 

paper trail and complex certifications program which may be 

necessary to oversee downstream distributors and unbranded 

dealers to prevent a large, uncontrolled liability potential. 

Buckeye Pipeline stated that the accountability of sulfur is 

easier than volatility, so the full enforcement program from 

the RVP program is not heeded. 

The Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of American 

(SIGMA) and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America 

(PMAA) believed that the proposed enforcement scheme would 

require costly oversight testing programs to prove compliance 

with the standards and create an unfair economic burden. Both 

SIGMA and PMAA believed that spurious claims will take enormous 

amounts of time and money to defend against claims of 

contamination or marketing noncomplying diesel fuel. SIGMA 

specifically opposed an oversight program as part of a defense 

to a violation and PMAA concurred that this oversight program 

-61-
to test each incoming and outgoing load will be an enormous 

cost burden. 

ARCO Transportation Company was concerned that testing 

requirements will cause delays while waiting for test results. 

They recommended that liability be only on the party which 

originally introduced the noncomplying product. If needed, 

additional testing and sampling at retail distributor terminals 

and pumps could be done. The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) recommended that the proposed testing requirements be 

shifted from the retail station to the terminal or pipeline to 

alleviate an unreasonable cost burden on the retailers. This 

would reduce the number of tests required from what would occur 

if SBA's perceived EPA requirement that every shipment be 

tested were enacted. Likewise, the National Automobile Dealers 

Association (NADA) did not want liability on wholesale 

purchaser-consumers as improvements to engine life and 

performance outweigh, in NADA's opinion, any incentive to 

cheat on fuel use. NADA recommended that the distributor 

should be required to certify that their fuel deliveries of 

on-highway diesel fuel are "on-spec". They also supported 

requiring EPA to detect a violation of the regulations and 

prove that the wholesale purchaser-consumer caused the 

non-compliance. 

Phillips pointed out that enforcement of the proposed 

liability scheme will be a difficult and complex challenge. 

Therefore, they recommended that the proposed vicarious 

liability provisions should be deleted in the final rule. 

-62-
Analysis of Comments 

The liability provisions proposed by EPA for the diesel 

fuel regulations are basically identical to those used in the 

Agency's lead contamination regulations and volatility 

regulations. They place responsibility for complying with the 

standards for sulfur percentage and cetane index at all levels 

in the distribution chain. This includes the vicarious 

liability of upstream parties for violations found at 

downstream facilities over which they can exercise some control. 

Phillips believes that these regulations place a heavier 

burden on the industry than the lead or RVP regulations, 

particularly where the downstream distributors or unbranded 

retailers are concerned. However, these industry parties are 

the identical parties over which the RVP regulations currently 

impose the same scheme. There is no evidence that the diesel 

fuel program will involve any different aspects of control 

which would necessitate the Agency to consider a different 

scheme. The availability of an oversight program as part of a 

defense against presumptive and vicarious liability is 

necessary to encourage the industry to ensure that diesel fuel 

will comply at all levels and the consumer will get the fuel 

needed. 

SIGMA, PMAA, and the Small Business Administration believe 

that EPA's proposal will require the testing of each shipment 

of fuel by carriers or distributors. EPA agrees that such 

testing would impose a significant expense and time delay on 

these parties. However, there is no requirement in the 

-63-
regulations which imposes such a testing scheme. If a party 

subject to vicarious liability wishes to use a defense to any 

violation, some oversight program will be necessary. However, 

the specific nature of the oversight program or the frequency 

of any sampling is not defined. These parameters are to be 

determined by the party involved, but they should be sufficient 

to allow true quality control. 

Testing as part of an oversight program requires refiners 

and importers to use the ASTM standard test method D-2622 in 

the proposed regulations. As already stated, EPA will allow 

the use of ASTM test method D-4294 results for an oversight 

program defense by all parties covered by these regulations. 

As part of an oversight program, these are no requirements 

that any party hold the product until test results are 

available. If test results revealed the presence of 

noncomplying product it would be necessary to attempt to 

retrieve the fuel or divert it to an off-highway use. It is 

possible that the paperwork and invoices which currently are 

associated with diesel fuel distribution will be sufficient to 

track the flow of fuel through the chain. This paperwork trail 

can also be used by upstream parties to specify the fuel 

quality of deliveries to downstream parties. 

EPA believes that there will be economic incentives to 

attempt to use off-highway fuel for on-highway markets. Many 

wholesale purchaser-consumers will be tempted by the expected 

price differential to switch on- and off-highway fuel for 

immediate economic gain. Only the potential of enforcement 

-64-
action at all points in the distribution chain will provide the 

necessary deterrence. The Agency expects to implement a 

comprehensive enforcement program similar to those currently 

used in the leaded fuel and RVP programs. It is not 

anticipated that these programs will prove to be too complex 

for effective enforcement action to occur. Therefore, the 

enforcement provisions outlined in the proposed rule will be 

retained for this Final Rule, including the presumptive and 

vicarious liability provisions. 

Issue: Dyeing of Imported Canadian Fuel 

EPA proposed that any undyed diesel fuel would be 

considered on-highway fuel while off-highway fuel would be dyed 

with a blue dye. Some independent marketers import off-highway 

diesel fuel from Canada which has already been dyed red. 

Summary of the Comments 

The Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America 

(SIGMA) was concerned with EPA's requirements that off-highway 

diesel fuel be dyed blue. This concern arose from the fact 

that off-highway diesel fuel imported from Canada will be dyed 

red. Likewise, many independent marketers import heating oil 

which is undyed or clear. The undyed fuel could be confused by 

U.S. Customs Service agents as "motor fuel" at a higher duty 

rate. 

Analysis of the Comments 

Any imported diesel fuel intended for off-highway use will 

have to be dyed with the blue dye specified in today's 

-65-
regulations. Apparently, the red dye which is added to 

off-highway diesel fuel in Canada is added at the terminal 

prior to shipping. Therefore, fuel destined for importation to 

the United States can have the red dye omitted at the shipping 

point. Importers of heating oil which is undyed will have to 

add blue dye to the fuel at the point and time of importation, 

regardless of the source. Otherwise, the fuel would be 

considered to be on-highway fuel subject to the on-highway fuel 

standards. 

Issue: Testing Variability for Compliance 

EPA proposed a sulfur standard of 0.05 weight percent and 

proposed ASTM test method D-2622 for enforcement testing. Due 

to test variability and the fact that EPA did not identify a 

test tolerance level against the standard, manufacturers will 

have to produce below the standard. 

Summary of the Comments 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), Phillips, and 

Amoco all raised concerns that the sulfur standard of 0.05 

weight percent does not take test method variability into 

account for compliance purposes. The Rocky Mountain Oil and 

Gas Association (RMOGA) also expressed concern that no fuel 

test tolerance limits are established in the proposed 

regulations. Conoco and Phillips both pointed out that the 

reproducability of the ASTM test method D-2622 is 0.008 weight 

percent at the 95 percent confidence limit. This fact would 

effectively require refiners to meet a 0.042 weight percent 

-66-
.-.m 

standard for sulfur at all times if they would expect to always 

test below 0.05 weight percent. API/ Amoco and RMOGA agreed 

that this will require lower end "stacking" of margins and will 

require blending below the standard, which could be a serious 

and costly disadvantage to the manufacturer and an additional 

cost to the consumer. RMOGA pointed out that even greater 

margins would be required for downstream compliance due to 

vicarious liability. 

Conoco stated that this would actually result in a twenty 

percent penalty below the standard, which is severe and not 

supported by engine manufacturers* requirements. The resultant 

0.04 weight percent sulfur maximum thus needed to show 

compliance is outside the agreement reached by the concerned 

industries. Amoco stated that many refiners will use less 

expensive instruments which will have precision and 

reproducibility inferior to that required by ASTM test method 

D-2622. The final regulations therefore needed a statement to 

establish a confidence level so refiners could establish 

quality control specifications. API suggested that refiners or 

suppliers substantiate, through record keeping, that each blend 

tested is less than the EPA standard, and in addition, the 

average of all blends was below the standard by the test 

compliance margin. API believed this would be a reasonable and 

effective basis for compliance. 

Analysis of the Comments 

The Agency recognizes that test variability exists with 

the ASTM test method D-2622. Conoco and Phillips both point 

-67-
P.71 

out that the reproducibility is 0.008 weight percent, and to 

assure strict confidence at all times that a sample will not 

exceed the standard, refiners will have to blend at 

approximately the 0.042 weight percent level. This issue is 

not new to the fuels program, as all current standards are 

tested according to a specified test method. All test methods 

will contain test tolerances. EPA has always maintained the 

position that samples must meet the standard when tested 

according to the prescribed test method. 

EPA intends to use the approach toward enforcement 

tolerance which was embodied in the proposed regulations. This 

means that no enforcement tolerance will be added to the 

standard. Thus, any sample that exceeds the standard by any 

amount is considered a violation and may result in a 

enforcement action. 

Issue: Enforcement for Misfueling 

EPA proposed an enforcement scheme which would require 

that all parties in the distribution chain comply with the 

diesel fuel standards for sulfur weight percent and cetane 

index. Not explicitly included were persons who may misfuel by 

using noncomplying fuel in their equipment designed to operate 

on complying fuel. 

Summary of the Comments 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the Rocky Mountain 

Oil and Gas Association (RMOGA), and the National Petroleum 

Refiners Association (NPRA) all believed that enforcement of 

-68-
the fuel standards should focus on potential misfuelers. NPRA 

was disappointed that EPA did not include in the proposed rule 

any enforcement mechanisms for reducing intentional 

misfueling. They pointed out that EPA did not address what 

enforcement action it plans to take when a party purposely 

introduces non-complying dyed material into highway vehicles. 

API, RMOGA and NPRA all believe that dyeing of 

non-complying material by fuel suppliers coupled with strict 

enforcement action by EPA against misfuelers would be very 

effective to ensure the benefits of the program are realized. 

NPRA states that strict enforcement against end-user misfueling 

could also reduce the loss of federal tax revenues. 

Analysis of the Comments 

The proposed regulations established an enforcement scheme 

which includes all parties in the distribution chain. Similar 

to other fuel regulations enforced by EPA, the individual who 

misfuels their own vehicle is not specifically covered by this 

proposal. The current language in the Clean Air Act (Act) does 

not cover individuals as parties to whom these prohibitions 

apply. However, those parties who do their own fueling who are 

fleet operators or persons in the business of servicing or 

leasing motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines (which would 

include nearly all heavy-duty operation) would be covered by 

the tampering prohibition contained in Section 203(a)(3) of the 

Act. 

In the terms of Section 203(a)(3), the introduction of 

non-complying fuel may render inoperative those specific 

-69-
devices or elements of design for which complying fuel is 

required. This constitutes tampering and is a violation of the 

Act for which the Agency does pursue enforcement. If instances 

arise where misfueling is occurring where the party doing the 

misfueling is, a covered party under Section 203(a)(3), the 

Agency may undertake enforcement action. 

Issue: Applicability to Hawaii and Pacific Territories 

As proposed, the diesel fuel requirements would have 

applied to the 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S 

Territories. No consideration was given to the possibility of 

exempting any regions from the rule in either the NPRM or in 

the draft regulatory impact analysis. The American Samoa 

government and Pacific Resources, Inc. have raised the issue of 

a possible exemption for Hawaii and the Pacific territories. 

Summary of Comments 

Pacific Resources, Inc. and the American Samoa government 

have requested that Hawaii and the Pacific territories be 

exempted from the rule. They argue that these islands are 

attainment areas for particulate matter and are likely to 

remain so due to geographic isolation and naturally occurring 

trade winds. Furthermore, the region uses very little 

on-highway diesel fuel, with Hawaii consuming only 

approximately 1,000 barrels per day of on-highway diesel fuel 

(7% of the daily consumption of diesel fuel) and about 4,500 

barrels per year of on-highway diesel fuel being used in 

American Samoa (0.5% of the annual consumption of diesel 

-70-
-T. 

fuel). The commenters argued that exemption of these areas 

would not impact the remainder of the country due to geographic 

isolation. Furthermore, American Samoa has no indigenous 

production of diesel fuel, relying solely on imports for fuel. 

Forty-five percent of the fuel is imported from Pacific 

Resources, Inc. and the remaining fifty-five percent is 

imported from three companies in Singapore. The American Samoa 

government believes availability of low-sulfur fuel from 

Singapore is unlikely and the government, which is the sole 

owner of fuel storing tankage, has facilities for storing only 

one grade of fuel without good prospects for being able to add 

additional storage. 

Analysis of Comments 

While recognizing the attainment status of these areas and 

potential difficulties in complying, the Agency believes it is 

necessary to include them in the Final Rule. A primary reason 

for promulgating the rule is to provide low-sulfur fuel 

necessary for the proper operation of 1994 and later diesel 

vehicles. Without low-sulfur fuel, emission control equipment 

on these vehicles could be rendered permanently inoperative. 

Since vehicles with advanced technology will be operating in 

Hawaii and the Pacific territories in the future, low-sulfur 

fuel must be made available. Therefore, the original scope of 

the proposal is retained for this Final Rule. 

III. Description of the Final Rule 

This section summarizes the control measures contained in 

-71-
today's final rule. The detailed requirements may be found in 

their entirety in the regulations published with today's final 

rule. 

A. Commercial Fuel Reguirements 

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 either 

a minimum cetane index of 40 or a maximum aromatics content of 

35 percent by volume. 

The only exception to these requirements is a two year 

extension of the effective, date, with various interim 

restrictions, applicable to qualifying small domestic 

refiners. Under this extension any fuel produced by small 

refiners for on-highway use is required to have a sulfur 

content of 0.25 weight percent or less after September 30, 

1993, 0.10 weight percent or less after September 30, 1994, and 

0.05 weight percent or less after September 30, 1995. Any fuel 

of sulfur content greater than 0.05 weight percent produced 

under this extension must be dyed and segregated from fuel with 

a sulfur content of 0.05 weight percent or less, as described 

earlier in Section II - Public Participation. 

2. Enforcement Provisions 

a. Overall Enforcement Scheme. All parties in the 

distribution network are covered by these regulations, 

-72-
including refiners, importers, distributors, carriers, 

resellers, retail and wholesale purchaser-consumers. Any 

diesel fuel for use in motor vehicles must comply with the the 

applicable standards when introduced into commerce, sold, 

offered for sale, supplied, offered for supply, dispensed, or 

transported. 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. 

Additionally, under EPA's antitampering provisions, any fleet 

operator or other party subject to the requirements of Section 

203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act who misfueled any heavy-duty 

diesel vehicle with non-on-highway diesel fuel, or any 

heavy-duty diesel vehicle equipped with a 1994 or later model 

year diesel engine with fuel produced under the small refiner 

extension, would be liable for prosecution. 

The regulations define cetane, cetane index, diesel fuel, 

sulfur percentage, refinery, retail outlet, distributor, 

reseller, wholesale purchaser-consumer, importer, carrier, 

aromatic content, small refinery, and exempted on-highway 

diesel fuel. They also contain special provisions governing 

the production and sale of fuel under the small refiner 

extension. Reference methods for determining cetane index, 

sulfur percentage and aromatics content are also included. 

This Final Rule also sets forth regulations establishing 

presumptions of liability for parties found with noncomplying 

fuel. There is also a presumptive and vicarious liability 

provision which holds certain upstream parties in the 

-73-
distribution network responsible for violations at downstream 

facilities over which they could have exercised some control. 

Defenses to presumptive and vicarious liability are included in 

the regulations. 

Finally, this Final Rule includes a vehicle labeling 

provision. Under this provision, any diesel vehicle produced 

for on-highway use in model year 1994 or later is required to 

be clearly labeled with nonremovable labels bearing the words 

"low-sulfur diesel fuel only" at both the filler pipe area and 

on the dashboard. 

b. Sampling Methodology. The 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. Four testing methodologies 

are included in this Final Rule. The first one, ASTM standard 

test method D 2622-87, determines the percentage of sulfur in 

the diesel fuel by means of X-ray spectrometry. The second 

test, ASTM standard test method D 4294-83, determines the 

percentage of sulfur in the diesel fuel by means of 

nondispersive x-ray flourescence spectrometry. The third test, 

ASTM standard method D 976-80, is a method for estimating the 

ASTM cetane index of the diesel fuel from the API gravity and 

mid-boiling point. Finally, ASTM standard test method D 

1319-88 is provided for use in determining fuel aromatic 

-74-
content. While the first, third and fourth methods are 

identified as the reference methods to be used by EPA in its 

enforcement testing programs, the regulations provide for use 

of the second test method for sulfur by regulated parties upon 

sufficient showing of equivalence. 

The issue of what enforcement tolerance should be allowed 

when using these test methods will be addressed in a manner 

consistent with other mobile source related standards. The 

diesel fuel refiners and other regulated parties will be 

expected to meet the applicable sulfur and cetane limits as 

established by the regulations. 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. For example, if the 

sulfur content of motor vehicle diesel fuel were found to 

contain 0.06 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 liability provisions (40 

CFR 80.30) 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 

-75-
index. It is the responsibility of each regulated party to 

monitor the diesel fuel which is being offered for sale, 

supplied or transported to verify that the fuel complies with 

standards. 

Another important feature of the diesel fuel enforcement 

provisions is the inclusion of vicarious liability provisions, 

much like those used successfully in the lead contamination 

regulations and 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 

outlets 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 

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 regulations, carriers 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 

-76-
the defense, but in general a party must show proof of some 

kind of oversight program, such as records of testing of the 

diesel fuel or a contractual obligation between the upstream 

and the downstream parties involved. 

3. Small Refiner Provisions 

A two-year extension for small refiners, which includes 

interim sulfur level caps, is included in today's Final Rule. 

Qualifying U.S. domestic small refiners are required, for any 

on-highway diesel fuel they produce, to not exceed 0.25 weight 

percent sulfur beginning October 1, 1993, 0.10 weight percent 

sulfur beginning October 1, 1994, and 0.05 weight percent 

sulfur beginning October 1, 1995. In addition, any on-highway 

diesel fuel produced under this extension must be segregated 

from other on-highway diesel fuel. To provide for effective 

segregation, the regulations call for dyeing of the fuel, 

dispensing from separate pumps (and separate islands where more 

than one island is used for diesel fuel) and the prominent 

labeling of pumps and islands. They also require any retailer 

selling fuel under the extension provisions to also sell 

on-highway fuel with a sulfur content of 0.05 weight percent or 

less. 

To be eligible for this extension, small refineries must 

meet certain limitations for refiner and refinery capacity, 

must demonstrate a commitment to comply with the 0.05 weight 

percent limit by the end of the extension period, and will be 

limited as to the maximum amount of on-highway fuel produceable 

under the extension. 

-77-
P.81 

Small refinery capacity limitations are as follows. 

First, the refinery in question must have a crude oil or bona 

fide feedstock capacity of 50,000 barrels per day or less. 

Second, the refinery must be owned or controlled by a refiner 

with a total combined crude oil or bona fide feedstock capacity 

of 137,500 barrels per day or less. These capacities are to be 

measured in terms of the average of the actual daily crude oil 

or bona fide feedstock use during the period January 1, 1988 

through December 31, 1989, calculated as barrels per calendar 

day. Furthermore, only refineries located in a State, the 

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands are eligible for an extension. 

Refiner capacity relative to the 137,500 barrels per day or 

less limit refers to worldwide capacity owned or controlled by 

that refiner. 

Participating small refiners will also be required to 

demonstrate by July 1, 1993 a commitment to produce diesel fuel 

meeting the 0.05 weight percent limit by October 1, 1995. This 

demonstration will require copies of contracts entered into for 

design and construction of the necessary equipment and copies 

of approved permits to construct the equipment. Additionally, 

to qualify for the second year of the extension, small refiners 

must submit evidence by July 1, 1994 demonstrating that on-site 

construction has begun. 

Lastly, the amount of fuel sold under this extension by 

each qualifying small refiner will be limited to no more than 

-78-
P.82 

the average of its annual production of on-highway fuel during 

the period October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1990. On-highway 

fuel production will be estimated from amounts reported as 

on-highway diesel fuel for Federal excise tax purposes. This 

amount can include fuels for which the refinery reported the 

sales as well as a portion of the fuel sold through licensed 

re-sellers. The on-highway portion of the fuels sold through 

licensed re-sellers may be assumed to be the same as the 

average on-highway fraction of sales reported by that customer, 

unless suitable evidence, acceptable to the Administrator, 

indicates otherwise. 

B . Ziifil Specifications fjn vehicle certification ami 

Other Compliance Testing 

Certification fuel used for 1991-1993 model year engines 

shall contain 0.10 sulfur percentage by weight (%0.02 weight 

percent). Beginning with the 1994 model year, certification 

fuel shall have a sulfur content ranging from 0.03 to 0.05 

sulfur percentage by weight and a minimum cetane index of 40. 

All other compliance testing (e.g., recall, selective 

enforcement audits) will be 

-79-
conducted using test fuels meeting the same sulfur 

specifications as the test fuel used in certifying the 

particular model year vehicle being tested. That is, 

1991-1993 model year engines would be tested with fuel 

containing 0.10 sulfur percentage by weight (± 0.02 weight 

percent) and 1994 and later model year engines would be 

tested with fuel having a sulfur content ranging from 0.03 

to 0.05 sulfur percentage by weight and a minimum cetane 

index of 40. 

In general, properties specified for fuels used in 

emissions testing are intended to be representative of the 

properties of fuels commercially available and in-use 

during the time period of the testing. The only exception 

to this is the sulfur level specified for 1991-93 test 

fuels, which is selected to represent the average sulfur 

content of fuels used over the lifetimes of engines 

manufactured during these years. This rule also clarifies 

the fact that the commercial grade of fuel (i.e., "Type 

1-D" or "Type 2-D") used for emissions testing shall be the 

grade which will be the predominant fuel burned in actual 

use of the engine family. The regulations establish a 

presumption that this grade will be Type 2-D diesel fuel. 

Type 1-D diesel fuel may be substituted provided the 

manufacturer has submitted evidence to the Administrator 

sufficient to establish that such fuel will be the 

predominant fuel in-use for that engine family. Evidence 

could include such things as copies of executed contracts 

-80-
P.84 

from customers indicating the intent to purchase and use 

Type 1-D diesel fuel as the primary fuel. 

Two other minor changes are included in the test fuel 

specifications to correct errors in the proposal. The 

first adds a minimum cetane index specification of 40 to 

1994 and later service accumulation fuels. This value was 

inadvertently omitted from the proposal. The second change 

corrects the cetane index range for 1994 and later Type 1-D 

diesel test fuel to read 40-54. Due to a typographical 

error the proposed range was listed as 40-42. 

IV. Regulatorv Flexibility Analysis 

Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 

EPA to perform an analysis of the impact of regulations on 

small entities when a significant impact on a substantial 

number of such entities would occur. Based on its analysis 

of the comments received EPA has concluded that, as 

originally proposed, this rule could have had significant 

impacts on small refiners, and thus has included a limited 

two-year extension in the Final Rule to ease the regulatory 

burden on these small entities. EPA believes that with 

this extension the potential adverse impact on small 

refiners is effectively mitigated. A full discussion of 

the small refiner issue is included in the Public 

Participation section of this Preamble. 

-81-
In response to comments on its proposal from small 

marketers, EPA has also conducted a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis of the potential impacts on small marketers.[5] 

As discussed in more detail earlier in this Preamble, the 

small marketer Analysis found that the cost and competitive 

impacts of this Action on small marketers would generally 

be small and that all but the financially weakest firms 

would be able to handle the extra grade of fuel resulting 

from this rule. 

V. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis 

The Administrator has determined that this action will 

constitute a major regulation and, therefore, is subject to 

the requirement that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be 

prepared. In support of the NPRM a Draft Regulatory Impact 

Analysis was prepared which included detailed assessments 

of the estimated economic and environmental impacts of the 

proposed regulations, 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 the 

NPRM. Since the regulations in today's final rule are 

[5] Impacts of Fuel Desulfurization on Distillate 

Marketers, March 13, 1990, ICF Incorporated. 

-82-
largely the same as proposed in the NPRM, and since little 

substantive comment was received on the analyses contained 

in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Agency has 

conducted no further analyses of the costs and benefits of 

today's Final Rule. The only change for the final 

Regulatory Impact Analysis involves the deletion, noted 

earlier in this preamble, of the cancer risk assessment 

which was found to contain significant errors. 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis has been placed in the 

public docket referenced at the beginning of today's 

notice. In addition, interested parties may obtain single 

copies through a written request to the public contact 

listed previously. 

This 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. 

VI. Reporting and Recordkeeping Reguirements 

The information collection requirements contained in 

this final rule have been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et sea., and have been assigned 

OMB Control Number - The reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of this rule will affect small 

refiners applying for benefits under the small refiner 

-83-
provisions. The public reporting burden for this 

collection is estimated to be hours per response, 

including time for reviewing instructions and completing 

and reviewing the collection of information. 

Any comments regarding the burden estimate or any 

other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to: 

Chief, Information Policy Branch 

PM-223, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460 

and to the: 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Washington, D.C, 20503 

"Attention Desk Officer for EPA." 

VII. Statutory Authority 

Authority for the actions included in today's final 

rule 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). 

VIII. List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 80 

Fuel additives, Diesel fuel, Incorporation by 

reference, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

-84-
P.88 

T "Hi 

40 CFR Part Bfi 

Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution 

control, Diesel fuel, Motor vehicles, Labeling, Motor 

vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

DATE: 

William K. Reilly 

Administrator 

-85-

"w_

"*""" W 

W f — Tr-rTjJ^-r,^ ^Tl 

For the reasons set out in the preamble, Parts 80 and 86 

of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 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 US.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a). 

2. Section 80.2 is amendec' by revising paragraphs (h), 

(j)» (1)» (n), (o), (r), and (t), and by adding new paragraphs 

(w), (x), (y), (z), (aa) and (bb) to read as follows: 

§ 80.2 Definitions 

(h) "Refinery means a plant at which gasoline or diesel 

fuel is produced. 

(j) "Retail outlet" means any establishment at which 

gasoline or diesel fuel is sold or offered for sale for use in 

motor vehicles. 
P.91 

(1) "Distributor" means any person who transports or 

stores or causes the transportation or storage of gasoline or 

diesel fuel at any point between any gasoline or diesel fuel 

refinery or importer's facility and any retail outlet or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer's facility. 

(n) "Reseller" means any person who purchases gasoline 

or 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. 

(o) "Wholesale purchaser-consumer" means any 

organization that is an ultimate consumer of gasoline or diesel 

fuel and which purchases or obtains gasoline or 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. 

(r) "Importer" means a person who imports gasoline, 

gasoline blending stocks or components, or diesel fuel from a 

foreign country into the United States (including the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 

Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands). 

-2-
P.92 

(t) "Carrier" means any distributor who transports or 

stores or causes the transportation or storage of gasoline or 

diesel fuel without taking title to or otherwise having any 

ownership of the gasoline or diesel fuel, and without altering 

either the quality or quantity of the gasoline or diesel fuel. 

(w) "Cetane index" or "Calculated cetane index" is a 

number representing the ignition properties of diesel fuel oils 

from API gravity and mid-boiling point as decarmined by ASTM 

standard method D 976-80, entitled "Standa.d Methods for 

Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels". ASTM test method 

D 976-80 is incorporated by reference. This incorporation by 

reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. A copy 

may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy 

may be inspected at the Air Docket Section (A- 130), Room 

M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. 

A-86-03, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or at the 

Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L Street, N.W., Room 8401, 

Washington, D.C. 20005. 

(y) "Sulfur percentage" is the percentage of sulfur as 

determined by ASTM standard test method D 2622-87, entitled 

"Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by X-Ray 

-3-
P.93 

Spectrometry". ASTM test method D 2622-87 is incorporated by 

reference. This incorporation by reference was approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. A copy may be obtained from the 

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy may be inspected at the Air 

Docket Section (A-130), Room M-1500, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Docket No. A-86-03, 401 M Street, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20460 or at the Office of the Federal 

Register, 1100 L Street, N.W., Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 

20005. 

(z) "Aromatic content" is the aromatic hydrocarbon 

content in volume percent as determined by ASTM standard test 

method D 1319- 88, entitled "Standard Test Method for 

Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent 

Indicator Adsorption". ASTM test method D 1319-88 is 

incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference was 

approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. A copy may be obtained 

from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race 

Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy may be inspected at 

the Air Docket Section (A-130), Room M-1500, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Docket No. A-86-03, 401 M Street, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20460 or at the Office of the Federal 

Register, 1100 L Street, N.W., Room 8401, Washington, D.C. 

20005. 

-4-
P.94 

(aa) "Small refinery" means a domestic diesel fuel 

refinery 

(1) Which has a crude oil or bonafide feedstock capacity 

of 50,000 barrels per day or less, and 

(2) Which is not owned or controlled by any refiner with 

a total combined crude oil or bonafide feedstock capacity 

greater than 137,500 barrels per day. 

The above capacities shall be measured in terms of the 

average of the actual daily utilization rates of the affected 

refiners or refineries during the period January 1, 1988 to 

December 31, 1990. These averages will be calculated as barrels 

per calendar day. 

(bb) "Exempted on-highway diesel fuel" means any diesel 

fuel which is produced by a small refinery under the provisions 

of sections 80.29(a)(2) and 80.29 (c). 

(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. 

-5-
3. New section 80.29 is added, to read as follows: 

§ 80.29 Controls and prohibitions on diesel fuel quality. 

(a) Prohibited activities. 

(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), 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, or a 

maximum aromatic content of 35 volume percent, and a sulfur 

percentage no greater than 0.05 percent. 

(2) On-highway diesel fuel produced under the small 

refiner provisions of paragraph (c) may exceed the sulfur 

standard of subparagraph (1) during the period from October 1, 

1993 through September 30, 1995 so long as it meets the 

following alternative standards: 0.25 weight percent from 

October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994, and 0.10 weight 

percent from October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995. Such 

on-highway diesel fuel shall be produced in conformity with 

all of the provisions of paragraph (c) and shall not be sold, 

supplied or dispensed to 1994 or later model year motor 

vehicles. , , 

-6-
(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-green color in diesel fuel) 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. 

(c) Small refinery compliance. 

(1) Where a small refinery intends to use the sulfur 

standard extension in subparagraph (a)(2) of this section, the 

refiner shall submit to the Administrator by July 1, 1993, 

evidence of capital commitments to make the necessary 

modifications to supply low sulfur diesel fuel on or before 

October 1, 1995. Such evidence shall include copies of 

executed and binding contracts for design and construction, and 

copies of approved permits for construction of the equipment. 

In order to qualify for the second year of the extension, the 

refiner shall provide evidence by July 1, 1994, that on-site 

construction has begun. The Administrator shall, upon review 

and acceptance of this evidence, provide a letter to the 

refinery which qualifies it as a small refinery allowed to 

produce and sell exempted on-highway diesel fuel. A separate 

qualification letter shall be obtained for each of the 

following one-year periods: October 1, 1993 to September 30, 

1994; and October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1995. 

-7-
(2) The volume of exempted on-highway diesel fuel sold 

by a small refinery during each one-year period October 1, 1993 

to September 30, 1994, and October 1, 1994 to September 30, 

1995, shall be limited to the average of the annual amount of 

on-highway diesel fuel produced at the refinery during the 

period October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1990. On-highway 

diesel fuel production shall be that amount reported as 

on-highway diesel fuel for Federal excise tax purposes. This 

amount can include fuels for which the refinery reported the 

sales as well as a portion of the fuel sold through licensed 

re-sellers. The on-highway portion of the fuels sold through 

licensed re-sellers may be assumed to be the same as the 

average on-highway fraction of sales reported by that customer, 

unless suitable evidence, acceptable to the Administrator, 

indicates otherwise. 

(3) Refiners who produce exempted on-highway diesel fuel 

shall dye it to distinguish it from other diesel fuel. The dye 

for this purpose shall be a purple dye mixture of approximately 

38 percent by volume Xylene, 50 percent by volume Color Index 

(CI) solvent blue 99 and 12 percent by volume CI solvent red 

166. The dye shall be added to exempted on-highway diesel fuel 

at a minimum concentration of 20 parts per million by volume. 

-8-
— 'TT- •- •aW^;.W^W-,.a-af^a-a 

(4) Any retailer who sells or offers for sale exempted 

on-highway diesel fuel shall: 

(A) Also offer for sale diesel fuel meeting the 

standards of paragraph (a)(1); and 

(B) Prominently label with a permanent legible label 

each diesel fuel pump stand as follows: 

(i) For diesel fuel pump stands for introduction of 

exempted on-highway diesel fuel into motor vehicles, the label 

shall state: Exempt High Sulfur Diesel Fuel. Not Legal for use 

in 1994 and Later Diesel Engines. 

(ii) For diesel fuel pump stands for introduction of 

diesel fuel meeting the standards of paragraph (a)(1) into 

motor vehicles, the label shall state: Low Sulfur Diesel 

Fuel. Suitable for Use in Any Diesel Engine. 

(5) Any retailer who sells or offers for sale exempted 

on-highway diesel fuel and who dispenses diesel fuel at more 

than one fuel dispensing island shall: 

(A) Place exempted on-highway diesel fuel and low sulfur 

diesel fuel on separate fuel dispensing islands. 

-9-
(B) Prominently label with a permanent legible label each 

fuel dispensing island as follows: 

(i) For a fuel dispensing island where exempted 

on-highway diesel fuel is dispensed into motor vehicles, the 

sign shall state: Exempt High Sulfur Diesel Fuel. Not Legal for 

use in 1994 and Later Diesel Engines. 

(ii) For a fuel dispensing island where low-sulfur diesel 

fuel meeting the standards of paragraph (a)(1) is dispensed 

into motor vehicles, the sign shall state: Low Sulfur Diesel 

Fuel. Suitable for Use in Any Diesel Engine. 

(6) No retailer shall sell, supply, dispense, introduce 

or allow the introduction of exempted on-highway diesel fuel 

into any motor vehicle which is labeled "low sulfur diesel fuel 

only". 

(7) These regulations do not require any retail outlet, 

distributor, reseller, or carrier to sell, supply, offer for 

sale or supply, or transport exempted on-highway diesel fuel. 

However, any of these entities handling exempted on-highway 

diesel fuel must also handle complying on-highway diesel fuel. 

(d) Liability. Liability for violations of paragraph 

(a) and (c) of this section shall be determined according to 

the provisions of § 80.30. 

(e) Penalties. Penalties for violations of paragraph 

(a) and (c) of this section shall be determined according to 

the provisions of § 80.5. 

-10-
P.1 

4. New Section 80.30 is added, to read as follows: 

§ 80.30 Liability for violations of diesel fuel control and 

prohibitions. 

(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 facilit", whether in a transport vehicle, in a 

storage facility, or elsewhere at the facility, the following 

parties shall be deemed in violation: 

(1) The carrier, except as provided in paragraph (g)(1) 

of this section; and 

(2) The refiner or importer at whose refinery or import 

facility the diesel fuel was produced or imported, except as 

provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. 

(c) Violations at branded distributor or reseller 

facilities. Where a violation of a diesel fuel standard set 

forth in § 80.29 is detected at a distributor or reseller's 

facility which is operating under the corporate, trade or brand 

name of a refiner or any of its marketing subsidiaries, the 

following parties shall be deemed in violation: 

(1) The distributor or reseller, except as provided in 

paragraph (g)(3) of this section; 

•11-
P.2 

(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 

(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 

-12-
P.3 

' ' '[' y'VV ' 

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. 

(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 

-13-
TJJflT . •.-•..•n-ir.- • - -,-

(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. 

(g) Defenses. (1) 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. 

(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: 

-14-
P.5 

(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 standard test method D 2622-87 or ASTM standard 

test method D 4294-83 for sulfur percentage (Entitled "Standard 

Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Non-Dispersive 

X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry". ASTM standard test method 

D 4294-83 is incorporated by reference. This incorporation by 

reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. A copy 

may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy 

may be inspected at the Air Docket Section (A-130), Room 

M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. 

A-86-03, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or at the 

Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L Street, N.W., Room 8401, 

Washington, D.C. 20005. Parties using this method must be 

able to support their data with a quality control plan and 

demonstrate the ability to accurately perform this test 

method. They must also have evidence from the manufacturer or 

others that it reliably produces results substantially 

equivalent to those produced by ASTM standard test method 

D 2622-87.), and ASTM standard test method D 1319-88 for 

aromatic content or ASTM standard method D 976-80 for cetane 

index, which evidence that the diesel fuel determined to be in 

violation was in compliance with the diesel fuel standards when 

-15-
P.6 

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 

(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 standard test method D 2622-87 or ASTM standard 

-16-
P.7 

test method D 4294-83 for sulfur percentage (Parties using ASTM 

standard test method D 4294-83 must be able to support their 

data with a quality control plan and demonstrate the ability to 

accurately perform this test method. They must also have 

evidence from the manufacturer or others that it reliably 

produces results substantially equivalent to those produced by 

ASTM standard test method D 2622-87.) and ASTM standard test 

method D 1319-88 for aromatic content or ASTM standard method 

D 976-80 for cetane index at the refinery at which the diesel 

fuel was produced, which evidence that the dissel fuel 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 

•17-
P.8 

(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 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 prevented by 

such reseller's compliance with a contractual undertaking 

imposed by the refiner on such reseller as provided in 

-18-
P.9 

'"•?:•_ r.-TS ,^' f •"--.•>- • - TM 

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 riot 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. 

-19-
P.10 

5. New Section 80.31 is added, to read as follows: 

§ 80.31 Controls applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers. 

The manufacturer of any diesel fueled motor vehicle which 

is equipped with a 1994 or later model year diesel engine shall 

affix two or more permanent legible labels reading "Low Sulfur 

Diesel Fuel Only" to such vehicle at the time of its 

manufacture, as follows: 

(a) One label shall be located on the instrument panel so 

as to be readily visible to the operator of the vehicle. The 

required statement may be incorporated into the design of the 

instrument panel rather than provided on a separate label. 

Such label shall not consist of a decal which can be removed by 

the vehicle operator. 

(b) One label shall be located immediately adjacent to 

each diesel fuel filler tank inlet, outside of any filler inlet 

compartment, and shall be located so as to be readily visible 

to any person introducing diesel fuel into such filler inlet. 

The Administrator may, upon application from a motor vehicle 

manufacturer, approve other label locations that achieve the 

purpose of this paragraph. This label shall not be a decal. 

(c) Such labels shall be in the English language in 

block letters which shall be of a color that contrasts with 

their background. 

-20-
P.12 

6. New Appendix G is added to read as follows: 

APPENDIX G — SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR DIESEL FUEL 

1. Scope 

1.1 This method covers procedures for obtaining 

representative samples of diesel fuel for the purpose of 

testing for compliance with the cetane index and sulfur 

percentage standards set forth in § 80.29. 

2. Summary of Method 

2.1 It is 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. 

-21-
P.13 

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 abl*. 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. 

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). 

-22-
• 'T* '

 ,^jrT"^w'ir!il"" " 

3.7 "Middle sample" is a spot sample obtained from the 

middle of the tank contents (Figure 1 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 a spot sample obtained from the 

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

at its lowest point. 

3.11 "Drain sample" is a tap sample 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 "Continuous sample" is one obtained from a pipeline 

in such manner as to give a representative average of a moving 

stream. 

3.13 "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 

-23-
P.15 

from light. Cans with the seams soldered on the exterior 

surface with a flux of rosin in a suitable solvent are 

preferred because such a flux is easily removed with diesel 

fuel, whereas many others are very difficult to remove. If 

such cans are not available, other cans made with a welded 

construction that are not affected by, and 

that do not affect, the diesel fuel being sampled are 

acceptable. 

4.2 Container closure. Cork or glass stoppers, or screw 

caps of plastic or metal, may be used for glass bottles; screw 

caps only shall be us'.sd for cans to provide a vapor-tight 

closure seal. Corks must be of good quality, clean and free 

from holes and loose bits of cork. Never use rubber stoppers. 

Contact of the sample with the cork may be prevented by 

wrapping tin or aluminum foil around the cork before forcing it 

into the bottle. 

Glass stoppers must be a perfect fit. Screw caps must be 

protected by a cork disk faced with tin or aluminum foil, or 

other material that will not affect petroleum or petroleum 

products. In addition, a phenolic cap with a teflon coated 

liner may be used. 

4.3 Cleaning procedure. The method of cleaning all 

sample containers must be consistent with the residual 

materials in the container and must produce sample containers 

that are clean and free of water, dirt, lint, washing 

compounds, naphtha, or other solvents, soldering fluxes or 

acids, corrosion, rust, and oil. 

-24-
P.16 

New sample containers should be inspected and cleaned if 

necessary. Dry the container by either passing a current of 

clean, warm air through the container or by allowing it to air 

dry in a clean area at room temperature. When dry, stopper or 

cap the container immediately. 

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 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 

-25-
P.17 

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 wea.her, or when handling 

materials at high temperature, or for reasons of safety. 

Select wiping cloths so that lint is not introduced, 

contaminating samples. 

7.2 As many petroleum vapors are toxic and flammable, 

avoid breathing them or igniting them from an open flame or a 

spark produced by static. Follow all safety precautions 

specific to the material being sampled. 

8. Handling Samples 

8.1 Container outage. Never completely fill a sample 

container, but allow adequate room for expansion, taking into 

consideration the temperature of the liquid at the time of 

filling and the probable maximum temperature to which the 

filled container may be subjected. 

-26-
P.18 

9. Shinning 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. An indelible identification symbol, 

such as a bar code, may be used in lieu of a manually addressed 

label. The label shall reference the following information: 

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. 

-27-
"T*" """THf^f-"1 - ""• TfTTTW ...ay,TM?-.. — -.*? 

_PJ9 

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. 

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 

-28-
1 f"j«T ""' 'rrirriw'-.TM 

11.2 Bottle or beaker sampling. The bottle or beaker 

sampling procedure is applicable for sampling liquids of 16 

2 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. 

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 

-29-
P.21 

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 

immediately after taking them, and deliver to the laboratory in 

the original sampling bottles. 

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 receive the 

samples. 

-30-
,-T, 

11.3.2 Procedure 

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 (1.12 

2 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). 

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 

-31-
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. 

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. 

-32-
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 thesamples 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 continuous 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 

-33-
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 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 ?rea 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. 

-34-
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 verified for quality be comparing 

on the basis of physical and chemical properties, with either a 

properly secured continuous nonautomatic sample or tank 

sample. The tank sample should be taken under the following 

conditions: 

11.4.1.6.1 The batch pumped during the test interval should be 

diverted into a clean tank and a sample taken within one hour 

-35-
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 adequate mixing means. For valid comparison, 

the sampling of the delivery tank must be completed within 

eight hours after cessation of pumping, even though the tank is 

equipped with a motor-driven mixer. 

11.4.1.6.3 When making a normal full-tank delivery from a tank, 

a properly secured sample may be used to check the results of 

the sampler if the paries- (including EPA) /autually agree to 

this procedure. 

11.4.1.7 Receiver. The receiver must b_ a clean, dry 

container of convenient size to receive the sample. All 

connections from the sample probe to the sample container must 

be tree of leaks. Two types of container may be used, 

depending upon service requirements. 

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 

-36-
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 Invert the 

sample stream to the sampling container • contrinaously or 

intermittently to provide a quantity of sample that wY •.

1...ftd of 

sufficient size for analysis. 

11.4.2.2 Automatic sampling. Purge the samplsr end 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. 

-37-
T"'-"-" '"I" — 

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 (Figure 6 of Appendix 

D ), and a nozzle extension device similar to that shown in 

Figures 7 or 7a of Appendix D shall be used when nozzle 

sampling. The nozzle extension device does not need to be 

identical to that shown in Figure 7 or 7a of Appendix D but it 

should be a device that will bottom fill ;iie container. 

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 or 7a 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, state, and local regulations. 

-38-
P.30 

When flushing or purging lines or containers, observe the 

pertinent regulations and precautions against fire, explosion, 

and other hazards. 

12.2 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. 

12.3 Transfer connections. The transfer connection for 

the open-type container consists of an air tube and a liquid 

delivery tube assembled in a cap or stopper. The air tube 

extends to the bottom of the container. One end of the liquid 

delivery tube is long enough to reach the bottom of the diesel 

fuel chamber while the sample is being transferred to the 

chamber. The transfer connection for the closed-type container 

consists of a single tube with a connection suitable for 

attaching it to one of the openings of the sample container. 

The tube is long enough to reach the bottom of the diesel 

chamber while the sample is being transferred. 

12.4 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 

-39-
P.31 

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. 

12.5 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 

12.6 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 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. 

-40-
12.7 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. 

-41-
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 86 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. (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. 

-42-
""Trf"l7r'"'"rrlTPl^r'",'

r -"" 

Item 

Octane, research, 

Sensitivity, 

Lead (organic), 

Distillation Range: 

IBP[2], 

10 pet. point, 

50 pet. point, 

90 pet. point, 

EP, (max.) 

oulfuc, weight pet., 

vliospiorus, max. 

- VP'^,4], 

i 

1 

min. 

min. 

g/U.S. gal 

(g/litter) 

op 

<°c) 

op 

<°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

max. 

g/U.S. gal 

(g/liter) 

psi 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Olefins, 

Aromatics, 

Saturates 

[1] Maximum. 

[2] For testing at 

max. pet., 

max. pet., 

ASTM Test 

Method No. 

D2699 

• • * • 

. D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

. D3231 

D323 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

altitudes above 1,219 m 

Value 

93 

7.5 

0.050[1] 

(0.013)[1] 

75-95 

(23.9-35) 

120-135 

(48.9-57.2) 

200-230 

(93.3-110) 

300-325 

(148.9-162.8) 

415 

(212.8) 

0.10 

0.005 

(0.0013) 

8.7-9.2 

(60.0-63.4) 

10 

35 

[5] 

(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. 

-43-
(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 '/ 5 ocbane numbers, where sensitivity is defined as the 

Research >ccane 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 ehe 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). 

-44-
(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 sh •-» chat only the designated fuel would be used in 

customer service,

 nnd 

(iii) Use of a fuel listed under paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section would have a detrimental effect on emissions or 

durability, anc1 

(iv) Written approval from the Administrator of the fuel 

specifications must be provided prior to the start of testing. 

(5) The specification range of the fuels to be used 

under paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section 

shall be reported in accordance with §86.090-21(b)(3). 

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

for testing diesel vehicles shall be clean and bright, with 

pour and cloud points adequate for operability. The petroleum 

fuel may contain nonmetallic additives as follows: cetane 

-45-
•".my* ''1 

improver, metal deactivator, antioxidant, dehazer, antirust, 

pour depressant, dye, dispersant and biocide. Except for the 

sulfur content of "Type 2-D" fuel, fuels specified for 

emissions testing are intended to be representative of 

commercially available in-use fuels. 

(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. 

Icem 

Cetane Number 

Distillation range: 

IBP, 

10 pet. point, 

50 pet. point, 

90 pet. point, 

EP, 

Gravity, 

Total sulfur, 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

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, 

-46-
(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. 

ASTM Test 

Item Method No. Type 2-D 

Cetane Number ""> 13 38-58 

Distillation range: 

90 pet. point 

Gravity, 

Total sulfur, 

Flashpoint, min. 

Viscosity, 

(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. 

op 

(°C) 

°API 

pet. ' 

op 

<°C) 

centistokes 

->H6 

C287 

D2o"22 

D93 

D455 

540-650 

(282.2-343.3) 

30-39 

0.08-0.12 

130 

(54.4) 

1.5-4.5 

-47-
(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' 3 fuex list^. under paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section would ^.ave a detrimental 

effect on emissions or durability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the Administrator of the fuel 

specifications must be provided prior to the start of testing. 

(6) The specification range of the fuels to be used 

under paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of this 

section shall be reported in accordance with §86.090-21(b)(3). 

(c) Fuels not meeting the specifications set forth in 

this section may be used only with the advance approval of the 

Administrator. 

(d) Mixtures of petroleum and methanol fuels for 

flexible fuel vehicles. (1) Mixtures of petroleum and 

methanol fuels used for exhaust and evaporative emission 

-48-
P.41 

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). 

-49-
P.42 

'""f^W"' " "'" - ST- Ir' • • 

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 specification" 

approved by the Administrator, shall be used by t'-.e 

manufacturer in exhaust and evaporative testing except that 

octane specifications do not apply. 

-50-
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) 

op 

<°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

max. 

g/U.S. gal. 

(g/liter) 

psi 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Olefins, 

Aromatics, 

Saturates 

[1] Maximum. 

[2] For testing at 

specified range 

[3] For testing whi 

max. pet., 

max. pet., 

ethod No. 

D2699 

.... 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D323 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

altitudes above 1,219 m 

is 75°-105°F (23.9°-40.6 

ch is unrelated to evapo 

control, the specified range 

kPa). 

[4] For testing at 

specified range 

[5] Remainder. 

is 8.0-9.2 

altitudes above 1,219 m 

is 7.9-9.2 psi (54.5-63. 

Value 

93 

7.5 

0.050[1] 

(0.013)[1] 

75-95 

(23.9-35) 

120-135 

(48.9-57.2) 

200-230 

(93.3-110) 

300-325 

(148.9-162.8) 

415 

(212.8) 

0 10 

0.005 

(0.0013) 

8.7-9.2 

(60.0-63.4) 

10 

35 

[5] 

(4,000 ft) the 

°C) . 

rative emission 

psi (55.2-63.4 

(4,000 ft) the 

4 kPa). 

' 1 

i 

i 

-51 -
P.44 

(2) Unleaded gasoline representative of commercial 

gasoline which will be generally available through retail 

outlets shall be used in service accumulation for petroleumfueled 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). 

•52-
— —- —•1FT'E--;Tf'TTT1f " 

(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 bright, with 

pour and cloud points adequate for operability. The petroleum 

fuel may contain nonmetallic additives as follows: cetane 

-53-
'"TTT"" '"•"»!'-ry'i" 

improver, metal deactivator, antioxidant, dehazer, antirust, 

pour depressant, dye, dispersant and biocide. Fuels specified 

for emissions testing are intended to be representative of 

commercially available in-use fuels. 

(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 

Cetane Index 

Distillation range: 

IBP, 

10 pet. point, 

50 pet. point, 

90 pet. point, 

EP, 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°c) 

op 

<°C) 

op 

(°C) 

°API 

pet. 

Gravity, 

Total sulfur, 

Hydrocarbon composition 

Aromatics, min. pet. 

Paraffins, naphthenes, 

olefins 

Flashpoint, min. °F 

(°C) 

Viscosity, centistokes 

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. 

-54-
TTTT'TTTTTT " 

(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 

CV.arue > jmosr 

Ci'cane Index 

D\i~t.i7...tc:.on range: 

90 2~t. point 

Gravity, 

Total sulfur, 

Flashpoint, min. 

V W .03 icy, 

op 

(°C) 

°API 

pet. 

op 

(°C) 

centis tokes 

ASTM Test 

Method 

D613 

D976 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D93 

D455 

No. Type 2-D 

38-58 

min. 40 

540-630 

(282.2-343.3) 

30-39 

0.03-0.05 

130 

(54.4) 

1.5-4.5 

(.) 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. 

-55-
rTM '3P* T" TTfl F J. 

(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 ~f a fuel listed under paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section would have a detrimental 

effect on emissions or du-ability, and 

(iv) Written approval from the Administrator of the fuel 

specifications must be provided prior to the start of testing. 

(6) The specification range of the fuels to be used 

under paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of this 

section shall be reported in accordance with §86.090-21(b)(3). 

(c) Fuels not meeting the specifications set forth in 

this section may be used only with the advance approval of the 

Administrator. 

(d) Mixtures of petroleum and methanol fuels for 

flexible fuel vehicles. (1) Mixtures of petroleum and 

methanol fuels used for exhaust and evaporative emission 

-56-

1 
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 £ueis w::'ch constitute the mixture will be used 

in customer service, ana 

(ii) Information. acceptable to the Administrator, is 

provided by the m^~ "-":turer 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). 

•57-
"Tir* •' 

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-cvcle test fuel. (1) Gasoline having the 

specifications listed in Table N91-1 will be used by the 

Administrator in exhaust emission testing petroleum-fueled 

Otto-cycle engines. Gasoline ha^irg these specifications or 

subso..ntially er ivaient specifications approved by the 

Administrator, shall be used b the manufacturer in exhaust 

emission testing, except that the octane specification does not 

apply. 

-58-
Table N91-1 

P.51 

Item 

Octane, research, min. 

Sensitivity, min. 

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

(g/liter) 

Distillation range: 

IBP, 

ASTM 

10 pet. point, 

50 pet. point, 

90 pet. point, 

EP, 

op 

<°C) 

op 

<°c> 

op 

(°c) 

op 

(°c> 

max. °F. 

(

J

J> 

Sulphur, max. wt. pet. 

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

vy/iiter; 

RVP, psi 

(kPa) 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Olefins, max. pet. 

..comities, max. pet. 

Saturates 

D2699 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

DO. 

D12 . 

D323o. 

D323 

D1311 

DI0.09 

D131.} 

value 

93 

7.5 

(0.050)[1] 

(0.013)[1] 

75-95 

(23.S 

120-

(48.9-

200-

(93.3-

300-

•.48. S 

,212 

r 

0 

, 0 

8.0-

(60.0-

)-35) 

-135 

-57.2) 

-230 

-110) 

•325 

.-162.8) 

415 

I a O) 

;.:c 

J05 

?> 

" -/ • ^ 

-63.4) 

10 

35 

r

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 defined as the 

Research octane number minus the Motor octane number. 

-59 -

|Ujr~——~ " 

;ljj]l AUG 2 3 1990 

\i 

\1) 

EPA A'R DOCKFT_ 
mV'>%' " --". r-v-i-'-r— 

(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 recomr.^nd the me'- lano . fuel to 

be used for testing and service accumulation in ac-v. nee. with 

paragraph (3). 

(ii) The Administrator shall determine n* 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 

-60-
(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 wit?- §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. Except for the 

sulfur content of "Type 2-D" fuel, fuels specified for 

emissions testing are intended to be represent.ative of 

commercially available in-use fuels. 

(2) Petroleum fuel for diesel engines meeting the 

specifications in Table N91-2, or substantially equivalent 

specifications approved by the Administrator, shall be used in 

exhaust emissions testing. The grade of petroleum fuel used 

-61-
shall be commercially designated as "Type 2-D" grade diesel 

fuel except that fuel commercially designated as "Type 1-D" 

grade diesel fuel may be substituted provided that the 

manufacturer has submitted evidence to the Administrator 

demonstrating to the Administrator's satisfaction that this 

fuel will be the predominant in-use fuel. Such evidence could 

include such things as copies of signed contracts from 

customers indicating the intent to purchase and use "Type 1-D" 

grade diesel fuel as the primary fuel for use in the engines or 

other evidence acceptable to the Adm5ni ratOi.-, -"i-h- the 

Administrator finds provides equivalent assurance. -

Table N91-2 

Item ASTM Type 1-D Type 2-D 

Cetane D613 48-54 42-50 

Distillation range: 

IBP, °F D86 330-390 340-400 

(°C) (165.6-198.9) (171.1-204.4) 

10 pet. point, °F D86 370-430 400-460 

(°C) (187.8-221.1) (204.4-237.8) 

50 pet. point, °F D86 410-480 470-540 

(°C) (210-248.9) (243.3-282.2) 

90 pet. point, °F D86 460-520 560-630 

(°C) (237.8-271.1) (293.3-332.2) 

EP, °F D86 500-560 610-690 

(°C) (260.0-293.3) (321.1-365.6) 

Gravity, °API D287 40-44 32-37 

Total sulfur, pet. D2622 0.08-0.12 0.08-0.12 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Aromatics, pet. D1319 8[1] 27[1] 

Paraffins, Naphthenes, 

Olefins D1319 [2] [2] 

Flashpoint, min., °F, D93 120 130 

(°C) (48.9) (54.4) 

Viscosity, centistokes D445 1.6-2.0 2.2-3.4 

[1] Minimum. 

[2] Remainder 

-62-
(3) Petroleum fuel for diesel engines meeting the 

specifications in Table N91-3, or substantially equivalent 

specifications approved by the Administrator, shall be used in 

service accumulation. The grade of petroleum fuel used shall 

be commercially designated as "Type 2-D" grade diesel fuel 

except that fuel commercially designated as "Type 1-D" grade 

diesel fuel may be substituted provided that the manufacturer 

has submitted evidence to the Administrator demonstrating to 

the Administrator's satisfaction that this fuel will be the 

predominant in-use fuel. Such evidence could include such 

things as copies of signed contracts from customers indicating 

the intent to purchase and use "Type 1-D" grade diesel fuel as 

the primary fuel for use in the engines or other evidence 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

Item 

Cetane Number 

Distillation range: 

90 pet. point, °F 

<°C) 

Gravity, °API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Flashpoint, min., °F, 

<°C) 

Viscosity, centistokes 

Table N91-3 

ASTM 

D613 

Type 1-D 

42-56 

Type 2-D 

30-58 

D86 440-530 540-630 

(226.7-276.7)(282.2-332.2) 

D287 

D2622 

D93 

D455 

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. 

-63-
(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. 

(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). 

-64-
"1 

(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 £&£ 

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. 

-65-
P.59 

(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). 

-66-
*"-'-fV '••"TF^IV 

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 N94-1 will be used by the 

Administrator in exhaust emission testing petroleum-fueled 

Otto-cycl* engines. Gasoline having these specifications or 

substantially equivalent specifications approved by the 

Admi M s t re-tor, shall be used by the manufacturer in exhaust 

emission testing, except that the octane specification does not 

apply. 

-67-
P.61 

"vn 

Table N94-1 

Item 

Octane, research, min. 

Sensitivity, min. 

Lead (organic), g/U.S. 

(g/i 

Distillation range: 

IBP, 

10 pet. point, 

50 pet. point, 

90 pet. point, 

£p. max 

Sulphur,-."- ..i'i. wt. 

Pho^ohorvti,. : x j/\3. S. 

(g/i 

RVP, 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Olefins,^-. max 

Aro -.'..f-y'.; •••&.,. - max. 

Sat m Yti S •'••:••';••: 

gal. 

iter) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°C) 

op 

(°c) 

op 

(°C) 

. °F, 

(°C) 

pet. 

gal. 

iter) 

psi 

(kPa) 

. pet. 

pet. 

/ 

ASTM 

D2699 

D3237 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D1266 

D3231 

D323 

D1319 

D1319 

D1319 

Value 

93 

7.5 

(0.050)[1] 

(0.013)[1] 

75-95 

(23.9-35) 

120-135 

(48.9-57.2) 

200-230 

(93.3-110) 

300-325 

(148.9-162.8) 

415 

(212.8) 

• \ 0.10. 

0.005 

(0.0013) 

8.0-9.2 

(60.0-63.4) 

10 

35 

[2] 

[1] Maximum. 

[2] Remainder. 

(2) Unleaded gasoline representative of commercial 

gasoline which will be generally available through retail 

outlets shall be used in service accumulation. 

(i) The octane rating of the gasoline used shall be not 

higher than one Research octane number above the minimum 

recommended by the manufacturer and have a minimum sensitivity 

of 7.5 octane numbers, where sensitivity is defined as the 

Research octane number minus the Motor octane number. 

-68-
•*•"• i " . • (^"inTny'-' 

(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 arid 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 

(ii) Information, acceptable to the Administrator, is 

provided to show that only the designated fuel would be used in 

customer service, and 

-69-
P.63 

(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 he r^orted in accb_ ii - wich §86.090-21(b) (3). 

(b) Diesel tesv: fue:. ' 

(1) The petroleum fv-r.s ; for testing diesel engines 

employed for testing shall :s 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. Fuels specified for 

emissions testing are intended to be representative of 

commercially available in-use fuels. 

(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 used 

shall be commercially designated as "Type 2-D" grade diesel 

-70-

J 
fuel except that fuel commercially designated as "Type 1-D" 

grade diesel fuel may be substituted provided that the 

manufacturer has submitted evidence to the Administrator 

demonstrating to the Administrator's satisfaction that this 

fuel will be the predominant in-use fuel. Such evidence could 

include such things as copies of signed contracts from 

customers indicating the intent to purchase and use "Type 1-D" 

grade diesel fuel as the primary fuel for use in the engines or 

other evidence acceptable to the Administrator. 

Table N94-2 

Item 

Cetane Number 

Cetane Index 

Distillation range: 

IBP, °F 

(°C) 

10 pet. point, °F 

<°C) 

50 pet. point, °F 

(°C) 

90 pet. point, °F 

(°C) 

EP, °F 

(°C) 

Gravity, °API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Hydrocarbon composition: 

Aromatics, pet. 

Paraffins, Naphthenes 

Olefins 

Flashpoint, min., °F, 

(°C) 

Viscosity, centistokes 

[1] Minimum. 

[2] Remainder. 

ASTM 

D613 

D976 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D1319 

/ 

D1319 

D93 

D445 

Type 1-D 

40-54 

40-54 

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 

0.03-0.05 

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 

•71-
»T- .--Tr)* 

(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 fuel used shall 

be commercially designated as "Type 2-D" grade diesel fuel 

except that fuel commercially designated as "Type 1-D" grade 

diesel fuel may be substituted provided that the manufacturer 

has submitted evidence to the Administrator demonstrating to 

the Administrator's satisfaction that this fuel will be the 

predominant in-use fuel. Such evidence coul'1' include. . such 

things as copies ol signed contracts from customers indicating 

the intent to purchase and use "Type 1-D" grad Yi- 1 fuel aa 

the primary fuel for use in the engines or other evidence 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

Table N94-3 

Item 

Cetane Number 

Cetane Index 

Distillation range: 

90 pet. point, °F 

<°C) 

Gravity, °API 

Total sulfur, pet. 

Flashpoint, min., °F, 

<°C) 

Viscosity, centistokes 

ASTM 

D613 

D976 

D86 

D287 

D2622 

D93 

D455 

Type 1-D 

40-56 

min. 40 

440-530 

(226.7-276.7)(28/ 

39-45 

0.03-0.05 

120 

(48.9) 

1.2-2.2 

Type 2-D 

30-58 

min. 40 

540-630 

1.2-332.2) 

30-42 

0.03-0.05 

130 

(54.4) 

1.5-4.5 

(4) Methanol fuel used for exhaust and evaporative 

emission testing and in service accumulation of methanol-fueled 

-72-
P.66 

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). 

(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) The/ 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. 

-73-
(6) The specification range of the fuels to be used 

under paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of this 

section shall be reported in accordance with §86.090-21(b)(3). 

(c) Fuels not meeting the specifications set forth in 

this section may be used only with the advance approval of the 

Administrator. 

(d) Mixtures of petroleum and methanol fuels fflt 

flexible fuel vehicles. (1) Mixtures of petroleum «a-d 

methanol fuels used for exhaust and evaporative emission 

testing and service accumulation for flexible fuel vehic?es 

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 

-74-
W WWTW^FfTV 

(iii) Written approval from the Administrator of the fuel 

specifications must be provided prior to the start of testing. 

(3) The specification range of the fuels to be used 

under paragraph (d)(2) of this section shall be reported in 

accordance with §86.090-21(b)(3). 

-75-