1667 K Street

, N W

, Suite 300, Washin gton, D C 20006 p.202

- 872

- 8110 f. 202

- 223

- 2636 February 7, 2012

M r

. Jeff Herzog United States Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

Assessment and Standards Division

2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105

Re: Automotive Aftermarket Response to Tier 3 Rulemaking Affecting Motor Vehicle

Emission and Fuel Standards

– Docket No.: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0135

Dear M r

. Herzog :

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) and Automotive Specialty Products

Allian ce (ASPA) appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Tier 3 rulemaking currently

be ing undertaken by the United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA), which will

affect motor vehicle emission and fuel standards. Our organizations are committed to providing EPA with feedback about the elements of this rulemaking that will directly impact the use of aftermarket fuel additives in gasoline engines.

Statement of Interest

CSPA represents the interests of approximately 240 companies engaged in the manuf acture, formulation, distribution and sale of hundreds of familiar consumer products that help household, institutional and industrial customers create cleaner and healthier environments. Our products include disinfectants that kill germs in homes, hospita ls and restaurants; candles, fragrances and air fresheners that eliminate odors; pest management products for home, garden and pets; cleaning products for use throughout the home; products used to protect and improve the performance and appearance of autom obiles; and a host of other products used every day.

ASPA is an alliance of three non

- profit, national trade associations representing companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution, and sale of automotive specialty products.

T his allianc e combines the efforts of Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), and the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to form a unified industry voice for their members engaged in the

a utomotive chemical and vehicle appearance products markets. ASPA’s members market products on a national and regional basis.

A ftermarket fuel additives help consumers maintain clean and efficient vehicles. Many of the products on the market today would be adversely affected by overly restrictive sulfur limits for these products, while providing little to no tangible benefits.CSPA / ASPA Comments

– D ocket No.: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0135

F ebruary 6 , 201 2 Page 2 of 4

Discussion

Our organizations offer the following comments on the draft regulations for low sulfur gasoline:

I. Regulating the sul fur content of aftermarket fuel addi tives would be very costly with

l ittle to no measurable benefit.

The maximum contribution to gasoline sulfur levels from the use of aftermarket additives is negligible. Based on a joint survey of CSPA and ASPA member co mpanies, the average net

increase in fuel sulfur levels from use of aftermarket additives is just 0.51 parts per million (ppm) per treatment. Considering most of these products are recommended for use every 3,000

- 10,000 miles, the overall net increase in s ulfur levels is further diluted.

As an average example, a 12 ounce complete fuel system cleaner with a sulfur content of 105 ppm, when added to an 18 gallon tank contain ing 10 ppm sulfur gasoline, would result in a

net increase in the sulfur content by le ss than one half of one part per million (0.49 ppm )

.

Additionally, some high

- end products contain specific chemistry to protect against silver corrosion. The higher

- than

- average sulfur content of these products is costly to reduce and

would be difficult

– if not impossible

– to reduce below 100 ppm while maintaining the products’ effectiveness.

II. Compliance with restrictions on the sulfur content of aftermarket fuel additives would be very costly, and present added complexities to the manufacturing

proces s that could have a potentially detrimental effect on the environment.

Complete fuel system cleaners comprise the largest segment of aftermarket fuel additives that would be affected by this rulemaking. These products contain high concentrations of deterg ent additives to give rapid complete cleanup of intake valves, fuel injectors and combustion chambers, resulting in fuel economy savings and emissions reductions. Placing overly restrictive caps on the sulfur content of these products will reduce the amoun t of additive that can be used in the package, resulting in the withdrawal of essential products, or unnecessarily diluted and less effective products.

Over the past 2

- 3 years, the manufacturers of aftermarket gasoline additives have responded

to sustaina ble packaging initiatives by moving, where possible, to more concentrated packages

– using less solvent and requiring less packaging and therefore less freight. Whereas some manufacturers have been able to move from 12 ounce packages to 6 ounce packages wh ile keeping constant the additive chemistry delivered, placing a restrictive cap on the sulfur content of aftermarket fuel additives would halt any further concentration efforts. Additionally, some manufacturers may be forced to go back to old formulations in order to comply with sulfur restrictions, essentially undoing the move toward concentrated products and reduced packaging.CSPA / ASPA Comments

– D ocket No.: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0135

F ebruary 6 , 201 2 Page 3 of 4

Many manufacturers of aftermarket fuel additives would have to add extra steps and testing to their processes to ensure complian ce. In particular, those manufacturers that purchase raw materials through chemical distributors, instead of directly from chemical manufacturers, would need to obtain sample raw materials from distributors in advance of purchase, send them out for analysi s, and wait for the results. In the event that the sulfur content of the raw material is too high, the process would have to be repeated. Such analytical testing will easily run into tens of thousands of dollars, and for those manufacturers with more sampl es, the figure could easily exceed $100,000.

Companies would also need to rinse process equipment with ultra low sulfur solvent prior to manufacturing, blending and shipping. Such extra steps will result in added cost and generate additional waste. Togeth er, the added steps would present a serious challenge to Just

- In

- Time ordering, and will certainly result in significant increases to running inventory costs. To avoid shortages of raw materials (if a shipment must be rejected for excessive sulfur levels), manufacturers will likely need to install additional storage tanks at their facilities. These tanks will easily necessitate capital investments totaling nearly $50,000 per tank.

III. Regulation will require significant added costs for compliance , ultimately resulting

in added costs for consumers

.

In addition to the added costs outline above, including upgrading manufacturing and storage facilities as well as increased analytical testing, this regulation will necessitate reformulation of many manufacturers’ product lines and the added costs associated with such a process.

In addition to the cost and man hours necessary to reformulate noncompliant products, manufacturers will need to evaluate package compatibility, development of new labels and

materials safe ty data sheets, which could potentially divert valuable resources from companies during the transition to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).

Companies have invested a very significant amount of time and money into developing packaging that is safe for transport and storage, does not interact with the product, enables the consumer to easily insert the product into a vehicle’s fuel tank , all without taking up unnecessary shelf space. As such, changes in product formulation that may threaten to necessitate a change in packaging can be extremely costly.

Manufacturers must also account for potential increases in raw material costs, particularly as this regulation will increase the demand for low

- sulfur raw material s. These cost increases, which could range from 30

- 40%, would ultimately be passed along to the consumer.

IV. Adequate lead time and sell

- through dates must be provided to allow manufacturers to make necessary changes to comply with any new restrictions.CSPA / ASPA Comments

– D ocket No.: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0135

F ebruary 6 , 201 2 Page 4 of 4

G iven the added complexities and necessary costs to comply with a reduction in the sulfur content of aftermarket fuel additives, CSPA and ASPA request that any further restrictions on the sulfur content of aftermarket fuel additives not take effect prior to January 1, 2017.

We further recommend EPA provide a sell

- thru period of three years from the adoption of any future rule for noncompliant inventory to be consumed in the distribution and retail markets.

Conclusion

The maximum contribution to gasoline sulfur levels from the use of aftermarket additives is negligible

– often less than half of one part per million

. The added cost and complexity far outweighs the very minimal reduction that would be achieved by restricting the sulfur level of these product s.

Overly restrictive limits on the sulfur content of aftermarket fuel additives will halt other environmental initiatives, such as producing concentrated products and reducing packaging. The potential costs

– from added analytical testing; upgrading of m anufacturing and storage facilities; reformulation of noncompliant formulas; redesigning packaging, labels and accompanying literature; increasing raw material costs

– are tremendous.

We strongly urge EPA to carefully weigh the anticipated benefits of su ch restrictions against the added costs and unintended consequences that will result. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment on the forthcoming proposed rule, and we look forward to remaining involved as an industry resource throughout the rule making process. If you have further questions regarding our position , you may contact me at 202

- 833

- 7308 or via email at smoore@cspa.org

.

Sincerely

,

Sean R. Moore

Director , State Affairs

– East Region

The Consumer S pecialty Products Association Chair, ASPA Operating Committee