1667 K Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006 p.202-872-8110 f. 202-223-2636

February 7, 2012

Mr. 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 Mr. Herzog:

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

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

being undertaken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (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 manufacture, 

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, hospitals 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 automobiles; 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. 

This alliance 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 

automotive chemical and vehicle appearance products markets. ASPA’s members market 

products on a national and regional basis. 

Aftermarket 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 – Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135

February 6, 2012

Page 2 of 4

Discussion

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

I. Regulating the sulfur content of aftermarket fuel additives would be very costly with 

little 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 companies, 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 sulfur 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 containing 10 ppm sulfur gasoline, would result in a

net increase in the sulfur content by less 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 

process 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 

detergent 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 amount 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 sustainable 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 while 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 – Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135

February 6, 2012

Page 3 of 4

Many manufacturers of aftermarket fuel additives would have to add extra steps and testing 

to their processes to ensure compliance. 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 analysis, 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 samples, 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. Together, 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 safety 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 materials. 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 – Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135

February 6, 2012

Page 4 of 4

Given 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 products.

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 manufacturing 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 such 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 rulemaking 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 Specialty Products Association

Chair, ASPA Operating Committee