[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35310-35381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16666]



[[Page 35309]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 80



Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Certification Standards for 
Deposit Control Gasoline Additives; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 35310]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[AMS-FRL-5528-5]
RIN 2060-AG06


Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Certification Standards 
for Deposit Control Gasoline Additives

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action establishes a certification program for detergent 
additives used to control the formation of port fuel injector deposits 
(PFID) and intake valve deposits (IVD) in gasoline engines. In 
accordance with Clean Air Act section 211(l), an interim detergent 
program has been in effect since January 1, 1995, requiring the use of 
detergents in virtually all gasoline used in the U.S. This final rule 
contains standardized test procedures and performance standards to 
ensure that such detergent gasoline will provide an effective level of 
protection against PFID and IVD. The regulations include a variety of 
certification options and compliance alternatives, affording cost-
effective flexibility to regulated parties.
    The effective control of deposits in gasoline engine and fuel 
supply systems has been shown to reduce the emission of nitrogen 
oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide in engine exhaust, while 
enhancing fuel economy. Accordingly, the intent of the detergent 
certification program is to help achieve the primary public health and 
environmental protection goals of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective September 3, 1996.
    The information collection requirements in 40 CFR 80.157(f)(5), 
80.160(b)(2), 80.164(b)(3), 80.170(f)(5), and 80.173(b)(2) have not 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and will not 
be effective until OMB has approved them, and EPA publishes a document 
announcing their approval.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations are approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of September 3, 1996.
    Compliance Dates: Compliance with the requirements of the detergent 
certification program is mandatory for detergent manufacturers, 
detergent blenders, and gasoline distributors on July 1, 1997, and on 
August 1, 1997 for gasoline retailers and wholesale purchaser-
consumers, and any other party selling or transferring gasoline to the 
ultimate consumer.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this final rule are contained in 
Public Docket No. A-91-77 at the following address: Air Docket Section 
(LE-131), room M-1500, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; phone 
(202) 260-7548; fax (202) 260-4000. The docket is open for public 
inspection from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., except on government 
holidays. As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged 
for copying docket materials. Electronic copies of major documents 
associated with this rulemaking are available from the EPA internet 
site and via dial-up modem on the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System 
(TTNBBS). Details on how to access these sources are included in 
Section X of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information related to 
qualification of detergent additives for use in complying with gasoline 
detergency requirements contact: Jeffrey A. Herzog, U.S. EPA (FED), 
Fuels and Energy Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; 
Telephone: (313) 668-4227, Fax: (313) 741-7869. For information related 
to the registration of fuels and fuel additives under 40 CFR Part 79 
contact: James W. Caldwell, U.S. EPA (6406J), Fuels and Energy 
Division, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 233-
9303, Fax: (202) 233-9556. For information related to enforcement 
contact: Judith Lubow, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, Western Field Office, 12345 West Alameda Parkway Suite 214, 
Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone: (303) 969-6483, FAX: (303) 969-6490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those involved 
with the production, distribution, and sale of gasoline and gasoline 
detergent additives. Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                  Examples of regulated entities      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................  Detergent manufacturers, Detergent        
                               transporters, Gasoline refiners and      
                               importers, Gasoline terminals, Detergent 
                               blenders, Gasoline truckers, and Gasoline
                               retailers and wholesale purchaser-       
                               consumers.                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists types of entities that EPA is now aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
organization is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability requirements in Sec. 80.161(a), the detergent 
certification requirements in Sec. 80.161(b), the program controls and 
prohibitions in Sec. 80.168, and other related program requirements in 
subpart G, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Rulemaking History
    B. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
    C. Overview of this Action
    D. Applicability
    E. Program Start-Up and Compliance Dates
II. Combustion Chamber Deposit Control
    A. CCD Impacts on Vehicle Emissions
    B. CCD Energy Impacts
    C. CCD Interference
    D. Unwashed Gum Levels and CCD
    E. Other Potential Adverse Side Effects of Detergent Overuse
III. Basic Information Requirements
    A. Detergent Additive Information Requirements
    1. Compositional Data
    2. Minimum Effective Concentration
    3. Certification Letter
    B. Information Requirements for Fuel Manufacturers
IV. Certification Options
    A. Background
    B. Single-Tier Certification System
    C. Geographic Certification Options
    1. National Certification
    2. PADD Certification
    3. U.S. Territories
    4. Certification Sub-Options
    a. Nonoxygenated Gasoline Certification Option
    b. Oxygenate-Specific Certification Option
    c. Premium Grade Certification Option
    d. Reformulated Gasoline Certification Option
    5. Recertification Requirements
    D. Fuel-specific Certification Option
    1. General Description
    2. Variants

[[Page 35311]]

    3. Monitoring and Recertification Requirements
V. CARB Certifications
    A. Background
    B. Applicability of CARB Equivalent Certification
VI. Certification Test Fuels
    A. National and PADD Certification Test Fuels
    1. Proposed Test Fuel Requirements
    2. Final Test Fuel Requirements
    a. Test Fuel Source and Screening Requirements
    b. Test Fuel Severity Factors
    c. Number and Severity of Test Fuels
    d. Other Issues
    B. Fuel-Specific Certification Test Fuels
    C. Summary of Test Fuel Requirements
    D. Test Fuels for Leaded Gasoline Certification
    E. Measurement of Gasoline Fuel Parameters
VII. Certification Tests and Performance Requirements.
    A. Certification Test Procedures
    B. Deposit Control Test Standards
    1. PFID-Control Test Standard
    2. IVD-Control Test Standard
    C. Alternate Performance Requirements for Leaded Gasoline
    D. Confirmatory Testing By EPA
VIII. Enforcement Provisions
    A. Overview
    1. Certification Conformity
    2. Compliance with Volumetric Additive Reconciliation (VAR) 
Requirements
    3. Equipment Calibration
    4. Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)
    5. Liability and Defenses
    6. Exemptions
    B. Enforcement Aspects of the Certification Program, Including 
Clarifications of, and Changes to, the Interim Program
    1. VAR Requirements
    a. Automated Detergent Blender Compliance Periods
    b. VAR Formula Records per Detergent Storage System
    c. Brands and Grades of Gasoline on VAR Records
    d. Recording of Detergent LAC and Actual Concentration
    e. VAR Recording of Use-Restricted LACs
    f. Diluted Detergent
    g. VAR Recording of Gasoline Which is Overadditized for the 
Anticipated Addition of Ethanol or Other PRC
    h. VAR Recording of Transfers of Unadditized Gasoline
    i. Supporting Documentation of VAR Volumes for Hand-Blending 
Facilities
    j. Electronic VAR Formula and Supporting Records
    k. Detergent Tank Transitioning
    l. Automated Additization Equipment Calibration
    m. Detergent Blender Record Retention
    2. Affirmative Defense and Liability Issues
    a. Detergent Manufacturer Affirmative Defense Modification
    b. Extension of Liability for VAR Violations
    c. Defense Against Liability Where More Than One Party May Be 
Liable for VAR Violations
    d. Defense to Liability for Gasoline Nonconformity Violations 
Based Solely on the Addition of Misadditized Ethanol or Other PRC to 
Gasoline
    e. Liability for the Sale of Nonconforming Gasoline or PRC when 
the Gasoline or PRC Also Violates VAR Requirements
    f. Detergent Blender Affirmative Defense Clarification, and 
Clarification of Presumptive Liability Arising from Detergent 
Blending
    g. Liability Clarification
    3. Inclusion of Importers of Additized Gasoline Within the 
Definition of Detergent Blender
    4. Certification Use Restrictions
    5. PTD Changes
    a. Elimination of PTD Retention Requirement for Additized 
Gasoline for Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers (WPCs)
    b. Elimination of PTD Requirements for Transfer of Small Loads 
of Additized Gasoline to Ultimate Consumers
    c. Address of the Transferee/Transferor
    d. PTD Identification of Oxygenates and PRC Added to Gasoline
    e. Detergent Package Use Restriction Designations
    f. Fuel-Specific Gasoline Designations
    g. PADD Designation on PTDs for Additized Gasoline or PRC
    h. Identification of Oxygenate and PRC Use Restrictions on PTDs 
for Additized Gasoline
    i. Base Gasoline Identification
    j. Use of Product Codes on PTDs
    k. PTD Requirements for Gasoline Overadditized for the Later 
Addition of Ethanol or Other PRC
    6. Extension of the Agency's Right of Entry into Facilities of 
Detergent Manufacturers, Distributors, and Carriers
    7. Exemptions
    a. Research, Development, and Testing Exemption
    b. Racing and Aviation Fuel Exemptions
    c. California Gasoline Exemptions
    C. Proposed Changes not Incorporated in the Certification Rule
IX. Administrative Requirements
    A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
X. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents
    A. Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS)
    B. Internet

I. Background

A. Rulemaking History

    Section 211(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies that, beginning 
January 1, 1995, all gasoline sold or transferred to the consumer must 
contain additives to prevent the accumulation of deposits in engines or 
fuel supply systems. The CAA charged EPA with the task of establishing 
specifications for such deposit control (detergent) additives.<SUP>1 As 
described below, today's final rule is the fourth in a series of 
rulemaking actions which EPA has taken to develop a gasoline detergent 
program that is both effective and reasonable, and to ensure ample 
opportunity for public participation in the regulation development 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  EPA uses the term ``detergent'' to refer broadly to the 
additives required to meet the deposit control requirements 
established in this program. It is not meant to specify a design 
standard or to limit the kind of engine or fuel supply system 
deposits that are, or would properly be, the subject of regulation 
under sections 211(l) or 211(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 6, 1993, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM, 58 FR 64213) which proposed that all gasoline, with limited 
exceptions, must contain additives to control port fuel injector 
deposits (PFID) and intake valve deposits (IVD). When fully 
implemented, the proposed program would establish a detergent additive 
certification program, including vehicle-based test procedures, 
specified test fuels, deposit control performance standards, and 
related enforcement provisions. However, recognizing that the regulated 
industry would need adequate lead time to complete such certification 
requirements, simpler interim requirements were proposed for use at the 
start of the program. While gasoline would be required to contain 
properly registered detergent additives beginning January 1, 1995, the 
procedures and criteria established to qualify a detergent additive for 
use in the interim program would be less rigorous than the standardized 
performance requirements envisioned for the full detergent 
certification program.
    Rules governing the two phases of the program were not finalized at 
the same time. The rules for the Interim Detergent Program were 
published on October 14, 1994 (59 FR 54678), while today's rule 
establishes the final detergent certification program. EPA took these 
actions in two separate rulemaking steps for two main reasons. First, 
the effective date for the CAA's mandate to use deposit control 
additives was January 1, 1995. This required rapid promulgation of the 
interim program rule after close of the NPRM comment period, to give 
the regulated parties as much lead time as possible. However, to ensure 
consistency with industry practices, EPA wished to incorporate 
standardized test procedures in the detergent certification rule. At 
the time the interim program was promulgated, the American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) had just completed its IVD control test 
procedure (ASTM D 5500), but anticipated several more months' delay 
before completing development of its PFID control test

[[Page 35312]]

procedure (later published as ASTM D-5598). EPA judged that a delay in 
finalization of the detergent certification program would be 
appropriate to permit adoption of both ASTM procedures.
    The second reason for delaying promulgation of the certification 
program was to provide additional opportunity for public discussion and 
evaluation of potential regulatory requirements for control of 
combustion chamber deposits (CCD). Following publication of the NPRM, a 
public hearing was held (in Ann Arbor, Michigan on January 11, 1994) 
and written comments were accepted until March 11, 1994. Much of this 
public commentary pertained to the CCD issue. The comments were split 
between those who believed CCD controls were unneeded and infeasible 
and those who maintained that CCD problems were already significant and 
could be expected to grow worse with increased use of PFID and IVD 
detergents, and that CCD controls were both needed and feasible.
    To further the resolution of this important issue, EPA published a 
Notice of Reopening of the Comment Period (59 FR 66860, December 28, 
1994). The Reopening Notice requested additional information regarding 
the potential impacts of CCD on emissions, fuel economy, and 
driveability; the possible relationship(s) between IVD and PFID 
detergent additive levels, unwashed gum levels, and CCD formation; and 
possible CCD control approaches. The notice also sought additional 
public input on other key concerns raised during the initial comment 
period, including certification test fuel issues and various 
implementation and enforcement provisions proposed for the 
certification program.
    EPA's summary and analysis of public comments on issues relevant to 
the interim provisions of the detergent program were published in a 
section of the preamble to the interim program final rule. Public 
comments on general provisions of the detergent certification program, 
including those received following the NPRM as well as those sent to 
EPA in response to the Reopening Notice, are extensively reviewed and 
analyzed in a separate document accompanying this rule.<SUP>2 A 
synopsis of EPA's evaluation of the CCD issue is provided below in 
Section II, and comments on other key topics are briefly described in 
the relevant sections of this notice. However, the reader is directed 
to the separate Summary and Analysis of Comments for detailed 
presentation and evaluation of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Summary and Analysis of Comments on General Provisions 
of the Detergent Certification Program'', Docket item V-B-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public comments concerning the detergent program's enforcement 
issues have been handled in a somewhat different manner. Following 
promulgation of the interim detergent program, the regulated industry 
submitted a number of questions about the practical implementation of 
some of the enforcement provisions of the rule. In response, EPA 
provided guidance on various enforcement provisions, in a series of 
four Detergent Rule Question and Answer Documents (``Q&A 
Documents'').<SUP>3 Today's rule incorporates a variety of regulatory 
changes that are being made to codify the guidance. Section VIII of 
this preamble contains a synopsis of the key issues related to these 
regulatory changes, along with EPA's analysis of other enforcement-
related comments not discussed in previously published documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Docket numbers IV-C-08, IV-C-09, IV-C-10, and IV-C-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Recognizing that deposits in gasoline engines and fuel supply 
systems can increase harmful exhaust emissions and adversely affect 
vehicle fuel economy and driveability, Congress specified in section 
211(l) of the Clean Air Act that: ``Effective beginning January 1, 
1995, no person may sell or dispense to an ultimate consumer in the 
United States, and no refiner or marketer may directly or indirectly 
sell or dispense to persons who sell or dispense to ultimate consumers 
in the United States, any gasoline which does not contain additives to 
prevent the accumulation of deposits in engines or fuel supply systems 
* * *'' Section 211(l) further provides that ``the Administrator shall 
promulgate a rule establishing specifications for such additives.''
    In section 211(l), Congress delegated to EPA rulemaking authority 
to set specifications for detergent additives to prevent the 
accumulation of deposits in engines or fuel supply systems. To 
implement this grant of authority, EPA has reasonably interpreted the 
several ambiguous elements of this provision. EPA believes that its 
interpretations will promote the intent of Congress in adopting this 
provision. First, the statute states that the additives must ``prevent 
the accumulation of deposits.'' This term is ambiguous; it could be 
interpreted to mean that the specifications must ensure that an 
additive will not allow any deposits whatsoever to form, or that an 
additive must be able to prevent all deposits and eliminate existing 
deposits, or that an additive could be acceptable if it would provide a 
reasonable level of protection against accumulation of new deposits but 
would not make a great impact on any existing deposits. In addition, 
section 211(l) refers to ``deposits in engines or fuel supply 
systems.'' Deposits can form in almost any part of an engine or its 
fuel supply system, e.g. the intake valves, the port fuel injectors, 
the combustion chamber, the carburetor, the exhaust valves, and so on. 
Congress, however, did not specify which particular deposits must be 
controlled by the additives mandated by section 211(l), nor did it 
state that EPA must set specifications such that additives would 
prevent all possible deposits which could possibly form anywhere in an 
engine or fuel supply system. Finally, Congress did not define the term 
``specifications'' in any way. This term could be interpreted to mean 
the additives' specific chemical composition, or performance 
characteristics, or the general type or amount of additive which must 
be added to gasoline. Therefore, the Agency believes that Congress left 
EPA with broad discretion and authority to implement those provisions 
in an appropriate regulatory framework that achieves the general goals 
of Congress in adopting section 211(l).
    Looking at the Act's legislative history, EPA believes that the 
primary purpose of section 211(l) is to reduce emissions from gasoline-
fueled vehicles and engines and to prevent engine wear or damage which 
could lead to increased emissions. Section 211(l) was added to the 1990 
Clean Air Act Amendments during conference. Prior to the conference 
sessions, detergent additive provisions were included in the bills 
passed by each house of Congress only as items in different provisions 
for reformulated gasoline (RFG).
    The bill passed by the House of Representatives contained a 
requirement that cleaner gasolines ``shall contain additives to prevent 
the accumulation of deposits in engine fuel supply systems.'' S. 1630, 
101st Cong., 2d Sess., (1990). The Report of the House Committee on 
Energy and Commerce described the purpose of the RFG provision, stating 
that ``(s)uch cleaner gasoline must achieve the greatest reduction in 
ozone-forming VOC and air toxic emissions achievable through 
reformulation of conventional gasoline, taking into consideration the 
cost of achieving such emissions reductions and health, environmental

[[Page 35313]]

and energy impacts.'' H.R. Rep. 490, 101st Cong. 2d sess., 297 (1990). 
Given the stated purpose of the RFG provision to reduce vehicle 
emissions, and the express requirement that RFG contain detergent 
additives, EPA believes that the House intended that EPA would require 
additives in RFG for the purpose of reducing emissions.
    The bill passed by the Senate included detergents as an alternative 
to RFG regulations, as follows:

    In the event that the Administrator does not promulgate the 
[fuel quality] regulations required by this paragraph, effective 
January 1, 1994, it shall be unlawful to sell, offer for sale, 
supply, offer for supply, dispense, transport, or introduce into 
commerce any fuel for use in a gasoline-powered vehicle unless such 
fuel contains additives effective in preventing the accumulation of 
deposits in fuel-injected engines.

S. 1630, 101st Cong. 2d sess., (1990). The Report of the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works expressed the purpose of the 
RFG regulations as follows:

    Subsection (k)(1) requires the Administrator to establish fuel 
quality standards to maximize engine performance and to minimize 
emissions from the combustion of fuels in vehicles and engines. 
Engines may prematurely wear out due to impurities in the fuel. Such 
fuel can clog fuel injectors, cause additional corrosion and 
otherwise affect engine performance, and cause an increase in air 
pollution emissions from the engine. In addition, fuel additives, 
such as detergents, are available to maximize the performance of 
engines and minimize emissions.

S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., 116 (1989) (emphasis added). 
Thus, EPA believes that the primary legislative intent behind the 
precursors of section 211(l) was to prevent or reduce vehicle 
emissions.
    The bill reported by the conference committee adopted an RFG 
provision which was similar to the House provision, although it no 
longer expressly required detergent additives in RFG. This provision 
required the Administrator to promulgate regulations imposing the more 
stringent of two options, either a formula, which would require 
detergent additives, or a performance standard for VOC emissions. In 
addition, this bill included the current section 211(l), which requires 
detergent additives in all gasoline sold after January 1, 1995. There 
is no further explanation anywhere in the legislative history of the 
addition of section 211(l) to the bill. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 952, 101st 
Cong., 2d Sess., (1990).
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to assume that the intent of 
Congress with respect to section 211(l) was essentially the same as its 
intent with respect to the prior iterations of the similar provisions 
in the RFG arena, i.e. to reduce vehicle and engine emissions, and to 
prevent engine wear which may contribute to such emissions. Section 
211(l) provides EPA with broad authority to implement its provisions 
within an appropriate regulatory scheme that furthers the goals of 
Congress in adopting this provision.
    In accordance with this interpretation, the certification program 
specifies the engine and fuel supply system deposits that must be 
controlled, the level of control that is required, and the 
responsibilities of various persons in the manufacturing, refining, and 
distribution systems to see that gasoline used by the ultimate consumer 
is properly additized. The certification program also establishes 
specifications for detergents for different gasoline pools depending on 
their deposit-forming tendency, and a specification for ``zero 
additive'' if a particular segregated gasoline pool is shown to have 
very little deposit-forming tendency. Like the existing interim 
detergent program, the certification program specifies that all parties 
involved in the chain of gasoline production, distribution and sale are 
responsible for compliance with the gasoline detergency requirements. 
The certification program also continues the interim program's 
precedent of applying certain requirements of the detergent program 
directly to manufacturers, distributors, and carriers of detergent 
additives, prior to, and after the blending of such additives into 
gasoline.
    As discussed in the preamble to the interim rule, EPA is issuing 
today's final rule under the authority of sections 211 (a), (b), and 
(c) as well as section 211(l). These sections of the CAA underscore 
EPA's authority to require the submittal of compositional information 
and test data directly from manufacturers of gasoline detergent 
additives. Section 211(b)(1) authorizes EPA to require manufacturers to 
submit information on the composition and use of fuels and fuel 
additives designated under section 211(a). In 40 CFR part 79, gasoline 
fuels and any additives intended for use in gasoline fuels have been so 
designated. Furthermore, 211(b)(2)(B) specifically calls for fuel 
additive registrants to ``furnish the description of any analytical 
technique that can be used to detect and measure any additive in such 
fuel * * *'' EPA's authority to require the submittal of data from the 
detergent additive manufacturer is also supported by the provisions of 
Section 114 of the CAA, which authorizes the Administrator to collect 
any information which may reasonably be required to carry out the 
purposes of the Act from any person subject to the provisions of the 
Act.
    Section 211(c)(1) provides EPA broad authority to regulate the 
introduction into commerce, production, distribution, and sale of fuels 
and fuel additives to protect the public health and welfare. Since the 
interim and certification program rules have been adopted pursuant to 
section 211(c) as well as section 211(l), the preemption provisions of 
section 211(c)(4)(A) act to prohibit certain state fuel controls. A 
specific exception to the Federal preemption is applicable in the case 
of California, which has established its own detergent program as 
permitted under section 211(4)(B). Also, pursuant to section 
211(c)(4)(C), a state could adopt a detergent program as part of its 
State Implementation Plan if it were necessary to achieve a national 
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard. The relationship 
between the Federal and California detergent gasoline programs is 
discussed further in Section V below.
    Section 211(c)(1) requires a finding that either (A) any emission 
product of a fuel or fuel additive causes, or contributes, to air 
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public 
health or welfare, or (B) emission products of a fuel or fuel additive 
will impair to a significant degree the performance of any emission 
control device or system. EPA has determined that emissions from 
gasoline use cause or contribute to such harmful air pollution (58 FR 
64213, 64215). This rule is the second phase in EPA's attempt to 
control such emissions through restrictions on the production and sale 
of gasoline and gasoline detergent additives. This rule requires that 
detergent additives manufactured for use in gasoline meet certain 
standards, and requires that gasoline be blended with such additives at 
the proper rate. This will reduce emissions from gasoline use that 
cause or contribute to harmful air pollution.
    Before EPA can regulate under its section 211(c)(1)(A) authority, 
section 211(c)(2)(A) requires the Agency to consider ``other 
technologically or economically feasible means of achieving emission 
standards under section (202).'' This has been interpreted as requiring 
consideration of regulation through motor vehicle standards under 
section 202 prior to regulation of fuels or fuel additives under 
section 211(c)(1)(A). Ethyl Corp. v. Environmental Prot. Agcy., 541 
F.2d 1, 32 (D.C.Cir. 1976). This does not establish a mandatory 
preference for

[[Page 35314]]

vehicle controls over fuel controls, but instead calls for the good 
faith consideration of motor vehicle standards before imposition of 
fuel controls (541 F.2d at 32, n. 66). This merely reflects Congress' 
recognition that fuel controls under section 211(c)(1)(A) might 
logically involve controls on fuel composition itself, while vehicle 
standards under section 202 are generally performance standards 
regulating vehicle emissions and not the design or structure of the 
vehicle. Fuel controls might therefore lead to greater government 
involvement in the regulation of the manufacturing process than would 
be expected from vehicle controls (541 F.2d at 11, n. 13). Congress 
addressed this concern by requiring Agency ``consideration'' of vehicle 
standards under section 202 before imposition of fuel controls under 
section 211(c)(1)(A). It is important to note that the Administrator 
must in good faith consider such vehicle controls, but retains full 
discretion in deciding whether to adopt either fuel or vehicle 
controls, or both (541 F.2d at 32, n. 66).
    In evaluating motor vehicle controls under section 202 in this 
context, EPA has found that vehicle manufacturers already have an 
incentive to design vehicles to reduce deposit formation. Deposits in 
fuel injectors and intake valves affect a vehicle's driveability as 
well as its emissions. Because consumers often look to a vehicle's 
manufacturer to resolve driveability problems, manufacturers who 
address such issues proactively through design modifications have a 
market advantage over those who do not.
    Another issue that EPA considered with respect to motor vehicle 
controls is that deposits affect vehicles currently in use. Any motor 
vehicle standard which EPA might impose to prevent accumulation of 
deposits therefore would not have an impact until new model vehicles 
replaced a significant portion of the existing vehicle fleet. In 
addition, EPA is barred by section 202(i)(3)(C) from imposing new 
standards on light duty vehicles until after model year 2003; thus any 
emissions or other standard for such vehicles would not even be 
introduced into the U.S. vehicle market for almost a decade. A fuel 
control related to the gasoline, however, will help reduce emissions 
from the entire in-use fleet of motor vehicles, as well as from non-
road engines and vehicles that use gasoline.
    Finally, 211(l) requires that all gasoline sold to the ultimate 
consumer after January 1, 1995 contain detergent additives to prevent 
accumulation of deposits, and requires the Administrator to establish 
specifications for such additives. Therefore, whether or not it was 
appropriate to establish vehicle standards, it would not be possible 
for EPA to set vehicle standards alone.
    Given these circumstances, EPA has determined that it is 
appropriate to promulgate this additive regulation now, regardless of 
whether motor vehicle controls are adopted later under section 202. 
This decision is based on the following facts. First, motor vehicle 
manufacturers are already designing engines to prevent susceptibility 
to deposit formation due to market incentives. Second, the requirement 
to sell additized gasoline will have immediate impacts on emissions 
from gasoline combustion from both motor vehicles and non-road engines 
and vehicles, as the detergents will begin preventing deposit formation 
as soon as the fuel is used. There also may be some additional clean-up 
benefit of using detergent additized gasoline in engines which already 
have deposits. Finally, EPA is required by law to promulgate this 
regulation under the separate authority of section 211(l).

C. Overview of This Action

    With this final rule, EPA is establishing a detergent additive 
certification program which modifies many of the provisions of the 
existing interim detergent additive program. As mentioned above, the 
interim program requires compliance with the CAA mandate that all U.S. 
gasoline be treated with deposit control additive prior to its use by 
the consumer. To qualify for use as a detergent under the interim 
program, an additive must be properly registered (under 40 CFR part 79) 
and must have undergone some testing to demonstrate its ability to 
control deposit formation when used at the concentration (treat rate) 
recommended by its manufacturer. However, the interim program does not 
require specific test procedures and test fuels to be used for this 
purpose, nor does it include specific deposit control performance 
standards which must be met. Today's rule establishes these specific 
requirements for detergent certification, along with changes to the 
regulations regarding enforcement of the certification program. Further 
discussion of the enforcement provisions is presented below in Section 
VIII.
    Broadly speaking, the detergent additive certification program 
follows the overall performance-based approach proposed in the NPRM. To 
be certified for use in compliance with gasoline detergency 
requirements, an additive must demonstrate the ability to meet 
specified standards of IVD and PFID control in the context of 
prescribed test fuels and standardized, vehicle-based test procedures. 
The practical result of this testing is to ascertain an additive treat 
rate that can meet the required standards of performance. The 
certification treat rate constitutes the lowest concentration at which 
the additive may be used by detergent blenders in formulating gasoline 
for sale to or use by the consumer.
    As proposed in the NPRM, the certification program includes a 
number of voluntary certification options. These options permit a 
detergent additive to be tested in one or more test fuels, resulting in 
different minimum treat rate requirements for different types of 
gasoline (e.g., oxygenated or nonoxygenated, premium or regular) and/or 
different gasoline pools (e.g., national, PADD, or segregated 
supplies). The flexibility provided by these options is described in 
more detail in Section IV of this preamble.
    While generally similar to the proposed approach, the detergent 
certification program finalized today differs somewhat from the NPRM in 
certain key areas. Most of these changes are the result of efforts by 
EPA to streamline and simplify the requirements of the program. For 
example, the NPRM proposed an approach based on a two-tier 
certification structure, such that gasolines of very high severity 
(i.e., tendency to produce IVD and PFID), would be required to be 
additized only with detergents that had undergone testing in specified 
high-severity test fuels. Implementation of this provision would not 
only require separate detergent certification for use in generic and 
high-severity gasolines, but would also require ongoing evaluations of 
the severity of gasoline supplied to the distribution terminals to 
determine if detergent certified for severe gasoline would be needed or 
if generic detergent would suffice. As described further in Section 
IV.B, EPA now believes that the potential benefit of the two-tier 
certification approach is far outweighed by the associated 
implementation burdens. Thus, today's rule finalizes a single-tier 
certification approach and does not contain special requirements for 
gasoline of very high severity.
    Another departure from the proposed approach pertains to the number 
and composition of test fuels required for each certification option. 
Under the proposed rule, to qualify for national certification or for 
any certification option, a detergent additive would be required to 
undergo testing in a matrix of up to four test fuels. Each test fuel

[[Page 35315]]

was to contain a different combination of relatively high levels of 
specified fuel parameters (i.e., ``severity factors'') and oxygenate 
components. In addition, test fuels meeting the required specifications 
would have been required to be located among commercial fuel supplies, 
not specially formulated to specification from refinery blend stocks.
    For reasons explained at length in the Summary and Analysis of 
Comments, and summarized below in Section VI, the test fuel 
requirements adopted today are considerably simpler than the proposed 
requirements. The final regulations require testing of a detergent 
additive in only one specified test fuel for any given certification 
option, and permit test fuels to be formulated to specification from 
refinery blend stocks rather than requiring them to be taken from 
finished gasoline stock located by sampling among commercial gasoline 
supplies. However, to ensure that test fuels resulting from this 
simplified process will adequately challenge the detergent additive, 
the regulations require certifiers to test the unadditized test fuels 
to demonstrate their deposit-forming tendency, prior to their use in 
additive certification testing.
    A third set of provisions which reflect change from the proposed 
provisions is in the important area of basic information requirements. 
For example, the information which additive manufacturers must submit 
regarding the composition of their detergent additives has been changed 
to be more consistent with typical additive manufacturing practices 
(see Section III.A). Moreover, the proposed registration requirements 
for fuel blenders that relate specifically to the usage of detergent 
additives are not retained in this final rule (see Section III.B).
    Subsequent sections of this preamble describe the major provisions 
of the detergent certification program in more detail, including 
further discussion of the way in which the requirements differ from 
those proposed in the NPRM.

D. Applicability

    The applicability of detergency requirements to various categories 
of gasoline is based on the statutory language of Sec. 211(l), which 
explicitly includes ``any gasoline'' in its mandate. EPA has 
interpreted this to include fuel commonly or commercially known as 
gasoline, that is produced for use in motor vehicles or engines or 
nonroad vehicles or engines. Thus, the applicability of this program is 
essentially the same as under the interim detergent program. The 
regulations apply to all gasoline, including conventional, reformulated 
(RFG), oxygenated, and leaded <SUP>4 gasoline, whether intended for or 
used by highway or nonroad vehicles or engines. Marine fuel, gasoline 
used for military purposes, gasoline service accumulation fuel under 
the Federal motor vehicle control program (for emissions control system 
deterioration testing purposes), and factory fill fuels are also 
required to comply with detergency requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Leaded gasoline was banned from use in highway vehicles as 
of January 1, 1996, and the EPA regulations no longer contain a 
generally applicable definition of leaded gasoline. However leaded 
fuel is still permitted to be used in nonroad engines, and leaded 
gasoline is subject to gasoline detergency requirements. In this 
final rule, therefore, EPA has included a definition of leaded 
gasoline (at Sec. 80.140) that is applicable only to 40 CFR subpart 
G. This definition is effectively the same as the previous, 
generally applicable definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Reopening Notice, EPA requested comment on whether 
detergent-additized gasoline should continue to be required for the 
gasoline portion of E85 or M85 alcohol-based fuels, in view of comment 
from the automobile industry that some detergent additives might be 
incompatible with such fuels. In response, the American Petroleum 
Institute (API) commented that EPA should allow industry to resolve 
compatibility issues through the marketplace. API pointed out that E85 
and M85 fuels are used in flexible-fuel vehicles, which are expected to 
be operated at times on ``ordinary'' detergent gasoline. Thus, due to 
mixing in the fuel tank, alcohol-based incompatibility problems which 
might arise between some detergents and alcohol-based fuels would need 
to be addressed even if the gasoline portion of the alcohol blends were 
exempt from detergency requirements. EPA agrees with API and, in this 
rule, has not changed the detergent applicability requirements of the 
interim program as they relate to the gasoline portion of alcohol-based 
fuels.
    As in the interim program, the only categories of gasoline which 
EPA is exempting from detergency requirements are racing fuel, aviation 
fuel, emissions certification fuel, and fuel used for research and 
development purposes. In the case of the racing fuel exemption, this 
final rule removes the interim program's restriction that only gasoline 
sold or dispensed on the premises of a racing facility can qualify. In 
response to comments stating that the interim rule's restriction is 
inconsistent with the actual handling and use of racing fuel, EPA 
decided to permit racing fuel to qualify for the detergency exemption 
regardless of location, provided that the fuel is distributed only to 
racing vehicles that are restricted to nonhighway use, and dispensed 
only from retail pumps clearly labeled as containing racing gasoline 
(see Section VIII.B.7).

E. Program Start-Up and Compliance Dates

    Full compliance with the provisions of the detergent certification 
program is not mandatory for approximately a year's time. This one-year 
start-up period is provided to allow certifiers sufficient lead time to 
complete their testing and reporting requirements, for detergent 
blenders to obtain supplies of certified additives and establish 
associated administrative and quality control support procedures, and 
for gasoline retailers to obtain sufficient quantities of properly 
additized gasoline. Since the interim program is to continue in effect 
until the certification program becomes mandatory, today's rule also 
revises enforcement provisions of the interim program to make these 
provisions more efficient and commensurate with those in the parallel 
certification program. The revisions to the interim program in today's 
rule become effective September 3, 1996.
    Mandatory compliance with the requirements of the detergent 
certification program is required for different parties in the gasoline 
and detergent distribution system at different times, based on their 
position in the distribution chain. As of July 1, 1997, detergent 
manufacturers must sell only properly certified detergents to their 
detergent blending customers. Also as of July 1, 1997, detergent 
blenders must blend certified detergent at the prescribed concentration 
into all gasoline they distribute, and distributors must sell or 
transfer only gasoline and PRC properly additized with certified 
detergents. To facilitate the proper disposal of residual non-certified 
detergent additive, EPA will allow such detergent to be blended into 
gasoline in combination with certified detergent until January 1, 1998, 
provided that the noncertified detergent was in the detergent blender's 
possession prior to July 1, 1997 and that it accounts for less than 10 
percent of a detergent storage tank's delivered capacity (i.e. no more 
than 10 percent of the detergent blended into a batch of gasoline). In 
addition, the total detergent blended into a batch of gasoline must be 
sufficient to attain the minimum concentration recommended by the 
additive manufacturer for the certified detergent.
    Effective August 1, 1997, all gasoline sold or transferred to the 
ultimate

[[Page 35316]]

consumer must be additized with certified detergents in conformity with 
any applicable detergent use restrictions. An extra month is allowed 
from the time detergent blenders are required to begin blending 
certified detergent to the time gasoline retailers are required to sell 
gasoline containing certified detergent, to provide adequate time for 
gasoline containing noncertified detergent in the retailer's storage 
tanks to be replaced with properly additized gasoline. This approach is 
consistent with that used successfully in other EPA fuels programs, 
such as in the regulation of gasoline volatility (54 FR 11869, March 
22, 1989), and the reformulated gasoline program (59 FR 7841, February 
16, 1994).
    Prior to July 1, 1997, additive manufacturers and detergent 
blenders may comply either with the interim detergent program 
regulations or the detergent certification program regulations 
finalized today. EPA anticipates that, many detergent additives will be 
certified prior to the final deadline,<SUP>5 and certified additives 
will inevitably be delivered to fuel terminals and blended into 
gasoline before the deadline. If a detergent is certified prior to July 
1, 1997, the requirements of the certification program will apply to 
the use of that detergent as of the effective certification date. In 
most instances, the use of a certified additive prior to the required 
date will not significantly change the detergent blender's requirements 
under the interim rule. The provisions of both programs require the 
detergent blender to add detergent to gasoline at a treat rate no less 
than the minimum concentration recommended by the additive manufacturer 
(also called the lowest additive concentration or LAC),<SUP>6 and 
require the additive manufacturer to provide adequate blending 
instructions to the detergent blender, including the minimum 
recommended concentration reported to EPA in accordance with the 
applicable detergent certification requirements. Thus, while the 
specified minimum amount of detergent may well change after 
certification, the nature of the additization and record-keeping 
activities of the detergent blender will usually not be greatly 
affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The certification date will be the earlier of the receipt by 
the certifier of acknowledgement by EPA of its receipt of the 
certification letter, or 60 days after the certifying party receives 
the return receipt from the postal carrier acknowledging that the 
letter was delivered to EPA.
    \6\ However, both the interim and certification programs contain 
a special provision allowing the detergent blender to use a 
detergent at a lower concentration than that recommended by the 
additive manufacturer, provided that the detergent blender informs 
EPA of this intent and can provide supporting data to substantiate 
the deposit control effectiveness of the detergent at the specified 
lower concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exceptions will occur in the case of detergent additives which have 
been certified under options that place restrictions on the type of 
gasoline in which the additive may be used (see Section IV). For 
example, a detergent may be certified with two different treat rates, 
one for use in all gasoline, and one for use only in nonoxygenated 
gasoline. In such an instance, if the detergent blender chooses to use 
the detergent at the treat rate certified for use in nonoxygenated 
gasoline, then the blender is required to conform to the certification 
program provisions which govern the handling of use-restricted 
certified detergents, even if this occurs before July 1, 1997. In the 
cited example, where the treat rate certified for nonoxygenated 
gasoline is to be used, the blender must use the detergent only to 
additize nonoxygenated gasoline. In addition, the blender must indicate 
on the outgoing product transfer document that the gasoline has been 
additized with detergent restricted only to nonoxygenated gasoline, 
thus informing downstream parties of the existing restrictions. In 
essence, each party in the distribution chain that handles gasoline 
additized with a detergent under a use-restricted certification must 
observe the product transfer document and all other applicable 
requirements of the certification program. Further discussion on 
additive manufacturer and detergent blender responsibilities in regard 
to the handling of use-restricted detergents can be found in Section 
VIII.

II. Combustion Chamber Deposit Control

    In the NPRM, EPA did not propose any requirements for combustion 
chamber deposit (CCD) control because of uncertainty regarding the 
scope of the problem and the lack of suitable performance test 
procedures and performance standards. Subsequently, some commenters 
expressed concern that a Federal requirement for PFID and IVD control 
might encourage detergent overuse, which could potentially exacerbate 
CCD concerns. Other commenters, however, agreed that regulatory control 
of CCD was not appropriate due to the lack of data and adequate 
standardized performance test procedures and standards. As a result, 
EPA requested additional input from affected industries (see Docket 
item IV-E-35, ``Summary of Additional Comments on Combustion Chamber 
Deposits''), and published a notice formally reopening the comment 
period on the issue of CCD control. A detailed discussion of the 
comments and EPA's response may be found in the Summary and Analysis of 
Comments document located in the docket for this rulemaking. A brief 
synopsis of this discussion appears below.
    After carefully reviewing all of the public comment and currently 
available information, EPA is not able to determine that a CCD control 
requirement is warranted. Available information on the impacts of CCD 
on emissions, fuel economy, and driveability are inadequate to draw 
conclusions regarding the costs and benefits of requiring additives for 
CCD control. In addition, no appropriate performance test procedures 
and standards or effective surrogate parameters for measuring CCD have 
yet been developed. Further study may indeed provide more information 
on which EPA could base a CCD control requirement. Thus, EPA will 
continue to evaluate CCD issues and will reconsider adopting a CCD 
control requirement at a later date if appropriate.
    For these reasons, EPA is very pleased that, under the auspices of 
the Coordinating Research Council (CRC), members of the automotive and 
petroleum industries have embarked on a joint research program to 
investigate some of the controversial issues which still remain about 
the causes, effects, and accurate evaluation of CCD. The work of the 
CRC is expected to help elucidate the potential need for and 
environmental benefits of CCD control, and to investigate vehicle 
parameters that influence vehicle response to CCD in preparation for 
potential development of standard test procedures for measuring CCD and 
evaluating a detergent's ability to effectively control CCD. EPA 
believes that the products of CRC's work will greatly facilitate EPA's 
investigation of whether CCD control is necessary and feasible.

A. CCD Impacts on Vehicle Emissions

    Most members of the petroleum and detergent additives industry 
commented that uncertainties persist regarding the scope of a CCD-
related emission problem and that test procedures and standards are 
lacking. They stated that EPA should defer action until research 
planned by the CRC has been completed.
    Automotive industry commenters stated that the CCD-related 
emissions impact is sufficiently well demonstrated to compel EPA to 
implement a CCD control requirement; this statement was supported by 
limited data and literature

[[Page 35317]]

references. Others stated that EPA should implement a requirement to 
ensure that detergent additives are used that can remove existing CCD 
and prevent the formation of CCD, because the vehicle octane 
requirement increase (ORI) caused by CCD results in higher emissions.
    While EPA agrees that there is sufficient data to demonstrate a 
probable link between CCD formation and increased NO<INF>X emissions, 
the magnitude of the NO<INF>X emissions impact has not been 
sufficiently defined to allow EPA to determine how substantial an 
impact it is. The impact of CCD on hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide 
emissions is even more uncertain. Characterization of the magnitude of 
the CCD emissions impact is important so that EPA can evaluate the 
costs and effectiveness of potential CCD control measures. At this 
time, EPA is not in a position to determine that CCD, and particularly 
any detergent additive contribution to CCD, causes vehicle emission and 
performance problems warranting regulatory control. The weight of the 
public comment indicates that, for major marketers, representing 60-70 
percent of gasoline sold in the U.S., EPA's IVD and PFID performance 
mandate will not cause a change in the types of detergent additives 
used or result in appreciably increased concentrations of these 
detergents. As for the rest of the market, EPA's IVD and PFID 
performance requirements are expected to bring the entire industry up 
to the levels of deposit control protection provided by major marketers 
prior to implementation of regulatory controls. Because EPA's IVD and 
PFID performance requirements are expected to bring the entire market 
up to a level of deposit control protection previously achieved by 
major marketers, EPA believes that these requirements will not create 
or exacerbate CCD problems. Thus, in the absence of sufficient data to 
support the need for a requirement to control the contribution of 
detergent additives to CCD, EPA disagrees with automobile industry 
comments that EPA is obligated to take immediate action in implementing 
such a requirement.

B. CCD Energy Impacts

    As mentioned above, several commenters stated that CCD contributes 
to vehicle octane requirement increase (ORI), i.e., the need for higher 
octane fuels to prevent engine knock as the engine ages. Higher octane 
fuels require more crude oil to produce, thus causing an increase in 
total refinery and vehicle energy use. Several commenters also stated 
that if ORI were reduced, engine design might be further optimized for 
improved fuel economy using gasoline of the octane quality currently on 
the market.
    The Department of Energy (DOE) conducted an evaluation of CCD 
control additive technologies that also have ORI claims, and of the 
potential energy and vehicle and refinery emissions implications of ORI 
control.<SUP>7 DOE concluded that a correlation exists between CCD and 
ORI. However, DOE also stated that automobile manufacturers generally 
design their vehicles to accommodate a worst case ORI condition, and 
provide a built-in margin to ensure that the vehicle can continue to 
operate on the fuel specified after the octane requirement stabilizes 
at about 15,000 miles. DOE stated that most automobiles do not require 
a higher octane fuel than recommended by the manufacturer. It is true 
that exceeding the octane specification of the fuel recommended by the 
manufacturer, if not compensated for by the use of a higher octane 
fuel, could cause engine knock in vehicles that are not equipped with 
knock sensors or retardation of engine timing in engines that are 
equipped with knock sensors. Both engine responses could result in 
inefficient combustion, and attendant reduced fuel economy. However, at 
this time, EPA agrees with DOE that the available information does not 
indicate widespread exceedance of the ORI tolerance built-in by engine 
manufacturers. Thus, EPA can not conclude that an ORI-based CCD control 
requirement should be implemented to prevent an adverse impact on fuel 
economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\  Docket items VI-D-43 and VI-D-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the broader energy use question, the DOE analysis suggested that 
the potential changes in crude oil use combined with questionable 
effects on vehicle fuel economy would not make a compelling argument to 
support the position that a reduction in CCD would result in a cost-
effective overall reduction in fuel consumption, total gasoline 
refinery and motor vehicle emissions or energy use, or dependency on 
foreign oil. In conducting its assessment, DOE took into account 
refinery processing efficiencies, energy yield, and vehicle fuel 
consumption. DOE stated that, based on their evaluation of available 
data, the potential direct vehicle emission effects of CCD control 
should be the primary factor considered in evaluating whether it is 
appropriate for EPA to implement a CCD control requirement. EPA agrees 
that the available information is inadequate to conclude that a 
reduction in ORI would result in a cost-effective reduction in total 
energy use or emissions from gasoline refineries and motor vehicles.

C. CCD Interference

    Automotive industry commenters urged EPA to implement a CCD control 
requirement to prevent potential negative impacts of CCD on 
driveability, including combustion chamber deposit interference (CCDI). 
They stated that CCDI problems are expected with the increased use of 
IVD control additives.
    The petroleum industry stated that there is no documented basis for 
EPA to consider a CCD control measure to prevent CCDI associated with 
detergent additive overuse. They stated that data indicates that 
manufacturing tolerances play a predominant role in the CCDI problem, 
and cited a study indicating that engines with a 0.9 mm squish gap 
design were unaffected by CCDI, while off-specification tolerances as 
low as 0.3 mm were virtually guaranteed to produce the engine knock 
associated with CCDI regardless of the fuel used.
    EPA agrees that available data indicates that manufacturing 
tolerances play a predominant role in the CCDI problem. EPA therefore 
does not believe that there are compelling reasons at this time to 
implement a CCD control requirement in order to prevent CCDI-related 
driveability problems. Moreover, the IVD and PFID requirements 
implemented with this rulemaking are not expected to increase levels of 
CCD relative to those seen in current vehicles using major petroleum 
marketers' gasoline.

D. Unwashed Gum Levels and CCD

    Several automobile industry commenters stated that, as a surrogate 
for CCD control, EPA should implement an interim limit on gasoline 
unwashed gum levels to prevent adverse side effects that might result 
from EPA's IVD and PFID performance mandates. One commenter presented 
an analysis of gasoline survey data which, it stated, indicates a 
correlation between increasing unwashed gum levels in commercial 
gasolines and the use of increasing concentrations of IVD detergent 
additives. Data was submitted by another commenter which, it stated, 
indicated that certain IVD and PFID additives contribute to CCD 
formation, and showed a correlation between unwashed gum levels and 
CCD.
    On the other hand, several fuel and additive industry commenters 
stated that available data does not demonstrate a correlation between 
unwashed gum levels and CCD. They presented data which they stated 
indicates that no general correlation between unwashed

[[Page 35318]]

gum levels and CCD exists. They also stated that unwashed gum levels 
are not necessarily a predictor of detergent additive concentrations.
    EPA has concluded that no correlation of unwashed gum levels or 
additive concentrations with gasoline CCD-forming tendency has been 
established. EPA agrees with comments from fuel and additive producers 
that unwashed gum levels cannot be used as a reliable predictor of 
detergent concentration. EPA believes that available data indicates 
that detergent additives vary in their tendency to contribute to CCD, 
and that this tendency does not necessarily correlate with unwashed gum 
levels. Based on a review of all of the available data, EPA believes 
that implementing an unwashed gum limit on additized gasoline would not 
necessarily produce beneficial results and might actually produce a 
barrier to the development of CCD control additives.

E. Other Potential Adverse Side Effects of Detergent Overuse

    Automobile industry commenters raised concerns about the effects 
detergent additive overuse might have on materials and components of 
automobiles. The comments stated that intake valve sticking and 
deterioration of the fuel system, oxygen sensor and catalyst could 
result from the use of overadditized fuel. API commented that negative 
impacts on vehicles of accidental overtreatment have been very rare.
    EPA finds no compelling reason from an emissions control standpoint 
to implement specific regulatory measures to prevent occurrences of 
detergent overuse. To the extent that driveability problems may exist 
due to the failure of fuel marketers to institute adequate quality 
control measures, the industries involved are in a position to 
adequately resolve these problems without the imposition of a 
regulatory control. As noted above and discussed in the Summary and 
Analysis of Comments, EPA has sufficient reason to believe that its IVD 
and PFID control requirements will not increase the likelihood that 
detergent overuse, and any attendant side effects, will take place.

III. Basic Information Requirements

    Pursuant to the fuel and fuel additive registration regulations in 
40 CFR part 79, both additive manufacturers and fuel manufacturers are 
required to report specific identification, composition, and other 
basic product information to EPA. In the NPRM for the detergents 
program, EPA proposed additional information that would be required for 
detergent additive registration in order for a detergent product to be 
eligible for use by blenders in complying with the gasoline detergency 
requirements of the rule. EPA also proposed specific registration 
requirements for fuel manufacturers related to their detergent blending 
responsibilities under the program. This section briefly describes the 
originally proposed information requirements as well as those included 
in the interim detergent rule, and summarizes the changes to these 
requirements reflected in today's final rule.

A. Detergent Additive Information Requirements

    Under the fuel additive registration requirements of Sec. 79.21, an 
additive manufacturer must submit certain compositional and analytical 
information on each of the additive products it wishes to market. Among 
other requirements, these include the chemical identification and 
concentration of the components of the additive product; the chemical 
structure of each component; an analytical technique for detecting and/
or measuring the additive as mixed in fuel; the identity of the fuels 
in which the use of the additive is recommended and the purpose-in-use 
and manufacturer's recommended range of concentration of the additive 
in each such fuel.
    Consistent with these standard registration requirements, EPA 
proposed that, for a detergent additive to be eligible for fulfilling 
gasoline detergency requirements, detergent certifiers would be 
required to submit the following information on detergent additive 
composition: (1) A specific chemical description of each component of 
the detergent package, (2) the exact weight/volume percent of each 
component of the detergent package, (3) a fourier transform infrared 
spectroscopy (FTIR) test method to obtain a qualitative and 
quantitative spectrum of the detergent additive package both in its 
pure state and in finished gasoline, and (4) an actual infrared 
spectrum of the detergent additive package and each component of the 
detergent package. The detergent NPRM also proposed that, upon EPA's 
request, a sample of the detergent additive must be provided to the 
Agency for evaluation.
    The information reporting requirements finalized in the interim 
detergent rule (at Sec. 80.141(c)) maintains the proposed requirement 
that the exact amount of each component of the detergent additive 
package must be reported, and specifically prohibits the reporting of 
any detergent-active component as the product of other chemical 
reactants. In addition, the interim rule requires that, for each 
detergent-active component, the registration must indicate which of the 
following chemical categories applies: (1) Polyalkyl amine, (2) 
polyether amine, (3) polyalkylsuccinimide, (4) polyalkylaminophenol, 
(5) detergent-active carrier oil, (6) other detergent-active component. 
The interim regulations state that a single detergent additive 
registration may contain no variation in the identity or concentration 
of any detergent-active component.<SUP>8 The regulations require the 
availability of an analytic procedure, preferably based on FTIR, that 
is capable of both qualitative and quantitative identification of each 
component of the detergent additive package. The regulations do not 
require that the procedure be capable of identifying the additive when 
mixed in fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Subsequently, in Question and Answer Document #3 (Docket 
item IV-C-10), EPA clarified that only downward variation in the 
concentration of any detergent-active component was prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication of the interim rule, CMA proposed several 
alternatives to those requirements. CMA stated that the compositional 
reporting requirements in the interim rule failed to recognize the 
essential chemical nature of deposit control additives and the 
processes by which they are manufactured. CMA asserted that compliance 
with the requirements would be impossible, given the non-homogeneous 
nature of detergent polymers and carrier oils, and the inherent 
variability in detergent manufacturing, blending, and analytic sampling 
processes. CMA was also concerned about the compositional test results 
required to establish a defense to presumptive liability under 
Sec. 80.156(c)(4)(ii) of the interim regulations.
    CMA suggested that, rather than exact concentrations, only target 
concentrations of the various detergent-active components should be 
required to be reported for registration. CMA also stated that 
registrants should not be precluded from reporting detergent-active 
components as the product of other chemical reactants, provided that 
the registrant also provide a description of product parameters that 
are sufficient to effectively define the registered product.
    As described fully in the Summary and Analysis of Comments and in a 
memorandum to the docket,<SUP>9 EPA has

[[Page 35319]]

considered the various issues raised by CMA, and has also reviewed its 
own experience with the interim program. Under the interim program, 
some manufacturers appear to have been able to comply with the 
requirement to specifically identify and quantify each component of the 
detergent package, while others have maintained that they are unable to 
comply. While this experience does not enable EPA to make a definitive 
judgment as to the general appropriateness of the interim reporting 
requirements, it does demonstrate an ongoing problem in at least some 
cases. Thus, EPA is adopting several provisions in today's rule that 
will provide alternative reporting requirements. EPA believes these 
alternative will accommodate industry's reasonable concerns about 
practical and technical limitations on the ability to define detergent 
additive composition, while also providing EPA with assurance that 
detergent composition variability will not adversely affect in-use 
deposit control effectiveness. The requirements finalized in today's 
rule are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\  ``Interactions Between the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)'', Jeff 
Herzog, OMS, Judy Lubow, OECA, Docket item IV-E-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Compositional Data. The interim rule's requirement that all 
components of the detergent additive package be identified chemically 
and by concentration (weight or volume percent of the product, as 
applicable) will remain in effect. Within a single detergent additive 
registration, the identity of detergent-active components is still not 
permitted to vary. However, today's final rule accommodates 
manufacturing variability to a greater degree than previously allowed 
under the interim rule. Specifically, a range of concentrations is 
permitted to be reported for detergent-active components, provided that 
at the lower end of the range, the deposit control effectiveness of the 
additive package is not less than that demonstrated during 
certification testing.<SUP>10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\  Detergent certification testing must be conducted with 
each detergent-active component present in the test fuel at a 
concentration that does not exceed the concentration reported as the 
lower bound in the range of concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing the heterogeneous nature of the carrier oils and 
detergent-active polymers which frequently occur in detergent additive 
formulations, these final regulations provide two methods by which the 
chemical composition of detergent-active components may be reported. 
When it is reasonable to do so, detergent-active components are to be 
identified (as originally proposed) using standard chemical 
nomenclature or a description of the chemical structure, or both. 
However, when the manufacturer believes this requirement to be 
infeasible or impractical, detergent-active components (both detergent-
active polymers and detergent-active (chiefly synthetic) carrier oils) 
may be reported as the product of specified reactants. In such cases, 
the reactant materials must be identified, together with the acceptance 
criteria normally used by the manufacturer for determining that these 
materials are suitable for use in synthesizing the detergent 
components. Upon EPA's request, documentation must be provided by the 
manufacturer that the reported acceptance criteria are in fact those 
normally required of its suppliers. In addition, the detergent-active 
components must be described by means of gel permeation chromatography 
(GPC), providing a quantitative distribution of the polymeric 
components by molecular size. The GPC requirements include a 
description of the test procedure, including the use of appropriate 
calibration standards, and the resulting chromatograms. EPA believes 
that, when combined with other reporting and sample requirements 
(described below), this alternative approach will provide adequate 
identifying information for detergent-active components.
    For non-detergent-active carrier oils (usually petroleum-based), 
the additive manufacturer must provide the percentage by weight of 
oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur, when present in the carrier oil at greater 
than 0.5 percent by weight. In addition, the manufacturer must provide 
the T10, T50, T90, end boiling point, API gravity, and viscosity of the 
carrier oil mixture.
    These registration requirements will provide some useful 
information for determining whether an in-use detergent additive 
conforms to the composition of the detergent additive package which was 
shown to be effective during certification testing. However, in light 
of the limited ability of detergent manufacturers to precisely define 
the chemical properties of their additive, EPA believes that additional 
means are needed by which conformity with the composition reported in 
the certification process can be confirmed. Therefore, today's rule 
requires a sample of the detergent product to be submitted to EPA at 
the time the certification letter is sent to the Agency, as well as an 
FTIR-based test procedure together with the actual infrared spectra 
produced by the procedure.
    Under the interim rule and proposed certification rule, these items 
were to be submitted on a per-request basis only. Thus, to accomplish 
the Agency's objectives, EPA could have chosen to request the detergent 
sample and FTIR from each additive manufacturer individually at the 
time of detergent certification. However, this would be a time-
consuming and inefficient procedure. In fact, EPA's past experience 
indicates that manufacturers may be reluctant to cooperate with such 
requests. Therefore, EPA has instead chosen to require the submission 
of these items with every certification letter. It should be noted, 
however, that submission of detergent samples to EPA at the time of 
certification does not mean that the Agency will confirm the validity 
of the compositional information submitted by the additive 
manufacturer. EPA reserves the right to request and analyze other 
samples. Some detergent samples (or portions of samples) may indeed be 
used to verify the registration information provided by the additive 
manufacturers; others may be kept as baseline samples for monitoring 
the conformity of future production batches. Detergent samples may also 
be used by EPA chemists in efforts to develop improved analytical 
methods for detergents and their components.
    EPA is sensitive to manufacturer's concerns about the handling of 
the samples they submit. To ensure the proper treatment of samples 
claimed as confidential by the manufacturer, the regulations require 
the detergent samples to be sent to EPA's chemistry laboratory in Ann 
Arbor, which handles and stores such proprietary materials as part of 
its day-to-day operations.<SUP>11 Information claimed as confidential 
will be protected as required under EPA's regulations concerning 
confidential business information, at 40 CFR part 2. EPA also will take 
all reasonable steps to maximize the shelf life of detergent samples. 
To that end, today's rule requires that manufacturers inform EPA about 
any known sample shelf life limitations, if any, and to indicate what 
conditions (e.g.,temperature or light exposure) most affect shelf life. 
Such information should be readily available to additive manufacturers 
for their own quality control purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\  See Docket item IV-B-09 for a discussion of the procedures 
that will be observed in handling proprietary detergent additive 
samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency anticipates that detergent shelf life (i.e. the length 
of time during which all of the pertinent properties that define a 
detergent's functionality remain unchanged) will nearly always exceed a 
year or more. In addition, certain basic properties (e.g., API gravity, 
and viscosity), tend to be less sensitive to the passage of time. Thus, 
a detergent sample may be useful for

[[Page 35320]]

certain limited testing purposes even after the normal shelf life has 
expired. After an additive sample is no longer suitable for any 
analytical testing purposes, it will be destroyed by the Agency.
    Today's rule contains one additional compositional reporting 
requirement which detergent manufacturers must fulfill if they wish to 
be able to take advantage of relatively simple mechanisms which the 
rule provides for demonstrating an affirmative defense to presumptive 
liability (see Section VIII.B.2.a of this preamble). This provision 
requires the manufacturer to submit to EPA certain physical product 
parameters which will be monitored on each detergent production batch 
for quality control purposes. Generally, the parameters to be monitored 
for affirmative defense purposes include viscosity, density, and basic 
nitrogen content, although other parameters may be added or substituted 
upon the manufacturer's request and EPA's approval. For each such 
parameter, the target value and range of variability and a description 
of a standardized measurement test procedure are to be provided at the 
time of certification. The designated test methods must be consistent 
with the chemical and physical nature of the detergent product, and the 
documented ASTM repeatability <SUP>12 for the method must be specified. 
EPA will consider the parameter measurement to be an acceptable basis 
for establishing an affirmative defense to presumptive liability if the 
range of variability differs from the target value by no more than five 
times the ASTM repeatability value, or by no more than 10 percent of 
the target value, whichever is less. Due to the practical limitations 
associated with the measurement of small quantities of certain product 
parameters, this variability limit does not apply in the case of 
nitrogen analysis (or other procedures for measuring concentrations of 
specific chemical compounds or elements) when the target value is less 
than 10 parts per million. In such cases, the acceptable variability is 
instead limited to 50 percent of the target value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\  Repeatability of a test method is defined by ASTM as the 
quantitative expression of the random error associated with a single 
operator in a given laboratory obtaining replicate results with the 
same apparatus under constant operating conditions on identical test 
material within a short period of time. It is further defined as 
that difference between two such single results as would be exceeded 
in the long run in only one case out of twenty in the normal and 
correct operation of the test method. (ASTM D 3244, Standard 
Practice for Utilization of Test Data to Determine Conformance with 
Specifications.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that establishing such limitations on the acceptable 
range of product parameter variability is necessary to a credible claim 
that a given batch of detergent is equivalent to the certified 
detergent product. This is especially important in view of the fact 
that deposit control performance testing is required only on a single 
detergent sample of a given composition. While acknowledging that some 
production variability is expected, EPA must still ensure that the 
functionality of the detergent actually produced is reasonably 
equivalent to that demonstrated during certification. EPA believes 
that, along with other affirmative defense elements, the required 
limits on manufacturing variability will provide adequate assurance on 
a routine basis that the composition and attendant deposit control 
efficacy of detergent production batches do not vary to such an extent 
that the minimum recommended treatment rate reported by the additive 
manufacturer is no longer representative of the detergent's actual 
performance. Outside of these limits, EPA is not sufficiently confident 
that the composition of detergent production batches would provide 
adequate deposit control. The affirmative defense provisions in today's 
rule provide additive manufacturers with practical and economical 
methods to demonstrate that the deposit control efficacy of detergent 
batches is maintained, while allowing a reasonable degree of production 
variability. The regulations also allow manufacturers who cannot meet 
these variability limits to request (and justify) other arrangements.
    2. Minimum Effective Concentration. As specified in Sec. 79.21(d), 
a fuel additive registration must report the minimum blending 
concentration which the manufacturer recommends for the additive in 
each type of fuel for which the additive's use is designated. In the 
case of detergent additives registered for use in gasoline, the minimum 
recommended concentration is required to be no less than the lowest 
amount which the additive manufacturer has determined to be effective 
for deposit control. Thus, the minimum recommended concentration is 
also the lowest additive concentration (LAC) which the detergent 
blender may use in gasoline to be in compliance with the detergency 
requirements of this program (subject to any use restrictions that may 
be applicable under a given certification option).
    The interim detergent regulations require that the reported minimum 
effective concentration be supported by appropriate test data, which is 
to be supplied to EPA upon request. While rigorous test procedures and 
performance standards are not specified, the interim rule does contain 
general guidelines regarding the type(s) of tests and test fuels which 
EPA will regard as sufficient, during the interim period, for 
demonstrating an additive's deposit control effectiveness at the 
specified minimum concentration. These flexible testing requirements 
were appropriate, given the purpose and practical limitations of the 
interim program.
    As described in subsequent sections, however, the detergent 
certification program requires that the minimum recommended 
concentration be determined on the basis of specific deposit control 
performance standards, as shown in the context of specific performance 
tests and test fuels. Moreover, this final rule offers a number of 
certification options (described in Section IV), such that a different 
minimum concentration may be determined for different gasoline pools 
(e.g., national, PADD, fuel-specific) or gasoline types (e.g., premium, 
oxygenated, nonoxygenated). Thus, in reporting the minimum recommended 
concentration(s) for gasoline detergent additives, the additive 
manufacturer must also specify the applicable certification option(s) 
for each minimum concentration. In addition, if the detergent is also 
registered separately for use in leaded gasoline, the applicable 
minimum concentration for deposit control in leaded gasoline must be 
specified. This amount may be the same as that needed for PFID control 
under any certification option (except fuel specific) or, optionally, 
the amount demonstrated to be needed for carburetor deposit control.
    The information on minimum concentration, as reported in the 
detergent registration, must also be accurately communicated by the 
additive manufacturer to its customers, i.e., detergent blenders and 
secondary additive manufacturers. For protection of all parties 
involved in the transaction, this communication must be made in 
writing. For example, if a gasoline misadditization were to occur, such 
that detergent were added at a concentration less than the required 
minimum amount, the detergent manufacturer could potentially be held 
liable for the misadditization unless he could demonstrate that proper 
blending instructions were provided prior to the additization. These 
liability issues are discussed further in Section VIII of this 
preamble.

[[Page 35321]]

    3. Certification Letter. In addition to satisfying the above 
requirements concerning detergent additive composition and recommended 
concentration, the additive manufacturer (or other party wishing to 
certify the detergent <SUP>13) must submit a certification letter to 
EPA. The certification letter must include a statement attesting that 
the additive has undergone the performance testing required by the 
regulations, using the specified test fuels, and has met the deposit 
control performance standards required for certification. The statement 
must also affirm that the performance tests were conducted in a manner 
consistent with sound engineering practices, and that complete 
documentation of the test fuel formulation, performance test 
procedures, and test results is available for EPA's inspection. In 
addition, the letter must provide summary information on the test fuel 
composition and source(s), the additive concentration(s) used in 
certification testing, the results of the testing, and the lowest 
additive concentration (minimum recommended concentration) which the 
certifier seeks to establish for each certification option under which 
the detergent is to be certified. This is a self-certification process, 
with the party providing EPA with information that indicates compliance 
with the various requirements. EPA will not issue a certificate, for 
example as done in the Federal motor vehicle emissions control program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\  For example, in the case of a fuel-specific certification, 
the certifying party could be the fuel manufacturer or another party 
with title and access to the segregated fuel supply, rather than the 
detergent manufacturer. See Section IV.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency will acknowledge receipt of the certification letter. 
The certification date will be the earlier of either the certifier's 
receipt of EPA's acknowledgement, or 60 days after EPA's receipt of the 
certification letter, as documented by a certified mail receipt. EPA 
does not intend routinely to examine the full test documentation, and 
will in many cases rely on the certifier's attestations. Neither EPA's 
acknowledgement of receipt of the letter or the passage of time 
indicates that the certification letter has been reviewed by the Agency 
or that a determination has been made regarding whether the 
requirements of certification have been satisfied. This is consistent 
with the self certification approach adopted in this rule. On a case-
by-case basis, EPA may require that an additive certifier provide the 
actual test data to EPA to substantiate the claim of deposit control 
effectiveness made in the certification letter. EPA believes that the 
declaration by the certifier that a detergent certification meets the 
program testing requirements, coupled with the occasional Agency review 
of certification test data, should provide reasonable assurance that 
the program requirements will in fact be met in the vast majority of 
cases.
    EPA might request submission of supporting data for a variety of 
reasons. For example, the detergent treat rate recommended by an 
additive manufacturer under one certification option may seem anomalous 
relative to the treat rates recommended for the same additive under 
other certification options. Alternatively, the treat rates recommended 
by one additive manufacturer may not be consistent with the treat rates 
recommended by manufacturers of apparently similar additives. EPA may 
also learn from fuel or automobile manufacturers that a particular 
detergent product appears to be less effective than others. For these 
or other reasons, including random oversight of compliance, EPA may 
request that the additive certifier provide some or all of the test 
procedure and fuel data required under the regulations. In such a case, 
the detergent registrant must provide the supporting data to EPA within 
30 days of receipt of the request for such data. If EPA judges the 
supporting data to be inadequate (or if it is not received), EPA may 
disqualify the subject detergent for use in compliance with the 
requirements of this rule (see Sec. 80.161(e)). The detergent additive 
manufacturer will be required to provide EPA with a list of its 
customers who use the disqualified detergent. EPA shall inform all such 
fuel manufacturers and secondary additive manufacturers that the 
detergent is no longer eligible for use in complying with Federal 
gasoline detergency requirements. In addition, EPA may initiate the 
enforcement actions described in Section VIII.
    Under the interim program, a disqualification order becomes legally 
effective for the additive manufacturer five days after its publication 
in the Federal Register. Today's rule provides that under the 
certification program a disqualification order will become effective 
for the certifier on the date the order is received by the certifier. 
The disqualification order will be published in the Federal Register as 
under the interim program. However, EPA believes there is no reason to 
delay the effective date of a disqualification for the certifier past 
the date when the notification is received from EPA. At this point in 
the disqualification process, the certifier will have been afforded 
ample notice of a disqualification and an opportunity to participate in 
the Agency's evaluation of whether the disqualification was 
appropriate. Thus, the certifier will have had sufficient opportunity 
to prepare to comply with the disqualification order upon its arrival. 
If the certifier is also a blender of the disqualified additive, the 
certifier must also stop using the ineligible detergent upon receipt of 
the disqualification order. As under the interim program, other 
blenders affected by the disqualification order will be afforded 45 
days from their receipt of a notification from EPA that the detergent 
is no longer eligible for use to comply with gasoline detergency 
requirements, or 45 days from the publication of such notification in 
the Federal Register, which ever is sooner, to discontinue use of the 
disqualified detergent and substitute an eligible detergent additive.

B. Information Requirements for Fuel Manufacturers

    The NPRM and the interim detergent program recognized that 
detergent blenders, as fuel manufacturers (under the existing 
definition of a fuel manufacturer in Sec. 79.2(d)), are subject to 
standard fuel registration requirements under 40 CFR part 79. These 
standard requirements include the identification of any additive 
products intended to be used in the registered fuel and the range of 
concentration of each such additive in the fuel. The only additional 
feature proposed to meet the information requirements for fuel 
registration under the detergent program was that the lower boundary of 
the range of concentration of detergent additives could be no less than 
the minimum recommended concentration specified in the detergent 
additive's registration, unless otherwise approved by EPA under special 
circumstances.
    For reasons not directly related to the detergents program, EPA is 
currently considering possible changes to the definition of ``fuel 
manufacturer'' in Sec. 79.2(d). If this change is adopted, EPA realizes 
that many detergent blenders would no longer be required to submit the 
registration information envisioned in the NPRM. However, EPA 
experience under the interim program indicates that EPA's monitoring 
and enforcement activities regarding the proper use of certified 
detergents rely much more on the detergent blenders' additization 
accounting records (see Section VIII) than on the up-front registration 
information which they would be required to submit. Thus, while this 
final rule requires detergent blenders to maintain specific records 
concerning

[[Page 35322]]

their additization activities, it does not include any special 
registration requirements for detergent blenders, nor for fuel 
manufacturers in general.

IV. Certification Options

A. Background

    The gasoline produced by the U.S. refining industry is not 
homogeneous with respect to the tendency to form deposits. Gasoline 
pools with different characteristics occur as a result of different 
crude oil sources, refining capabilities and fuel distribution 
networks, the octane rating of gasoline provided for different engine 
designs, and regulatory programs which control certain parameters in 
gasoline sold in polluted urban areas. A study of the relative deposit-
forming severity of these gasoline pools showed that different pools of 
gasoline may vary in their deposit forming potential, as reflected by 
different distributions in the levels of specified ``severity factors'' 
(see Section VI). To provide industry the opportunity to optimize the 
detergent additization of these various pools while still ensuring the 
environmental benefits of the program, EPA proposed detergent 
certification options based on the deposit related characteristics of 
the various gasoline pools.
    The proposed certification options included a nationwide program, 
geographical options based on the Petroleum Administration Districts 
for Defense (PADDs), oxygenate options because of the variety of 
oxygenates which may be blended into gasoline to meet regulatory 
requirements or octane specifications, an option for premium gasoline, 
and a fuel-specific option for segregated gasoline pools. These options 
are all being finalized in today's rule. EPA also proposed an option to 
certify detergent additives for use in reformulated gasoline. However, 
as discussed in more detail below, the deposit-forming severity of that 
pool of gasoline has not yet been sufficiently characterized. Another 
proposed option would have allowed detergent additives certified for 
California gasoline to be used in all PADD V gasoline, but for the 
reasons discussed below in Section V, EPA is not finalizing this 
option. Nevertheless, California certifications will be accepted for 
demonstrating compliance with the certification requirements of the 
Federal program in California (see Section V). A proposed second tier 
of detergent certification, to ensure sufficient additization of the 
most severe gasolines, is also not finalized today. All these options 
and the comments by the public on these options are discussed further 
below.
    It is important to understand that the choice of a particular 
certification option actually represents a choice as to the test fuel 
in which a particular detergent will be mixed when it undergoes 
certification testing. (Test fuel composition [severity] is an 
important element in determining the challenge to a detergent's ability 
to control deposits represented by certification testing.) As a result 
of such testing, a required minimum treat rate (minimum recommended 
concentration or lowest additive concentration) will be established for 
the additive when used in the type of gasoline represented by the test 
fuel. In other words, the certification of a detergent under a 
particular certification option has the result of setting a treat rate 
for that detergent in the pool of gasoline covered by the certification 
option. To say a detergent has been certified under several options 
merely means that the detergent has undergone performance testing in 
the context of several different test fuels, each representing a 
different option, and that different treat rate requirements have thus 
been established for the additive when used in the different gasoline 
pools covered by these options. The relationship between certification 
options and test fuels is discussed further in Section VI of this 
preamble.
    These options, when considered together, provide a great deal of 
flexibility to the fuel industry for additizing gasoline. Of course, in 
each situation, the industry must find the optimal balance between the 
costs of additional certification testing and the potential opportunity 
to use reduced additive amounts in particular gasoline pools. Based on 
the number of oxygenates listed in the discussion on the oxygenates 
suboption below, there are over 90 different combinations of 
certification options and suboptions. Table #IV-1 summarizes the 
categories of options and suboptions.

   Table #IV-1.--Options and Suboptions for Certification of Detergent  
                                Additives                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Options                            Suboptions         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Option.........................  Generic Certification; *    
                                            Oxygenated;                 
                                            Nonoxygenated;              
                                            Oxygenate-Specific;         
                                            Premium:                    
                                            Oxygenated;                 
                                            Nonoxygenated:              
                                            Oxygenate-Specific.         
PADD Option for PADDs I, II, III, IV, and   Generic Certification;      
 V Outside California.                      Oxygenated;                 
                                            Nonoxygenated;              
                                            Oxygenate-Specific;         
                                            Premium:                    
                                            Oxygenated;                 
                                            Nonoxygenated:              
                                            Oxygenate-Specific.         
Fuel-specific Option......................  Parallels National and PADD 
                                             Specific Certification.    
California Equivalency....................  Per CARB Certification.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Prescribed test fuel must contain 10% ethanol.                        

B. Single-Tier Certification System

    In the NPRM, EPA proposed two detergent certification tiers. The 
first tier would target the deposit control requirements of ``typical'' 
gasoline, containing relatively moderate levels of specified fuel 
severity factors (sulfur, olefins, aromatics, and T-90). The second 
tier was proposed as a means for controlling deposit formation from the 
most severe gasolines. A gasoline would be identified as ``most 
severe'' when at least one of the identified severity factors in the 
gasoline was at or above the 95th percentile of the distribution of 
measured values for that parameter in gasoline survey data. EPA 
proposed the second tier certification because of the concern that 
these most severe gasolines might exceed the ability of the detergent 
additive, at the concentration required by the first tier, to control 
engine deposits at the required level. EPA was particularly concerned 
about the possibility that some motorists might consistently choose to 
use the same brand of gasoline, which might happen to be the most 
severe brand of gasoline available in an area. Used perennially, these 
most severe gasolines could exceed an additive's ability to control 
deposits and lead to much higher motor vehicle emissions and 
driveability problems for those motorists.
    As proposed, the additive manufacturers would certify their 
additives to the second or more severe tier through the use of test 
fuels containing higher concentrations of the gasoline severity 
parameters. The expected results would be higher additive treat rate 
requirements for the high-severity gasolines. Detergent blenders would 
be responsible for testing their gasoline on a weekly or batch-by-batch 
basis to characterize the severity of their gasoline using specified

[[Page 35323]]

test methods. Then, if the gasoline exceeded the 95th percentile of the 
gasoline severity distribution created from survey data, the fuel 
blender would have to additize its gasoline at the concentration 
prescribed for the high-severity gasoline pool.
    Comments submitted by both the oil and automobile industries were 
opposed to the two-tier scheme for additizing gasoline. These comments 
and other available information suggest that only rarely will 
particular service stations or localities continually be supplied with 
only the most severe additized gasoline. More often, the impact of 
severe gasolines will be moderated by the consumer's subsequent use of 
less severe gasoline. Furthermore, a review of PADD-specific gasoline 
survey data suggests that gasoline which may be labeled severe because 
of high levels of one or two severity factors may have relatively low 
levels of the other severity factors. Thus, the incremental testing, 
monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements that would be needed on a 
regular basis to address the relatively rare instances in which the 
impact of very severe gasoline might be significant and long-lasting do 
not seem warranted. EPA concludes that the potential benefits of a 
second tier of detergent additive certifications for severe gasolines 
are uncertain, and do not justify the incremental costs and burdens. 
This final rule, therefore, is based on a single-tier certification 
approach. A complete description of the public comments on this issue 
and EPA's associated analysis are contained in Section IV of the 
Summary and Analysis of Comments document.

C. Geographical Certification Options

    1. National Certification. To obtain a national certification, the 
certifier must demonstrate a detergent additive's compliance with the 
performance standards through testing with specified test fuel(s) based 
on characteristics of the national gasoline supply (see Section VI). 
The LAC established under a generic national certification option will 
be valid for use of the detergent in any type of gasoline, oxygenated 
or nonoxygenated, unleaded or leaded, of any octane grade, that is sold 
in the United States, including imported gasoline. However, California 
fuel marketers should be aware that CARB requires detergents used in 
California gasoline to comply with CARB detergent certification 
requirements, and that a detergent certified under the Federal program 
may or may not also satisfy CARB's certification requirements. 
Therefore, parties additizing gasoline for sale in California must 
ensure that they are in compliance with both the Federal and CARB 
detergent programs (See Section V for the applicability of a CARB 
certification in meeting Federal detergent requirements).
    The test fuel for the generic national certification option must 
contain four specified severity parameters at no less than the 65th 
percentile of the national survey data, and must be blended with 
ethanol to 10 percent of the final blended volume. As described in more 
detail in Section VI, ethanol was chosen for the generic test fuel 
because the available data shows that it tends to have a greater impact 
on deposit-forming tendency than the other oxygenates. Using different 
test fuels, national certification can also be obtained for a variety 
of subpools of the national gasoline supply (e.g., oxygenated versus 
nonoxygenated, premium, and combinations of these pools). These 
suboptions are further discussed below.
    EPA proposed the national certification option and suboptions to 
provide a broadly applicable method to certify a detergent. EPA 
anticipates that many major gasoline marketers will use the national 
certification option because of the simplicity of blending one 
concentration of detergent additive in all the fuel manufacturers' 
gasoline across the nation. In their comments on the proposed rule, the 
refining industry supported the national option and stated that most of 
its member companies would probably use this option.
    2. PADD Certification. As described above, the prescribed additive 
treatment levels under the national certification option are based on a 
spectrum of nationwide gasolines. As a result, for some pools of 
relatively low-severity gasoline distinguished by their geographical 
location, the national option may cause more additive to be used than 
necessary to maintain the required level of deposit control 
performance. Thus, additive costs might tend to be higher than 
necessary for those pools of gasoline. EPA's analysis of the 
distribution of gasoline severity factors showed that the composition 
of gasoline sold tends to differ between the various PADDs of the 
United States. This difference probably results from the varying 
sources of crude oil and the differences in crude processing 
capabilities among the refineries in each PADD, and the relatively 
consistent pattern of gasoline production and distribution within the 
PADDs.
    Given these fuel compositional differences between the PADDs, EPA 
proposed, and is now finalizing, detergent additive certification 
options applicable to the gasoline sold within each PADD. A PADD 
certification can be obtained by demonstrating compliance with the 
performance standards through testing on a specified test fuel(s) based 
on the characteristics of the gasoline sold in the given PADD. As 
summarized in Table #IV-1 above, the PADD certification option 
parallels the national certification option in that there are 
opportunities for a generic PADD certification or certification under 
specified suboptions.
    A PADD certification pertains to the additive treat rate 
requirements for the gasoline sold to retail outlets, wholesale 
purchaser consumers (WPC), or to the ultimate consumer within a PADD, 
no matter where the gasoline may have been refined or additized. This 
reflects the fact that the PADD certification test fuels are defined 
according to survey data of gasoline sold at retail outlets within the 
PADD, not gasoline produced or additized within the PADD. For a 
detergent blender who commonly distributes detergent-additized gasoline 
across PADD lines, and who wishes to have full flexibility as to the 
destination of each batch of additized gasoline, a detergent with a 
national certification would probably be more appropriate than a 
detergent subject to the use restrictions of a PADD certification. Use 
of a PADD-certified detergent will be most practical when the 
downstream distribution networks from a given blending facility 
terminate within a single PADD, or when a detergent blender is willing 
and able to implement control systems to ensure that gasoline blended 
with a PADD-certified detergent will end up at a retail outlet within 
the appropriate PADD.
    A PADD V certification is applicable only to the PADD V states 
other than California. Accordingly, the required test fuel is based on 
gasoline survey data collected from PADD V excluding California. This 
is appropriate because California Phase II reformulated gasoline is 
expected to be much less severe than gasoline available elsewhere in 
PADD V (see Section V).
    PADD certifications are likely to be sought only when the 
respective certification test fuel specifications will result in a 
lower minimum detergent treatment rate requirement than under a 
national certification, i.e. for PADDs with less severe gasoline. In 
the more severe PADDs, i.e., those in which the gasoline supply tends 
to have higher levels of deposit-forming characteristics than the 
national supply, the PADD certification test fuel specifications would 
result in higher treatment requirements. Thus the national 
certification option would likely be

[[Page 35324]]

chosen. This raises a potential concern that gasoline in relatively 
severe PADDs might receive inadequate amounts of additive.
    For this reason, the generic national test fuels have been designed 
to represent greater than average deposit-forming conditions. For 
example, as explained in detail in Section VI, this final rule 
specifies that each test fuel must contain the fuel severity factors at 
no less than the 65th percentile in the respective fuel survey 
distribution. Only a very small proportion of the gasoline sold in the 
United States contains the combination of all four of the fuel severity 
parameters at levels this high or higher. Other approaches for assuring 
adequate deposit control in the more severe PADDs were also considered 
by EPA in the NPRM. As already discussed above, one option would be to 
apply a second level of additization based on severity for national or 
PADD certification, which would be triggered by a high level of one or 
more severity parameters. For the reasons discussed, this approach was 
not followed in this final rule. Under another alternative, the 
national certification would be abandoned and only PADD-based 
certifications would be allowed. This alternative was not pursued 
because EPA judged it would multiply the costs of certification and 
recordkeeping without sufficient additional benefit. In a third 
alternative, national certification would still be allowed, but the 
specifications on national test fuel severity would be increased to 
provide additional assurance of adequate stringency for all PADDs. Due 
to the wide support expressed for the proposed option in the comments, 
the lack of support for these other alternatives, and a desire to limit 
certification testing and additization costs to levels that are offset 
by concomitant benefits, EPA has decided to finalize the proposed 
methods of national and PADD certification, and to omit the 
alternatives considered.
    EPA believes that the PADD option in conjunction with the national 
certification option will give the regulated industry a high degree of 
flexibility toward optimizing the amount of detergent additive used in 
fungible gasoline while ensuring adequate additization under either 
option. The choice for each certifier of what combination of PADD and 
national certifications to undertake will be made according to the 
characteristics of the certifier's particular refinery, distribution, 
or marketing network, weighing the additional cost of certification in 
multiple areas against the potential savings (or competitive advantage) 
of achieving a lower certified LAC.
    3. U.S. Territories. This final rule requires gasoline sold in U.S. 
territories to be additized at the concentration required under the 
national certification option. In the NPRM, EPA acknowledged that its 
information on gasoline severity and distribution networks was 
insufficient to propose that a territory may be additized consistent 
with the requirements of a particular PADD. Comment was requested on 
whether it would be appropriate to include U.S. territories under a 
PADD certification option and how territories could be appropriately 
assigned to the various PADDs. EPA also requested comment on whether 
special circumstances affecting gasoline supply, distribution, or 
marketing might make compliance with these rules unreasonably 
burdensome in some or all of the territories and whether special 
provisions should apply or if these territories should be exempted.
    EPA did not receive any response to the request for comments and 
has not obtained additional information which would help determine if 
the gasoline sold in any of the territories is consistent with any 
specific PADD. Thus, the final rule requires gasoline sold in U.S. 
territories to be additized with a nationally certified detergent at 
the appropriate level.<SUP>14 This will ensure a high level of deposit 
control protection in these territories. In the NPRM, EPA identified 
the following U.S. territories: Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Marianas Islands, and Puerto Rico. American Samoa was 
inadvertently omitted from this list, and is now properly noted as a 
U.S. territory and therefore subject to Federal gasoline detergency 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\  However, this provision of the final rule does not affect 
the potential availability of a special exemption for certain 
territories under CAA section 325. Section 325 provides that, upon 
petition by the respective governor, the Administrator is authorized 
to exempt any person or class of persons in certain territories 
(Virgin Islands, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas 
Islands, and American Samoa) from certain requirements under the 
CAA, including the gasoline detergency requirements. Such an 
exemption may be granted if the Administrator finds that compliance 
with a regulatory requirement is not feasible or is unreasonable due 
to unique geographical, meteorological, or economic factors within a 
given territory, or such other local factors as the Administrator 
deems significant. Puerto Rico is not included among the territories 
permitted to petition the Agency for an exemption under the 
provisions of Section 325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Certification Sub-Options.
    a. Nonoxygenated Gasoline Certification Option. The data presented 
in the NPRM on the fuel parameters that impact deposit-forming severity 
indicate that the addition of oxygenates such as ethanol and MTBE tends 
to increase the amount of additive required to maintain the desired 
level of deposit control protection. Thus, the generic certification 
approach, based on test fuels containing oxygenate at the maximum 
percentage, may lead to overadditization of nonoxygenated gasoline. 
Thus, EPA is permitting the separate certification of detergents for 
nonoxygenated gasolines, using appropriate nonoxygenated test fuels. 
This suboption can be used in conjunction with the national and PADD 
options, the fuel-specific option, and the premium fuel suboption.
    b. Oxygenate-Specific Certification Option. A generic national or 
PADD certification option based on ethanol-blended test fuels may 
require higher additive blend concentrations and higher costs than 
necessary for gasolines blended with oxygenates other than ethanol. 
Thus, EPA is allowing specific certification of additives based on 
testing with fuels containing other oxygenates. Examples of such other 
oxygenates include ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), tertiary amyl 
methyl ether (TAME), tertiary amyl ethyl ether (TAEE), tertiary hexyl 
methyl ether (THME), diisopropyl ether (DIPE), and tert-butyl alcohol 
(TBA). Like ethanol, the concentration of these oxygenates in the test 
fuels shall be at the maximum concentration allowable in commercial 
gasoline. However, while a detergent certified with a test fuel 
containing ethanol can be used in gasoline containing any other 
oxygenate or no oxygenate, oxygenate-specific certification will be a 
use-restricted certification option. For example, the minimum additive 
concentration determined through performance testing with MTBE-blended 
test gasoline will be applicable only to gasoline blended with MTBE, or 
without any oxygenates.
    EPA requested comment on the potential benefits, problems, and 
costs of either providing for or requiring a separate certification for 
oxygenated and nonoxygenated fuels, and on the appropriate specificity 
regarding the oxygenate to be used in certification testing. In 
particular, EPA requested comment on the potential difficulties and 
costs associated with differentiating oxygenated and nonoxygenated 
gasolines for enforcement purposes. The oil industry supported the 
options to certify additives for use in gasoline containing specific 
oxygenates, or for use in gasoline without oxygenates. The ethanol 
industry disputed the notion that ethanol is more deposit-forming than 
the other oxygenates. In addition, they expressed concern that many

[[Page 35325]]

deposit control additives are not soluble in ethanol, thus restricting 
ethanol blender choices for additizing ethanol blends. They further 
contended that fuel manufacturers and blenders may not be willing to 
continue using ethanol if they are placed at economic risk in case of 
disruption in the supply of the appropriate detergent additives 
available to them. EPA evaluated the available data on the solubility 
of detergent additives in ethanol-gasoline blends and determined that, 
even though some detergent additives may not be soluble in pure 
ethanol, most (if not all) are soluble in the 10 percent and lower 
ethanol blends currently being produced.
    The ethanol industry also commented that fuel blenders who blend 
ethanol into gasoline would be precluded from doing so if the gasoline 
is already blended upstream with a detergent additive that is either 
not certified for, or not used in sufficient amount to account for, the 
addition of ethanol. This final rule requires incremental additization 
when ethanol is added to previously additized gasoline, as proposed, 
but to address the ethanol industry's concern, the rule permits a 
different detergent to be used than the one already present in the 
gasoline. The amount of incremental detergent must be sufficient to 
account for the increase in base fuel severity caused by the presence 
of ethanol, as well as the detergency requirements of the added ethanol 
volume itself. To allow the proper amount to be determined, the newly 
added detergent must be one which has been certified both for 
nonoxygenated gasoline and for ethanol-blended (generic use) gasoline. 
The proper incremental amount can then be computed based on the 
different rates required under the two certifications. Additional 
discussion of this issue and similar ``cures'' for other use 
restrictions can be found in Section VIII of this preamble.
    c. Premium Grade Certification Option. An analysis of AAMA fuel 
survey data in the NPRM showed that premium gasolines, defined as 
having an octane rating of $91 (R+M)/2, tend to have lower olefin 
content, sulfur content, and T-90 than regular and intermediate grade 
gasolines. Of the four pertinent nonoxygenated fuel parameters, only 
aromatic content is higher in the premium grade. This suggests that 
premium fuels may require a lower concentration of detergent additive 
to maintain the same level of deposit control performance.
    Based on these compositional differences, EPA expects that a 
separate detergent certification suboption for use in premium gasoline 
within the national and PADD certification options would allow the 
industry to reduce costs by reducing the amount of additive required. 
The oil industry supported the premium suboption in their comments on 
the NPRM. Thus, the final rule will allow certification of additives 
for use in premium gasoline.
    d. Reformulated Gasoline Certification Option. The Federal RFG 
regulations (59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994, 40 CFR 80.40) require 
changes to gasoline in certain areas where the national ambient air 
quality standard for ozone is not being met, and these changes may 
potentially affect the deposit forming tendency of these gasolines. The 
first phase of the RFG requirements, which took effect January 1, 1995, 
is expected to cause a small reduction in some or all of the four 
deposit-forming severity factors, although the oxygenate that the 
program requires to be blended into RFG could counter the potential 
fuel severity benefits. However, the effect of oxygenates must be 
considered for all fuels under the detergents program and is therefore 
not a particular concern with respect to RFG. Beginning in the year 
2000, more stringent RFG fuel reformulation requirements will take 
effect, and may result in more substantial reduction in deposit-
formation severity (mainly, a large sulfur reduction).
    Anticipating that RFG may cause changes in gasoline severity, EPA 
considered including a separate detergent certification option for use 
in RFG. In the NPRM, EPA proposed the adoption of either a required or 
optional RFG certification option and asked for comments on these 
potential options. The oil industry favored a separate RFG option as 
long as it was not required. However, EPA recognizes that sufficient 
RFG survey data is not yet available for differentiating the deposit-
forming tendency of RFG from conventional gasoline, or from which to 
establish test fuel specifications for an RFG test fuel. When 
additional data becomes available, the Agency intends to review the RFG 
severity parameter levels and compare them to other pools of gasoline. 
If a review of the survey data shows that there is indeed a significant 
difference in the severity of RFG, EPA may propose an RFG option in a 
future rulemaking. In the meantime, additives may be certified with a 
separate treat rate for RFG based on a refinery's own segregated RFG 
pool using the procedures put into place for the fuel-specific 
certification option. Otherwise, additives which are certified under 
any geographic option may be used in RFG at the certified treat rate.
    5. Recertification Requirements. In the NPRM, EPA discussed a 
possible mechanism whereby national or PADD recertification could be 
required if the composition of the gasoline pool in question changed 
sufficiently to bring the adequacy of deposit control into question. 
For this purpose, EPA would monitor trends in the composition of the 
respective gasoline pools, and would periodically recalculate the 
national and PADD percentile concentration values for the relevant 
parameters. A need for recertification would be indicated if the newly 
calculated 50th percentile level of any one of the monitored fuel 
parameters was greater than or equal to the 60th percentile level in 
the original fuel survey data.
    However, to require recertification under the national and PADD 
certification options would entail the adoption of new test fuel 
specifications, which would most appropriately occur through a 
subsequent rulemaking. Thus, today's rule does not include any 
provisions that would automatically trigger national or PADD-based 
recertification requirements. If EPA should determine in the future 
that gasoline composition has shifted to such an extent to suggest that 
detergents certified pursuant to the test fuel specifications in 
today's final rule may no longer provide sufficient deposit control 
protection, then EPA will publish a public notice that explores 
potential recertification requirements and seeks public comment.

D. Fuel-Specific Certification Option

    1. General Description. The fuel-specific certification option 
proposed in the NPRM is also being finalized in today's rule. This 
option provides fuel and additive manufacturers an opportunity to 
tailor certification test fuels and subsequent detergent additive treat 
rate requirements to the unique characteristics of segregated pools of 
low-severity gasoline. These special gasoline pools may be produced 
from inherently mild crude oil or, in other cases, from refinery 
practices that reduce the deposit-forming tendency of the gasoline. 
Such gasoline may require reduced concentrations of detergent additives 
to meet the detergency requirements. Reduced additive concentrations, 
when multiplied by the large volume of gasoline that is produced, could 
provide a refiner or other fuel manufacturer with a substantial savings 
in additive costs. To take advantage of this opportunity, however, the 
fuel manufacturer must be able to segregate its special gasoline 
pool(s) from the general fuel supply until the gasoline has been 
blended with

[[Page 35326]]

the detergent additive specifically certified for use in this fuel. 
Once properly additized, the gasoline need not be segregated from other 
additized gasoline.
    The fuel-specific option requires demonstration of the deposit 
control performance standards through testing of a detergent additive 
in a test fuel that is representative of the subject segregated 
gasoline pool. To determine the composition and characteristics of the 
segregated pool, certifiers are required to measure the concentrations 
of aromatics, olefins, and sulfur in the gasoline, as well as the T-90 
distillation point. These parameters are to be measured at least once 
per month over a twelve-month period at each refinery or other facility 
contributing to the defined gasoline pool, and a percentile 
distribution of these defining characteristics is to be constructed. A 
fuel sample, located from within the defined pool or blended from the 
refinery blendstocks normally used to manufacture this pool, and 
containing each of the parameters at a level no less than the 65th 
percentile value of the entire pool, is then required to serve as the 
test fuel (see Section VI.B., below, and Sec. 80.164(c)(2)).
    Fuel-specific certification is fundamentally different from all 
other certification options, in that the precise test fuel 
specifications are defined by the certifier (under prescribed 
procedures) rather than defined by EPA and codified in the regulations. 
Thus, the certifier under the fuel-specific option must be a person who 
has access to and control over the subject gasoline supply. Frequently, 
this will be the refiner or other fuel manufacturer. EPA anticipates 
cooperation between additive and fuel manufacturers in implementing the 
fuel-specific option. The additive manufacturer retains responsibility 
for (1) the registration of its detergent additive, and (2) proper 
labeling of the additive as use restricted. In this instance, however, 
it may be the fuel manufacturer, or another party with title to and 
access to the segregated fuel supply, who takes responsibility for 
certification instead of the detergent manufacturer.
    Use of a detergent under the conditions of a fuel-specific 
certification is restricted only to the defined pools of gasoline 
produced by or distributed from the facilities included in the fuel 
composition survey. Furthermore, as described in detail below, the 
certification will become invalid if the composition of the subject 
gasoline pool changes beyond a prescribed amount.
    2. Variants. The fuel-specific option, like all other certification 
options, gives registrants the flexibility to certify with non-
oxygenated, oxygenated, and/or oxygenate-specific test fuels. Data 
indicates that non-oxygenated fuels have a lower deposit forming 
tendency than oxygenated fuels and thus require lower concentrations of 
detergent additives to provide deposit control. Furthermore, because 
the deposit-forming tendency of oxygenated fuels varies from one 
oxygenate to the next, some oxygenated fuels may require a lower 
additive concentration than others. As mentioned previously, 
substantial savings could result from tailoring the detergent 
concentration requirements to the deposit-forming characteristics of 
the fuel. Accordingly, fuel manufacturers using the fuel-specific 
option may further optimize their detergent use by certifying under one 
or more oxygenate-related suboptions. These suboptions are implemented 
for fuel-specific certification in the same manner as for national or 
PADD certifications.
    EPA is also aware that some gasolines have such extremely low 
deposit-forming tendencies that they may require only a PFID control 
additive or, perhaps in some cases, no detergent additive at all. In 
these special situations, certifiers may provide EPA with PFID and IVD 
test results under the fuel-specific option to demonstrate that a 
deposit control additive is not necessary for deposit control.
    3. Monitoring and Recertification Requirements. The certifier under 
the fuel-specific option is required to monitor fuel composition on a 
monthly basis, and must provide an annual report to the Agency on the 
composition of the gasoline covered by the certification and how the 
composition deviates from baseline data. Recertification will be 
required if the composition of the gasoline pool changes such that the 
new 50th percentile concentration of any non-oxygenate fuel parameter 
(i.e. aromatics, olefins, sulfur, or T-90) exceeds the 60th percentile 
concentration reported in the original certification letter. New 
percentiles are calculated on an annual basis using the last 12 months 
of data. If the baseline percentile level is exceeded, the detergent 
blender will be required to stop using the fuel-specific detergent 
until recertification is complete and, in the meantime, must substitute 
either a national or appropriate PADD-certified additive within 45 days 
of the certification renewal date on which the recertification became 
necessary to avoid a violation. The fuel-specific detergent may have 
also been certified under the national or PADD certification options. 
If so, the same detergent additive may be used at the appropriate 
national or PADD-certified treat rate.

V. CARB Certifications

A. Background

    Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act generally prohibits 
states from adopting their own state fuel programs to control motor 
vehicle emissions, once EPA has regulated a fuel characteristic or 
component under 211(c)(1). EPA's adoption of a Federal deposit control 
additive program would therefore preempt certain state fuel programs. 
However, section 211(c)(4)(B) clarifies that the state of California is 
not subject to this prohibition. CARB has in fact implemented a 
detergent additive certification program effective January 1, 1992 
(Title 13, Section 2257 of the California Code of Regulations). EPA 
determined that a CARB detergent certification would provide adequate 
demonstration that a detergent could be used to meet Federal detergent 
performance requirements under the Federal interim program.<SUP>15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A detailed comparison of the CARB and Federal detergent 
programs is included in the Summary and Analysis of Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that the CARB detergent program would continue to provide 
a level of deposit control protection equivalent to that of the Federal 
program, once the Federal certification program was implemented, the 
Agency proposed that the applicability of a CARB detergent 
certification would be limited to gasolines sold in PADD V. EPA's 
judgment that CARB-certified detergents would provide adequate deposit 
control performance in all PADD V gasolines was based on the 
similarities in the gasoline composition (and hence deposit forming 
tendency) between California and the rest of PADD V, and the 
similarities between CARB's and the proposed Federal deposit control 
performance requirements. EPA proposed that PADD V gasoline additized 
with CARB-certified detergents (CARB-based PADD V certification) would 
be subject to the same use restrictions as gasoline certified under the 
other PADD-specific options.
    Public comment was in agreement with EPA that, for California 
gasoline, a CARB-certified detergent would provide at least as 
effective deposit control as a detergent meeting Federal detergent 
certification requirements. However, commenters disagreed with each 
other on the extent to which a CARB-certified additive could be used to 
satisfy Federal requirements for non-California gasoline. The 
automotive industry

[[Page 35327]]

stated that CARB-certified detergents would not provide adequate 
deposit control protection for non-California gasolines because of 
differences in fuel composition, particularly under CARB's Phase II 
reformulated gasoline requirements. Some commenters from the petroleum 
industry supported the applicability of a CARB certification within 
PADD V, while others stated that a CARB certification should be 
applicable nationwide provided that CARB certification fuel parameter 
levels meet EPA requirements. Other commenters stated that a CARB 
certification should be accepted nationwide in order to avoid the 
economic burden on small and independent refiners which would result 
from being required to meet two sets of certification requirements.

B. Applicability of CARB Equivalent Certification

    To determine the appropriate applicability of the CARB 
certification program, EPA compared the level of deposit control 
protection which will be provided under the Federal detergent 
certification program finalized today to that provided under CARB's 
program (see the Summary and Analysis of Comments for an extensive 
discussion). In conducting this analysis, EPA compared the performance 
standards, test procedures, and test fuels of the two programs, and 
concluded that they were sufficiently similar to ensure that the use of 
a detergent certified under CARB's current detergent program in 
California gasoline will provide at least as effective deposit control 
as a detergent meeting Federal certification requirements. However, 
implementation of California Phase II RFG requirements has greatly 
widened the compositional differences between California and non-
California gasolines. A detergent certified for the relatively low-
severity conditions of California Phase II gasoline can no longer be 
expected to provide adequate deposit control in gasoline in the other 
PADD V states or elsewhere in the nation. Thus, EPA will accept data 
which supports a valid CARB detergent certification as sufficient 
demonstration that a detergent additive is capable of satisfying 
Federal gasoline detergency performance standards for CARB phase II 
RFG, but not for non-California gasolines.
    Certain changes proposed by CARB for its detergent program would, 
if implemented, serve to make the two certification programs even more 
similar. However, if CARB should implement other, unanticipated 
changes, then EPA would evaluate whether such changes would reduce the 
acceptability of CARB-certified detergents in meeting Federal gasoline 
detergency requirements, and would propose changes to these 
applicability provisions through another rulemaking if warranted.
    To ensure that a CARB-certified detergent is only used to meet 
Federal detergency requirements in California phase II RFG, the 
gasoline must be additized in California, or sold or dispensed to the 
ultimate consumer in California (or to parties who sell or dispense to 
the ultimate consumer in California), or both. Some commenters 
suggested that EPA should allow CARB-certified detergents to be used in 
gasoline sold in all PADDs, provided that the severity parameter levels 
in the gasoline did not exceed the severity limits in the CARB 
certification. EPA believes this approach is not feasible, since it 
would require a complex set of fuel composition monitoring requirements 
similar to those proposed under the two-tier certification scheme (see 
Section IV.B) which the Agency has determined would not be cost 
effective. EPA does not believe that requiring all gasoline sold 
outside of California to meet Federal detergent certification 
requirements would cause significant financial hardship to smaller 
gasoline marketers, as some commenters suggested. The costs to these 
marketers of using a CARB-certified detergent would be similar to the 
costs of using a Federally certified detergent, and the necessary 
infrastructure is likely to exist already in the fuel marketers' 
facilities outside of California due to their obligation to comply with 
the interim Federal program. EPA believes that use of CARB-certified 
detergent additives in non-California gasolines would not provide 
adequate deposit control protection. Thus, to allow small gasoline 
marketers to use CARB-certified detergents in non-California gasolines 
could significantly reduce the emissions control benefits of this 
program.

VI. Certification Test Fuels

A. National and PADD Certification Test Fuels

    1. Proposed Test Fuel Requirements. Under the proposed 
certification test fuel requirements, testing to demonstrate detergent 
additive effectiveness would be conducted using test fuels containing 
specified levels of five parameters (olefins, sulfur, aromatics, T-90 
distillation point, and oxygenate content) that have been shown to 
affect gasoline deposit-forming tendency. The minimum levels of these 
severity factors in the test fuels proposed for each certification 
option corresponded with values at the 55th to 65th percentiles of the 
1989-1991 AAMA fuel survey data for the gasoline pool covered by the 
certification option in question (e.g., national, PADD, premium, etc.).
    EPA also discussed in the NPRM its concerns that the specified 
level of these fuel severity factors may not completely define a 
gasoline's deposit-forming severity. If this were the case, detergent 
certifiers might blend certification test fuels that contained the 
required levels of the fuel severity factors, but nevertheless were not 
representative of in-use gasoline deposit forming tendency. To help 
account for unknown factors in gasoline composition that might affect 
fuel severity, EPA proposed that gasoline samples for certification 
testing must be drawn from normal production gasoline stock (finished 
commercial gasoline) taken from normally operating refinery and/or 
terminal facilities. In addition, the test fuels required for each 
certification were to be drawn from separate production/distribution 
facilities in different areas of the nation. This requirement would 
tend to increase the certainty that unknown severity factors would be 
represented by ensuring that various refinery stocks were tested, and 
would act as a screen to prevent the use of inappropriately mild (i.e., 
low deposit-forming severity) fuels. It would also serve to limit the 
opportunity to select test fuels from refineries that, for unidentified 
reasons, tend to produce gasoline with a relatively low deposit-forming 
tendency. To ensure that the certification process accounts for any 
interactive effects between detergent additives and non-detergent 
additives, EPA proposed that the type and concentration of non-
detergent additives in the certification fuels must not differ in any 
way from the fuels that are dispensed to the ultimate consumer.
    EPA recognized in the NPRM that it could be difficult for an 
additive certifier to locate a single finished gasoline which contained 
all four nonoxygenate severity factors at the required levels. To 
reduce this difficulty while ensuring adequate test fuel severity, EPA 
proposed that testing for each certification option be conducted using 
a matrix of four test fuels, each containing a different combination of 
two of the nonoxygenate severity factors at levels no less than the 
required 55th to 65th percentile values. Alternatively, additive 
certifiers could perform testing in as few as two fuels, as long as 
each of the severity parameters was present at the required levels in 
at least one such fuel.

[[Page 35328]]

    The proposed minimum of two test fuels was believed to be necessary 
to account for the deposit-forming tendency of oxygenates. EPA proposed 
that one of the test fuels would be required to contain 10 volume 
percent ethanol, and another would be required to contain 15 volume 
percent MTBE. These oxygenates were selected for testing because they 
were expected to have the most significant impact on gasoline deposit-
forming tendency of the oxygenates within their respective oxygenate 
classes (alcohols and ethers), and because they were expected to be the 
two most widely used oxygenates.
    EPA also proposed that certification test fuels be contained in 
new, sealed containers during transportation and storage and that these 
fuels could be stored no longer than one full year from when they were 
drawn from the refinery before testing.
    2. Final Test Fuel Requirements.
    a. Test Fuel Source and Screening Requirements. In response to the 
NPRM, commenters stated that finding finished fuels that met the test 
fuel compositional specifications would be extremely burdensome and 
impractical, and that EPA should instead allow the use of refinery 
blendstocks to formulate certification fuels. To ensure that test fuels 
were not inappropriately mild, they stated, test fuel blenders could be 
required to provide EPA with documentation of the source and 
identification of all of the refinery blendstocks used, as well as the 
fuel parameter levels in the finished test fuel. Finally, they stated 
that the finished test fuel should be required to conform to ASTM D 
4814, for commercial gasolines. In combination, the commenters felt 
that this information should alleviate EPA's concern about using 
blendstocks for formulating test fuels.
    EPA acknowledges that the proposed requirement that test fuels be 
drawn from finished gasoline stock is a burdensome one. However, the 
ideas raised by the oil industry, while somewhat helpful, are not 
sufficient to prevent intentional manipulation of test results, or to 
ensure that test fuels will adequately represent the deposit-forming 
severity of in-use gasoline.
    Thus, in the Reopening Notice, EPA asked for comment on other 
potential approaches to ensure the adequacy of test fuels if they were 
created from refinery blendstocks (see Summary and Analysis of 
Comments), and has finalized one of these approaches in today's rule. 
Specifically, the final rule requires that, to be eligible as a test 
fuel, a candidate nonoxygenated, unadditized fuel must be tested to 
demonstrate its severity by causing the formation of at least a 
specified level of IVD in a 10,000 mile BMW test.
    In its comments, API stated that increasing the required number of 
expensive BMW tests just for this purpose would be cost-ineffective and 
unnecessary. However, most other commenters supported EPA's proposed 
demonstration test. Some commenters stated that, if a performance 
severity test were established, it should be the exclusive requirement 
for test fuel qualification, and that fuel parameter requirements 
should be dropped. Other commenters stated that if such a test were 
established, it should be allowed as an alternative to meeting fuel 
parameter requirements in qualifying test fuels for certification 
testing purposes.
    EPA believes that the performance-based approach for qualifying 
test fuels provides a practical and effective way to screen out test 
fuels of inappropriately low deposit-forming severity that otherwise 
conform to compositional specifications. Thus, this final rule allows 
the use of refinery blendstocks for formulating test fuels, provided 
that the unadditized test fuel severity is demonstrated by IVD testing. 
If test fuels are drawn directly from finished gasolines, they do not 
have to undergo severity demonstration testing to qualify for use in 
certification tests.
    EPA disagrees with the comment that a test fuel deposit 
demonstration criterion will not be cost-effective. In the absence of 
this assurance, EPA cannot be confident that test fuels created from 
refinery blendstocks will be adequate to assure proper additization of 
the in-use gasoline to achieve the emission reduction goals of the 
detergent certification program. In comparison with the original 
proposal, which would have required detergent certification testing to 
be conducted in up to four specified test fuels, each to be located 
from normal finished fuel supplies, the cost of a single demonstration 
test for a batch of test fuel is modest. Furthermore, the costs for 
test fuel blending and IVD demonstration testing can be shared. For 
example, a testing laboratory can qualify a large quantity of test fuel 
and then use it for certifying multiple detergent additives. In these 
and other ways, the costs associated with the test fuel IVD 
demonstration requirements can be spread over a large number of 
detergents or companies. Thus, EPA believes that the test fuel deposit 
demonstration requirement is reasonable and necessary, and that it can 
be met in a very cost-effective manner.
    EPA also disagrees with the comment that certifiers should be given 
the option to qualify test fuels either by meeting the requirements of 
the IVD demonstration test or by meeting the test fuel compositional 
criteria, rather than being required to satisfy both. The fuel 
parameter specifications are necessary to set the overall stringency of 
the test fuel and to provide reasonable assurance that the composition 
of the deposits formed is representative of deposits that result from 
in-use gasoline. The deposit demonstration test is necessary to confirm 
that the level of stringency prescribed by the fuel parameter 
specification has been achieved. Thus, both types of test fuel criteria 
are necessary to assure the validity of subsequent detergent 
certification testing.
    EPA received varied comments regarding an appropriate qualification 
standard, i.e., the minimum amount of IVD that the unadditized test 
fuel must generate during the demonstration test in order to qualify 
for use in detergent certification testing. Suggestions ranged from 175 
mg of deposit formation per valve up to 500 mg per valve. To resolve 
this issue, EPA reviewed available BMW IVD test data on unadditized 
test fuels.<SUP>16 Tests on gasoline of ``typical'' deposit-forming 
tendency, i.e., containing fuel severity factors at generally lower 
levels than required in the detergent certification test fuels and more 
representative of average severity gasolines, were selected as the 
subject of this study. The results of this analysis showed that a 
typical unadditized nonoxygenated fuel can generally be expected to 
produce approximately 290 mg of deposits over the accumulation of 
10,000 miles in a BMW test. Uncertainty in the 5,000 mile test data 
precluded EPA from considering a standard based on that shorter 
test.<SUP>17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\  Memorandum to the docket from David Swain, OMS, entitled 
``Data Review of Intake Valve Deposit Weights for Detergent 
Certification Fuel Screening'', Docket item IV-B-07.
    \17\  It should be noted that the 5,000-mile deposit 
demonstration test, in addition to its technical shortcomings, would 
save only about 25 percent of the cost of a 10,000-mile test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, the final rule requires the accumulation of 
at least 290 mg of IVD using unadditized, nonoxygenated fuel, during 
the 10,000 mile BMW test, for qualifying base test fuels for the 
national certification option. The same standard will apply to PADD 
certifications in those PADDs where the IVD severity factor 
distributions tend to be similar to or higher than the national levels 
(PADDS I and III). For the other PADDs characterized by fuels which 
tend to

[[Page 35329]]

have lower levels of severity factors most related to IVD formation, 
the standard is adjusted downward by 10 percent. For the premium 
certification test fuels, the standards are reduced an additional 10 
percent below the respective all-grade test fuels. Thus, to qualify for 
generic certification testing in PADDs II, IV, and V (excluding 
California), the unadditized, nonoxygenated test fuels must demonstrate 
a minimum accumulation of 260 mg of IVD (i.e., 90 percent of 290 mg) in 
a 10,000 mile BMW test. The 260 mg standard also applies to the premium 
option at the national level and in PADDs I and III. For the premium 
option within PADDs II, IV, and V (excluding California), test fuels 
meeting the applicable nonoxygenate fuel parameter levels must 
accumulate at least 235 mg of IVD (i.e., 90 percent of 260 mg). These 
IVD demonstration criteria are expected to achieve the goal of the IVD 
demonstration test while ensuring that the applicable fuel parameter 
specifications remain the primary contributor to test fuel severity. At 
the discretion of the certifier, the IVD severity demonstration test 
may be terminated at fewer than the 10,000 miles specified in the test 
procedure. However, the IVD demonstration criteria specified above (for 
the 10,000 mile test length) must be satisfied for the test to qualify 
for certification purposes. Once the engine has been disassembled to 
examine the IVD (other than by removing the fuel injectors for 
boroscope inspection) the test must be terminated.
    The IVD demonstration is to be conducted on base test fuels, i.e., 
fuels which conform to the specified nonoxygenate severity factor 
requirements, but do not contain oxygenate (or detergent). Once 
qualified for use in certification testing, a base test fuel can be 
blended with ethanol for use as a generic test fuel, and/or with other 
oxygenates for use in oxygenate-specific certification testing options.
    As suggested by a commenter, the final rule requires test fuels to 
conform to ASTM D 4814 specifications.<SUP>18 To further ensure the 
representativeness of test fuels and the composition of deposits, the 
rule also requires the certifier to provide to EPA documentation of the 
source and identification of all of the refinery blendstocks used, as 
well as the fuel parameter levels in the finished test fuel. Consistent 
with the proposal, test fuels for national and PADD certification may 
not be formulated using refinery blendstocks from a gasoline pool which 
has been certified as a fuel-specific pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\  ASTM D 4814-95c, ``Standard Specification for Automotive 
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel'', 1995, is incorporated by reference in 
40 CFR 80.164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Test Fuel Severity Factors. The weight of public comment 
supported the proposed five severity parameters (aromatics, sulfur, 
olefins, T-90, and oxygenates) identified by EPA to characterize the 
severity of gasoline for forming IVD and PFID. As stated above, some 
commenters encouraged EPA to include additional severity factors to 
these five; however, the information available on these potential 
factors was not sufficient to conclude that any other factor would be 
appropriate. Some commenters questioned whether these factors should be 
considered equal in their severity, especially with respect to their 
specific effect on PFID and IVD formation. However, EPA could not find 
sufficient information to justify giving more weight to one severity 
factor over another for either form of deposit. For these reasons, EPA 
is finalizing the detergent certification program based on the five 
severity factors weighted equally as proposed.
    While the majority of commenters agreed that the impact of 
oxygenates should be accounted for in the definition of certification 
test fuels, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) commented that only 
limited test data is available to indicate that a higher detergent 
treatment rate may be necessary in oxygenate blends. EPA disagrees. 
Data from a number of sources indicates that the addition of 
oxygenates, in particular ethanol, has a substantial impact on gasoline 
deposit-forming tendency.<SUP>19 Also, most commenters stated that 
testing on fuel containing 10 volume percent ethanol provides a more 
difficult test of a detergent's deposit control efficacy than testing 
on a fuel that contains 15 volume percent MTBE, and hence EPA should 
allow testing on a single ethanol-containing certification fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\  See the extensive discussion in the NPRM, the memorandum 
to the docket entitled ``Data Review of Intake Valve Deposit (IVD) 
Weights for Detergents Certification Fuel Screening'', by David 
Swain, OMS (Docket item IV-B-07), and the Summary and Analysis of 
Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the weight of available test data and public 
comment, ethanol is included in the test fuel specifications related to 
each of the generic certification options, i.e., those options which 
certify a detergent for use in any oxygenated or nonoxygenated gasoline 
in the related PADD-specific or national pool. To ensure representation 
of the maximum deposit-forming effects of ethanol (or other oxygenate, 
in the case of an oxygenate-specific certification option), additive 
certifiers must blend the oxygenate into the test fuel so that its 
final concentration is no less than the maximum concentration that the 
oxygenate can be used in commercial gasoline. For ethanol this 
corresponds to the addition of ethanol so that the final concentration 
in the certification test fuel after blending is no less than 10 
percent by volume. In the case of MTBE, this corresponds to the 
addition of MTBE so that the final concentration in the certification 
test fuel after blending is no less than 15 percent by volume. 
Oxygenates used for certification testing purposes must be of fuel-
grade quality. The use of oxygenates that are specially processed to 
remove impurities is not allowed.
    c. Number and Severity of Test Fuels. As mentioned earlier, EPA 
proposed in the NPRM that a detergent additive be tested in at least 
two, and up to four test fuels, for each certification option selected. 
In commenting on the proposal, API, CMA, and others from the petroleum 
and detergent additive industries stated that this was unnecessary and 
that EPA should allow certification testing to be conducted using a 
single test fuel. On the other hand, AAMA stated that requiring more 
than one certification test fuel would allow for the inclusion of more 
refinery streams in the formulation of certification test fuels, 
thereby providing more representative results. Requiring multiple test 
fuels would also tend to help ensure that yet-to-be-identified fuel 
severity factors are represented in the certification test fuels.
    As described above, EPA decided to allow use of test fuels 
formulated to the severity factor specifications from refinery 
blendstocks as an alternative to using test fuels drawn from finished 
commercial fuel supplies. This decision eliminates one of the most 
important reasons for which multiple test fuels were originally 
proposed, i.e. to ensure that detergents are tested in the presence of 
adequately high levels of fuel severity factors, without creating the 
impractical requirement that one finished fuel must be found which 
happens to contain the specified levels of all the requisite 
parameters. In addition, as described above in the section on severity 
factors, EPA has determined that testing on ethanol-containing fuel 
will suffice to demonstrate a detergent's effectiveness in other 
oxygenated fuels, obviating the need for separate tests to be conducted 
in the presence of ethanol and MTBE.
    Reflecting these changes in the program's requirements, EPA has 
further simplified the certification

[[Page 35330]]

testing program by requiring detergent performance testing in only one 
test fuel for each certification option selected. Of course, this does 
not preclude any additive certifier from performing multiple tests 
itself on a variety of test fuels derived from different sources. Such 
redundancy would help to ensure that the additive is as effective as 
claimed in all the gasolines in the gasoline pool.
    Having decided to require one test fuel per certification option, 
EPA also reviewed the required levels of test fuel severity factors. 
For the NPRM, EPA originally derived the nonoxygenate fuel parameter 
specifications for each of the fuels in the proposed test fuel matrices 
through a complex process based on ensuring no less than a 1-in-5 
chance that a randomly selected commercial fuel would meet the required 
fuel parameter levels. As mentioned previously, this process resulted 
in proposed fuel parameter levels corresponding to the 55th to 65th 
percentile range of concentrations relative to the national gasoline 
pool.
    Although commenters generally opposed the 20 percent availability 
approach EPA used to determine test fuel specifications, there was 
broad support for the 65th/55th percentile fuel parameter levels 
derived from this approach. EPA believes it is appropriate to require 
that each nonoxygenate fuel parameter be represented at its respective 
65th percentile level, in the applicable gasoline pool (national, PADD, 
premium, etc.). This decision is based on the facts that: (1) test 
fuels may now be specially blended so that fuel parameter 
specifications no longer need to be linked to fuel sample availability; 
(2) there is no conclusive data on which to weight any one fuel 
parameter's impact on fuel severity above another's, and (3) the 65th 
percentile levels predominated in the originally proposed test fuel 
matrix.
    The required parameter levels are to be met in the certification 
test fuel before the addition of ethanol. EPA analyzed AAMA fuel survey 
data, comparing levels of the nonoxygenate fuel parameters in 
nonoxygenated fuels to those in oxygenated fuels (all oxygenates 
included in the analysis).<SUP>20 While the results of this study were 
not totally consistent, they indicated that the parameter levels in 
oxygenated fuels tended to be lower than those in nonoxygenated fuels. 
This result suggests a dilution effect when oxygenate is added. Thus, 
specifying that the prescribed 65th percentile levels be met in the 
test fuel before the addition of the oxygenate appears to conform to 
the real-world behavior of in-use fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Analysis of Differences in Nonoxygenate Fuel Parameter 
Levels in Oxygenated and Nonoxygenated Gasolines: 1992-1994 American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association Data'', George Hoffman, 
DynCorp/DynTel, Docket item IV-B-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comments, API urged EPA to use test method reproducibility 
to establish enforcement tolerances, i.e., levels below the 
specifications which would still be considered to be in compliance with 
the specifications, for the measurement of test fuel parameters (per 
ASTM methods). EPA rejects this approach. As with the approach taken 
for the deposit control performance standards, EPA believes that the 
required test fuel parameter levels should be absolute minimums which 
must be satisfied. Allowing downward variability in meeting test fuel 
compositional requirements would compromise the program's emissions 
control benefits as would allowing downward variability in meeting 
deposit control testing standards.
    d. Other Issues. EPA received a number of comments on its proposed 
requirement that the non-detergent additives present in certification 
fuels must be representative of those used in commercial gasoline. The 
petroleum and detergent additives industries stated that it is unlikely 
that non-detergent additives affect deposit-forming tendency because 
they are present in commercial fuels at very low concentrations. Hence, 
they stated that it was not necessary to require that non-detergent 
additives be present in certification test fuels.
    EPA's chief concerns regarding the additive content of test fuels 
are (1) that no detergent-active substances be present in the test fuel 
other than those substances which are part of the detergent additive 
package being tested, and (2) that the deposit control performance 
demonstrated by the detergent package in the test fuel not be adversely 
affected by other additives encountered in use. In reviewing this 
subject, EPA concluded that it is not practical at this time, nor has a 
significant need yet been demonstrated, to require specific 
nondetergent additives to be present in certification test fuels. EPA 
has also concluded that requiring the identification of nondetergent 
additives in the test fuel would not very effectively address EPA's 
concerns; moreover, many certifiers would not be able to fully comply 
with such a requirement.
    Thus, consistent with the views of the commenters, today's rule is 
generally not prescriptive with respect to nondetergent additive use in 
certification test fuels. Typical nondetergent additives may be, but 
are not required to be present in the test fuels. Also, the presence of 
such additives does not need to be reported. The addition of detergent-
active substances other than the additive being tested is specifically 
prohibited. On the other hand, if EPA subjects a certified detergent to 
confirmatory testing, then EPA may include in its test fuel any 
nondetergent additive which can reasonably be expected to be 
encountered in use. If the performance of the certified detergent is 
adversely affected by the presence of such additive, to the extent that 
the detergent fails the confirmatory test, then the certification might 
be jeopardized (see Sec. 80.161(e) regarding the disqualification of 
detergent additives).
    The additive industry disagreed with EPA's proposed requirement 
that certification test fuels must be contained in new, sealed 
containers during storage and transportation, claiming that this 
requirement would be infeasible, unreasonable, and expensive, and would 
generate a lot of waste. Instead, it said, clean tank trucks should be 
adequate for the transport and storage of test fuels. EPA is persuaded 
that the use of clean tank trucks or other containers will ensure that 
test fuels are not contaminated or otherwise altered in a way that 
might bias certification test results, and that requiring the use of 
new sealed containers is unnecessary to maintain sample integrity. 
Therefore, the certification program requires that certification test 
fuels be transported and stored in clean tank trucks or other 
containers. In response to EPA's request for data on the affect of fuel 
storage on test fuel severity, comments from the additive industry 
suggested that the passage of time would tend to increase test fuel 
severity due to the effects of fuel oxidation. Therefore, the use of 
test fuel which has been stored would tend to make the performance test 
more stringent. EPA agrees with these comments. Furthermore, no data is 
available to indicate that gasolines may become less severe over time. 
Therefore, EPA will not limit the time a test fuel sample may be stored 
before certification testing is conducted.
    The majority of commenters were in agreement with EPA's proposal to 
define test fuel parameter levels based on an analysis of the three 
most current years of AAMA fuel survey data. However, several 
commenters from the petroleum industry stated that EPA should use 
refinery baseline data collected under the Reformulated Gasoline 
Program. EPA disagrees with this comment. The RFG baseline data

[[Page 35331]]

pertains to 1990 only. Therefore, it would not provide as current, nor 
as representative, a characterization of longer-term trends in fuel 
quality as the proposed use of the average of three years of AAMA data. 
The analysis presented in the NPRM was based on 1989 through 1991 AAMA 
fuel survey data. However, more recent AAMA data is available now. 
Thus, consistent with the proposal and the support expressed in the 
public comment, the fuel specifications for detergent certification 
testing have been updated to reflect the results of the 1992-1994 
gasoline AAMA survey data.<SUP>21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\  ``Statistical Analysis Methodology: 1992-1994 American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association Data'', George Hoffman, CSC, 
Docket item IV-B-06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fuel-Specific Certification Test Fuels

    Unlike the test fuels described above for certification testing 
under the national and PADD options, which are designed to represent 
fungible gasolines, EPA proposed that the certification test fuels 
under the fuel-specific option would be tailored to represent the 
unique deposit-forming tendency of segregated gasoline pools. As 
proposed, the additive certifier would have to establish its own test 
fuels specific to its gasoline pool. To characterize the severity of 
the test fuel, the certifier would use the four nonoxygenate parameters 
specified under the national and PADD certification scheme for 
nonoxygenated fuels, and would include oxygenate as a severity 
parameter if oxygenate was used in the specified gasoline pool. 
(Otherwise, the detergent would be restricted to use in non-oxygenated 
fuel-specific gasoline.) EPA proposed that, subject to EPA's prior 
approval, other parameters could be used in addition to the standard 
four or five parameters. In order to use another parameter, EPA 
proposed that the certifier of a fuel-specific detergent would submit 
test data to EPA to demonstrate that the subject parameter affects the 
deposit-forming severity of the segregated gasoline pool for which the 
certification is sought. In addition, the applicant would submit a test 
method approved by the American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) to measure the additional fuel parameter in finished gasoline. 
EPA proposed that the Agency would respond to such requests within 90 
days after receiving the test data to support the use of the additional 
parameters.
    EPA received several comments expressing support for the proposal 
to require certifiers of fuel-specific detergent to characterize the 
composition of their segregated gasoline pool. Under this final rule, 
the certifier must create and maintain fuel survey data from each of 
the facilities that contribute to the subject gasoline pool for a 
complete year. At a minimum, this data must include monthly 
measurements of gasoline aromatics, olefin, and sulfur content, and T-
90 distillation point. The certifier must also calculate and provide to 
EPA the percentile concentrations or levels for each of the fuel 
parameters studied for the segregated pool as a whole (see 
Sec. 80.164(c)). The use of such additional parameters will not require 
prior approval by EPA since EPA judged that EPA's prior approval was 
not necessary to ensure their proper use. However, to be taken into 
account by EPA in case of confirmatory testing (see Section VII.D.), 
such additional parameters must be surveyed, analyzed, and reported 
according to the same requirements applicable to the four standard 
parameters.
    Consistent with the certification program's approach for national 
and PADD certification test fuels, under this final rule, testing for 
generic fuel-specific certification must be conducted using a single 
test fuel that has nonoxygenate fuel parameter levels at or above their 
respective 65th percentile values for the subject segregated gasoline 
pool as determined by the fuel marketer's required fuel survey 
analysis. Also paralleling the national and PADD certification options, 
a nonoxygenated fuel-specific test fuel may be blended with ethanol (to 
a concentration of at least 10 volume percent ethanol in the finished 
fuel) to qualify as a test fuel for certifying a detergent for use with 
any oxygenate. The requirements for oxygenate-specific fuel-specific 
certification test fuels also parallel those under the national and 
PADD certification options. Certification fuels used in conducting 
testing to demonstrate that either a PFID-only detergent or no 
detergent additive are needed to satisfy EPA's IVD/PFID control 
requirements must meet the same compositional criteria described above.
    No specific comments were received on whether EPA should apply an 
IVD demonstration fuel qualification criterion under the fuel-specific 
certification option. Gasoline within a given fuel-specific gasoline 
pool is likely to be much less variable in composition than fungible 
gasoline for several reasons. The sources contributing to a fuel-
specific pool will likely be limited in number and belong to a single 
refiner. In addition, refining parameters would be more closely 
controlled to maintain the unique composition that defines the 
segregated fuel-specific gasoline pool. The fuel composition monitoring 
and associated detergent recertification requirements under the fuel-
specific option will act to limit the variability in the composition 
(and thus the severity) of such gasoline pools. Thus, under this final 
rule, fuel-specific certification test fuels are not required to 
satisfy deposit demonstration test requirements.

C. Summary of Test Fuel Requirements

    The following table summarizes test fuel compositional requirements 
under the different national, PADD, premium, and fuel-specific 
certification sub-options.<SUP>22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Sec. 80.164 of the regulatory text for specific values 
under the different certification options and suboptions. 65th 
percentile nonoxygenate fuel parameter levels must be met prior to 
the addition of the required oxygenate.

[[Page 35332]]



                 Table VI-1--Summary of Test Fuel Requirements; Generic Detergent Certification                 
                               [For use in any gasoline grade, with any oxygenate]                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        IVD                                     
                                            Nonoxygenate fuel      demonstration                                
             Gasoline pool                      parameters            standard        Oxygenate/concentration   
                                                                        (mg)                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National..............................  65th percentile in                  290   10% Ethanol.                  
                                         national survey.                                                       
PADDs I and III.......................  ......do.................           290       Do.                       
PADDs II, IV, and V...................  ......do.................           260       Do.                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Premium Detergent Certification                                        
                                [For use in premium gasoline, with any oxygenate]                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        IVD                                     
                                            Nonoxygenate fuel      Demonstration                                
             Gasoline pool                      parameters            Standard        Oxygenate/concentration   
                                                                        (mg)                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National..............................  65th percentile in                  260   10% Ethanol.                  
                                         national/premium survey.                                               
PADDs I and III.......................  65th percentile (premium)           260       Do.                       
                                         in respective PADD.                                                    
PADDs II, IV, and V...................  ......do.................           235       Do.                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Nonoxygenate or Oxygenate-Specific Certification                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Nonoxygenate fuel      IVD Demonstration                                  
           Gasoline pool                  parameters          standard  (mg)         Oxygenate/concentration    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any Grade:                                                                                                      
    no oxygenate..................                                                                              
(1)Same as national or PADD         None.................                                                       
 generic certification shown above                                                                              
    oxy specific..................                                               Max concentration.             
Premium Only:                                                                                                   
    no oxygenate..................                                                                              
(1)Same as national or PADD         None.................                                                       
 premium certification shown above                                                                              
    oxy specific..................                                               Max concentration.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Fuel-Specific Certification                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Nonoxygenate fuel    IVD demonstration                                       
          Gasoline pool                parameters         standard (mg)           Oxygenate/concentration       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Oxygenate....................  65th percentile in   none..............  None.                                
                                   the specified pool.                                                          
Any Oxygenate...................  ......do...........  ......do..........  10% Ethanol.                         
Specific Oxygenate..............  ......do...........  ......do..........  Specified oxygenate at maximum conc. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Similar to the national and PADD certification case, fuel-specific certifications may be obtained for all     
  gasoline grades or for premium gasoline.                                                                      

    Test fuel samples used in IVD and PFID performance testing for a 
given detergent must conform to identical qualification criteria, but 
need not be drawn from the same batch of gasoline. Likewise, the 
samples of the detergent additive package used in the required 
certification tests need not be from the same production batch, 
provided that both samples conform to the compositional information 
provided to EPA by the additive certifier.

D. Test Fuels for Leaded Gasoline Certification

    The certification program retains the interim rule's specifications 
for leaded gasoline test fuels to allow use of existing test data to 
the greatest extent possible. Given the very low level of leaded 
gasoline use in the U.S., EPA believes that increasing the stringency 
of these test fuels would not result in an environmental benefit that 
would compensate for the cost incurred in conducting the additional 
testing which would be required.

E. Measurement of Gasoline Fuel Parameters

    For the purposes of measuring the fuel parameters which define 
certification test fuels, EPA proposed to allow the use of specified 
ASTM procedures, as well as other procedures proposed for use under the 
RFG program (58 FR 11722, February 26, 1993). This proposal was 
expected to allow reasonable flexibility in test procedure selection 
while ensuring the needed measurement precision. EPA also wanted to 
coordinate testing and compliance requirements across the RFG and 
detergent additive rulemakings. To that end, the Agency proposed to 
incorporate into the final detergent additive program, as appropriate, 
any changes to the fuel parameter measurement procedures finalized in 
the RFG program.
    Certifiers under the fuel-specific option may use additional fuel 
parameters to describe the composition of their segregated gasoline 
pools and to

[[Page 35333]]

define the required certification test fuels (see Section VI.B.). EPA 
proposed to require that ASTM-approved test procedures be used for 
measurement of such additional test fuel parameters under the fuel-
specific certification option.
    The RFG regulations, including final versions of the fuel parameter 
test requirements, were published by EPA on February 16, 1994 (59 FR 
7716). In finalizing these test procedures under the RFG program, the 
Agency addressed some of the issues that were also raised in the 
context of the public comment on the detergent NPRM.<SUP>23 For the 
reasons discussed under the RFG program Federal Register notice, and in 
the interest of maintaining uniformity of fuel parameter testing 
requirements between regulatory programs, EPA is adopting the 
procedures finalized under the RFG program (40 CFR 80.46) for the 
required measurement of levels of sulfur, olefins, aromatics, T90, and 
oxygenate content under this final regulation. The use of alternate 
test procedures is not allowed except as provided for under the RFG 
program. As discussed in the final RFG rule, EPA believes that allowing 
the use of additional alternate procedures would result in uncertain 
quality and unacceptable variability of test results. EPA is currently 
considering modifying 40 CFR 80.46 to update the test procedure for the 
measurement of olefins. If such a change is adopted, and if other such 
revisions are implemented, they will naturally also apply to the fuel 
parameter measurement requirements under this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\  See the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Reformulated 
Gasoline Final Rule, December 13, 1993, EPA Air Docket A-92-12, 
Docket item V-B-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because EPA is not finalizing the proposed two-tier certification 
scheme with associated terminal fuel parameter monitoring requirements 
(see Section IV), the required measurement of fuel parameters will be 
limited to that necessary to formulate test fuels and to conduct fuel 
survey analysis under the fuel-specific certification option. EPA 
believes that restricting the procedures used to measure fuel parameter 
levels to those prescribed under the RFG program will not represent an 
undue hardship to the industry considering the limited fuel parameter 
measurement requirements.
    No specific comment was received on EPA's proposal that additional 
test fuel parameters which may be used under the fuel-specific 
certification option must be measured according to ASTM procedures. 
Comment from the petroleum industry generally supported the use of 
ASTM-approved methods and any other test methods which may be specified 
for use under the reformulated gasoline program for use in measuring 
test fuel parameters. Since it is unclear what additional parameters 
might be used to define fuel-specific gasoline pools and the fuel 
parameters selected may not commonly be measured by industry, EPA now 
believes that it may be too restrictive to require to use of only ASTM-
approved procedures. Given this concern, EPA will require that test 
procedures used to measure optional fuel parameters under the fuel-
specific option must conform to reasonable and customary standards of 
repeatability and reproducibility, and reasonable and customary limits 
of detection and accuracy for the type of test procedure in question. 
ASTM-approved measurement procedures would conform to this requirement, 
as might others that have not received ASTM approval.

VII. Certification Tests and Performance Requirements

A. Certification Test Procedures

    In the NPRM, EPA proposed test procedures to evaluate IVD and PFID 
control that were based on draft procedures under evaluation by ASTM. 
It was also proposed that, if these test procedures were finalized by 
ASTM, they would be incorporated by reference in this final rule. This 
proposal was supported in the public comment. ASTM has since finalized 
their IVD and PFID test procedures with minimal changes from the 
earlier drafts proposed by EPA, and the procedures are incorporated in 
this final rule.<SUP>24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\  ASTM test method D 5598-94, ``Standard Test Method for 
Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for 
Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling'', and ASTM test method D 
5500-94, ``Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Unleaded 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit 
Formation'' are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 80.165(a) and 
(b) respectively. ASTM is currently considering revisions to the 
test validation criteria for these test procedures to provide more 
flexibility (See Docket item IV-E-58). When available from ASTM, EPA 
will evaluate the suitability of such revisions, and if appropriate, 
might undertake a rulemaking activity regarding their adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IVD and PFID tests adopted by today's notice require an 
accumulation of 10,000 miles on a standard test vehicle. EPA proposed 
an alternative IVD test which could be conducted using an abbreviated 
5,000 mile test cycle. However, EPA has determined that the use of such 
a shortened test cycle might result in a significant increase in test 
variability. Therefore, EPA will not accept results from this test for 
IVD certification testing purposes.<SUP>25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\  For similar reasons, EPA will not allow the use of the 
abbreviated 5,000 mile IVD test for demonstrating the deposit 
forming tendency of unadditized fuels. (See Section VI.A.4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is aware that ASTM is developing updated deposit control 
test procedures which might be finalized by ASTM shortly after this 
rule is published. Several commenters requested that EPA speed adoption 
of these procedures when they become available. EPA recognizes that, 
because these test procedures would use more current vehicle 
technology, they might provide an improved means of determining the IVD 
and PFID control requirements of modern vehicles. Therefore, the Agency 
is interested in expediting consideration of the adoption of these test 
procedures, particularly if they are finalized by ASTM in time to allow 
their potential use in meeting initial detergent certification testing 
needs. If EPA judges that the updated ASTM procedures are suitable for 
regulatory purposes, the Agency will either publish a proposal 
requesting comment on their adoption either as alternate or replacement 
procedures for the deposit control performance tests adopted by today's 
rule, or will publish a direct final rule for this purpose. A necessary 
criterion for the adoption of the updated procedures would be the 
determination of a correlation of test results from these procedures 
with the performance standards of the current procedures, or data that 
demonstrates that a specific performance standard for these procedures 
provides an appropriate level of deposit control performance.

B. Deposit Control Test Standards

    1. PFID-Control Test Standard. For the PFID control test procedure 
finalized by today's notice, EPA proposed a performance standard of 
less than 5 percent flow loss in any injector over the accumulation of 
10,000 miles. Public comment requested that EPA adopt the 10 percent 
standard which was widely used by industry to prevent driveability 
problems. Commenters stated that the 10 percent standard should be 
sufficient to prevent a PFID emissions increase given the stringency of 
the PFID test relative to typical in-use driving conditions.
    EPA accepted the traditional industry PFID standard of 10 percent 
under the interim program to allow maximal use of existing test data. 
However, to ensure realization of the potential emission benefits to be 
provided by effective deposit control, the proposed 5 percent

[[Page 35334]]

standard is being adopted in the detergent certification program. The 
necessity of the more stringent performance standard follows logically 
from an understanding of the mechanism by which PFID cause exhaust 
emissions to increase. As was reviewed in the NPRM, the most 
significant factor appears to be the difference in PFID-related flow 
loss between one fuel injector and another.<SUP>26 Electronic fuel 
control equipment onboard the vehicle cannot adjust the air/fuel ratio 
for combustion efficiency in each cylinder; rather, it adjusts the air/
fuel mixture in response to the average oxygen level in the exhaust. As 
a result, the fuel flow may be suboptimal for every cylinder. Some 
cylinders will be overfueled, causing HC and CO emissions to increase 
and fuel economy to decrease. In other cylinders, the combustion 
mixture will be overly lean, causing a NO<INF>X emissions increase. 
Furthermore, as the disparity between cylinders rises, the combustion 
process in any cylinder will become less and less efficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Tupa, R.C., Koehler, D.E., ``Gasoline Port Fuel Injectors--
Keep Clean/Clean up With Additives,'' SAE Technical Series No. 
861536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The experience of auto manufacturers indicates that the average 
driver will tolerate some degradation in vehicle driveabiliy. When 
deposits increase to a level where the flow rate of one or more 
injectors is reduced by 10 percent or more, however, combustion 
efficiency and vehicle driveability will be impaired to the extent that 
driver complaints can be expected.<SUP>27 Thus, the 10 percent standard 
has been the traditional industry norm. However, it is clear that the 
efficiency of the combustion process may be significantly affected, and 
emission rates increased, well before this point. Because the main 
focus of the detergent certification program is the prevention of 
emission problems, not driveability problems, EPA believes the 10 
percent standard to be inappropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\  Tupa, R.C. and Dorer, C.J. ``Gasoline and Diesel Fuel 
Addditives for Performance/Distribution Quality--II,'' SAE Technical 
Series No. 861179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although emission effects may begin as soon as any PFID begin to 
accumulate, a standard of zero percent would obviously not be 
reasonable. EPA has chosen instead to harmonize its PFID performance 
standard with that of CARB, which implemented the 5 percent standard 
under its regulation of detergent additives in January of 1992. 
Experience under CARB's program has shown that the 5 percent standard 
can be readily achieved using commonly available additive formulations. 
Furthermore, as discussed in the NPRM, the application of a 5 percent 
rather than a 10 percent PFID standard will usually not be the deciding 
factor in controlling the amount of detergent needed to pass the 
certification performance test requirements. Rather, in most cases, the 
treatment rate required for IVD control will be the controlling factor. 
Still, in those instances where PFID control requirements do affect the 
treatment rate, the 5 percent standard will offer adequate stringency 
to make the test meaningful from an emissions control standpoint.
    2. IVD-Control Test Standard. For the IVD test, EPA proposed a 
performance standard deposit weight of less than 100 mg-per-valve on 
average over the accumulation of 10,000 miles. The public comment 
supported adoption of this standard. Also, this is the performance 
standard required by CARB. Based on the reasons discussed in the NPRM 
and the public's support, EPA is adopting the proposed 100 mg-per-valve 
IVD standard in this final rule.

C. Alternate Performance Requirements for Leaded Gasoline

    The certification program, like the interim program, allows the use 
of either carburetor-type, PFID, or IVD/PFID detergents to comply with 
leaded gasoline detergency requirements. The responsibilities of fuel 
and detergent manufacturers regarding the requirements for leaded 
gasoline are otherwise the same as those described previously for 
unleaded gasoline.

D. Confirmatory Testing by EPA

    EPA may conduct confirmatory testing on gasoline blended with a 
detergent additive to verify that the additive performs as well as or 
better than required by the deposit control standards finalized today. 
At its discretion, EPA may choose to conduct one or more of the 
prescribed vehicle tests on a detergent additive. For this testing, EPA 
would blend the additive in the designated test fuel at the minimum 
concentration specified by the manufacturer. The severity parameter 
levels in the test fuel would be equal to or less than that required 
for the respective test fuel. The test fuel may also contain any 
mixture of nondetergent gasoline additives found in commercial gasoline 
at the concentration normally used. For verification of a CARB-based 
certification, EPA would use the applicable CARB test procedures and 
standards. EPA would run the IVD and perhaps the PFID ASTM test and a 
carburetor test, and if the applicable performance standards were not 
met, the certification could be invalidated. (See Section III.A.3. and 
Sec. 80.161(e) regarding the disqualification of detergent additives).
    The final rule does not include tolerances to allow for test-to-
test variability as requested by some commenters. EPA cannot establish 
test tolerances for the same reason ASTM was unable to specify 
precision parameters for their IVD and PFID test procedures. A 
sufficient amount of repeat tests using these tests is not available. 
Certifiers must therefore take into account a reasonable level of 
uncertainty in evaluating their test results and reporting the 
detergent's LAC. At its discretion, EPA may take such uncertainty into 
account when evaluating the results of any confirmatory tests it may 
conduct.

VIII. Enforcement Provisions

A. Overview

    The enforcement provisions of the detergent certification program 
closely track those in effect under the interim detergent program 
promulgated on November 1, 1994. Following is a general outline of the 
enforcement provisions that will apply in the certification program. In 
general, these are the same enforcement provisions that apply under the 
current interim program, with certain revisions that make them more 
efficient and streamlined. (See section VIII(B) of this preamble for a 
discussion of the revisions to the interim rule's enforcement 
provisions.) Since the interim program is to continue in effect for 
non-certified detergents until the certification program becomes 
mandatory (on July 1, 1997 for detergent manufacturers, detergent 
blenders, and other upstream parties, and on August 1, 1997 for 
gasoline retailers and wholesale-purchaser consumers [WPCs]), revisions 
to the interim program's enforcement provisions will apply as of 
September 3, 1996. Enforcement provisions that are not revised by 
today's rule will continue to apply under both the interim and final 
certification programs.
    For the convenience of the reader, many of the previously 
promulgated provisions that are not being revised in this rule (such as 
the core of the prohibited acts, liability, and product transfer 
document sections), are nonetheless repeated in the regulations issued 
today. It is important to note that this repetition is to make the Code 
of Federal Regulations more useable and to avoid confusion. The 
repetition of previously promulgated regulatory text is not intended to 
be a re-promulgation

[[Page 35335]]

of that text. The only regulatory provisions promulgated today are new 
provisions, and the revisions to previously promulgated provisions.
    1. Certification Conformity. Effective August 1, 1997, all gasoline 
sold or transferred to the ultimate consumer, and effective July 1, 
1997, all gasoline sold or transferred to those who sell or transfer to 
the ultimate consumer, must be additized with detergent that has been 
certified pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 80.161. The detergent 
must be present in at least the lowest additive concentration (LAC) 
certified to EPA as effective, and in conformity with the use 
restrictions of the certification. Prior to July 1, 1997, detergent 
manufacturers may choose to certify their detergents in conformity with 
Sec. 80.161. Gasoline/PRC additized with such certified detergents must 
be additized in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 80.161.
    Use restrictions pertain to the type of gasoline product to which 
the detergent may be added under a given certification. As previously 
described, detergents certified under the national option may be used 
with any gasoline (e.g., oxygenated or non-oxygenated, premium or 
regular) sold anywhere in the U.S. (subject to approved state 
programs). Detergents may also be certified at a different LAC for use 
with gasoline sold to the ultimate consumer in a particular PADD. 
Detergents certified under the fuel-specific option may only be used 
with the segregated gasoline specified in the certification. 
Furthermore, within a national, PADD-specific, or fuel-specific 
certification, a detergent may be separately certified at a different 
LAC for use only with non-oxygenated fuel, for leaded fuel (for nonroad 
use only), for fuel blended with a specific oxygenate, and/or for 
premium fuel. Finally, detergent certifications based on certification 
by the California Air Resources Board (CARB-based detergents), may only 
be used with gasoline additized and/or ultimately sold in California.
    Under the certification program, detergent in its pure state, i.e., 
prior to its addition to gasoline, must meet the chemical composition 
and concentration specifications set forth in its 40 CFR part 79 
registration (as is also the case under the interim program rule), and 
in its Federal certification.
    2. Compliance With Volumetric Additive Reconciliation (VAR) 
Requirements. All parties who blend detergent into non-exempted 
gasoline, or into components added to gasoline after the refining 
process (post-refinery components, or PRC), must complete mandatory 
accounting reconciliations establishing that the product was additized 
at an actual detergent concentration that was at least equal to the LAC 
certified as effective to prevent deposit formation. All additized 
gasoline and PRC must be accounted for on VAR records.
    Automated detergent blenders must complete these mandatory 
reconciliations in consecutive compliance periods, each no greater than 
31 days in length. The reconciliation for automated blenders is based 
on averaging the additization concentrations over the compliance 
period. Today's final rule, like the interim program, does not require 
that a per-gallon minimum detergent concentration be attained by 
blenders within the averaging period. Hand-blending detergent blenders 
must complete the mandatory VAR on a per-batch basis.
    VAR reconciliation records (VAR formula records) and VAR supporting 
documentation must be maintained by detergent blenders for a five year 
period from date of creation.
    3. Equipment Calibration. To assure measurement accuracy, under 
this final rule, automated additization equipment must be calibrated on 
a semiannual basis, and every time the detergent in the storage tank is 
changed to one with a different viscosity.
    4. Product Transfer Documents. (PTDs). All regulated parties 
transferring gasoline, detergent, or additized PRCs (except retailers 
and WPCs transferring gasoline to the ultimate consumer) must also 
transfer product transfer documents (PTDs) providing necessary 
information about additization status, identity of the product, and 
identity of the transferring parties. All regulated parties receiving 
such product, including retailers and WPCs, must likewise obtain these 
documents. Most regulated parties will be required to maintain these 
documents for five years. However, WPCs receiving such documentation 
for additized gasoline will not have any record maintenance requirement 
as to the received documents.
    5. Liability and Defenses. As is typical in EPA fuels programs, 
presumptive liability will be the cornerstone of compliance assurance 
under the certification program. All parties in the relevant gasoline, 
detergent, and detergent-additized PRC distribution chain for a 
nonconforming product will be presumed liable for detergent program 
violations arising from that nonconformity, specifically, violations 
involving the sale, transfer, etc. of nonconforming detergent, 
nonconforming gasoline, and nonconforming additized PRC, as applicable. 
Two exceptions to this general rule exist, however. First, carriers are 
only presumptively liable for violations discovered at their own 
facilities. For downstream violations, carriers will be deemed liable 
only when EPA can prove that they caused the violations. Second, for 
VAR violations, expected to be the primary source of violations under 
the detergent program, only those parties meeting the definition of 
detergent blender for the nonconforming product will be presumptively 
liable.
    In addition, any regulated parties that EPA can establish caused 
VAR violations will be deemed liable for these violations, and branded 
refiners will be vicariously liable for any violations, other than 
violations of the PTD provisions, found at facilities operating under 
the refiner's brand name. Presumptive liability for PTD violations is 
imposed under the certification program only on those parties owning, 
leasing, operating, controlling, or supervising facilities at which 
such violations are found.
    All parties subject to presumptive and vicarious liability have the 
right to assert an affirmative defense to that liability.
    6. Exemptions. As provided in the interim program, racing and 
aviation fuel, and detergent and gasoline used for research, 
development, and testing purposes, are exempt from the requirements of 
the detergent certification rule, provided certain safeguards are met 
to ensure the proper use of these exempted fuels. In addition, provided 
certain conditions are satisfied, gasoline additized in the state of 
California is exempt from the VAR requirements of today's certification 
rule, and gasoline sold within California is exempt from the rule's PTD 
requirements.

B. Enforcement Aspects of the Certification Program, Including 
Clarifications of, and Changes to, the Interim Program

    While the enforcement provisions of the certification program 
closely track and continue those found in the current interim program, 
there are certain important aspects in which EPA is revising its 
enforcement provisions, for both the interim and certification program. 
The following description of the enforcement program includes 
modifications of the interim program. These changes primarily result 
from industry queries about the practical implication of certain 
provisions of the interim program rule. The Agency provided 
implementation guidance on some aspects of the interim rule in

[[Page 35336]]

response to these queries, through the issuance of four Detergent Rule 
Question and Answer Documents (Q&A Documents or Q&As). In addition, 
some of the statements found in the Q&A Documents were issued by EPA to 
address the Agency's implementation concerns that became apparent to 
EPA upon initiating its enforcement program. All four Q&A Documents are 
available in the docket (items IV-C-08 through IV-C-11). Also available 
in the docket is a summary of significant industry implementation 
questions that have not been incorporated in a Q&A document (item VI-D-
57).
    Since these Q&A Documents do not have the same legal force as a 
regulation, the Agency is incorporating these provisions in today's 
rule. All of these modifications adopted into today's rule are within 
the scope of the proposals found in the NPRM, and are logical 
outgrowths of the proposal, typically based on comments in the form of 
industry queries. The changes and clarifications mitigate industry 
burdens in comparison to the regulatory language found in the current 
interim program, while at the same time, maintain the effectiveness of 
the Agency's detergent additive enforcement program.
    Other changes from the interim program are also discussed below. 
These changes were developed from ideas presented in the NPRM, or are 
based on proposals raised in the Reopening Notice. The discussion of 
these enforcement provisions includes EPA's response to comments 
received about the proposals.
    1. VAR Requirements. Mandatory VAR procedures are the foundation of 
today's certification program, as they have been under the interim 
program. All detergent blenders are required to record their actual 
detergent concentration attained for a specified compliance period and 
compare it with the detergent's applicable certified LAC. If the actual 
detergent concentration for the compliance period is equal to or 
greater than the LAC, then the blender's detergent concentration rate 
is in compliance with the VAR requirements. To help prevent 
misadditization, automated detergent blenders are prohibited from 
setting their additization equipment at rates below the LAC rate. Hand 
blenders are required to calculate VAR compliance for every load of 
gasoline or PRC additized, for each detergent used in the load, and 
each certified LAC rate used.
    a. Automated Detergent Blender Compliance Periods. The interim 
program final rule specified that VAR compliance periods for automated 
blenders may continue no more than a calendar month, and may not extend 
beyond the end of the calendar month in which they are started. The 
monthly time period was established because it was considered a 
reasonable compromise between industry's desire to average additization 
compliance over an extended period, and the Agency's need to ensure an 
effective additization level in the actual gasoline dispensed to 
consumers. The original proposal in the NPRM was for a weekly VAR 
compliance period. After reviewing industry comments to the NPRM 
universally requesting VAR periods longer than a week's duration, the 
Agency re-evaluated the matter and established the monthly period in 
the final interim rule.
    It was subsequently brought to the Agency's attention that tying 
VAR compliance periods to calendar months was causing operational 
problems for some detergent blenders. Blenders claimed that varied 
operational procedures and needs made such rigid terminations 
difficult. In the Q&A Documents, therefore, EPA relaxed this 
requirement and permitted blenders to terminate their monthly VAR 
compliance periods on the last working day of the month, or on the 
first working day of the next month, etc. (See Q&A Document #2, Q.13, 
p.8; and Q&A Document #4, Q.3, p.4.)
    One blender suggested a manner of resolving these operational 
concerns in a much simpler manner, by structuring the automated blender 
monthly compliance periods so that they could last no longer than 31 
days, without being restricted to a calendar month. Thus, the problems 
involving calendar month terminations would be alleviated. (See Docket 
item IV-E-44.)
    The Agency agrees that this is a reasonable method of ensuring that 
automated VAR compliance periods are no greater than a month, without 
forcing regulated parties to conform their operational practices to 
rigid calendar month time frames. Therefore, today's final rule adopts 
this flexible approach for both the interim and certification programs, 
specifying that the automated VAR compliance period must be less than 
or equal to 31 days, at the blender's option.
    The interim program rule requires that the VAR record identify the 
dates of the compliance period, as was proposed in the NPRM. The Agency 
has also interpreted this requirement in the Q&A Documents. (See Q&A 
Document #2, Q.13, p.8 & 9; and Q&A Document #4, Q.3, p.4 & 5.) Under 
this interpretation, if the VAR formula record for a particular 
compliance period includes all the additizations occurring within a 
certain calendar month, then the VAR formula record need only identify 
the month. However, if the compliance period does not include the 
entire calendar month, then the blender must indicate on its VAR 
records the exact dates and times of the period's beginning and end. 
The point of recording such information is to ensure that the VAR time 
periods are inclusive of all additizations. Today's final rule includes 
these requirements and interpretations for both the interim and 
certification programs.
    As in the interim program, the certification program requires 
termination of the VAR period when an automated blender's additization 
equipment concentration rate is increased more than 10 percent over the 
original rate. A new reconciliation period must be commenced at that 
point. The 10 percent limit was intended to provide industry with some 
flexibility in adjusting additization equipment while preventing large 
increases in additization rates as compensation for significant under-
additizations. It was not intended to prohibit the use of a temporary 
rate change to correct a misadditized batch of gasoline, or to fix a 
temporary equipment problem. In Q&A Document #4 (q.5, p.6), EPA 
clarified its intent in promulgating this provision and stated that it 
would allow temporary rate changes beyond the 10 percent cutoff, 
provided that the purpose is to correct a temporary problem involving a 
batch misadditization and that documentation about the temporary 
correction is maintained.
    Today's rule contains the rate change flexibility as introduced in 
the Q&A Documents. It also permits rate changes solely intended to 
correct an equipment malfunction, provided that any detergent used in 
this corrective procedure and not blended with gasoline is subtracted 
from the detergent volume totals. Similarly, today's rule provides that 
automated blenders may set their equipment's concentration rate lower 
than the LAC, provided such alteration is a documented temporary 
procedure performed solely to correct a batch misadditization. In the 
NPRM, EPA proposed that automated blenders could never set their 
equipment lower than the LAC, and the interim rule incorporated this 
proposal. However, based on experiences of blenders under the interim 
rule, and in the interest of encouraging correction of batch 
misadditizations within a VAR compliance period, EPA is including this 
exception to the LAC rate minimum in today's final rule.

[[Page 35337]]

    b. VAR Formula Records per Detergent Storage System. As proposed in 
the NPRM, the interim program requires automated blenders to create a 
separate VAR formula record for each detergent storage tank. However, 
some blenders expressed concern to the Agency about the rigidity of 
this requirement, since their detergent additization systems were fed 
by more than one tank or container, and it would thus be difficult to 
create separate VAR records for the different tanks. (See Q&A Document 
#1, Q.9, p.6.) To address this concern and provide the necessary 
operational flexibility for such blenders, the Agency stated that it 
would allow VAR records to be based on detergent tank storage systems. 
(Q&A Document #1, supra.) Today's final rule formalizes this more 
flexible approach.
    c. Brands and Grades of Gasoline on VAR Records. As proposed in the 
NPRM, the interim rule requires brands and grades of the gasoline 
product covered by a VAR formula record to be listed on that record to 
ensure identification of the product covered. Detergent blenders 
expressed concern about this requirement because brands of product were 
not always known and because product identification was available on 
supporting records and was thus not necessary on each formula record. 
(See Q&A Document #1, Q.17, p.7; and Docket item IV-E-44.)
    These concerns prompted an Agency Q&A Document response, specifying 
that gasoline brands had to be identified only when known to the 
blender. Today's final rule adopts this Q&A provision, and provides 
further flexibility by permitting product identification as to brand 
and grade to be recorded on supporting documentation. As to gasoline 
identification on the VAR formula record itself, detergent blenders 
only have to identify, when relevant, that the product is additized 
under a customer-controlled proprietary system. This latter requirement 
is necessary to alert Agency auditors that a party in addition to the 
terminal operator might be liable for VAR violations for this product.
    The additional flexibility in these provisions will facilitate VAR 
recordkeeping tasks without interfering with the Agency's need for 
proper identification of additized product.
    d. Recording of Detergent LAC and the Actual Concentration. As 
proposed in the NPRM, the interim rule required that the LAC must 
appear on the VAR formula record and in detergent manufacturer blending 
instructions in units of gallons of detergent per gallons of gasoline. 
However, in implementing the detergent registration provisions, the 
Agency realized that such a figure would typically contain three zeros 
after the decimal point because the amount of detergent being used per 
gallon of gasoline is so small. The constant use of such a figure would 
be unwieldy and difficult to work with. Therefore, EPA advised blenders 
that the LAC would be permitted to be stated in terms of gallons of 
detergent per one thousand gallons of gasoline (Docket item IV-C-12). 
This more workable LAC identification system is contained in today's 
final rule. Further, today's rule requires the LAC to be reported in 
relation to the volume of PRC in which the detergent is blended, as 
well as gasoline volume, since the effective detergent concentration 
depends on the total volume of additized product.
    Neither the NPRM nor the interim rule specified the number of 
figures to which the blender must express actual detergent 
concentration. Pursuant to a request for clarification of the Agency's 
intent on this issue (see Q&A Document #1, Q.22, p.9), today's final 
rule clarifies that the actual concentration must be expressed to four 
figures. This specification is appropriate, given the large volumes 
typically encountered.
    Today's final rule also specifies that the LAC identified on the 
VAR records and in the manufacturers' blending instructions to their 
customers must also be expressed to four figures. Neither the NPRM nor 
the interim rule specifically addressed this point. Both concentrations 
now have to be recorded to the same arithmetic rounding standard. This 
will facilitate comparison of the LAC with the blender's actual 
detergent concentration, and it also ensures that this information is 
standardized on all VAR formula records.
    e. VAR Recording of Use-Restricted LACs. Under the interim program, 
a detergent can be registered with multiple LACs for use of the 
detergent in different types of gasoline. For example, a detergent can 
have one LAC for generic product, and another, lower LAC for leaded 
gasoline. The generic/leaded distinction retains limited relevance 
under today's final rule, because the sale or dispensing of leaded 
gasoline for use in nonroad vehicles continues to be permitted even 
though the sale or dispensing of such product for use in highway 
vehicles was banned as of January 1, 1996.
    As previously mentioned in this preamble, there are additional 
certification rule situations under which a detergent may be certified 
with multiple LACs. As proposed in the NPRM and codified in the interim 
program, under the certification program a VAR formula record may 
account for the use of only one such certified LAC. Additization based 
on a different certified LAC must be recorded on a different record. In 
addition, the VAR formula record for a detergent's use-restricted LAC 
must state the respective use restriction(s) for the LAC on the VAR 
record. This requirement will highlight for the regulated party, and 
for the Agency, the specific use for which the detergent is certified, 
and will help ensure that gasoline is additized at a proper rate.
    f. Diluted Detergent. Under the interim rule, any change in 
detergent package composition which changes the LAC requires a new 
registration. Thus, a detergent blender could not dilute a detergent 
with the marketer's own gasoline in order to make the detergent less 
viscous for ease in use in the colder winter months.
    Pursuant to a request to permit such detergent dilution, EPA has 
allowed such a practice, since it does not make the detergent less 
efficient in preventing deposit formation, and it facilitates winter 
use of the detergent (Q&A Document #4, Q.1, p.1.). Safeguards are 
established under the Q&A to ensure that the use of this procedure does 
not result in less effective additization. Blenders using this 
procedure are required to use the diluted detergent at an LAC rate that 
compensates for the dilution, and they are required to inform EPA of 
this usage in writing, prior to the dilution. Today's final rule 
codifies this provision allowing lenders to dilute their detergent for 
winter handling, thus modifying the strict prohibition against 
detergent package LAC variation originally proposed in the NPRM.
    g. VAR Recording of Gasoline Which is Overadditized for the 
Anticipated Addition of Ethanol or Other PRC. Under the interim 
program, excess detergent can initially be added to gasoline to account 
for the anticipated later addition of unadditized ethanol or other PRC 
to that gasoline. The purpose of such initial overadditization of the 
gasoline portion is to ensure that the combined gasoline/PRC product 
contains the appropriate detergent concentration.
    Neither the NPRM nor the interim program rule specified how this 
permitted practice was to be recorded on the VAR formula records. EPA 
clarified this matter by the issuance of Q&A Documents which stated 
that the Agency expects such a VAR formula record to identify the 
volume of gasoline being overadditized, and the anticipated volume of 
ethanol/PRC being accounted for. In addition, EPA expects that the 
volume of ethanol/PRC being accounted

[[Page 35338]]

for by the gasoline overadditization is to be included in the recorded 
final volume of product additized (Q&A Document #1, Attachment 1, p.24-
25; and Q&A Document #2, Q.8, p.7). Such identification on the VAR 
record is necessary to highlight that the blender is over-additizing 
gasoline in this manner, as well as to ensure that the actual detergent 
concentration for the gasoline/PRC blend is sufficient to effectively 
control deposit formation.
    Today's final rule codifies these VAR recording clarifications 
found in the Q&A Documents, so as to make the VAR records reflect the 
reality of this specialized overadditization practice. These 
clarifications should enable the regulated community and EPA to verify 
that this procedure, which was also permitted under the interim rule, 
is implemented in an accurate, effective manner.
    Today's final rule also extends these PRC-related overadditization 
VAR procedures to the hand blender VAR requirements, for the same 
reasons they are necessary for automated blenders. This corrects the 
Agency's oversight to include them in the interim program's provisions 
for hand blenders.
    h. VAR Recording of Transfers of Unadditized Gasoline. Under the 
interim program, automated detergent blending facilities and terminals 
at which hand blending occurs are required to create and maintain VAR 
supporting documentation for each transfer of unadditized gasoline from 
the facility in the compliance period (for automated blenders), or 
monthly (for the hand blending terminals). A record that unadditized 
product has left the detergent blending terminal is needed by the 
Agency so that the product can be traced, if necessary, to ensure that 
it was ultimately properly additized prior to use by the consumer.
    Because terminals already are required under the interim program to 
maintain product transfer documents for each such transfer, the Agency 
stated in Q&A Document #1 (Attachment #1.) that detergent blenders 
could indicate on VAR records the total amount of such transfers 
occurring either in the VAR compliance period (for the automated 
blenders), or during the month (for hand blenders), without indicating 
the date, volume, or recipient of each transfer. These total volumes 
are to be recorded on the automated blender VAR formula record or the 
hand blender monthly record of unadditized transfers. This simplified 
approach is codified in today's rule. It streamlines the more 
exhaustive recording provision found in the interim rule, while 
providing useful notification to the Agency on VAR records of the 
transfer of unadditized product from detergent blending terminals.
    In requiring detergent blenders to identify on their VAR records 
transfers of unadditized gasoline leaving their facilities, neither the 
NPRM nor the interim rule considered that this would require refineries 
which also happen to be detergent blending terminals to record routine 
bulk transfers of unadditized product to other detergent blending 
facilities. Such bulk transfers were not the target of this record 
requirement because they are not intended for immediate consumer use.
    Consequently, pursuant to industry inquiry about this matter, the 
Agency stated in Q&A Document #4 (Q.4, p.5.) that it would excuse such 
refinery bulk transfers from inclusion in the VAR recording requirement 
for transfers of unadditized product. Today's final rule codifies this 
exception and extends it to pipelines which also happen to be detergent 
blenders and which also regularly make bulk upstream transfers of 
unadditized gasoline. The proposal as originally described in the NPRM 
has thus been modified to take into account the reality of upstream 
bulk transfers of unadditized gasoline which do not warrant the special 
VAR attention necessary for downstream transfers of such product.
    i. Supporting Documentation of VAR Volumes for Hand Blending 
Facilities. As proposed in the NPRM, the interim rule required hand 
blending detergent facilities to retain VAR supporting documentation, 
specifically, PTDs and bills of lading for all product they receive or 
send out. However, the interim rule did not require hand detergent 
blenders to maintain documentation supporting their recorded VAR 
volumes for gasoline, PRC, and detergent.
    Since such documents would obviously be important if the reported 
volumes were ever subject to question, EPA has issued guidance that 
such data, if available to the hand blender, should be maintained 
(Attachment 1 of Q&A Document #1, p.28.). Today's final rule codifies 
this requirement for hand blenders.
    j. Electronic VAR Formula and Supporting Records. Neither the NPRM 
nor the interim program final rule addressed the use of electronic 
records to satisfy VAR formula or supporting record requirements. 
Pursuant to industry request for approval of electronic records (Docket 
VI-D-57.), in Q&A Document #1 (Q.4, p.11) the Agency clarified that the 
use of electronic VAR and PTDs complies with the rule, provided that 
these records are complete, easily readable, and accessible.
    In written discussions with petroleum industry groups, EPA 
discussed permitting the use of computer identification codes in lieu 
of VAR formula signatures, provided that safeguards of authenticity 
would be met (Docket item IV-C-13). Blenders using such ID codes would 
be required to maintain a document signed by the VAR record's creator, 
acknowledging that the use of this identification code on the record is 
equivalent to his/her signature, and must take record security and 
access precautions.
    Some regulated parties objected to the idea of the Agency placing 
conditions on the use of electronic records, asserting that these 
records are as reliable as paper records which are not subject to any 
additional conditions (Docket items VI-D-59 and VI-D-60).
    The Agency disagrees with such comments, and believes that its 
enforcement needs justify the establishment of conditions on its 
approval of the use of electronic records. If electronic records are to 
be used by industry to satisfy detergent rule requirements, EPA needs 
to be assured that these electronically generated documents will be 
easy to read and easily accessible. If they are encoded or stored in a 
manner that makes them unusable by the Agency, the effectiveness of the 
detergent enforcement program would be compromised. Therefore, the 
Agency is choosing to establish readability and accessibility 
requirements for electronic records.
    Further, since electronically generated documents can be easily 
altered without evidence of such alteration being visible, and because 
compliance with the detergent program is determined primarily through 
review of the VAR formula records, the Agency needs to ensure that 
electronic VAR formula records are stored with access and audit 
security. Consequently, the use of electronically created VAR formula 
records requires the existence of access and audit security 
precautions, including documentation verifying the true identity of 
parties identified on these documents only through the use of computer 
ID codes.
    The final rule promulgated today includes a specific provision 
approving the use of electronic VAR records. It thus expands the range 
of permissible documents that will be acceptable to satisfy VAR 
requirements, while maintaining safeguards necessary for EPA's 
enforcement needs.
    k. Detergent Tank Transitioning. The interim rule prohibited the 
commingling

[[Page 35339]]

of different detergents through provisions prohibiting the supply, 
storage, etc. of an unregistered detergent (which commingled different 
detergents would be), and the additization of gasoline with an 
unregistered detergent. During implementation of the interim program, 
the Agency was asked whether a detergent blender could transition from 
the use of one detergent to another by adding a new detergent into a 
tank that contains the residue of an old, different detergent, even 
though some commingling would result (See Q&A Document #1, and Docket 
item VI-D-57).
    Such detergent tank transitioning process is a common industry 
practice and prohibiting it would greatly inconvenience many blenders. 
Therefore, EPA believes it is reasonable to permit this practice in 
spite of the limited commingling involved. At the same time, the Agency 
needs to ensure that protective procedures will be followed which limit 
the amount, or effect, of the commingling. EPA is concerned that the 
combined detergent may be used at a LAC that would not adequately 
additize the gasoline. Further, commingling of detergent would make it 
difficult or impossible to confirm the identity of the detergent by 
testing, if this should be necessary for enforcement purposes.
    If a blender desires to use the same detergent, but at a different 
LAC certified for use restricted to a different product, this would not 
constitute an actual tank transitioning process. In this instance, the 
detergent in the storage tank remains the same and no commingling 
occurs. Therefore, in such a situation, the only requirement that 
today's rule imposes is that the blender must create separate VAR 
formula records for each certified LAC use, identifying the separate 
use restrictions, and must use measurement equipment able to accurately 
measure the detergent recorded for each record.
    For the case of a tank transitioning situation, i.e., where 
different detergents are being commingled, EPA issued a response in Q&A 
Document #1 (Q.5, p.4) which provided limited approval for such 
commingling. Associated procedures ensure proper VAR identification and 
usage the proper LAC for the combined detergent. They also encourage 
the maximum depletion of the prior detergent in the tank so as to limit 
the commingling involved.
    Today's final rule follows this Q&A approach by permitting 
detergent commingling during legitimate tank transitioning periods, 
while requiring necessary procedural and recordkeeping safeguards to 
ensure proper VAR identification of the detergents and proper 
additization with the commingled detergent. It thus relaxes the total 
prohibition against detergent commingling proposed in the NPRM, to 
provide industry with the flexibility it needs to execute this standard 
tank transitioning procedure.
    In addition, today's rule codifies the detergent transitioning 
policy, first outlined in Q&A Document #1, supra, under which the 
addition of new detergent into a detergent storage tank is specifically 
permitted and the combined detergent is treated as if only the new 
detergent were in the tank, provided that the tank is drained of the 
old detergent to a remaining level no greater than 10 percent of the 
tank's newly delivered, commingled volume. This volume includes the 
tank's remaining inventory of the residue detergent, plus the newly 
delivered detergent.
    This 10 percent cutoff figure creates an incentive to detergent 
blenders to reduce the amount of actual commingling involved in their 
detergent transitioning. The Agency has chosen this figure because EPA 
judges this small amount of residual detergent to be inconsequential 
enough to minimize concern about the use of an inappropriate LAC for 
the combined mixture. At the same time, it is large enough to 
accommodate blender need for flexibility in tank drainage procedures. 
Furthermore, the drained detergent can be re-delivered into storage 
tanks containing the new detergent, provided that the re-delivered 
detergent comprises no greater than 10 percent of the tank's total 
commingled delivered volume. The Agency believes it is appropriate to 
allow this particular commingling procedure because it eliminates the 
need for blenders to dispose of the previous detergent.
    If both detergents have the same LAC, today's final rule permits 
blenders to drain their detergent tanks (and/or redeliver old 
detergent) so that the old detergent makes up no greater than 20 
percent of the total newly delivered volume without following 
additional procedures. In such situations, there is no risk of blender 
confusion as to what LAC applies, so greater flexibility is warranted 
than for those situations in which the detergent LACs are different.
    Finally, today's rule establishes provisions that will apply when 
two detergents being commingled in tank transitioning situations have 
different certification use restrictions. Neither the NPRM nor the 
interim program specifically addressed this matter, and no comments on 
this topic were received by EPA. When two separately certified 
detergents are being commingled, the rule establishes that the original 
detergent's use restrictions no longer apply, while the use 
restrictions for the new detergent must be followed. The Agency 
believes that this procedure is appropriate, practical, and easy to 
follow, provided the transitioning steps discussed above are followed. 
Under these steps, a blender commingling 10 percent or less of the 
original detergent would essentially disregard the carry-over of the 
original detergent, and follow the LAC and use restrictions of the 
newly added detergent.
    In situations where a blender commingles in the detergent tank a 
residue of more than 10 percent of the original detergent which has a 
different LAC than the new detergent, the blender is required by the 
transitioning procedures to use the higher LAC of the two detergents 
until an amount of detergent is used up which is equal to that of the 
original detergent remaining in the tank at the time of the new 
detergent's delivery. The use of the higher LAC should ensure that the 
commingled detergent will be effective in the fuel for which either 
detergent was certified. Therefore, the blender is allowed to use that 
higher LAC with the new detergent's use restrictions, and to disregard 
the original detergent's use restrictions.
    Each of the permitted tank transitioning procedures described above 
must be documented, either on the VAR record or in supporting 
documentation. Documentation of the detergent commingling will be 
useful to EPA if enforcement testing of the detergent is contemplated 
by the Agency.
    l. Automated Additization Equipment Calibration. The interim rule 
required automated detergent blenders to calibrate their additization 
equipment each time they change their detergent package and at the 
beginning of each calendar quarter. The purpose of this regulatory 
requirement was to ensure the accuracy of the volume numbers recorded 
on the VAR forms by confirming the measuring accuracy of the equipment 
generating those numbers. Today's certification rule somewhat eases 
these calibration requirements in response to comments from detergent 
blenders that these requirements were unnecessarily severe.
    Industry's initial implementation concern was that it would be 
impossible to fulfill the requirement that every blender's quarterly 
calibration had to be performed in the first month of each quarter (See 
Docket item IV-E-45). To reduce this burden, the Agency issued a Q&A 
Document stating that blenders

[[Page 35340]]

could perform the required quarterly calibration in any month within a 
calendar quarter, provided that the quarterly calibrations occurred no 
later than three months from the previous calibration (Q&A Document #1, 
Q.12, p.6.).
    As a further concern about quarterly calibration, API and NPRA 
commented, in response to Agency inquiry, that the quarterly 
requirement was, itself, too severe. API suggested that an annual 
calibration requirement would be more appropriate, while NPRA asserted 
that calibration information should only be asserted as an affirmative 
defense element. (Docket items IV-C-14, VI-D-58, VI-D-61, VI-D-62, VI-
D-63, and VI-D-64.) API further asserted that parties performing 
additive reconciliations on a daily or weekly basis, i.e., more 
frequently than the required monthly reconciliations, would be assuring 
the accuracy of their monthly VAR volumes as effectively as those 
parties performing quarterly calibrations. Therefore, for such parties, 
API believed an annual calibration requirement would be sufficient.
    However, EPA received conflicting information from a representative 
of an additization equipment company (Docket items IV-E-46 and VI-D-
65). This party asserted that merely performing reconciliations at a 
greater frequency, while not addressing the real issue of the 
equipment's measurement accuracy, would not result in improved accuracy 
of the VAR records. According to this commenter, if the amount of 
detergent being injected per recorded pulse happens to change while the 
equipment continues recording the same pulses as before, the mere fact 
that a blender increases the frequency of reviewing the recorded pulses 
will not ensure that the blender discovers the measurement accuracy 
problem. This commenter suggested that the only way to address this 
concern is to actually recalibrate the equipment.
    The Agency agrees that merely increasing the frequency of VAR 
reconciliations does not necessarily ensure measurement accuracy, and 
that periodic additization equipment calibrations are thus essential. 
Under similar reasoning, the Agency rejects the suggestion that 
periodic calibrations should merely be asserted as part of an 
affirmative defense. If a blender does not calibrate its equipment 
regularly, the fact that its additizations are inaccurate may never be 
known.
    However, it is also apparent that quarterly calibrations are 
burdensome to some facilities, without necessarily providing 
commensurate benefits. Therefore, today's final rule requires that 
automated detergent blenders perform at least two equipment 
calibrations per year. To ensure that the calibrations will be 
reasonably spaced throughout the year, the rule also specifies that 
these procedures are to be conducted within each calendar half year, 
but at least one hundred and twenty days apart. This modified approach 
will reduce the equipment calibration burden to industry, while also 
satisfying the Agency's need for regular verification of VAR volume 
accuracy.
    As additional input on the calibration issue, API commented that it 
was not technically necessary or useful to recalibrate additization 
equipment every time a detergent package was changed. API stated that 
merely changing a detergent package, in itself, would not affect 
equipment measurement accuracy. On this point, the equipment 
manufacturer commenter indicated that if detergent viscosity changes 
due to a detergent package change, the amount of detergent being 
injected per recorded pulse would change. A new calibration of the 
recording equipment would thus be necessary to ensure that the recorded 
measurements were still accurate.
    The Agency agrees that re-calibration is necessary only when the 
viscosity of the new package is different from that of the previous 
package. Thus, today's final rule requires that equipment recalibration 
must be performed each time the detergent package is changed, unless 
written documentation indicates that the new detergent package has the 
same viscosity as the previous detergent package. To provide additional 
flexibility, today's rule permits a calibration performed to fulfill 
the package change requirement to serve also as compliance with the 
semi-annual calibration requirement, provided that the package change 
calibration satisfies the associated spacing requirements. The Agency 
believes that these modifications to the proposed calibration 
requirements will assure VAR measurement accuracy while minimizing 
industry quality control burdens.
    m. Detergent Blender Record Retention. The interim program rule 
requires detergent blenders to provide EPA with all VAR formula and 
supporting records upon request. EPA had proposed that the records be 
maintained at the place of creation, but the interim rule did not 
include this requirement. The interim program also did not specify the 
manner in which these records were to be provided.
    Several detergent blending terminals requested clarification of 
EPA's expectations under the interim program concerning document 
provision at the time of inspection. (See Q&A Document #1, Q.24 and 25, 
p. 9 and 10 respectively; and Docket item VI-D-57.) The Agency 
responded that terminals were not expected to store all the required 
documentation on site (Q&A Document #1, supra.). The Agency also stated 
that detergent blenders were expected to provide EPA inspectors with 
six months of VAR formula and supporting records (including PTDs) 
within one hour of request, with the remaining requested documents to 
be provided by the next business day. The Agency believed that this 
time frame for record review would provide EPA with the ability to 
quickly review a moderate amount of records, but would not burden 
respondents with the need to provide immediately the full five years of 
documents which they are required to maintain.
    However, EPA's experience in implementing the interim program has 
revealed that the Agency needs immediate access to VAR formula records 
for a time span greater than six months. Detergent program violations 
are not typically discovered through pre-arranged, exhaustive record 
audits like those conducted under the RFG baseline audit program. 
Instead, detergent program violations are primarily discovered through 
on-site inspection review of VAR formula records. These inspections 
typically occur during unannounced and expedited terminal inspections 
to determine compliance with a variety of EPA fuels programs. Such 
inspections are usually completed in several hours and typically do not 
extend beyond the day of the initial inspection contact.
    Therefore, EPA needs the immediate availability at inspection sites 
of a long enough period of VAR formula records to give a clear picture 
of a facility's compliance performance. EPA considers one year of VAR 
formula records to be the minimum time frame within which EPA can 
determine the facility's compliance, so that immediate access to at 
least that period of VAR formula records is essential for effective 
detergent program enforcement. Since VAR formula records are typically 
only one or two pages in length per reconciliation, retention of this 
small amount of documentation should not be unduly burdensome.
    Today's final rule requires automated detergent blenders and hand 
blending terminals to provide the preceding year's VAR formula records 
within one hour of a request by EPA personnel. The remainder must be 
supplied by the start of the next business day, or later if approved by 
EPA. In the case of VAR

[[Page 35341]]

supporting records, only the preceding two month's records need be 
immediately available.
    For non-terminal hand blenders, only the prior two months VAR 
formula and supporting records must be made available within one hour 
of EPA's request. Since these blenders are required to create VAR 
formula records for each batch of fuel they blend, they typically 
create many more VAR formula records per month than automatic blenders, 
and thus more records will be available for EPA review. Further, since 
such blenders are typically small businesses with little storage space, 
EPA believes it would not be appropriate to impose on them the same 
record provision burdens as on the larger, terminal blenders.
    Today's certification rule (at Secs. 80.157(g) and 80.170(g)) also 
clarifies that ``immediate provision'' of the required records means 
that the records should be provided within an hour of request, or later 
with EPA approval. Such flexibility permits records to be stored on 
site, or to be transmitted, electronically or by other means, from any 
other location of the party's choice. Furthermore, if any blender can 
establish by documentation that its VAR supporting records are either 
centrally maintained at another location, or maintained at an 
alternative location by a terminal customer operating its own 
proprietary detergent system, then that blender does not have to 
provide VAR supporting records until the start of the following 
business day, instead of within an hour.
    2. Affirmative Defense and Liability Issues. The affirmative 
defense and liability provisions of the certification program are a 
continuation of, and are substantially the same as, those promulgated 
by the interim rule. Immediately following is an analysis of the 
certification program's affirmative defense provisions. Significant 
differences from the interim program are discussed thereafter.
    The certification program gives all parties which are subject to 
presumptive and vicarious liability the right to assert an affirmative 
defense to that liability. In general, such parties must establish that 
they did not cause the violation. In addition, they must provide 
applicable PTD(s) meeting the requirements of Sec. 80.171 for the 
product in violation, documenting that the product satisfied all 
requirements of this program when it left their control.
    Specific parties have additional requirements to establish an 
affirmative defense:
    Branded refiners are subject to vicarious liability for product 
nonconformity violations involving gasoline, detergent, and detergent-
additized PRC, as well as for VAR violations, that occur at branded 
facilities, i.e., facilities which operate under the corporate, trade, 
or brand name of the refiner or any of its marketing subsidiaries. In 
addition to establishing the lack of causation and the PTD elements of 
a presumptive liability affirmative defense, branded refiners are also 
required to establish either of two additional elements to avoid 
vicarious liability for a violation. They must either establish that 
the violation was caused by sabotage or in violation of law, or that 
the violation occurred despite the existence of a contractual 
obligation designed to prevent it, where such obligation was monitored 
by an appropriate oversight program including periodic review of PTDs 
to ensure contractual compliance. These requirements are the same as 
those that currently apply under the interim program.
    Detergent blenders, as the parties with the most control over 
proper additization, have to demonstrate additional affirmative defense 
elements to avoid presumptive liability for detergent rule violations. 
In addition to lack of causation and PTD compliance, detergent blenders 
must have a quality assurance program to ensure proper additization of 
the product they additize. The quality assurance program must include 
periodic review of their PTD and volume measurement records to ensure 
the accuracy of the blender's PTD and VAR records. Further, a detergent 
blender asserting an affirmative defense must establish the receipt (or 
provision, as appropriate) of accurate written blending instructions 
prior to the blending of the detergent into the nonconforming gasoline 
or PRC. These affirmative defense elements are essentially the same as, 
and are a continuation of, those found under the interim program.
    Detergent manufacturers are subject to presumptive liability for 
non-VAR related detergent, gasoline, and detergent-additized PRC 
nonconformity violations. As the parties controlling the production of 
the detergent, the detergent manufacturers must make specific showings 
to establish an affirmative defense to such liability. (See the 
following subsection for an analysis of changes to detergent 
manufacturer affirmative defense requirements under today's rule.) 
Detergent manufacturers are also subject to liability for any 
detergent, gasoline or PRC nonconformity violations, or VAR violations, 
which EPA can establish they caused.
    Carriers of gasoline or detergent are the last parties with 
different liability and affirmative defense elements under the 
detergent program. Since these parties do not take title to the product 
they transfer, carriers have less incentive (although not necessarily 
less ability) to cause violations. Therefore, like the interim 
detergent program and other EPA fuels programs, carriers are 
presumptively liable under the certification program only for the 
detergent program violations found at their facilities. They are, 
however, also subject to liability for non-PTD detergent program 
violations discovered downstream from them, provided that EPA can 
establish they caused the violations.
    a. Detergent Manufacturer Affirmative Defense Modification. In the 
NPRM, EPA proposed that, in order to successfully establish an 
affirmative defense to presumptive liability, a detergent manufacturer 
would have to establish the two standard defense elements (i.e., lack 
of causation and complying PTDs), as well as the existence of test 
results confirming that the detergent in question conformed to 
compositional specifications when it left the manufacturer's control.
    Detergent manufacturers commented that these proposed additional 
requirements were unfair, because their actual ability to cause 
gasoline nonconformity violations was limited. The proposed 
requirements were thus modified in the interim rule. Under the interim 
rule, to successfully assert an affirmative defense to presumptive 
liability for non-VAR product nonconformity violations, a detergent 
manufacturer was required to establish that it did not cause the 
violation. Instead, it had to demonstrate or furnish: (1) That it 
provided timely and accurate written blending instructions to its 
customer, (2) a detergent PTD, meeting the requirements of Sec. 80.158, 
showing product compliance when the detergent left the manufacturer's 
control, and (3) accurate test results establishing that the product 
was in compliance with its registration specifications at the time the 
manufacturer transferred the detergent.
    In subsequent discussions with EPA, CMA objected to the interim 
rule's affirmative defense requirement that relatively sophisticated 
test results be available on each batch to establish its chemical 
conformity to registration specifications (see Docket item IV-E-41). 
CMA maintained that conducting such tests on each batch of detergent 
was unnecessary and prohibitively expensive. Instead, for quality 
control purposes, detergent manufacturers

[[Page 35342]]

typically monitor the quality of the reagents which are input to the 
production process, and then test each produced batch to ascertain that 
it meets relevant physical property specifications. CMA contended that 
these same measures would be adequate to show that a questioned batch 
of detergent did meet its registration specifications.
    In establishing the interim rule requirement for relatively 
rigorous analytical test results as an affirmative defense element, 
EPA's intent was to ensure that the detergent manufacturer would be 
prepared to supply scientifically defensible, objective evidence that 
the detergent component of a product was consistent with its registered 
compositional specifications when it left the manufacturer's control. 
However, EPA is persuaded by its discussions with the industry that 
alternative approaches, more consistent with the industry's normal 
production practices, can also be used to fulfill these objectives 
adequately.
    EPA acknowledges that a requirement to perform an FTIR <SUP>28 
routinely on every production batch, in case it might be needed in the 
future for affirmative defense to presumptive liability, might be 
overly burdensome for some manufacturers. Thus, EPA is making 
alternative provisions available which manufacturers may choose to 
follow for affirmative defense purposes. If EPA informs the detergent 
manufacturer of the possible existence of a violation for which the 
manufacturer may be presumptively liable within one year of the 
production of the detergent batch involved, then FTIR results are 
required for that batch. However, the manufacturer need not have 
conducted the FTIR procedure on the batch at the time of production. 
Instead, the manufacturer may choose to retain a sample of each 
detergent batch when it is produced, and to store it for at least a 
year in case it becomes a component of a product thought to be in 
violation of this rule. In that instance, the manufacturer would 
conduct the FTIR analysis on the retained sample of the batch involved. 
Whether the FTIR analysis was done at the time the batch was produced, 
or performed as needed on a retained sample of the batch, EPA would 
compare the results with the FTIR submitted at time of certification, 
to determine whether, in its judgement, the composition of the 
production detergent batch was in reasonable conformity with the 
certified detergent product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Under the interim program, the test may be an FTIR-based 
analysis or other procedure which can qualitatively and 
quantitatively identify each component of the detergent additive 
package (Sec. 80.141(f)). Under the certification program, an FTIR 
analysis is required (Sec. 80.162(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the manufacturer receives notification from EPA of possible 
presumptive liability concerning a detergent batch that was produced 
more than a year previously, the manufacturer has additional choices 
for the affirmative defense showing. The manufacturer still has the 
option to provide an FTIR on the batch (either taken a time of 
production or on a retained sample), as would be required if the batch 
had been produced less than one year ago. However, EPA understands that 
shelf life restrictions may become a factor for some detergents after a 
year or more of sample storage time. Thus, in lieu of an FTIR, the 
manufacturer may choose to rely on the following two affirmative 
defense requirements: (1) Documentation that the reagents used to 
synthesize the batch were the same in identity and quality as those 
specified in the certification, and (2) documentation that relevant 
physical properties of the batch fell within the range established in 
the detergent's certification (see section III.A.1 of this preamble).
    b. Extension of Liability for VAR Violations. Under the interim 
program, only detergent blenders are subject to presumptive liability 
for VAR violations. Because detergent blenders were the only parties 
required to perform VAR reconciliations, it appeared logical that they 
should be the only parties liable for violations involving such 
reconciliations.
    The Agency has become convinced, however, that parties other than 
detergent blenders can cause VAR violations, even if such other parties 
do not conduct the VAR reconciliations. For example, such parties can 
provide erroneous instructions to the detergent blender about detergent 
concentration rates or use restrictions. Conceivably, parties could 
also conspire with the detergent blender to transfer competitively low-
priced unadditized or misadditized gasoline.
    Therefore, in the Reopening Notice, EPA proposed extending 
presumptive liability for VAR violations to other regulated parties in 
the gasoline and detergent distribution chains. In the alternative, EPA 
proposed maintaining presumptive liability for VAR violations solely 
for detergent blenders, but extending liability to any regulated party 
whom EPA could show actually caused a VAR violation. This option was 
proposed with a new requirement that parties in the detergent 
distribution system would have an affirmative duty to provide accurate, 
written blending instructions for the detergent (59 FR 66872).
    Most commenters on this issue disagreed with the Agency's proposal 
to extend presumptive liability for VAR violations to additional 
parties, asserting that EPA should be able to effectively enforce the 
VAR requirements with the liability scheme currently in effect under 
the interim program rule. These commenters also argued that detergent 
blenders are the only parties who could reasonably be held responsible 
for their own VAR violations. However, two commenters stated that 
parties other than detergent blenders could cause VAR violations, and 
should therefore also be subject to presumptive liability for such 
violations.
    Few parties commented specifically about the alternative proposal 
to impose an affirmative duty on parties to provide accurate detergent 
blending instructions. One commenter agreed with the idea, provided 
that this requirement would take the place of extending presumptive 
liability for VAR violations to additional parties. A second commenter 
opposed the proposal, basing its opposition on the idea that a new 
affirmative duty was not necessary in the detergent program. Other 
commenters asserted that, in general, no new enforcement provisions 
were warranted at this point in the detergent program.
    EPA agrees with the majority of commenters that most VAR violations 
will be caused by detergent blenders. Therefore, the Agency agrees that 
extending presumptive liability to parties other than detergent 
blenders would be inappropriate. However, since other regulated parties 
in addition to detergent blenders clearly do have some capacity to 
cause VAR violations, today's rule does extend liability for VAR 
violations to those regulated parties that EPA shows caused such 
violations.
    Today's final rule does not impose a new affirmative duty on 
parties in the detergent distribution system to provide their customers 
accurate detergent blending instructions. It is obviously important to 
the effectiveness of the detergent program that detergent blenders 
receive accurate blending instructions. However, EPA's experience 
enforcing the detergent program has shown the effectiveness of the 
existing affirmative defense requirements concerning blending 
instructions, i.e., the reciprocal affirmative defense requirements of 
the detergent manufacturer and the detergent blender, respectively, to 
provide and receive accurate, written

[[Page 35343]]

blending instructions. This experience indicates that the added 
imposition of an affirmative obligation (in addition to the affirmative 
defense element) to provide such instructions is not necessary.
    c. Defense Against Liability Where More Than One Party May Be 
Liable for VAR Violations.
    As proposed in the NPRM, both the interim program and the 
certification program provide that multiple parties may be subject to 
liability for the same VAR violations. This possibility exists for 
several reasons: Multiple parties may fit the definition of detergent 
blender; several regulated parties may have caused the VAR violations; 
and branded refiners may be vicariously liable for another party's 
violations if a VAR violation occurs at a branded facility, including a 
detergent storage system, operating under the corporate, trade, or 
brand name of that branded refiner.
    Many commenters suggested that liability for VAR violations should 
be limited by the terms of contracts that the parties themselves have 
created concerning additization of gasoline. These commenters stated 
that detergent additization is often carried out pursuant to the terms 
of such contracts which dictate responsibilities between the parties, 
and which should be respected by the Agency.
    As EPA stated in the preamble to the interim program rule, the 
Agency is not required to base its own determination of liability for 
violations on the consensual agreements created by potential violators. 
However, the Agency may consider the division of responsibilities 
contractually established between the parties when deciding whom it 
will prosecute for violations.
    It is the Agency's policy that: if such division of 
responsibilities is established by a written contract; if the parties 
not assuming responsibility have implemented reasonable contractual 
oversight procedures to ensure that the assuming party has fulfilled 
its responsibilities; if the assuming party is fiscally sound and 
capable of paying the penalty for failure to comply with the VAR 
requirements; and if the non-assuming parties have not otherwise caused 
the VAR violation; then, it is appropriate for the non-assuming parties 
to avoid liability for a VAR violation.
    The Agency believes that contractual arrangements meeting these 
criteria provide reasonable assurance that the assuming party is 
responsible for the VAR requirements and has the financial ability to 
pay penalties if it fails to adequately meet these requirements. 
Therefore, EPA does not believe that compliance with the detergent 
program will be compromised if parties are permitted to assert reliance 
on such contracts as a defense to the imposition of multiple liability 
for VAR violations.
    Consequently, today's final rule provides that parties subject to 
liability for VAR violations may successfully assert an affirmative 
defense to such liability, provided that the elements described above 
are satisfied. This defense cannot be used, however, to avoid 
imposition of liability related to a detergent blender's failure to 
provide VAR records upon EPA request, as required pursuant to 
Sec. 80.170(g). As previously mentioned, the Agency needs to review 
certain limited, but essential, VAR records during inspections at 
detergent blending terminals. EPA cannot allow parties to avoid this 
enforcement necessity through a privately created contract.
    d. Defense to Liability for Gasoline Nonconformity Violations Based 
Solely on the Addition of Misadditized Ethanol or Other PRC to 
Gasoline. Under the interim and certification programs, gasoline which 
is properly additized at a detergent blending terminal can subsequently 
become a nonconforming product when a party downstream of the 
gasoline's additization terminal blends mis- or unadditized ethanol or 
other PRC into the gasoline. The reason for the nonconformity is that 
the combined product fails to attain the proper additization 
concentration through the addition of the misadditized PRC.
    The sale, offering for sale, etc. of nonconforming gasoline is a 
violation of the detergent rule for which all parties in the relevant 
gasoline, detergent, and PRC distribution systems are presumed liable, 
although each such party has the right to assert an affirmative defense 
to liability. In addition, branded refiners are also subject to 
vicarious liability if the violation involves branded products. Neither 
the NPRM nor the interim rule addressed the appropriateness of a 
special affirmative defense specifically geared to violations caused by 
misadditized PRC.
    In commenting on the Reopening Notice, representatives of the 
ethanol industry stated that the interim program is causing a chilling 
effect on the use of ethanol. According to one industry representative, 
this situation is brought about, in part, because parties in the 
distribution chain who do not add ethanol to the product are concerned 
about their potential liability if mis- or unadditized ethanol is 
subsequently added to the gasoline. This commenter asserted that such 
parties were avoiding or prohibiting the use of ethanol with their 
product because of their apprehension of potential liability.
    As a response to this comment, today's final rule provides that the 
party not adding the ethanol or other PRC can avoid the imposition of 
liability (whether presumptive or vicarious) in this situation merely 
by establishing that it did not cause the violation, and that it has 
PTDs establishing that the product was in conformity with program 
specifications when it left the party's control. This provision relaxes 
the presumptive and vicarious liability affirmative defense 
requirements established for other violations in the interim program 
and proposed in the NPRM, and thus makes it easier for the party not 
adding the ethanol to avoid liability for nonconforming product. The 
Agency believes this is appropriate because such parties have little 
control over this type of violation, and because the environmental harm 
of the violation tends to be mitigated by the industry practice of 
slightly over-additizing gasoline to ensure that actual additization is 
above the required LAC.
    e. Liability for the Sale of Nonconforming Gasoline or PRC When the 
Gasoline or PRC Also Violates VAR Requirements. This section 
articulates Agency policy about enforcement of detergent rule 
provisions when the same gasoline violates both the VAR standard 
requirement and the prohibition against the sale of nonconforming 
product. When gasoline or PRC is misadditized because it failed to 
attain the VAR standard, a VAR violation has occurred. Only the 
detergent blender and/or those whom EPA can establish caused the 
violation are responsible for that VAR violation. However, any party, 
including the detergent blender, who sells, transfers, etc. the 
nonconforming gasoline or PRC is also subject to liability for a 
different violation, i.e., the sale, etc. of nonconforming gasoline or 
PRC. Any party subject to liability for any of these violations has the 
right to assert an affirmative defense to such liability.
    In the preamble to the interim program final rule (59 FR 54700), 
the Agency made clear that it intended to treat fairly those parties 
who unknowingly sell such non-complying gasoline. EPA is reiterating 
that position. Specifically, when a VAR standard violation is found, 
the Agency does not intend, as a general practice, to take enforcement 
action against the detergent blending party for both the VAR violation 
and the violations stemming from the sale of the same nonconforming 
gasoline or PRC. However, if the circumstances of the

[[Page 35344]]

violation make the Agency believe that the imposition of liability for 
both violations is appropriate, then EPA will bring an enforcement 
action for both violations. Such unusual circumstances could include 
the party's deliberate attempt to profit from detergent program 
violations, or a pattern of significant and repetitive VAR standard 
violations.
    In a similar manner, when a VAR standard violation is found, the 
Agency will not generally take an enforcement action against the non-
blending parties for selling or transferring the nonconforming gasoline 
or PRC. The reason is that parties receiving the nonconforming product 
typically have no practical means of knowing that the product is 
misadditized, and, consequently, they should easily be able to 
establish their affirmative defense element. However, if unusual 
circumstances exist indicating that the non-detergent blending parties 
had responsibility for the nonconforming sale violations, EPA may take 
enforcement action against these parties for such sale violations.
    f. Detergent Blender Affirmative Defense Clarification and 
Clarification of Presumptive Liability Arising from Detergent Blending. 
Under the interim program, for detergent blenders to avoid liability 
for VAR and product nonconformity violations, they must establish the 
standard detergent rule affirmative defense elements of lack of 
causation and PTD compliance. In addition, because of their unique 
status in the detergent program as the parties actually adding the 
detergent to the gasoline or PRC, they are also required to establish 
two additional affirmative defense elements. First, they must show 
that, prior to blending, they received (or provided) accurate, written 
blending instructions including the LAC and any applicable use 
restriction information for the detergent. Second, they must establish 
that they have a quality assurance (quality) program which includes 
periodic review of supporting transfer and measurement documents, 
confirming the correctness of the PTD's and VAR documents.
    At an API detergent additives compliance task group meeting 
discussing implementation of the interim rule, and through an NPRA 
comment on the Reopening Notice (see Docket items #IV-E-44 & #VI-D-63), 
the Agency was advised of industry concern about this quality program 
element for an affirmative defense. The commenters were concerned that 
this quality program defense element might require detergent blenders 
to review records of downstream parties handling the gasoline, to 
ensure that these other parties were complying with detergent rule 
requirements. Since these other parties were not under the control of 
the detergent blenders, according to these commenters, the blenders 
feared that it would be difficult for them to fulfill this 
responsibility.
    The Agency agrees that detergent blenders should not be required to 
review the records or other actions of parties over whom the blenders 
have no control. The Agency's primary intent in establishing this 
affirmative defense element was to ensure that detergent blenders 
properly control and assure the quality of their own additization 
process, not the operations of others over whom they have no control. 
Therefore, EPA is clarifying that the detergent blender quality program 
element applies to the blender's review of its own records and the 
supporting documents it possesses to confirm the correctness of its own 
additization activities.
    Blenders wishing to assert an affirmative defense should be aware, 
however, that they may find it difficult to successfully establish 
their lack of causation if they knew of a customer's misadditization of 
their product, and they failed to prevent the continuance of that 
practice. In such situations, the blender can control future 
misadditizations by refusing to sell to the violating party. The Agency 
believes that, in this unusual situation, the blender does have some 
control over such a violation, and that blenders can, and should, be 
held accountable for reasonable steps to prevent it in order to 
establish an affirmative defense.
    Today's rule also clarifies another point about detergent blending 
liability. As proposed in the NPRM and as codified in the interim rule, 
regulated parties are presumptively in violation if they own, control, 
etc. the facility where a gasoline or PRC nonconformity violation is 
found. In addition, applicable parties are presumptively in violation 
if they do actions (whether upstream or downstream of the place where 
the violation is found), such as selling or transferring the product or 
components of the product in violation, which could cause the 
nonconformity or other violation and which make it reasonable for such 
parties to be presumptively in violation.
    For this latter liability, as was proposed in the NPRM, the interim 
rule specifies the acts giving rise to this presumptive liability, 
including such activities as manufacturing, refining, selling, 
dispensing, and transporting the products in question. While the 
interim rule does not specifically mention the act of detergent 
blending as one which would give rise to this liability, the act of 
detergent blending is typically associated with the other activities 
(such as selling, dispensing, or transferring the relevant product), 
which are specified in the rule. The act of detergent blending clearly 
could give rise to gasoline or PRC nonconformity violations. Therefore, 
today's certification rule clarifies that detergent blending is an 
activity that will trigger presumptive liability under both the interim 
and the certification programs. This clarification is within the scope 
of the NPRM proposal since it merely specifies another action that is 
related to the other--similar actions--which precipitate such 
liability.
    g. Liability Clarification. The Agency received a comment from CMA 
requesting clarification as to what specific violations detergent 
manufacturers would be deemed liable for, and how the continuing days 
of penalties would relate to those violations. CMA stated that the 
regulations were unclear, because the section of the rule which 
designates the prohibited acts appeared to make manufacturers liable 
for a single event, such as the sale of non-conforming detergent, while 
the penalty provision appeared to impose liability for all the days 
that such non-conforming detergent remained anywhere in the gasoline 
distribution chain. CMA also claimed that it was unreasonable for EPA 
to impose such extended liability on detergent manufacturers, since 
their involvement with the detergent and its subsequent blending is 
typically limited to the initial sale or distribution of the detergent.
    EPA is clarifying in today's rule that parties are responsible for 
causing the presence of nonconforming products in their distribution 
systems, in addition to their liability for their own sale, transfer, 
etc. of nonconforming products. This scheme for presumptive liability 
is similar to that adopted under several of EPA's fuel regulations in 
Part 80, and has been found in practice to efficiently provide a 
mechanism for EPA to identify the party or parties that have caused a 
violation, and to impose adequate potential liability for purposes of 
deterrence.
    Under today's rule, if a detergent manufacturer makes a sale of a 
nonconforming detergent, the detergent manufacturer is liable for a 
violation of the prohibition against selling nonconforming detergent. 
The detergent manufacturer is also liable for a violation for each of 
the days that any of the nonconforming detergent from that sale remains 
in the detergent distribution system. In addition, if the

[[Page 35345]]

nonconforming detergent was used by its purchaser to create 
nonconforming additized gasoline or post refinery component (PRC), then 
each day that the nonconforming gasoline or PRC remains anywhere in the 
gasoline or PRC distribution systems, is also included (but not 
duplicated), in the total number of days that the detergent 
manufacturer is in violation.
    In addition, if there were two original sales of nonconforming 
detergent by the detergent manufacturer, each of these sales would be a 
separate violation for that manufacturer, with additional separate 
violations for each day that the nonconforming detergent from each sale 
remains anywhere in the detergent, PRC, and gasoline distribution 
systems, i.e., if detergent from each sale is in its detergent 
distribution system or is found in additized gasoline or PRC in their 
distribution systems on a specific day, then there are two violations 
for that day. However, the detergent manufacturer is not also 
responsible for additional violations committed by downstream parties 
who deal with the nonconforming product. The daily violation for 
causing the presence of nonconforming product in the relevant 
distribution systems does not change depending on the number of people 
who happen to store, transport, sell or otherwise deal with the 
nonconforming product.
    Although the comment related specifically to detergent 
manufacturers, this principle is applicable to all parties' liability 
under the detergent program. Causing the presence of nonconforming 
product in the relevant distribution systems is the basis upon which 
EPA established in the interim program the provision under which 
penalties continue to accrue for each day that the nonconforming 
product remains in these distribution systems. Thus, in clarifying this 
point in today's final rule, EPA has added appropriate language to 
Secs. 80.155, 80.156, 80.168, and 80.169. This clarification does not 
constitute a change in EPA's implementation or intent with respect to 
either the interim program or the certification program.
    3. Inclusion of Importers of Additized Gasoline Within the 
Definition of Detergent Blender. The definition of detergent blender in 
the interim rule did not include importers of additized gasoline. It 
became apparent to the Agency that this omission interfered with EPA's 
ability to determine if imported additized product had been properly 
additized, since only detergent blenders are required to maintain VAR 
records. EPA thus had less oversight over importers of additized 
gasoline than it did over the domestic detergent blending parties 
marketing the same product, increasing the risk of importation of 
misadditized gasoline. This omission also put domestic detergent 
blenders of gasoline at a competitive disadvantage in relation to 
importers.
    To correct this problem, EPA proposed in the Reopening Notice to 
amend the definition of detergent blender to include those parties who 
imported additized gasoline. All of the comments received on this issue 
supported the proposed change. Commenters stated that including 
importers of additized gasoline within the definition of detergent 
blenders is fair and closes a gap in EPA's ability to enforce the 
regulation.
    EPA agrees with these comments. Accordingly, today's final rule 
includes importers of additized gasoline within the definition of 
detergent blender. This change applies to both the interim program and 
the certification program.
    4. Certification Use Restrictions. Under the interim program, the 
only possible detergent use restriction applies to detergents which 
have a separate LAC specific to leaded gasoline. Such detergents cannot 
be used at the leaded-only LAC with unleaded gasoline. In all other 
circumstances, any properly registered detergent can be legally used 
with any gasoline or PRC under the interim program.
    Under the certification program, however, a detergent may be 
certified for one or more restricted uses, thus taking advantage of 
lower LACs applicable to some restricted gasoline pools (see Section 
IV). These use restrictions require corresponding prohibitions to 
ensure compliance with the restrictions, as proposed in the NPRM. Those 
parties choosing to take advantage of the use-restricted certification 
options in today's program must fully abide by the certified use 
restrictions or they will be subject to liability for violations for 
the sale, transfer, etc. of the nonconforming gasoline or PRC that 
results from the noncompliance. The following is a description of the 
certification rule's use restrictions, followed by a discussion of a 
permissible method of removing the restrictions under appropriate 
circumstances.
    Under the PADD-specific certification option, gasoline and/or PRC 
additized with a PADD-specific detergent must be sold, transferred, 
etc. to the ultimate consumer or to a retail outlet or WPC facility, 
only in that specified PADD.
    Detergent certified under the fuel-specific option, may only be 
blended into gasoline or PRC that conforms with the fuel segregation 
and composition requirements of the fuel-specific certification.
    Under the national, PADD-specific, and fuel-specific certification 
options, if a detergent is certified with an LAC which is effective for 
use only with non-oxygenated gasoline, or only with gasoline containing 
a specified oxygenate (or non-oxygenated product), then that detergent 
at that LAC may only be used with the appropriate base gasoline or PRC 
product. In addition, oxygenates cannot subsequently be added to 
gasoline previously additized at a lower LAC certified for use with 
non-oxygenated gasoline. Similarly, an oxygenate not included in a 
given detergent's certification cannot be added to gasoline which was 
previously additized according to that certification.
    Properly additized gasoline may be commingled with another gasoline 
which was properly additized with a different detergent, even if the 
second detergent's certification includes different use restrictions 
from the first. However, this does not apply to PADD specific 
detergents. Gasoline or PRC additized with a detergent certified 
specifically to one PADD may not be commingled with gasoline or PRC 
additized with a detergent certified specifically to a different PADD 
since, by definition, each batch of gasoline, including any PRC, must 
be sold or transferred to the ultimate consumer, etc., in its own PADD 
in order to be considered properly additized.
    If, prior to EPA inspection or sale to the ultimate consumer, a 
party discovers that it possesses product that is nonconforming because 
of failure to conform to use restrictions, or that party wants to use 
an additized product in a way that would be nonconforming to that 
product's use restrictions, it is possible under appropriate 
circumstances to cure such nonconformity. Such a situation may occur, 
for example, during mandated oxygenate seasons, if a terminal has 
gasoline which it previously additized with detergent restricted for 
use with non-oxygenated product. In order to comply with the oxygenate 
requirements, such a terminal would be permitted to add oxygenate to 
the gasoline in spite of its oxygenate restriction, provided the 
appropriate curing steps were followed.
    The Agency proposed in the NPRM that violations of certification 
restrictions (specifically, PADD-specific restrictions), would be 
curable by full readditization of the product with the proper PADD-
specific detergent. Commenters from the automotive industry objected to 
this approach,

[[Page 35346]]

claiming that such double additization could cause combustion chamber 
deposit formation.
    While EPA agrees that double additization is not a desirable cure 
for use restriction misadditizations, today's rule does permit limited 
readditization as a curing procedure under appropriate circumstances. 
For example, prior to EPA inspection and discovery of the problem and 
prior to sale of the product to the consumer, readditization is clearly 
appropriate in the case of gasoline that is nonconforming solely 
because it contains detergent at a lower treat rate than required for 
that gasoline product. This could occur when a batch of regular 
unleaded gasoline is accidentally additized with detergent at the lower 
treat rate certified for use only with premium gasoline, or when a 
batch of oxygenated gasoline is accidentally additized at a detergent's 
lower, non-oxygenated product treat rate. If the detergent has also 
been certified at a higher treat rate for use with the gasoline product 
at issue, then the violation can be cured merely by adding enough of 
the detergent to attain the appropriate, certified treat rate, pursuant 
to the formula specified in the rule. In such cases, documentation in 
the form of a ``curing VAR'' for the added detergent must be 
maintained. In addition, any PTDs created for the cured product must 
not include any reference to the prior use restriction which no longer 
applies.
    Today's final rule similarly permits such curing to enable 
downstream parties to add substances which would otherwise be precluded 
by the upstream addition of restricted-use detergent. For example, 
oxygenate can be added to gasoline which already contains a detergent 
at a treat rate certified only for unoxygenated gasoline, provided the 
marketer adds at least enough additional detergent to achieve a 
combined detergent concentration no less than the detergent's certified 
LAC for oxygenated gasoline. In such cases, not only must the oxygenate 
component be properly additized with detergent, but the previously 
additized gasoline portion must be further additized to attain the 
certified treat rate for the combined end-product, i.e., oxygenated 
gasoline.
    However, if a downstream party does not know which detergent has 
been used upstream or does not have access to it, or if the initial 
detergent has not been certified for the downstream party's desired 
use, then the above provision would not enable the use restriction to 
be cured. For this reason, today's rule also permits a party to cure a 
use restriction, prior to EPA inspection or knowledge of the problem 
and prior to sale to the ultimate consumer, by adding the proper amount 
of any detergent (according to the formula for such addition provided 
at Sec. 80.169(g)), that has been certified both for the desired use 
and the initial use. For example, oxygenate can be added to gasoline 
which already contains a detergent certified only for nonoxygenated 
gasoline, provided an adequate amount of another detergent is added 
which has different LACs certified for use with nonoxygenated and 
oxygenated gasolines. The minimum amount of new detergent required is a 
function of the difference between its certified treat rates for the 
new (e.g., oxygenated) and the initial (e.g., nonoxygenated) uses.
    In a similar manner, if a party has misadditized gasoline or PRC in 
violation of a PADD restriction, the error can be cured most easily, 
prior to EPA discovery of the violation and prior to sale to the 
ultimate consumer, by adding more of the same detergent, provided it 
has been certified for the desired use. However, the violation can also 
be cured by adding an appropriate amount of a different detergent, 
provided it has been certified both for the PADD and the desired use 
(e.g., national). The amount of additional detergent must be based upon 
the difference between the LACs for the PADD and other certification, 
and must at least equal the amount determined by the regulatory 
formula. In all these instances, the party must create a readditization 
VAR to document the use restriction curing procedure. If the above 
procedures are fully complied with, then the use restriction is 
effectively negated, and any violation that would have resulted from 
the use restriction is also obviated.
    5. PTD Changes. The core of the PTD requirements established under 
the interim program continue under the certification program. However, 
certain changes and additions to the PTD requirements have been 
incorporated into the final rule. The following is a discussion of 
these changes.
    a. Elimination of PTD Retention Requirement for Additized Gasoline 
for Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers (WPCs). Under the interim program, 
gasoline WPCs, as regulated parties under this program, are required to 
retain their PTDs for five years. However, EPA has determined that 
retention of PTDs for additized gasoline by such parties is not 
necessary.
    The Agency's enforcement of the interim program thus far has 
centered around auditing the VAR activities of detergent blenders and 
conducting paperwork reviews of other parties in the gasoline 
distribution system, all as part of general fuel regulation compliance 
inspections. Because inspections of WPC facilities have not been 
extensive, and because EPA does not expect an increase in such 
inspections, EPA will not require WPCs to retain PTDs for additized 
gasoline under today's final rule. In the unusual event that they 
receive any other regulated product (such as unadditized gasoline or 
additized PRC), today's rule does require these parties to retain the 
PTDs for such unusual transfers. Parties selling or transferring 
regulated products to WPCs are still required to transfer PTD's to 
those parties and to retain copies of all such PTDs (except as 
discussed in the following section).
    As proposed under the NPRM and as is required under the interim 
program, the certification program requires WPCs to receive PTDs at the 
time gasoline is transferred to them, so that they can review these 
documents to determine proper additization compliance (with the one 
exception for small loads discussed below). In addition, if a WPC 
transfers gasoline to another regulated party which is not an ultimate 
consumer using it in a motor vehicle, then the WPC is a distributor of 
the gasoline, and must comply with all PTD requirements that apply to 
distributors.
    b. Elimination of PTD Requirements for Transfer of Small Loads of 
Additized Gasoline to Ultimate Consumers. Under the interim program, 
all regulated parties who transfer gasoline or additized PRC, with the 
exception of WPCs or retail outlets transferring gasoline to the 
ultimate consumer, are required to transfer PTDs for that product to 
the transferee. Similarly, all regulated parties receiving the product 
must obtain the PTDs from their transferor. The interim program further 
requires that such documents be maintained for five years from date of 
transfer.
    The Agency was advised by the Independent Petroleum Marketers 
Association (IPMA) that this PTD requirement was creating a hardship 
for distributors in rural areas who pick up additized gasoline from 
terminals, and then deliver small amounts of this product to farmers. 
(See Docket items VI-D-51, VI-D-52, VI-D-66, and VI-D-67.) IPMA 
suggested that such transfers be made exempt from the PTD requirements 
since such sales are analogous to sales to the ultimate consumer from 
retail outlets, which are exempt from PTD requirements. These loads are 
typically divided from the larger truckloads picked up at the 
terminals. New delivery tickets are created for each of the divided 
loads, typically hand written and containing

[[Page 35347]]

minimal information. Thus, the creation and storage of detailed PTDs 
for those small deliveries is unduly burdensome.
    The Agency agrees that small sales by distributors of additized 
gasoline to ultimate consumers for their own use can be considered 
analogous to retail sales and should be exempt from PTD requirements. 
The PTD requirements were established to alert regulated parties and 
the Agency to the additization status of the transferred product. This 
notification was not intended to be extended to retail customers. 
Further, the small amount of product involved, and the fact that the 
gasoline is not intended for additional transfer, diminishes even 
further the notification value of the PTDs in this situation.
    In light of the purported record creation and maintenance burdens 
associated with these documents, and because of the minimal 
notification value associated with them, today's final rule exempts 
from the PTD requirements certain transfers of small amounts of 
gasoline. Specifically, the rule exempts transfers of additized 
gasoline of no greater than 550 gallons made by distributors which are 
not the detergent blenders of the gasoline, to ultimate consumers for 
their own use or the use of their agents or employees. The 550 gallon 
maximum is established because that is the criteria for minimum tank 
size used in the fuels regulations (40 CFR 80.2(o)) to define a party 
as a wholesale-purchaser consumer.
    The PTD exemption is further limited by the type of parties 
involved with the transfer. The exemption does not apply to those 
distributors actually doing the detergent blending, since such parties 
typically are terminals with equipment that automatically produces 
PTDs, and thus have no need for the exemption. Further, the exemption 
is restricted to small deliveries to ultimate consumers of gasoline, 
who are not in the business of distributing gasoline to other parties. 
Deliveries to parties which distribute gasoline are excluded from this 
exemption since such marketers are responsible for the further transfer 
of gasoline to their own customers. The Agency expects gasoline 
marketers to fulfill their regulatory responsibility of reviewing PTD 
receipts to ensure that the product received is properly additized.
    c. Address of the Transferee/Transferor. The certification program 
continues the interim program requirement that the addresses of both 
the transferor and the transferee of the product are to be listed on 
the PTD. Today's rule also adopts the Q&A Document modification that 
allows the address of the transferee to be identified on a separate 
document which must be made available to EPA inspectors upon request 
(Q&A Document #1, Q.15, p.14). This change responds to industry's 
concern about lack of space on commercial transfer documents due to PTD 
requirements.
    For the sake of conformity with the PTD requirements of the RFG 
rules (40 CFR part 80, subparts D & E), as implemented by that rule's 
Q&A Documents, and because of document space concerns, today's final 
rule expands this alternative procedure to the identification of 
addresses of transferrers also. However, as in the RFG program, today's 
final rule establishes the following additional requirements for those 
who would use this alternative procedure: (1) The normal business 
practice between the parties must not include listing addresses on 
their transfer documents, and (2) both parties to the transaction must 
know and have records of the required addresses.
    d. PTD Identification of Oxygenates and PRC Added to Gasoline. In 
promulgating the interim program, it was not necessary to require 
regulated parties such as refiners to identify on a gasoline product's 
PTD whether the gasoline had been blended with a particular oxygenate, 
since a properly registered detergent could be used with any gasoline, 
including oxygenated gasoline, sold in the United States. Using the 
same reasoning, the Q&As for the interim program clarified that any PRC 
(including an oxygenate) which was added to gasoline prior to detergent 
additization was not required to be identified on the gasoline's PTD. 
(Q&A Document #2, Q.6, p.11.) If, however, a PRC was additized 
separately from the gasoline, the same Q&A reaffirmed the regulatory 
requirement that the gasoline's PTD does have to identify the 
component, because it is useful for the Agency and regulated parties to 
be aware of the separate additization of the components.
    In contrast, the identification of a refinery-added oxygenate or a 
PRC is very important under today's final rule, since a specific 
detergent certification may not cover the use of a particular oxygenate 
or, under the fuel-specific certification option, a particular PRC. 
Therefore, as originally proposed, today's rule requires that all 
gasoline product transfer documents identify any PRC added to the 
gasoline. It further extends the identification requirement to any 
oxygenate, whether refinery-added or a PRC, added to gasoline. Without 
such identification, parties may inadvertently additize gasoline 
containing an oxygenate or PRC with detergent that has not been 
certified for use with that product.
    e. Detergent Package Use Restriction Designations. Since today's 
final rule permits detergents to be certified for use with a specific 
fuel, or for a variety of restricted uses, it is important that the 
PTDs for detergent packages identify the existence of any special use 
restrictions. Without such identification, there would be greater 
possibility that a detergent blender would inadvertently use the 
detergent with inappropriate gasoline.
    In the NPRM, the Agency proposed that PTDs for certified detergents 
with PADD, fuel-specific, CARB-based, or leaded gasoline use 
restrictions must specify the use restriction that applied to the 
detergent being transferred. Today's rule adopts the concept that a 
detergent's use restrictions must be highlighted on the detergent's 
PTD. However, because detergents under today's rule may be certified 
with a multitude of different LACs related to different use 
restrictions, today's final rule only requires PTDs for such products 
to include a general warning that use restrictions apply to the 
product. The Agency believes that requiring identification on a 
detergent package's PTD of all the options and corresponding use 
restrictions under which a detergent has been certified would result in 
a waste of space on PTDs for those detergents with numerous use-
restricted LACs. Furthermore, identification of numerous LACs could be 
confusing and counter-productive to the recipient of the detergent, 
since many of the use restrictions may not be relevant to the 
particular party receiving the detergent.
    Therefore, under today's rule, if a detergent has only one 
certified LAC for generic use with any fuel product, then the PTD for 
the detergent must not include any reference to use restrictions. 
However, if the detergent's only certified LAC is for use with a 
restricted product (e.g., fuel-specific, leaded only, premium only, 
etc.), then the PTD for that detergent package must identify the 
detergent as use-restricted detergent. Similarly, if a detergent has 
been certified with two or more LACs, and thus has a variety of 
restricted use possibilities, the PTD for that detergent package must 
indicate that the detergent has special use options available. The 
Agency believes that such PTD identification will give adequate notice 
to detergent recipients of the use-restricted status of transferred 
detergents, while not presenting so much information that the recipient 
might be misled by it.

[[Page 35348]]

    f. Fuel-Specific Gasoline Designations. As proposed in the NPRM, 
today's final rule requires that base gasoline which is segregated for 
use with a particular fuel specific-detergent must be identified as 
such on its PTD. This identification will help prevent the use of the 
specialized detergent with an inappropriate gasoline. The PTD for such 
gasoline must indicate that it is base gasoline for use with the 
designated detergent package.
    Because fuel-specific certification is based on gasoline from a 
segregated fuel supply, oxygenates or PRCs may be added to the subject 
gasoline only if they were specifically included in the detergent's 
fuel-specific certification. Today's rule adopts the proposed provision 
that base gasoline with oxygenates or PRCs which were not included in 
the designated detergent's fuel-specific certification cannot be 
identified on its PTD as base gasoline for use with that fuel-specific 
detergent.
    At the marketer's option, base gasoline which is designated for a 
fuel-specific detergent may be additized with a different detergent, or 
at a non-fuel-specific LAC treat rate. The fuel-specific designation 
does not require the use of the fuel-specific detergent, it merely 
permits it.
    Today's certification rule also specifies the proper PTD 
identification for the fuel-specific gasoline designated in a fuel-
specific detergent certification which establishes that such gasoline 
does not need to be additized. Because some unusual gasoline supplies 
may be able to pass the performance requirements of detergent 
certification testing without the use of detergents, today's rule 
provides that such gasoline may be legally sold and transported under 
the fuel-specific certification option. The rule further requires that 
a PTD for such product must identify it as ``detergent-equivalent 
gasoline''. This is appropriate nomenclature, since the fuel is 
equivalent to additized gasoline in its deposit prevention capability. 
The use of this PTD identification will provide notice to recipients of 
the actual additization status of the product.
    g. PADD Designation on PTDs for Additized Gasoline or PRC. Today's 
rule adopts the proposal that the PTD for gasoline or PRC additized 
with a PADD-specific detergent must identify the product as restricted 
for ultimate sale or transfer in that PADD. For example, use of the 
phrase ``PADD I only'' would be considered acceptable identification of 
this restricted use. In a similar manner, the PTD for gasoline 
additized with a CARB-based certified detergent must identify the 
product as CARB-based, to alert recipients that the gasoline must 
either have been additized in California or sold to the ultimate 
consumer in that state. (See section VIII(B)(7)(c), below, for a 
discussion of specified detergent rule exemptions for gasoline 
additized and sold in California.) As discussed above, gasoline or PRC 
may be cured of PADD or other use restrictions through the approved 
readditization curing process.
    h. Identification of Oxygenate and PRC Use Restrictions on PTDs for 
Additized Gasoline. As previously discussed, a misadditization 
violation would arise under today's rule if oxygenate or PRC were added 
to gasoline additized with a detergent restricted against that use. 
Therefore, successful implementation of the detergent program requires 
that gasoline additized with such detergent must have a PTD identifying 
the oxygenate or PRC restriction. Use of such phrases such as 
``oxygenate use prohibited'' or ``MTBE use only'', would be acceptable 
identification. Such PTD identification for the additized gasoline will 
provide notice to downstream parties of the continuing oxygenate or PRC 
use restriction applying to the product. It will also alert these 
parties to the need to eliminate the restriction through the approved 
curing method if they desire to add the restricted component.
    This PTD identification requirement for additized gasoline is a 
modification of the NPRM proposal, which would have required that PTDs 
for additized gasolines identify the EPA certification number of the 
detergent used to additize the gasoline. Under the proposal, the use of 
the specified certification number would have provided notice to 
recipients that the particular use restrictions certified with that 
specified detergent needed to be followed.
    However, today's final rule does not provide certification numbers 
for detergents, since EPA does not believe that the informational 
benefits of such numbers would outweigh the administrative and 
recordkeeping burdens associated with them. As a more efficient 
substitute, today's rule merely requires that those gasolines actually 
additized at a use-restricted LAC rate must identify the applicable 
oxygenate or PRC use restrictions on their PTDs.
    i. Base Gasoline Identification. Under the interim program rule, 
all regulated parties transferring unadditized gasoline are required to 
identify the product on its PTD as base gasoline. In addition, PTDs for 
such product are also required to state the warning that this gasoline 
is ``Not for sale to the ultimate consumer''. These base gasoline 
requirements originally proposed in the NPRM were considered necessary 
to highlight to the recipients the significant information that such 
unadditized product could not legally be sold or transferred for 
consumer use.
    Although the Agency still believes it is important for unadditized 
gasoline to be highlighted as such within the gasoline distribution 
system, EPA no longer considers it necessary to mandate particular 
identification language (e.g. the phrase ``base gasoline'') for it. EPA 
experience in implementing the interim program has shown that 
permitting industry flexibility in complying with PTD identification 
requirements has not resulted in significant identification problems. 
Therefore, under today's final rule, PTDs for base gasoline may use any 
nomenclature which clearly states that the base gasoline is 
unadditized. However, today's rule does require that PTDs for most base 
gasolines must include the mandated language specifically warning 
against the sale of unadditized gasoline to the ultimate consumer.
    An exception is base gasoline to be used for research and 
development purposes, as discussed below in section VIII.B.7. Another 
exception was initially articulated by EPA in Q&A Document #1, Q.13, 
p.13, in response to a refiner's suggestion that the consumer-sale 
prohibition language was unnecessary on certain specialized PTDs. 
Specifically, an industry party requested permission to delete this 
language on PTDs for contractually controlled bulk transfers of 
unadditized product from refiners to pipelines, when the parties have a 
written agreement which states that the pipeline will not sell or 
transfer the unadditized gasoline to ultimate consumers.
    The Agency agreed in the Q&A Document that transfers between these 
parties under these circumstances should not require the PTD warning 
language, because the likelihood of such unadditized product being 
mistakenly delivered to a consumer is minimal. Today's final rule 
codifies this exception to the PTD warning language requirement in the 
limited circumstances outlined above. The Agency believes that this 
modification of the proposal will not result in the sale of unadditized 
product to consumers, but will reduce the paperwork burden on refiners 
and pipelines.
    j. Use of Product Codes on PTDs. The NPRM and interim program did 
not address the use of product codes and other language not specified 
in the regulation, to satisfy the information requirements established 
for PTDs. However, both in comments on the

[[Page 35349]]

NPRM, and in implementation feedback to the Agency (See Q&A Document 
#1, Q.13, p.13), regulated parties requested permission to use product 
codes to satisfy PTD information requirements proposed in the NPRM and 
codified in the interim program. The rationale given by the parties 
supporting such substitution is that the use of product codes would 
greatly reduce the amount of space needed to convey the required 
information.
    The Agency is sympathetic to industry's need to conserve space on 
commercial documents because transfer documents have to comply with 
several regulatory information requirements, not only those associated 
with the detergent rule. In response to this concern, the Agency issued 
a Q&A Document which permitted the use of product codes to comply with 
the interim program's PTD requirements, provided certain conditions 
were met (Q&A Document #1, supra.) The conditions are designed to 
ensure clear communication of the information required by the 
regulation.
    Under the Q&A guidance, product codes or other alternative language 
must be clear, accurate, and not misleading. They must be standardized 
throughout the distribution system in which they are used, and 
downstream parties must be informed of their full meaning. However, 
parties may not use product codes or alternative language to substitute 
for the two required warnings found in the interim regulation. These 
are the prohibition against the sale of base gasoline to the ultimate 
consumer, and the statement that a detergent certified only for the 
control of carburetor deposits must be used with leaded gasoline only. 
The Agency believes that these warnings are so important that 
abbreviations or substitutions for them would not provide adequate 
notice to receiving parties.
    Today's final rule codifies this approach. The rule's provision 
requires such codes to be clear and accurate, so that any parties 
transferring PTDs with product codes or alternative language which are 
confusing or not effectively explained to downstream parties, are not 
in compliance with the detergent rule's PTD requirements. Such parties 
are also liable for any product nonconformity violations caused by the 
non-complying PTDs.
    Today's rule does not prohibit the use of product codes to convey 
the leaded gasoline only warning, since PTD notification requirements 
for all detergent package use restrictions, including the leaded 
gasoline restriction, are treated in the same way under today's final 
rule (See preamble section VIII.B.5.e.). Instead, compliance with the 
generic use-restriction language is required, to provide effective 
notice to recipients of the detergent package that the use of the 
detergent is subject to conditions.
    As discussed in the previous section, today's rule does not permit, 
in most instances, substitution for the regulatory warning language 
against the sale of base gasoline to the ultimate consumer. However, 
electronic data transmissions cannot accommodate the PTD regulatory 
language for base gasoline transfers. Consequently, as under the RFG 
program, today's final rule permits the warning language on electronic 
PTDs to be reflected by product codes, provided that such documents are 
for title transfers only, and do not involve actual transfer or 
possession of the product. Under the specified conditions, the Agency 
does not believe that the absence of the exact regulatory warning 
language from the electronic PTDs will result in the improper transfer 
of unadditized product.
    k. PTD Requirements for Gasoline Overadditized for the Later 
Addition of Ethanol or Other PRC. Under the interim rule, when gasoline 
is overadditized to account for the later addition of unadditized PRC, 
the PTD for the gasoline must indicate that the product has been 
overadditized to account for the later addition of a specified volume 
of PRC. The purpose of this requirement is to provide notice to the 
recipient that only the stated volume of PRC has been accounted for by 
the gasoline's overadditization.
    At the 1994 API public seminar on the interim program, EPA received 
industry feedback that it would be difficult for marketers to identify 
on PTDs the actual amount of anticipated ethanol that the particular 
overadditization accounted for, and that it would be much more 
convenient and preferable to identify the standardized, maximum 
percentage of product volume that the anticipated ethanol could 
comprise (See Docket item IV-E-45). For example, most blenders using 
this procedure would over-additize a batch of gasoline in anticipation 
of the later addition of ethanol amounting to no greater than 10 
percent of the fuel's finished volume.
    The Agency believes that identification of the maximum percentage 
of total product volume that the blender anticipates will be PRC, and 
for which the blender has additized, will provide adequate notice of 
the maximum amount of such product that may be added to the additized 
gasoline. Therefore, EPA stated at the API seminar that blenders could 
identify on PTDs the amount of ethanol that could be added to 
overadditized gasoline either by this percentage, or by the volume of 
ethanol. Today's final rule codifies this change as to ethanol and 
other PRCs.
    6. Extension of the Agency's Right of Entry into Facilities of 
Detergent Manufacturers, Distributors, and Carriers. Neither the NPRM 
nor the interim program addressed the Agency's authority to enter and 
inspect the premises of parties in the detergent distribution system. 
The EPA believes that such authority is included in its information 
gathering authority under section 114, as well as in its authority to 
regulate detergents under section 211(l) of the Clean Air Act, and in 
its general authority under section 301(a). Therefore, EPA proposed in 
the Reopening Notice to expand its right of entry provision located at 
40 CFR 80.4.
    Section 80.4 currently states that the Administrator or her 
authorized representative may enter the premises of parties in the 
gasoline distribution system to make inspections, take samples, and 
conduct tests to determine compliance with EPA fuels requirements under 
40 CFR Part 80. In the Reopening Notice, the Agency proposed expanding 
this section to include entry into the facilities of the detergent 
manufacturers, distributors, and carriers now regulated under Part 80.
    Only one commenter, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, opposed 
the proposal, and did so only in regard to detergent manufacturers. CMA 
stated that section 211(l) does not make it unlawful for detergent 
manufacturers to produce or store detergents out of conformity with EPA 
specifications. CMA argued that EPA's only legitimate concern under 
section 211(l) was to ensure that detergents met specifications when 
they were blended into gasoline. This commenter believed that the 
Agency could adequately address this concern by sampling detergents 
only at the premises of detergent blenders. Thus, argued CMA, EPA's 
right to enter and inspect the premises of a detergent manufacturer 
could not be considered necessary to carry out its functions under the 
Act and was, therefore, not authorized under section 301.
    The Agency disagrees with CMA's argument. The Agency believes that 
it is necessary for EPA to inspect the premises of detergent 
manufacturers, both to enforce the detergent specifications mandated by 
section 211(l), as well as to prevent the creation of misadditized 
gasoline which would also be in violation of section 211(l).

[[Page 35350]]

Detergent manufacturers can clearly cause detergents to fail to conform 
to required specifications through their improper manufacture of the 
detergents. Their sale of such nonconforming detergent, which is a 
violation of the detergent program in itself, would then cause other 
violations of the program, namely, the sale of misadditized gasoline 
based on that detergent nonconformity.
    To ensure that the regulatory detergent specifications are met and 
that detergent is not sold which would cause the sale of misadditized 
gasoline, it is necessary for the Agency to sample and test detergent 
at all points in its sale/distribution system, including at detergent 
manufacturer facilities. It would be counter-productive and impractical 
for the Agency to wait to sample and test nonconforming detergent until 
a detergent blender is actually in the process of using it, or has 
already used it, in violation of section 211(l) prohibitions. Thus, the 
Agency's ability to inspect the premises of detergent manufacturers is 
reasonable and necessary for EPA to effectively carry out its statutory 
mandates.
    7. Exemptions. As proposed in the NPRM, the interim program 
includes an exemption from the requirements of the detergent rule for 
detergent used for research, development, and testing purposes. Also 
exempt under the interim program are aviation fuel and racing fuel. 
Several parties commenting on the interim program have requested 
modifications of these exemptions. (See Docket items #IV-E-41, VI-D-08 
and VI-D-69.) The following is a discussion of the exemptions finalized 
today, including a discussion of the newly-included California gasoline 
exemptions.
    a. Research, Development, and Testing Exemption. In the NPRM, EPA 
proposed that parties conducting research and development (R&D) testing 
of gasoline and detergent additives could apply to the Agency to obtain 
detergent rule exemption waivers for their products. Pursuant to 
industry comment that the proposed waiver procedures were burdensome 
and unnecessary, the interim program established an R&D-exemption which 
did not require a specific EPA waiver. Under this provision, detergents 
that are in a research, development, or test status, or are sold to 
petroleum, automobile, engine, or component manufacturers for such 
purposes, are exempt from the rule's requirements, provided that (1) 
the detergent or the fuel containing the detergent is kept segregated, 
(2) documentation identifies the product as R&D and states that it is 
only to be used for R&D purposes, (3) the product is not sold or 
transferred, or offered for sale or transfer, from a retail outlet, (4) 
if the detergent is transferred or offered for transfer from a WPC 
facility, that facility is R&D associated, and (5) the party using the 
product notifies EPA at least annually, and prior to usage, of the 
purposes of the R&D program and the volume of the product to be used.
    A comment on the Reopening Notice pointed out that this R&D 
exemption did not appear to include base gasoline to be used for R&D 
purposes. This commenter suggested that EPA specifically add base 
gasoline to be used for R&D purposes to the products being exempted 
under the rule. The commenter also suggested amending the PTD warning 
requirements for base gasoline, so that a base gasoline PTD could say 
either that the product was not for sale to the ultimate consumer or, 
if appropriate, that it was to be used only for R&D purposes.
    The Agency agrees with this comment about the R&D exemption. The 
omission of R&D base gasoline from the language of this exemption 
provision was unintentional. Today's final rule therefore corrects this 
omission and specifically includes within the exemption all R&D 
gasoline, both base and additized product. The rule requires, however, 
that for gasoline to be exempt under this provision, it must be used by 
an appropriate R&D institution, i.e., a manufacturer of additives, 
gasoline, automotive parts, or automobiles, or it must be used under 
the control of such a party. This requirement will ensure that only 
parties legitimately connected with petroleum, additive, or automotive 
research and development will be able to use the exemption.
    In response to the request that EPA allow PTDs for R&D base 
gasoline to identify the product as such, and to state ``For R&D 
purposes only'' instead of the general warning against sale to the 
ultimate consumer, today's final rule permits such information on PTDs 
for this fuel.
    CMA commented that the R&D exemption requirement of prior and 
annual notification to EPA was unfair and burdensome. This commenter 
asserted that such notification was not required for the other 
detergent rule exemptions, and therefore should not be required for 
this one. Further, CMA argued that the actual volume of R&D product to 
be used in an upcoming year was not knowable at the beginning of the 
year, which would make it difficult to comply with the reporting 
requirement. Both CMA and a second industry commenter (Docket item #VI-
D-57) believed that the notification requirement was confusing as to 
which parties had to report, because contract laboratories often 
perform research on behalf of the gasoline, additive, or automotive 
manufacturers.
    While today's final rule retains the annual notification 
requirement for the R&D exemption, EPA has modified the requirement in 
response to these comments. The Agency believes that annual 
notification is necessary because it alerts the Agency to intended R&D 
product use. The Agency can then inspect the R&D facilities to ensure 
that the exempted product is actually being used for legitimate R&D 
purposes. In addition, the prior notification requirement is useful for 
enforcement purposes because any party attempting to assert R&D status 
as a rationale for noncompliance will first have to establish that it 
previously notified the Agency of its intended R&D use.
    However, in response to commenter concern, the final rule does ease 
the R&D notification requirements. The rule permits either the party 
actually conducting the research or the party controlling the research 
to make the notification to EPA. Therefore, if they choose, 
manufacturers can submit one annual notification to cover all the R&D 
products that their contract laboratories are testing for them, 
obviating the need for contract laboratories to submit multiple 
notifications for their varied testing work. Moreover, the annual 
notification need only identify a reasonable estimate of the R&D 
product to be used in the coming year, rather than a certain amount.
    b. Racing and Aviation Fuel Exemptions. As proposed in the NPRM, 
the interim program included an exemption from detergent rule 
requirements for fuel sold, transferred, etc. as automotive racing fuel 
and for fuel sold, etc. as airplane engine fuel. For such fuel to be 
exempt, it must be kept segregated and must be accompanied by 
documentation identifying it as racing or aviation fuel, not for street 
or highway use. The exemption provision also required that the product 
not be sold or transferred from a retail outlet.
    Several comments on the NPRM protested the restriction that racing 
fuel sold or transferred from a retail outlet would not qualify for the 
exemption. These comments stated that prohibiting the sale of such fuel 
at retail outlets would be unfair to auto racing participants, since 
some racing facilities do not have fuel pumps available. Further, the 
comments alleged that this

[[Page 35351]]

requirement would discriminate unfairly against retail outlets.
    The interim program's exemption for racing fuel included the retail 
outlet sale restriction because such fuel, which normally has a high 
lead content and lacks detergent additives, is not appropriate for 
street or highway use. Retail outlets, by their very nature, are 
facilities at which fuel is sold to consumers for street or highway 
use. Therefore, the Agency believed that permitting the sale of this 
product at facilities regularly selling gasoline to general consumers 
would be conducive to the illegal sale and use of this exempted 
product.
    EPA remains concerned about this potential problem, but agrees with 
the commenters that completely prohibiting the sale of exempt racing 
fuel at retail outlets is an unnecessarily broad solution. Therefore, 
today's final rule places less restrictive requirements on the sale of 
exempt racing fuel to protect against the sale of this product to 
highway-use consumers.
    The product segregation and documentation requirements promulgated 
in the interim program will continue under today's rule. Also, the rule 
affirms that the exemption is confined to fuel distributed to racing 
vehicles that are restricted for nonhighway use. This requirement is 
consistent with that of the RFG program. The consistency between the 
two fuels programs will make it easier for parties to comply with both 
programs. In addition, today's rule requires that pumps from which 
racing fuel is dispensed must be clearly labeled as such.
    The Agency believes that these provisions will prevent the improper 
use of unadditized racing fuel in highway vehicles as effectively as 
the proposed retail outlet sale prohibition would. At the same time, 
these requirements do not unfairly discriminate against retail outlets 
but apply, instead, to all parties selling or transferring racing fuel.
    It is a violation of today's rule to sell product claimed to be 
exempt racing fuel and not properly additized to a consumer for street 
or highway use. The Agency believes that parties who sell or transfer 
the product to inappropriate recipients may have difficulty 
establishing for an affirmative defense that they did not cause the 
violation if they cannot demonstrate that they complied with the 
exemption requirements and that they had taken reasonable steps to 
ensure the product would be used in the proper manner so that the 
exemption would apply.
    Today's rule continues to exempt aviation gasoline. Similar to the 
exemption for racing fuel, today's rule requires dispensers of exempt 
aviation gasoline to properly label the aviation pumps, and to sell or 
transfer the product for aviation use only. The interim program's 
segregation and documentation requirements for this product are also 
continued in today's rule. The Agency believes that these requirements 
will ensure that the exempt product is used only in aviation engines.
    c. California Gasoline Exemptions. The interim program requires 
that gasoline additized and sold or transferred to the ultimate 
consumer in California is subject to all the enforcement-related 
provisions of the Federal detergent program, including the VAR and 
paperwork requirements, in spite of the fact that CARB is also 
regulating this fuel under its own detergent program. At the time the 
interim rule was promulgated, EPA was concerned that CARB's detergent 
program might not be as effective as the Federal program in ensuring 
compliance with the Federal standards for proper additization. However, 
CARB's enforcement of its detergent regulation program has proven to be 
very vigorous, and its enforcement requirements have been shown to be 
effective.<SUP>29 Further, CARB has proposed changes to its detergent 
program which would make CARB's program even more rigorous in the 
future.<SUP>30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Docket item VI-D-68 for a summary of CARB's detergent 
program enforcement actions.
    \30\ See Docket item VI-D-55 regarding the 9/29/95 Proposed 
Amendments to CARB's Detergent Additive Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA now considers that CARB's VAR and paperwork 
requirements, even under the present CARB statutory language, will be 
as effective in ensuring compliance with the Federal standards as are 
their Federal program equivalents. Consequently, EPA has decided to 
create exemptions for California gasoline from the Federal VAR and PTD 
provisions. Since the equivalent CARB record keeping and reconciliation 
provisions are effective, these Federal enforcement requirements would 
be superfluous in California.
    Today's rule merely exempts the specified California gasoline from 
certain Federal enforcement program requirements that are unnecessary 
in California. Specifically, gasoline additized in California is exempt 
from the Federal VAR requirements, and gasoline sold or transferred 
wholly within California is exempt from the Federal PTD requirements. 
Such gasoline is still subject under today's rule to the general 
requirements of additization and sale in conformity with Federal 
certification requirements, since Congress mandated the additization, 
pursuant to EPA specifications, of all gasoline sold to consumers in 
the United States. California detergent blenders can comply with both 
the state and Federal requirements by using detergents which have CARB-
based Federal certifications, and following the CARB-mandated record 
keeping and VAR procedures. EPA will evaluate California blenders' 
compliance with the Federal LAC standards by examining the records of 
the same type mandated by CARB, plus the CARB-mandated type of records 
for gasoline additized in California for ultimate sale elsewhere. The 
Agency does not expect to regularly conduct detergent program 
inspections in California. EPA believes that CARB's enforcement of the 
California requirements will adequately assure compliance with Federal 
standards. However, if EPA believes it appropriate, the Agency will 
conduct detergent program inspections of California facilities.
    To ensure that the Agency will have access to the same amount of 
compliance records for California detergent blenders as for blenders 
outside of California, today's final rule requires California-regulated 
parties who operate under the exemption from the Federal VAR 
requirements to maintain the detergent program records required by CARB 
(and the same type of records for gasoline to be sold outside of 
California), for the same five-year period that records are required to 
be maintained under the Federal program. The Federal VAR exemption is 
predicated on this record creation and maintenance. The Agency will 
thus be able to review these compliance records, if and when it chooses 
to inspect California facilities, covering the same time period that 
applies in other states.
    The California gasoline exemptions from the specified VAR and PTD 
provisions of the Federal detergent enforcement program are also 
predicated on EPA's conclusion that the CARB program is as effective as 
the Federal program in ensuring compliance with the Federal detergent 
standards. EPA intends to monitor CARB's program to ensure that these 
exemptions continue to be justified. If EPA determines that changes in 
CARB's regulations or its enforcement practices, or other changed 
circumstances, would compromise the CARB program's ability to ensure 
compliance with Federal additization standards, then EPA may

[[Page 35352]]

delete these exemptions through a future rulemaking.

C. Proposed Changes Not Incorporated in the Certification Rule

    Several changes to enforcement provisions of the interim program 
were proposed in the Reopening Notice but are not incorporated in 
today's certification rule. The following is a summary of these 
proposed changes along with the reasons they were ultimately rejected 
by the Agency.
    The first such nonfinalized proposal would have required the use of 
meters on all automated additization equipment injectors. EPA proposed 
this metering requirement to promote greater additization accuracy. 
However, comments on this proposal universally condemned it as being 
expensive, disruptive of industry's present operating procedures, and 
not necessarily effective in ensuring greater accuracy. The commenters 
believed that the detergent program should continue to permit blenders 
to use their existing equipment, unless enforcement experience 
established a need for greater accuracy.
    These comments are persuasive. EPA enforcement experience of the 
first year of the detergent program has indicated minimal problems with 
non-metered records. Therefore, the extra expense of new metered 
additization equipment has not proven to be necessary.
    The second nonfinalized proposal would have required VAR volumes to 
be recorded to the nearest tenth of a gallon, instead of the nearest 
gallon requirement established under the interim program. Commenters 
disputed the need for increasing the severity of the recording 
requirement, since some additization systems cannot measure volumes to 
that degree of precision and installing new equipment would be very 
costly. At the same time, commenters asserted that increasing the 
precision would not bring noticeable benefits in greater additization 
accuracy. In particular, it was pointed out that recording volume 
figures to one tenth of a gallon, for the large volumes of fuel 
typically being recorded, would be meaningless in improving 
additization compliance.
    The Agency finds these comments persuasive, except as regards VAR 
reporting of detergent volumes of five gallons or less. Reporting such 
small amounts of detergent only to the nearest gallon would create a 
greater than 10 percent degree of inaccuracy in reporting the 
additization that actually occurred. The Agency believes that this is 
an unacceptable level of inaccuracy in VAR compliance reporting. 
Therefore, although the proposed change to a tenth of gallon reporting 
is not generally incorporated in today's final rule, detergent volumes 
of five gallons of less are required to be recorded on the VAR formula 
records to the nearest tenth of a gallon (or smaller unit), if the 
blender's equipment can measure to this level. If not, such volumes are 
to be reported down to the nearest gallon. This procedure will address 
EPA's concerns for accurate reporting of additization, while also 
meeting industry's objection to purchasing upgraded equipment merely to 
ensure this accuracy.
    Another proposed change not incorporated in today's final rule was 
the imposition of a minimum detergent concentration for each gallon of 
gasoline additized, in addition to meeting the VAR averaging 
requirement. This was another proposal that industry commenters to the 
Reopening Notice consistently opposed, primarily because of the huge 
expenses they said would be entailed for installing additization 
equipment that could monitor per-gallon compliance. Commenters argued 
that little gain would result from this requirement, since deposit 
formation occurs over the long term. Therefore, according to these 
commenters, the compliance already required under the VAR averaging 
procedures should be adequate to prevent such buildups.
    EPA concedes the points made, and has chosen to delete the proposed 
requirement of per-gallon minimum additization. This decision could be 
revisited in the future, however, if experience shows that such 
additional compliance requirements are necessary to effectively prevent 
deposit formation.
    The fourth change not incorporated was the extension of presumptive 
liability for VAR violations to all parties, except upstream carriers, 
in the product's distribution system. See Section VIII.B.2.b. for a 
discussion of this issue.
    The final proposed change from the Reopening Notice that was not 
included in today's rule was the prohibition against the use of 
multiple equipment set rates within one VAR formula record. The Agency 
was concerned that if gasoline additized under several detergent 
concentration set rates were included within the reported VAR volumes 
in the same formula record, then there would be inadequate assurance 
that the gasoline additized at the lower rates was in compliance with 
the LAC standard. Compliance at the higher rates could mask 
noncompliance in the lower rates. Therefore, the Agency proposed the 
prohibition against the use of multiple set rates within the same VAR 
record.
    Detergent blender commenters to this proposal wanted to retain the 
ability to use multiple set rates in the same VAR record because it 
would minimize their VAR paperwork burdens and would allow the use of 
present equipment. They rejected the need for the proposed prohibition, 
arguing that the interim program's prohibition against setting any 
injector's set rate lower than the LAC and the additional prohibition 
against adjusting any injector's set rate higher than 10 percent of its 
initial setting, would effectively ensure that the gasoline additized 
at the lower treat rates also attains the LAC standard.
    The Agency agrees with these comments that the interim program's 
set rate requirements do provide some insurance that the gasoline 
additized under the lower concentrations will be adequately additized. 
Therefore, EPA does not consider the added paperwork and equipment 
expenditures associated with the proposed multiple set rate prohibition 
to be warranted. However, the certification program maintains the 
interim program requirement that detergents being used at different 
LACs must be recorded and reconciled on separate VAR formula records 
(See section VIII.B.2.e.). Since VAR compliance is based on the 
comparison of the actual detergent concentration attained with the 
appropriate LAC certified for the fuel product being additized, each 
restricted LAC must be separately compared to the respective additized 
product.
    To make this requirement meaningful, the certification program 
continues the interim program's requirement that blenders using a 
detergent at different LACs must have the ability to accurately measure 
the additization occurring under each LAC. Both the interim and 
certification programs provide flexibility to blenders in satisfying 
this requirement. For example, such blenders could measure usage from 
different tanks containing the detergent being used at different LACs, 
use a separate meter on an injector that is additizing under a separate 
LAC, or use a meter capable of distinguishing additizations under 
separate LACs.
    In summary, for the reasons outlined above, EPA agrees with the 
overwhelming majority of commenters to the Reopening Notice that the 
above compliance provision modifications discussed in this section 
should not be adopted. To date, EPA's enforcement experience with the 
interim program has shown a high level of additization compliance. If 
future experience reveals that current enforcement provisions are

[[Page 35353]]

inadequate, then EPA may revise these provisions through another 
rulemaking.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency 
must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as any 
regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or,
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined 
that this final rule is a ``significant regulatory action''. EPA's 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA),<SUP>31 available in the public docket 
and summarized below, indicates that the annual costs to producers for 
compliance with the requirements of the certification program are 
expected to exceed $100 million. Therefore, EPA has treated this action 
as significant and has submitted a regulatory analysis to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\  The RIA was prepared in conjunction with the interim 
detergent program based on costs and benefits projected for the 
detergent certification program (Docket item V-B-01). An addendum 
updating the RIA was prepared to reflect minor changes in program 
costs from those projected in the original analysis (Docket item V-
B-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total cost of the detergent additive certification program 
includes costs associated with certification testing and additional 
registration and record-keeping requirements, as well as additization 
costs. Over 90 percent of the total estimated cost of the program is 
associated with the price of the additives needed to bring all gasoline 
up to the effective detergency levels which much of U.S. gasoline 
already contains. The average incremental cost to consumers is 
projected to be approximately 0.10 cents per gallon of gasoline. This 
amount will be partially compensated for by the increased fuel economy 
and decreased maintenance requirements which improved deposit control 
is expected to provide.
    The gasoline detergent additive requirements are expected to result 
in reductions in motor vehicle emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon 
monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen, totalling over one million tons 
during the 30-month interim program and about 600,000 tons per year 
under the detergent certification program. These emissions reductions 
will be achieved at relatively low cost, i.e., about $226 per ton. Fuel 
economy benefits are also expected as a result of the detergent 
program, amounting to nearly 450 million gallons during the 1995-2001 
period. The savings associated with this fuel economy benefit are 
expected to partially offset the costs of the program, decreasing the 
cost per ton of emissions reduction to $120.
    The program is not expected to be a significant cost burden to 
individual businesses, and adverse effects on competitive relationships 
are not expected. In fact, this rule should result in increased sales 
and business opportunities within the fuel additive industry. Any 
written comments from OMB and any EPA response to OMB's comments are 
available in the public docket for this rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA's analysis of the impact of this rule on small entities is 
included as Chapter 5 in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) that 
was prepared in association with the interim program as described 
above.
    The analysis shows that the regulatory responsibilities of the 
various types of businesses affected by this rule, along the chain from 
gasoline refiner to distributor to retailer, differ significantly. For 
each type of business, however, even for the small business entities in 
this chain, the costs of the regulation are estimated to be modest. The 
largest costs will be incurred by gasoline producers in the price of 
the additional detergent additive required to be added to gasoline. 
However, this basic cost is essential to the Clean Air Act mandate and 
for realization of the program's emission control objectives. Also, to 
some extent, additization costs are expected to be passed along the 
distribution chain to consumers. In the case of small additive 
manufacturers and additive injection equipment manufacturers, rather 
than being unduly burdensome, this regulation could result in 
significant economic opportunities through increased sales.
    The addendum to the RIA, as noted in the previous section, was 
prepared to reflect minor changes in the regulatory program from the 
previous analysis. Relevant changes were primarily associated with the 
cost of detergent certification testing, especially in regard to test 
fuel qualification. For small additive manufacturers, which are likely 
to use the services of contract laboratories for certification testing, 
such costs can be largely defrayed by cost sharing, since ``proven'' 
test fuels can be used by an unlimited number of laboratory customers. 
Furthermore, the economic benefits to small additive manufacturers of 
the requirements for detergent use will more than compensate for the 
manufacturer's certification costs under this rule. Thus, as was found 
in the original analysis, the addendum to the RIA concluded that 
significant adverse economic impacts on small businesses are very 
unlikely to occur as a result of this rule. Consequently, EPA has 
determined that this rule will not have a significant adverse impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The changes to the detergent program's information collection 
requirements in this rule have been submitted for approval to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information 
Collection Request document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1655.03) 
and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Regulatory Information 
Division; EPA; 401 M Street, SW. (Mail Code 2137); Washington, DC 
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. These new requirements are not 
effective until OMB approves them. The information collection 
requirements currently in force under the interim detergent program 
(ICR No. 1655-02) will continue to be effective until replaced by those 
contained in today's rule. In addition, many of the information 
collection requirements unique to the detergent certification program 
were anticipated in the NPRM and were previously approved by OMB (ICR 
No. 1655-01). These requirements will also be effective until the 
requirements contained in today's rule are approved by OMB.
    The information to be collected is necessary for the Agency to 
ensure that detergent additives that are effective in controlling 
deposits are used and that the emissions control goals of this

[[Page 35354]]

regulation are realized. The information will be used by the Agency to 
evaluate whether the deposit control performance standards in today's 
rule have been satisfied, that detergents are blended into gasoline at 
the required levels, and that the restrictions placed on the use of 
detergents certified under the different certification options are 
observed. The information collection requirements are mandatory apart 
from those associated with maintaining affirmative defenses. Section 
114 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7414 authorizes EPA to 
require recordkeeping and reporting regarding enforcement of the 
provisions of Title II of the CAA, including the provisions related to 
this rule. Any information or detergent samples submitted to EPA for 
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according 
to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 2.201 et seq.
    The following estimates of this collection requirements hourly and 
cost burden include the time to review instructions; develop, acquire, 
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of 
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a 
collection of information; search existing data sources; complete and 
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    The desegregated hourly burden estimates for this collection are as 
follows:
    (a) Additive manufacturers: (1) EPA estimate that two research 
exemptions will be reported each year per respondent at about 0.08 hr. 
per response, with 59 total respondents; (2) The certification testing 
recordkeeping burden is estimated at approximately 3.5 certifications 
per respondent in 1996 and 1997 with 59 total respondents. In 1998 and 
following years this is estimated to drop to approximately one 
certification per respondent. The burden initially includes about 382 
certifications but is reduced dramatically to a turnover rate of about 
15 percent of the initial number of certifications annually in future 
years. The burden per certification response is estimated to be less 
than 90 hours. The 1997 hours for all respondents is approximately 
21,830. This is reduced to about 5,160 hours in 1998 and 1999; (3) 
Other yearly requirements are customary business practices or have no 
hourly burden except a 0.15 hr. burden to review the instruction for 
quality assurance provision;
    (b) Refiners and importers: (1) Refiner/importer voluntary quality 
assurance for defense involves about 20 responses per respondent with 
about 0.01 hr. per response. One hundred parties are estimated to 
perform these voluntary quality assurance procedures; (2) Other 
requirements involve no hourly burden;
    (c) Terminals who blend detergent: The monthly detergent use 
accounting records requirement is largely a customary business practice 
that was adapted to EPA format under the previous interim rule. It is 
estimated that there will be 12 responses per year per detergent for 
each terminal. The on-customary business practice hourly burden per 
terminal per month is about 0.01 hour. It is estimated that there might 
be as many as 1,246 respondents; (2) The required calibration of 
terminal equipment is already performed, however, the rule requires 
that it be performed at least twice per year. The associated non-
customary business practice burden per response associated with this 
calibration requirement is estimated at 0.21 hours, with 1,200 
automated terminals participating. The startup burden per terminal to 
read rule/instructions is estimated at 0.25 hr; (3) It is estimated 
that 1,246 terminals conduct recordkeeping quality assurance on 15 
occasions per year at 0.02 hr. per review; (4) Other requirements 
require no hourly burden;
    (d) Truckers who hand blend detergent: It is estimated that 
truckers who hand blend detergent might do so on as many as 875 
occasions annually, with approximately 0.03 hour per response and 100 
total respondents annually for this requirement; (2) Other trucker 
requirements are customary business practices;
    (e) Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers: It is estimated 
that retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers of gasoline who also 
dispense detergent-exempt aviation fuel or racing fuel will spend 0.55 
hrs to label pumps. This is a one-time requirement for a total of 5,000 
respondents.
    The disaggregated cost estimates for this collection are as 
follows:
    (a) Additive manufacturers: (1) It is estimated that the 59 
respondents will spend a total of $559,967 in 1996 and $697,882 in 1997 
for recordkeeping involving the approximately 382 certifications that 
will occur initially. This is reduced to $163,060/year in ensuing years 
since it is estimated that 15 percent of the number of initially 
certified additives will be certified annually after the program's 
first year. For certification testing itself, there are no capital 
costs; most of the additives tested will be tested in-house on existing 
equipment already used as a customary business practice by these 
manufacturers. Test costs for 1997 average $242,559 per party for 59 
parties, and in 1996 average $210,921 per party for 59 parties. For 
1998 and beyond, the cost is estimated to fall to $63,276 per party. 
These parties will also spend about $4.86 per year for exemption 
notices and will have a startup cost of about $4.80 in 1996 for a 
quality assurance program that is otherwise a customary business 
practice;
    (b) Refiners and importers: It is estimated that 100 refiners and 
importers of gasoline will pay $2,564 per year per party for voluntary 
defense quality assurance;
    (c) Terminals: The VAR records for terminals are expected to cost 
each of 1,246 terminals about $2.28 per year beyond customary business 
practice costs. Calibration requirements are expected to cost each of 
1,200 terminals about $13 each beyond customary business practices with 
a startup cost of $8 per respondent in 1996 for reviewing the changed 
requirement. Record checks are expected to cost each terminal about 
$8.00 per year;
    (d) Truckers: If any truckers hand blend a large number of loads 
per year, the cost per trucker could be as high as $691 per year. Other 
costs are customary business practices;
    (e) Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers: It is estimated 
that retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers of gasoline who also 
dispense exempt aviation gas or racing gas will pay about $12.60 in the 
first year for labelling their pumps and about $1 each year after for 
the capital cost of purchasing the label.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Ch. 15.
    Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing the respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques to the Director, Regulatory Information 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 2137), 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''

[[Page 35355]]

Include the ICR number in any correspondence.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more for 
any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these 
governmental entities. Nothing in the program would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this rule 
contains Federal mandates that will result in expenditures of $100 
million or more in any one year for the private sector. EPA believes 
that the program represents the least costly, most cost-effective 
approach to achieving the air quality goals of the proposed rule. EPA 
has performed the required analyses under Executive Order 12866 which 
contains identical analytical requirements. The reader is directed to 
Section IX.A., Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis, for 
further information regarding these analyses.

E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. 
This rule is a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the APA 
as amended.

X. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents

    The preamble, the RIA, and regulatory language of this final rule 
are available in the public docket as described under ``ADDRESSES'' 
above and are also available electronically on the Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer network 
Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS). Instructions for accessing TTNBBS and 
downloading the relevant files are described below.

A. Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS)

    TTNBBS can be accessed using a dial-in telephone line (919-541-
5742) and a 1200, 2400, or 9600 bps modem (equipment up to 14.4 Kbps 
can be accommodated). The parity of the modem should be set to N or 
none, the data bits to 8, and the stop bits to 1. When first signing on 
to the bulletin board, the user will be required to answer some basic 
informational questions to register into the system. After registering, 
proceed through the following options from a series of menus:

(T) Gateway to TTN Technical Areas (Bulletin Boards)
(M) OMS--Mobile Sources Information
(K) Rulemaking and Reporting
(3) Fuels
(4) Detergent Additives

    At this point, the system will list all available files in the 
chosen category in reverse chronological order with brief descriptions. 
The following eight ``zip'' files are currently available:

DCA__CFP.ZIP (Preamble to the final rule on the Certification 
Requirements for Deposit Control Additives)
DCA__CFR.ZIP (Regulatory text for the final rule on the Certification 
Requirements for Deposit Control Additives)
DCA__RIAA.ZIP (Addendum to the Regulatory Impact Analysis)
DCA__RCN.ZIP (Notice to Reopen the Comment Period)
DCA__RIA.ZIP (Regulatory Impact Analysis)
DCA__1FP.ZIP (Preamble to the final rule on the Interim Requirements 
for Deposit Control Additives)
DCA__IFR.ZIP (Regulatory text for the final rule on the Interim 
Requirements for Deposit Control Additives)
DCA__PRE.ZIP (Preamble from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)

    File information can be obtained from the ``READ.ME'' file. Choose 
from the following options when prompted:

<D>ownload, <P>rotocol, <E>xamine, <N>ew, <L>ist, <H>elp or <ENTER> to 
exit.
    To download a file, e.g., <D> filename.ZIP, the user needs to 
choose a file transfer protocol appropriate for the user's computer 
from the options listed on the terminal. The user's computer is then 
ready to receive the file by invoking the user's resident file transfer 
software. Programs and instructions for de-archiving compressed files 
can be found under <S>ystems Utilities from the top menu, under 
<A>rchivers/de-archivers. Please note that due to differences between 
the software used to develop the document and the software into which 
the document may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. 
may occur.
    TTNBBS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week except Monday 
morning from 8-12 EST, when the system is down for maintenance and 
backup. For help in accessing the system, call the systems operator at 
919-541-5384 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, during normal 
business hours EST.

B. Internet

    Rulemaking documents may be found on the internet as follow:

World Wide Web
    http://www.epa.gov/omswww
FTP
    ftp://ftp.epa.gov Then CD to the /pub/gopher/OMS/ directory
Gopher
    gopher://gopher.epa.gov:70/11/Offices/Air/OMS
    Alternatively, go to the main EPA gopher, and follow the menus: 
gopher.epa.gov

EPA Offices and Regions

[[Page 35356]]

Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline detergent 
additives, Gasoline, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle 
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 21, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 80--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

    2. Section 80.4 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 80.4  Right of entry; tests and inspections.

    The Administrator or his authorized representative, upon 
presentation of appropriate credentials, shall have a right to enter 
upon or through any refinery, retail outlet, wholesale purchaser-
consumer facility, or detergent manufacturer facility; or the premises 
or property of any gasoline or detergent distributor, carrier, or 
importer; or any place where gasoline or detergent is stored; and shall 
have the right to make inspections, take samples, obtain information 
and records, and conduct tests to determine compliance with the 
requirements of this part.
    3-4. Section 80.140 is amended by revising the definition of 
``Detergent Blender'' and by adding definitions for ``Leaded Gasoline'' 
and ``Repeatability'', in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec. 80.140  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Detergent blender means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls or supervises the blending operation of a detergent blending 
facility, or imports detergent-additized gasoline or detergent-
additized post-refinery component.
* * * * *
    Leaded gasoline means gasoline which is produced with the use of 
any lead additive or which contains more than 0.05 gram of lead per 
gallon or more than 0.005 gram of phosphorus per gallon.
* * * * *
    Repeatability of a test method means the amount of random error 
which is expected to affect the results obtained for a given test 
substance, when the test is replicated by a single operator in a given 
laboratory within a short period of time, using the same apparatus 
under constant operating conditions. Quantitatively, it is the 
difference between two such single results that would be exceeded in 
the long run in only one out of twenty normal and correct replications 
of the test method.
* * * * *
    5. Section 80.141 is amended as follows:
    a. Paragraphs (a) and (b), the second sentence of paragraph 
(c)(1)(i), paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(3)(i), (d), and (e)(1), 
the first sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B), and the last sentence of 
paragraph (g)(3) are revised.
    b. Paragraph (c)(3)(iv) is added.
    c. Paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B)(1)(iii) is removed and reserved.
    d. In paragraph (g)(1), the reference to paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) is 
revised to (d)(3)(ii).


Sec. 80.141  Interim detergent gasoline program.

    (a) Effective dates of requirements. (1) Until June 30, 1997, the 
products listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section 
must comply with either the interim program requirements described in 
this section or the certification program requirements described in 
Sec. 80.161. Beginning July 1, 1997, the listed products must comply 
with the requirements in Sec. 80.161. These dates and requirements 
apply to:
    (i) All gasoline sold or transferred to a party who sells or 
transfers gasoline to the ultimate consumer;
    (ii) All additized post-refinery component (PRC); and
    (iii) All detergent additives sold or transferred for use in 
gasoline or PRC for compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
    (2) Until July 31, 1997, all gasoline sold or transferred to the 
ultimate consumer must contain detergent additive(s) meeting either the 
interim requirements of this Sec. 80.141 or the certification program 
requirements of Sec. 80.161. Beginning August 1, 1997, such gasoline 
must contain detergent additive(s) meeting the certification 
requirements of Sec. 80.161.
    (b) Applicability of gasoline and PRC detergency requirement; 
responsible parties. (1) Except as specifically exempted in 
Sec. 80.160, the detergency requirements of this subpart apply to all 
gasoline, whether intended for on-highway or nonroad use, including 
conventional, reformulated, oxygenated, and leaded gasolines, as well 
as the gasoline component of fuel mixtures of gasoline and alcohol 
fuels, gasoline used as marine fuel, gasoline service accumulation fuel 
(as described in Sec. 86.113-94(a)(1) of this chapter), the gasoline 
component of fuel mixtures of gasoline and methanol used for service 
accumulation in flexible fuel vehicles (as described in Sec. 86.113-
94(d) of this chapter), gasoline used for factory fill purposes, and 
all additized PRC.
    (2) Pursuant to paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section, 
compliance with these requirements is the responsibility of parties who 
directly or indirectly sell or dispense gasoline to the ultimate 
consumer as well as parties who manufacture, supply, or transfer 
detergent additives or detergent-additized post-refinery components.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * * Polymeric components may be reported as the product of 
other chemical reactants, provided that the supporting data specified 
in Sec. 80.162(b) is also reported for such components.
    (ii) The weight and/or volume percent (as applicable) of each 
component of the package, with variability in these amounts restricted 
according to the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Allowable variation in compositional data. (i) A single 
detergent additive registration may contain no variation in the 
identity of any of the detergent-active components identified pursuant 
to paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (ii) A single detergent additive registration may specify a range 
of concentrations for identified detergent-active components, provided 
that, if each such component were present in the detergent additive 
package at the lower bound of its reported range of concentration, the 
minimum recommended concentration reported in accordance with the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section would still provide 
the deposit control effectiveness claimed by the detergent registrant.
    (iii) The identity or concentration of non-detergent-active 
components of the detergent additive package may vary under a single 
registration, provided that the range of such variation is specified in 
the registration, and that such variability does not reduce the deposit 
control effectiveness of the additive package as compared with the 
level of effectiveness claimed by the detergent registrant pursuant to 
the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

[[Page 35357]]

    (iv) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section, 
detergent additive packages which do not satisfy these restrictions 
must be separately registered. EPA may disqualify an additive for use 
in satisfying the requirements of this subpart if EPA determines that 
the variability included within a given detergent additive registration 
may reduce the deposit control effectiveness of the detergent package 
such that it could invalidate the minimum recommended concentration 
reported in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section.
    (v) A change in minimum concentration requirements resulting from a 
modification of detergent additive composition shall not require a new 
detergent additive registration or a change in existing registration 
if:
    (A) The modification is effected by a detergent blender only for 
its own use or for the use of parties which are subsidiaries of, or 
share common ownership with, the blender, and the modified detergent is 
not sold or transferred to other parties; and
    (B) The modification is a dilution of the additive for the purpose 
of ensuring proper detergent flow in cold weather; and
    (C) Gasoline is the only diluting agent used; and
    (D) The diluted detergent is subsequently added to gasoline at a 
rate that attains the detergent's registered minimum recommended 
concentration, taking into account the dilution; and
    (E) EPA is notified, either before or within seven days after the 
dilution action, of the identity of the detergent, the identity of the 
diluting material, the amount or percentage of the dilution, the change 
in treat rate necessitated by the dilution, and the locations and time 
period of diluted detergent usage. The notification shall be sent or 
faxed to the address in Sec. 80.174(c).
    (3) * * *
    (i) The lower boundary of the recommended range of concentration 
for the detergent additive package in gasoline, which the additive 
manufacturer must report pursuant to the registration requirements in 
Sec. 79.21(d) of this chapter, must equal or exceed the minimum 
concentration which the manufacturer has determined to be necessary for 
the control of deposits in the associated fuel type, pursuant to 
paragraph (e) of this section. The minimum recommended concentration 
shall be provided to EPA in units of gallons of detergent additive 
package per thousand gallons of gasoline or PRC, reported to four 
digits. This concentration is the lowest additive concentration (LAC) 
referred to elsewhere in this subpart.
* * * * *
    (iv) Once included in the registration for a detergent additive 
package, the minimum concentration recommended by the detergent 
manufacturer to detergent blenders and other users of the detergent 
additive, pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, may not be 
changed without first notifying EPA. The notification must be sent by 
certified mail to the address specified in Sec. 80.174(b). Changes to 
the minimum recommended concentration must be supported by available 
test data pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (d) The rate at which a detergent blender treats gasoline with a 
detergent additive package must be no less than the minimum recommended 
concentration reported for the subject detergent additive pursuant to 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, except under the following 
conditions:
    (1) If a detergent blender believes that the minimum treat rate 
recommended by the manufacturer of a detergent additive exceeds the 
amount of detergent actually required for effective deposit control, 
and possesses substantiating data consistent with the guidelines in 
paragraph (e) of this section, then, upon informing EPA in writing of 
these circumstances, the detergent blender may use the detergent at a 
lower concentration.
    (2) The notification to EPA must clearly specify the name of the 
detergent product and its manufacturer, the concentration recommended 
by the detergent manufacturer, and the lower concentration which the 
detergent blender intends to use. The notification must also attest 
that data are available to substantiate the deposit control 
effectiveness of the detergent at the intended lower concentration. The 
notification must be sent by certified mail to the address specified in 
Sec. 80.174(b).
    (3) At its discretion, EPA may require that the detergent blender 
submit the test data purported to substantiate the claimed 
effectiveness of the lower concentration of the detergent additive. EPA 
may also require the manufacturer of the subject detergent additive to 
submit test data substantiating the minimum recommended concentration 
specified in the detergent additive registration. In either case, EPA 
will send a letter to the appropriate party, and the supporting data 
will be due to EPA within 30 days of receipt of EPA's letter.
    (i) If the detergent blender fails to submit the required 
supporting data to EPA in the allotted time period, or if EPA judges 
the submitted data to be inadequate to support the detergent blender's 
claim that the lower concentration provides a level of deposit control 
consistent with the requirements of this section, then EPA will 
disapprove the use of the detergent at the lower concentration. 
Further, the detergent blender may be subject to applicable liabilities 
and penalties pursuant to Secs. 80.156 and 80.159 for any gasoline or 
PRC it has additized at the lower concentration.
    (ii) If the detergent manufacturer fails to submit the required 
test data to EPA within the allotted time period, EPA will proceed on 
the assumption that data are not available to substantiate the minimum 
recommended concentration specified in the detergent registration, and 
the subject additive may be disqualified for use in complying with the 
requirements of this subpart, pursuant to the procedures in paragraph 
(g) of this section. The detergent manufacturer may also be subject to 
applicable liabilities and penalties pursuant to Secs. 80.156 and 
80.159.
    (iii) If both parties submit the required information, EPA will 
evaluate the quality and results of both sets of test data in relation 
to each other and to industry-consensus test practices and standards, 
in a manner consistent with the guidelines described in paragraph (e) 
of this section. EPA will approve or disapprove the use of the 
detergent at the lower concentration, and will inform both the 
detergent blender and the detergent manufacturer of the results of its 
analysis within 60 days of receipt of both sets of data.
    (e) * * *
    (1) CARB-based supporting test data. For detergent additives which 
are certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for use in 
the state of California (pursuant to Title 13, section 2257 of the 
California Code of Regulations), the CARB certification data 
constitutes adequate support of the detergent's effectiveness under 
this section, with the exception that CARB detergent certification data 
specific to California Phase II reformulated gasoline (pursuant to 
Title 13, Chapter 5, Article 1, Subarticle 2, California Code of 
Regulations, Standards for Gasoline Sold Beginning March 1, 1996) will 
not be considered adequate support for detergent effectiveness in 
gasolines that do not conform to the compositional specifications for 
California's Phase II reformulated gasoline. For CARB-based supporting 
data to be used to demonstrate detergent performance, the minimum 
recommended concentration reported in

[[Page 35358]]

the detergent additive registration must be no less than the 
concentration of the detergent-active components reported in the 
subject CARB detergent certification.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) For demonstration of fuel injector and intake valve deposit 
control performance, the tests specified in Secs. 80.165, or other 
vehicle-based tests using generally accepted industry procedures and 
standards, are preferred.* * *
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) * * * All correspondence regarding a disqualification must be 
sent to the address specified in Sec. 80.174(b).
* * * * *
    6. Section 80.155 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 80.155  Interim detergent program controls and prohibitions.

    (a)(1) No person shall sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, 
offer for supply, transport, or cause the transportation of gasoline to 
the ultimate consumer for use in motor vehicles or in any off-road 
engines (except as provided in Sec. 80.160), or to a gasoline retailer 
or wholesale purchaser-consumer, and no person shall detergent-additize 
gasoline, unless such gasoline is additized in conformity with the 
requirements of Sec. 80.141. No person shall cause the presence of any 
gasoline in the gasoline distribution system unless such gasoline is 
additized in conformity with the requirements of Sec. 80.141.
    (2) Gasoline has been additized in conformity with the requirements 
of Sec. 80.141 when the detergent component satisfies the requirements 
of Sec. 80.141 and when:
    (i) The gasoline has been additized in conformity with the 
detergent composition and purpose-in-use specifications of an 
applicable detergent registered under 40 CFR part 79, and in accordance 
with at least the minimum concentration specifications of that 
detergent as registered under 40 CFR part 79 or as otherwise provided 
under Sec. 80.141(d); or
    (ii) The gasoline is composed of two or more commingled gasolines 
and each component gasoline has been additized in conformity with the 
detergent composition and purpose-in-use specifications of a detergent 
registered under 40 CFR part 79, and in accordance with at least the 
minimum concentration specifications of that detergent as registered 
under 40 CFR part 79 or as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.141(d); or
    (iii) The gasoline is composed of a gasoline commingled with a 
post-refinery component (PRC), and both of these components have been 
additized in conformity with the detergent composition and use 
specifications of a detergent registered under 40 CFR part 79, and in 
accordance with at least the minimum concentration specifications of 
that detergent as registered under 40 CFR part 79 or as otherwise 
provided under Sec. 80.141(d).
    (b) No person shall blend detergent into gasoline or PRC unless 
such person complies with the volumetric additive reconciliation 
requirements of Sec. 80.157.
    (c) No person shall sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer 
for supply, store, transport, or cause the transportation of any 
gasoline, detergent, or detergent-additized PRC unless the product 
transfer document for the gasoline, detergent or detergent-additized 
PRC complies with the requirements of Sec. 80.158.
    (d) No person shall refine, import, manufacture, sell, offer for 
sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, store, transport, or cause 
the transportation of any detergent that is to be used as a component 
of detergent-additized gasoline or detergent-additized PRC, unless such 
detergent conforms with the composition specifications of a detergent 
registered under 40 CFR part 79 and the detergent otherwise complies 
with the requirements of Sec. 80.141. No person shall cause the 
presence of any detergent in the detergent, PRC, or gasoline 
distribution systems unless such detergent complies with the 
requirements of Sec. 80.141.
    (e)(1) No person shall sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, 
offer for supply, transport, or cause the transportation of detergent-
additized PRC, unless the PRC has been additized in conformity with the 
requirements of Sec. 80.141. No person shall cause the presence in the 
PRC or gasoline distribution systems of any detergent-additized PRC 
that fails to conform to the requirements of Sec. 80.141.
    (2) PRC has been additized in conformity with the requirements of 
Sec. 80.141 when the detergent component satisfies the requirements of 
Sec. 80.141 and:
    (i) The PRC has been additized in accordance with the detergent 
composition and use specifications of a detergent registered under 40 
CFR part 79, and in accordance with at least the minimum concentration 
specifications of that detergent as registered under 40 CFR part 79 or 
as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.141(d); or
    (ii) The PRC is composed of two or more commingled PRCs, and each 
component has been additized in accordance with the detergent 
composition and use specifications of a detergent registered under 49 
CFR part 79, and in accordance with at least the minimum concentration 
specifications of that detergent as registered under 40 CFR part 79 or 
as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.141(d).
    7. Section 80.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), 
(a)(2), introductory text, (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3), introductory text, 
(a)(3)(ii), (a)(4), (a)(5), introductory text, (c)(1), introductory 
text, (c)(1)(i), (c)(3), (c)(4), and by adding paragraphs (c)(5) 
through (c)(8) to read as follows:


Sec. 80.156   Liability for violations of the interim detergent program 
controls and prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Each gasoline refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, 
retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent 
manufacturer, distributor, or blender, who refined, imported, 
manufactured, sold, offered for sale, dispensed, supplied, offered for 
supply, stored, detergent additized, transported, or caused the 
transportation of the detergent-additized gasoline (or the base 
gasoline component, the detergent component, or the detergent-additized 
post-refinery component of the gasoline) that is in violation, and each 
such party that caused the gasoline that is in violation to be present 
in the gasoline distribution system; and
* * * * *
    (2) Post-refinery component non-conformity. Where detergent-
additized PRC contained in any storage tank at any facility owned, 
leased, operated, controlled or supervised by any gasoline refiner, 
importer, carrier, distributor, reseller, retailer, wholesale 
purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent manufacturer, carrier, 
distributor, or blender, is found in violation of the prohibitions 
specified in Sec. 80.155(e), the following persons shall be deemed in 
violation:
    (i) * * *
    (ii) Each gasoline refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, 
retailer, wholesale-purchaser consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent 
manufacturer, distributor, or blender, who sold, offered for sale, 
dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, stored, detergent additized, 
transported, or caused the transportation of the detergent-additized 
PRC (or the detergent component of the PRC) that is in violation, and 
each such party that caused the PRC that is in violation to be present 
in the PRC or gasoline distribution systems; and
* * * * *
    (3) Detergent non-conformity. Where the detergent (prior to 
additization)

[[Page 35359]]

contained in any storage tank or container found at any facility owned, 
leased, operated, controlled or supervised by any gasoline refiner, 
importer, carrier, distributor, reseller, retailer, wholesale 
purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent manufacturer, carrier, 
distributor, or blender, is found in violation of the prohibitions 
specified in Sec. 80.155(d), the following persons shall be deemed in 
violation:
    (i) * * *
    (ii) Each gasoline refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, 
retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent 
manufacturer, distributor, or blender, who sold, offered for sale, 
dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, stored, transported, or caused 
the transportation of the detergent that is in violation, and each such 
party that caused the detergent that is in violation to be present in 
the detergent, gasoline, or PRC distribution systems; and
* * * * *
    (4) Volumetric additive reconciliation. Where a violation of the 
volumetric additive reconciliation requirements established by 
Sec. 80.155(b) has occurred, the following persons shall be deemed in 
violation:
    (i) Each detergent blender who owns, leases, operates, controls or 
supervises the facility (including, but not limited to, a truck or 
individual storage tank) where the violation has occurred; and
    (ii) Each gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, distributor, 
reseller, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, or oxygenate blender, 
and each detergent manufacturer, carrier, distributor, or blender, who 
refined, imported, manufactured, sold, offered for sale, dispensed, 
supplied, offered for supply, stored, transported, or caused the 
transportation of the detergent-additized gasoline, the base gasoline 
component, the detergent component, or the detergent-additized post-
refinery component, of the gasoline that is in violation, provided that 
the EPA demonstrates, by reasonably specific showings by direct or 
circumstantial evidence, that such person caused the violation.
    (5) Product transfer document. Where a violation of Sec. 80.155(c) 
is found at a facility owned, leased, operated, controlled, or 
supervised by any gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, distributor, 
reseller, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, 
detergent manufacturer, carrier, distributor, or blender, the following 
persons shall be deemed in violation:
* * * * *
    (c) Defenses. (1) In any case in which a gasoline refiner, 
importer, distributor, carrier, reseller, retailer, wholesale-purchaser 
consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent distributor, carrier, or 
blender, is in violation of any of the prohibitions of Sec. 80.155, 
pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section as applicable, the 
regulated party shall be deemed not in violation if it can demonstrate:
    (i) That the violation was not caused by the regulated party or its 
employee or agent (unless otherwise provided in this paragraph (c));
* * * * *
    (3) Detergent blender. In any case in which a detergent blender is 
liable for violating any of the prohibitions of Sec. 80.155, the 
detergent blender shall not be deemed in violation if it can 
demonstrate, in addition to the defense requirements stated in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the following:
    (i) That it obtained or supplied, as appropriate, prior to the 
detergent blending, accurate written instructions from the detergent 
manufacturer or other party with knowledge of such instructions, 
specifying the detergent's minimum recommended concentration (lowest 
additive concentration) pursuant to Sec. 80.141(c)(3) and, if 
applicable, the limitations of this concentration for use in leaded 
product.
    (ii) That it has implemented a quality assurance program that 
includes, but is not limited to, a periodic review of its supporting 
product transfer and volume measurement documents to confirm the 
correctness of its product transfer and volumetric additive 
reconciliation documents created for all products it additized.
    (4) Detergent manufacturer--(i) Presumptive liability affirmative 
defense. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, in any case in which a detergent manufacturer is liable for 
violating any of the prohibitions of Sec. 80.155, the detergent 
manufacturer shall be deemed not in violation if it can demonstrate 
each of the following:
    (A) Product transfer documents which account for the detergent 
component of the product in violation and which indicate that such 
detergent satisfied all relevant requirements when it left the 
detergent manufacturer's control; and
    (B) Written blending instructions which, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.141(c)(3)(ii), were supplied by the detergent manufacturer to 
its customer who purchased or obtained from the manufacturer the 
detergent component of the product determined to be in violation. The 
written blending instructions must have been supplied by the 
manufacturer prior to the customer's use or sale of the detergent. The 
instructions must accurately identify the minimum recommended 
concentration (lowest additive concentration) specified in the 
detergent's 40 CFR part 79 registration, and must also accurately 
identify if the detergent, at that concentration, is only registered as 
effective for use in leaded gasoline.
    (C) If the detergent batch used in the noncomplying product was 
produced less than one year before the manufacturer was notified by EPA 
of the possible violation, then the manufacturer must provide FTIR or 
other test results for the batch of detergent used in the noncomplying 
product, performed in accordance with the detergent testing procedure 
submitted by the manufacturer, or available for submission, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.141(f).
    (1) The analysis may have been conducted on the subject detergent 
batch at the time it was manufactured, or may be conducted on a sample 
of that batch which the manufacturer retained for such purpose at the 
time the batch was manufactured.
    (2) The test results must accurately establish that, when it left 
the manufacturer's control, the detergent component of the product 
determined to be in violation was in conformity with the chemical 
composition and concentration specifications reported pursuant to 
Sec. 80.141(c)(1);
    (D) If the detergent batch used in the noncomplying product was 
produced more than one year prior to the manufacturer's notification by 
EPA of the possible violation, then the manufacturer must provide 
either:
    (1) Test results for the batch in question as specified in the 
paragraph (c)(4)(i)(C) of this section; or
    (2) The following materials:
    (i) Documentation of the measured viscosity, density, and basic 
nitrogen content of the detergent batch in question, or any other such 
physical parameters which the manufacturer normally uses to ensure 
production quality control, which establishes conformity with the 
manufacturer's quality control standards for such parameters; and
    (ii) If the detergent registration identifies polymeric 
component(s) of the detergent package as the product(s) of other 
chemical reactants, documentation that the reagents used to synthesize 
the detergent batch in question were the same as those specified in the 
registration and that they met the manufacturer's normal acceptance 
criteria for such reagents, reported pursuant to Sec. 80.162(b)(1).

[[Page 35360]]

    (ii) Detergent manufacturer causation liability. In any case in 
which a detergent manufacturer is liable for a violation of 
Sec. 80.155, and the manufacturer establishes an affirmative defense to 
such liability pursuant to paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, the 
detergent manufacturer will nonetheless be deemed liable for the 
violation of Sec. 80.155 if EPA can demonstrate, by reasonably specific 
showings by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the detergent 
manufacturer caused the violation.
    (5) Defense against liability where more than one party may be 
liable for VAR violations. In any case in which a party is 
presumptively or vicariously liable for a violation of Sec. 80.155 due 
to a failure to meet the VAR requirements Sec. 80.157, except for the 
VAR record requirements pursuant to Sec. 80.157(g), such party shall 
not be deemed liable if it can establish the following:
    (i) Prior to the violation it had entered into a written contract 
with another potentially liable detergent blender party (``the assuming 
party''), under which that other party assumed legal responsibility for 
fulfilling the VAR requirement that had been violated;
    (ii) The contract included reasonable oversight provisions to 
ensure that the assuming party fulfilled its VAR responsibilities 
(including, but not limited to, periodic review of VAR records) and the 
oversight provision was actually implemented by the party raising the 
defense;
    (iii) The assuming party is fiscally sound and able to pay its 
penalty for the VAR violation; and
    (iv) The employees or agents of the party raising the defense did 
not cause the violation.
    (6) Defense to liability for gasoline non-conformity violations 
caused solely by the addition of misadditized ethanol or other PRC to 
the gasoline. In any case in which a party is presumptively or 
vicariously liable for a gasoline non-conformity violation of 
Sec. 80.155(a) caused solely by another party's addition of 
misadditized ethanol or other PRC to the gasoline, the former party 
shall not be deemed liable for the violation provided that it can 
establish that is has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs 
(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (7) Detergent tank transitioning defenses. The commingling of two 
detergents in the same detergent storage tank will not be deemed to 
violate or cause violations of any of the provisions of this subpart, 
provided the following conditions are met:
    (i) The commingling must occur during a legitimate detergent 
transitioning event, i.e., a shift from the use of one detergent to 
another through the delivery of the new detergent into the same tank 
that contains the original detergent; and
    (ii) If the new detergent is restricted to use in leaded gasoline, 
then such restriction must be applied to the combined detergents; and
    (iii) The commingling event must be documented, either on the VAR 
formula record or on attached supporting records; and
    (iv) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in Sec. 80.157, a VAR 
formula record must be created for the combined detergents. The VAR 
compliance period must begin no later than the time of the commingling 
event. However, at the blender's option, the compliance period may 
begin earlier, thus including use of the uncombined original detergent 
within the same period, provided that the 31-day limitation pursuant to 
Sec. 80.157(a)(6) is not exceeded; and
    (v) The VAR formula record must also satisfy the requirements in 
one of the following paragraphs (c)(7)(v)(A) through (C) of this 
section, whichever applies to the commingling event. If neither 
paragraph (c)(7)(v)(A) nor (B) of this section initially applies, then 
the blender may drain and subsequently redeliver the original detergent 
into the tank in restricted amounts, in order to meet the conditions of 
paragraph (c)(7)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. Otherwise, the blender 
must comply with paragraph (c)(7)(v)(C) of this section.
    (A) If both detergents have the same LAC, and the original 
detergent accounts for no more than 20 percent of the tank's total 
delivered volume after addition of the new detergent, then the VAR 
formula record is required to identify only the use of the new 
detergent.
    (B) If the two detergents have different LACs and the original 
detergent accounts for 10 percent or less of the tank's total delivered 
volume after addition of the new detergent, then the VAR formula record 
is required to identify only the use of the new detergent, and must 
attain the LAC of the new detergent. If the original detergent's LAC is 
greater than that of the new detergent, then the compliance period may 
begin earlier than the date of the commingling event (pursuant to 
paragraph (c)(7)(iv) of this section) only if the original detergent 
does not exceed 10 percent of the total detergent used during the 
compliance period.
    (C) If neither of the preceding paragraphs (c)(7)(v)(A) or (B) of 
this section applies, then the VAR formula record must identify both of 
the commingled detergents, and must use and attain the higher LAC of 
the two detergents. Once the commingled detergent has been depleted by 
an amount equal to the volume of the original detergent in the tank at 
the time the new detergent was added, subsequent VAR formula records 
must identify and use the LAC of only the new detergent.
    (8) Defense to liability for noncompliance with leaded-only use 
restrictions. A party shall not be deemed liable for violations of 
Sec. 80.155(a) or (e) caused solely by the additization or use of 
gasoline or PRC in violation of leaded-only use restrictions, provided 
that the conditions specified in Sec. 80.169(c)(9) are met.
    8. Section 80.157 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a) and (b), by revising paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) and 
redesignating them as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g), and by adding a new 
paragraph (d), to read as follows:


Sec. 80.157   Volumetric additive reconciliation (VAR), equipment 
calibration, and recordkeeping requirements under the interim detergent 
program.

    This section contains requirements for automated detergent blending 
facilities and hand-blending detergent facilities. All gasolines and 
all PRC intended for use in gasoline must be additized, unless 
otherwise noted in supporting VAR records, and must be accounted for in 
VAR records. The VAR reconciliation standard is attained under this 
section when the actual concentration of detergent used per VAR formula 
record equals or exceeds the lowest additive concentration (LAC) 
specified for that detergent pursuant to Sec. 80.141(c)(3), or, if 
appropriate, under Sec. 80.141(d). A separate VAR formula record must 
be created for leaded gasoline additized with a detergent registered 
for use only with leaded gasoline, or used at a concentration that is 
registered as effective for leaded gasoline only. Detergent so used 
must be accurately and separately measured, either through the use of a 
separate storage tank, a separate meter, or some other measurement 
system that is able to accurately distinguish its use. Recorded volumes 
of gasoline, detergent, and PRC must be expressed to the nearest gallon 
(or smaller units), except that detergent volumes of five gallons or 
less must be expressed to the nearest tenth of a gallon (or smaller 
units). However, if the blender's equipment cannot accurately measure 
to the nearest tenth of a gallon, then such volumes must be rounded 
downward to the next lower gallon. PRC included in the reconciliation 
must be

[[Page 35361]]

identified. Each VAR formula record must also contain the following 
information:
    (a) Automated blending facilities. In the case of an automated 
detergent blending facility, for each VAR period, for each detergent 
storage system and each detergent in that storage system, the following 
must be recorded:
    (1) The manufacturer and commercial identifying name of the 
detergent additive package being reconciled, and the LAC specified in 
the detergent registration for use with the applicable type of gasoline 
(i.e., unleaded or leaded). The LAC must be expressed in terms of 
gallons of detergent per thousand gallons of gasoline or PRC, and 
expressed to four digits. If the specified LAC is only effective for 
use with leaded gasoline, the record must so indicate. If the detergent 
storage system which is the subject of the VAR formula record is a 
proprietary system under the control of a customer, this fact must be 
indicated on the record.
    (2) The total volume of detergent blended into gasoline and PRC, in 
accordance with one of the following paragraphs, as applicable.
    (i) For a facility which uses in-line meters to measure detergent 
usage, the total volume of detergent measured, together with supporting 
data which includes one of the following: the beginning and ending 
meter readings for each meter being measured, the metered batch volume 
measurements for each meter being measured, or other comparable metered 
measurements. The supporting data may be supplied on the VAR formula 
record or in the form of computer printouts or other comparable VAR 
supporting documentation.
    (ii) For a facility which uses a gauge to measure the inventory of 
the detergent storage tank, the total volume of detergent shall be 
calculated from the following equation:

Detergent Volume=(A)-(B)+(C)-(D)

Where:

A=Initial detergent inventory of the tank
B=Final detergent inventory of the tank
C=Sum of any additions to detergent inventory
D=Sum of any withdrawals from detergent inventory for purposes other 
than the additization of gasoline or PRC.

    The value of each variable in this equation must be separately 
recorded on the VAR formula record. In addition, a list of each 
detergent addition included in variable C and a list of each detergent 
withdrawal included in variable D must be provided, either on the 
formula record or as VAR supporting documentation.
    (3) The total volume of gasoline plus PRC to which detergent has 
been added, together with supporting data which includes one of the 
following: The beginning and ending meter measurements for each meter 
being measured, the metered batch volume measurements for each meter 
being measured, or other comparable metered measurements. The 
supporting data may be supplied on the VAR formula record or in the 
form of computer printouts or other comparable VAR supporting 
documentation. If gasoline has intentionally been overadditized in 
anticipation of the later addition of unadditized PRC, then the total 
volume of gasoline plus PRC recorded must include the expected amount 
of unadditized PRC to be added later. In addition, the amount of 
gasoline which was overadditized for this purpose must be specified.
    (4) The actual detergent concentration, calculated as the total 
volume of detergent added (pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section), divided by the total volume of gasoline plus PRC (pursuant to 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section). The concentration must be calculated 
and recorded to four digits.
    (5) A list of each detergent concentration rate initially set for 
the detergent that is the subject of the VAR record, together with the 
date and description of each adjustment to any initially set 
concentration. The concentration adjustment information may be supplied 
on the VAR formula record or in the form of computer printouts or other 
comparable VAR supporting documentation. No concentration setting is 
permitted below the applicable LAC, except as may be modified pursuant 
to Sec. 80.141(d) or as described in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
    (6) The dates of the VAR period, which shall be no longer than 
thirty-one days. If the VAR period is contemporaneous with a calendar 
month, then specifying the month will fulfill this requirement; if not, 
then the beginning and ending dates and times of the VAR period must be 
listed. The times may be supplied on the VAR formula record or in 
supporting documentation. Any adjustment to any detergent concentration 
rate more than 10 percent over the concentration rate initially set in 
the VAR period shall terminate that VAR period and initiate a new VAR 
period, except as provided in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
    (7) The concentration setting for a detergent injector may be set 
below the applicable LAC, or it may be adjusted more than 10 percent 
above the concentration initially set in the VAR period without 
terminating that VAR period, provided that:
    (i) The purpose of the change is to correct a batch misadditization 
prior to the end of the VAR period and prior to the transfer of the 
batch to another party, or to correct an equipment malfunction; and
    (ii) The concentration is immediately returned after the correction 
to a concentration that fulfills the requirements of paragraphs (a)(5) 
and (6) of this section; and
    (iii) The blender creates and maintains documentation establishing 
the date and adjustments of the correction; and
    (iv) If the correction is initiated only to rectify an equipment 
malfunction, and the amount of detergent used in this procedure is not 
added to gasoline in the compliance period, then this amount is 
subtracted from the detergent volume listed on the VAR formula record.
    (8) If unadditized gasoline has been transferred from the facility, 
other than bulk transfers from refineries or pipelines to non-retail 
outlets or non-WPC facilities, the total amount of such gasoline must 
be specified.
    (b) Non-automated facilities. In the case of a facility in which 
hand blending or any other non-automated method is used to blend 
detergent, for each detergent and for each batch of gasoline and each 
batch of PRC to which the detergent is being added, the following shall 
be recorded:
    (1) The manufacturer and commercial identifying name of the 
detergent additive package being reconciled, and the LAC specified in 
the detergent registration for use with the applicable type of gasoline 
(i.e., unleaded or leaded). The LAC must be expressed in terms of 
gallons of detergent per thousand gallons of gasoline or PRC, and 
expressed to four digits. If the specified LAC is only effective for 
use with leaded gasoline, the record must so indicate.
    (2) The date of the additization that is the subject of the VAR 
formula record.
    (3) The volume of added detergent.
    (4) The volume of the gasoline and/or PRC to which the detergent 
has been added. If gasoline has intentionally been overadditized in 
anticipation of the later addition of unadditized PRC, then the total 
volume of gasoline plus PRC recorded must include the expected amount 
of unadditized PRC to be added later. In addition, the amount of 
gasoline which was overadditized for this purpose must be specified.
    (5) The brand (if known), grade, and leaded/unleaded status of 
gasoline, and/or the type of PRC.

[[Page 35362]]

    (6) The actual detergent concentration, calculated as the volume of 
added detergent (pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section), divided 
by the volume of gasoline and/or PRC (pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of 
this section). The concentration must be calculated and recorded to 
four digits.
* * * * *
    (d) Electronically-generated VAR formula and supporting records. 
(1) Electronically-generated records are acceptable for VAR formula 
records and supporting documentation (including PTDs), provided that 
they are complete, accessible, and easily readable. VAR formula records 
must also be stored with access and audit security, which must restrict 
to a limited number of specified people those who have the ability to 
alter or delete the records. In addition, parties maintaining records 
electronically must make available for EPA use the hardware and 
software necessary to review the records.
    (2) Electronically-generated VAR formula records may use an 
electronic user identification code to satisfy the signature 
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, provided that:
    (i) The use of the ID is limited to the record creator; and
    (ii) A paper record is maintained, which is signed and dated by the 
VAR formula record creator, acknowledging that the use of that 
particular user ID on a VAR formula record is equivalent to his/her 
signature on the document.
    (e) Automated detergent blenders must calibrate their detergent 
equipment once in each calendar half year, with the acceptable 
calibrations being no less than one hundred twenty days apart. 
Equipment recalibration is also required each time the detergent 
package is changed, unless written documentation indicates that the new 
detergent package has the same viscosity as the previous detergent 
package. Detergent package change calibrations may be used to satisfy 
the semiannual requirement provided that the calibrations occur in the 
appropriate half calendar year and are no less than one hundred twenty 
days apart.
    (f) The following VAR supporting documentation must also be created 
and maintained:
    (1) For all automated detergent blending facilities, documentation 
reflecting performance of the calibrations required by paragraph (e) of 
this section, and any associated adjustments of the automated detergent 
equipment;
    (2) For all hand-blending facilities which are terminals, a record 
specifying, for each calendar month, the total volume in gallons of 
transfers from the facility of unadditized base gasoline;
    (3) For all detergent blending facilities, product transfer 
documents for all gasoline, detergent and detergent-additized PRC 
transferred into or out of the facility; in addition, bills of lading, 
transfer, or sale for all unadditized PRC transferred into the 
facility;
    (4) For all automated detergent blending facilities, documentation 
establishing the brands (if known) and grades of the gasoline which is 
the subject of the VAR formula record;
    (5) For all hand blending detergent blenders, the documentation, if 
in the party's possession, supporting the volumes of gasoline, PRC, and 
detergent reported on the VAR formula record; and
    (6) For all detergent blending facilities, documentation 
establishing the curing of a batch or amount of misadditized gasoline 
or PRC, or the curing of a use restriction on the additized gasoline or 
PRC, and providing at least the following information: the date of the 
curing procedure; the problem that was corrected; the amount, name, and 
LAC of the original detergent used; the amount, name, and LAC of the 
added curing detergent; and the actual detergent concentration attained 
in, and the volume of, the total cured product.
    (g) Document retention and availability. All detergent blenders 
shall retain the documents required under this section for a period of 
five years from the date the VAR formula records and supporting 
documentation were created, and shall deliver them upon request to the 
EPA Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, 
automated detergent blender facilities and hand-blender facilities 
which are terminals, which physically blend detergent into gasoline, 
must make immediately available to EPA, upon request, the preceding 
twelve months of VAR formula records plus the preceding two months of 
VAR supporting documentation.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, other 
hand-blending detergent facilities which physically blend detergent 
into gasoline must make immediately available to EPA, upon request, the 
preceding two months of VAR formula records and VAR supporting 
documentation.
    (3) Facilities which have centrally maintained records at other 
locations, or have customers who maintain their own records at other 
locations for their proprietary detergent systems, and which can 
document this fact to the Agency, may have until the start of the next 
business day after the request to supply VAR supporting documentation, 
or longer if approved by the Agency.
    (4) In this paragraph (g) of this section, the term immediately 
available means that the records must be provided, electronically or 
otherwise, within approximately one hour of EPA's request, or within a 
longer time frame as approved by EPA.
    9. Section 80.158 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 80.158  Product transfer documents (PTDs).

    (a) Contents. For each occasion when any gasoline refiner, 
importer, reseller, distributor, carrier, retailer, wholesale 
purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent manufacturer, 
distributor, carrier, or blender, transfers custody or title to any 
gasoline, detergent, or detergent-additized PRC other than when 
detergent-additized gasoline is sold or dispensed at a retail outlet or 
wholesale purchaser-consumer facility to the ultimate consumer, the 
transferor shall provide to the transferee, and the transferee shall 
acquire from the transferor, documents which accurately include the 
following information:
    (1) The names and addresses of the transferee and transferor; the 
address requirement may be fulfilled, in the alternative, through 
separate documentation which establishes said addresses and is 
maintained by the parties and made available to EPA for the same length 
of time as required for the PTDs, provided that the normal business 
procedure of these parties is not to identify addresses on PTDs.
    (2) The date of the transfer.
    (3) The volume of product transferred.
    (4)(i) The identity of the product being transferred (i.e., its 
identity as base gasoline, detergent, detergent-additized gasoline, or 
specified detergent-additized oxygenate or detergent-additized gasoline 
blending stock that comprises a detergent-additized PRC). PTDs for 
detergent-additized gasoline or PRC are not required to identify the 
particular detergent used to additize the product.
    (ii) If the product being transferred consists of two or more 
different types of product subject to this regulation, i.e., base 
gasoline, detergent-additized gasoline, or specified detergent-
additized PRC, then the PTD for the commingled product must identify 
each such type of component contained in the commingled product.
    (5) If the product being transferred is gasoline to which an 
oxygenate or a PRC has been added, then the PTD for the

[[Page 35363]]

gasoline must identify the oxygenate or PRC. The PTDs for commingled, 
additized gasolines must identify all the oxygenates and PRCs added to 
either component.
    (6) If the product being transferred is base gasoline, then in 
addition to the base gasoline identification, the following warning 
must be stated on the PTD: ``Not for sale to the ultimate consumer''. 
If, pursuant to Sec. 80.160(a), the product being transferred is exempt 
base gasoline to be used for research, development, or test purposes 
only, the following warning must also be stated on the PTD: ``For use 
in research, development, and test programs only.''
    (7) The name of the detergent additive as reported in its 
registration must be used to identify the detergent package on its PTD.
    (8) If the product being transferred is leaded gasoline, then the 
PTD must disclose that the product contains lead and/or phosphorous, as 
applicable.
    (9) If the product being transferred is detergent that is only 
authorized for the control of carburetor deposits, then the following 
must be stated on the detergent's transfer document: ``For use with 
leaded gasoline only.''
    (10) If the product being transferred is detergent-additized 
gasoline that has been overadditized in anticipation of the later (or 
earlier) addition of PRC, then the PTD must include a statement that 
the product has been overadditized to account for a specified volume in 
gallons, or a specified percentage of the product's total volume, of 
additional, specified PRC.
    (b) Gasoline may not be additized with a detergent authorized only 
for the control of carburetor deposits and whose product transfer 
document states ``For use with leaded gasoline only'', and gasoline may 
not be additized at the lower concentration specified for a detergent 
authorized at a lower concentration for the control of carburetor 
deposits only, unless the product transfer document for the gasoline to 
be additized identifies it as leaded gasoline.
    (c) Use of product codes and other non-regulatory language. (1) 
Product codes and other non-regulatory language may not be used as a 
substitute for the specified PTD warning language specified in 
paragraph (a)(6) of this section for base gasoline, except that:
    (i) The specified warning language may be omitted for bulk 
transfers of base gasoline from a refinery to a pipeline if there is a 
prior written agreement between the parties specifying that all such 
gasoline is unadditized and will not be transferred to the ultimate 
consumer;
    (ii) Product codes may be used as a substitute for the specified 
warning language provided that the PTD is an electronic data 
interchange (EDI) document being used solely for the transfer of title 
to the base gasoline, and provided that the product codes otherwise 
comply with the requirements of this section.
    (2) Product codes and other language not specified in this section 
may otherwise be used to comply with PTD information requirements, 
provided that they are clear, accurate, and not misleading.
    (3) If product codes are used, they must be standardized throughout 
the distribution system in which they are used, and downstream parties 
must be informed of their full meaning.
    (d) PTD exemption for small transfers of additized gasoline. 
Transfers of additized gasoline are exempt from the PTD requirements of 
this section provided all the following conditions are followed:
    (1) The product is being transferred by a distributor who is not 
the product's detergent blender; and
    (2) The recipient is a wholesale purchaser-consumer (WPC) or other 
ultimate consumer of gasoline, for its own use only or for that of its 
agents or employees; and
    (3) The volume of additized gasoline being transferred is not 
greater than 550 gallons.
    (e) Recordkeeping period. Any person creating, providing or 
acquiring product transfer documentation for gasoline, detergent, or 
detergent-additized PRC, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this 
section, shall retain the documents required by this section for a 
period of five years from the date the product transfer documentation 
was created, received or transferred, as applicable, and shall deliver 
such documents to EPA upon request. WPCs are not required to retain 
PTDs of additized gasoline received by them.
    10. Section 80.160 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 80.160  Exemptions.

    (a) Research, development, and testing exemptions. Any detergent 
that is either in a research, development, or test status, or is sold 
to petroleum, automobile, engine, or component manufacturers for 
research, development, or test purposes, or any gasoline to be used by, 
or under the control of, petroleum, additive, automobile, engine, or 
component manufacturers for research, development, or test purposes, is 
exempted from the provisions of the interim detergent program, provided 
that:
    (1) The detergent (or fuel containing the detergent), or the 
gasoline, is kept segregated from non-exempt product, and the party 
possessing the product maintains documentation identifying the product 
as research, development, or testing detergent or fuel, as applicable, 
and stating that it is to be used only for research, development, or 
testing purposes; and
    (2) The detergent (or fuel containing the detergent), or the 
gasoline, is not sold, dispensed, or transferred, or offered for sale, 
dispensing, or transfer from a retail outlet. It shall also not be 
sold, dispensed, or transferred, or offered for sale, dispensing, or 
transfer from a wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, unless such 
facility is associated with detergent, fuel, automotive, or engine 
research, development or testing; and
    (3) The party using the product for research, development, or 
testing purposes, or the party sponsoring this usage, notifies the EPA, 
on at least an annual basis and prior to the use of the product, of the 
purpose(s) of the program(s) in which the product will be used and the 
anticipated volume of the product to be used. The information must be 
submitted to the address or fax number provided in Sec. 80.174(c).
    (b) Racing fuel and aviation fuel exemptions. Any fuel that is 
refined, sold, dispensed, transferred, or offered for sale, dispensing, 
or transfer as automotive racing fuel or as aircraft engine fuel, is 
exempted from the provisions of this subpart, provided that:
    (1) The fuel is kept segregated from non-exempt fuel, and the party 
possessing the fuel for the purposes of refining, selling, dispensing, 
transferring, or offering for sale, dispensing, or transfer as 
automotive racing fuel or as aircraft engine fuel, maintains 
documentation identifying the product as racing fuel, restricted for 
non-highway use in racing motor vehicles, or as aviation fuel, 
restricted for use in aircraft, as applicable;
    (2) Each pump stand at a regulated party's facility, from which 
such fuel is dispensed, is labeled with the applicable fuel 
identification and use restrictions described in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section; and
    (3) The fuel is not sold, dispensed, transferred, or offered for 
sale, dispensing, or transfer for highway use in a motor vehicle.
    (c) California gasoline exemptions. (1) Gasoline or PRC which is 
additized in the state of California is exempt from

[[Page 35364]]

the VAR provisions in Secs. 80.155(b) and (e) and 80.157, provided 
that:
    (i) For all such gasoline or PRC, whether intended for sale within 
or outside of California, records of the type required for California 
gasoline (specified in title 13, California Code of Regulations, 
section 2257) are maintained; and
    (ii) Such records, with the exception of daily additization 
records, are maintained for a period of five years from the date they 
were created and are delivered to EPA upon request.
    (2) Gasoline or PRC that is transferred and/or sold solely within 
the state of California is exempt from the PTD provisions of the 
interim detergent program, specified in Secs. 80.155(c) and 80.158.
    (3) Nothing in this paragraph (c) exempts such gasoline or PRC from 
the requirements of Sec. 80.155(a) and (e), as applicable. EPA will 
base its determination of California gasoline's conformity with the 
detergent's LAC on the additization records required by CARB, or 
records of the same type.
    11. Subpart G is further amended by adding new Secs. 80.161 through 
80.173, to read as follows:


Sec. 80.161   Detergent additive certification program.

    (a) Effective dates and applicability of requirements. (1) As of 
July 1, 1997:
    (i) Detergent additives for the control of port fuel injector 
deposits (PFID) and/or intake valve deposits (IVD) in gasoline engines 
may not be transferred or sold for use in compliance with this subpart 
unless such additives have been certified according to the requirements 
of this section.
    (ii) Except as provided in Sec. 80.169(c)(8), PFID and IVD control 
additives may not be added to gasoline or post-refinery component (PRC) 
for compliance with this subpart unless such additives have been 
certified according to the requirements of this section.
    (iii) Gasoline may not be sold or transferred to a party who sells 
or transfers gasoline to the ultimate consumer unless such gasoline 
contains detergent additives which have been certified according to the 
requirements of this section.
    (2) Beginning August 1, 1997, all gasoline sold or transferred to 
the ultimate consumer must contain detergent additive(s) which have 
been certified, according to the requirements of this section, to be 
effective for the control of PFID and IVD in gasoline engines.
    (3) Except as specifically exempted in Sec. 80.173, these 
detergency requirements apply to all gasoline, whether intended for on-
highway or nonroad use, including conventional, oxygenated, 
reformulated, and leaded gasolines, as well as the gasoline component 
in mixtures of petroleum and alcohol fuels, gasoline used as marine 
fuel, gasoline service accumulation fuel (as described in Sec. 86.113-
94(a)(1) of this chapter), the gasoline component of fuel mixtures of 
petroleum and methanol used for service accumulation in flexible fuel 
vehicles (as described in Sec. 86.113-94(d) of this chapter), the 
gasoline used for factory fill purposes, and all additized PRC.
    (4) The specific controls and prohibitions applicable to persons 
subject to these regulations are set forth in Sec. 80.168.
    (b) Detergent additive certification requirements. For a detergent 
additive package to be certified as eligible for use by detergent 
blenders in complying with the gasoline detergency requirements of this 
subpart, the requirements listed in this paragraph (b) must be 
satisfied for such detergent. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 
(e) of this section, if the certifier fails to conduct the specified 
tests or to submit the specified materials, or if EPA judges the 
testing or materials to be inadequate, or if the detergent fails EPA 
confirmatory deposit control performance testing pursuant to 
Sec. 80.167, the Administrator may deny or withdraw the detergent's 
eligibility to be used to satisfy the detergency requirements of this 
subpart.
    (1) The detergent additive manufacturer must properly register the 
detergent additive under 40 CFR part 79. For this purpose:
    (i) The compositional data required under Sec. 79.21(a) of this 
chapter shall include the information specified in Sec. 80.162.
    (ii) The minimum recommended additive concentration required under 
Sec. 79.21(d) of this chapter shall be reported to EPA in units of 
gallons of detergent additive package per 1000 gallons of gasoline or 
PRC, provided to four digits. This concentration is the lowest additive 
concentration (LAC) referred to in Sec. 80.170, and shall be reported 
as follows:
    (A) For a detergent additive registered for use in unleaded 
gasoline, the minimum concentration must be determined and reported for 
each certification option under which the manufacturer wishes to 
certify the additive pursuant to Sec. 80.163.
    (1) In the case of a detergent certified for use in California 
gasoline based on an existing certification granted by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB), pursuant to Sec. 80.163(d), the minimum 
recommended concentration must equal or exceed the amount specified in 
the CARB certification.
    (2) In the case of any other detergent certification option, the 
minimum recommended concentration must equal or exceed the amount mixed 
into the associated test fuel specified in Sec. 80.164, which was shown 
to satisfy the PFID and IVD deposit control performance tests and 
standards specified in Sec. 80.165.
    (B) For a detergent registered for use in leaded gasoline, the 
minimum recommended concentration must be no less than the amount shown 
to be needed for control of carburetor deposits, pursuant to the test 
procedure and test fuel guidelines in Sec. 80.166.
    (C) Once it has been registered by EPA, the minimum recommended 
concentration specified by a detergent manufacturer to detergent 
blenders and other users of the additive, pursuant to paragraph (c) of 
this section, may not be changed without first notifying EPA. Such 
notification should be sent by certified mail to the address specified 
in Sec. 80.174(b). The change in minimum concentration must be 
supported by existing certification data or else the notification to 
EPA must be accompanied by new certification information which 
demonstrates that the modification is consistent with the requirements 
of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (2) The detergent additive manufacturer (or other certifying party) 
must submit to EPA a sample of the actual detergent additive package 
which was used in the certification testing specified in Sec. 80.164 
or, if such sample is not available, then a sample which has the same 
composition as the package used in certification testing.
    (i) The sample volume shall be between 250 ml and 500 ml.
    (ii) The sample shall be packaged in a container which has a 
resealable closure and which will maintain sample integrity for at 
least one year. The container shall be labeled with the name and 
address of the manufacturer and the name of the detergent additive 
package.
    (iii) Any known shelf life limitations, and any available 
information on optimal temperature, light exposure, or other conditions 
to prolong sample shelf life, shall be provided.
    (iv) If the certifying party wishes to claim that the sample or any 
accompanying documents are entitled to special handling for reasons of 
business confidentiality, the party must clearly identify the sample or 
documents as such. EPA will handle any samples or documents with such 
claims according to the regulations at 40 CFR part 2.

[[Page 35365]]

    (v) The sample shall be submitted to EPA, at the address provided 
in Sec. 80.174(a), within seven days of the date on which the 
certification letter for the detergent package is sent to EPA as 
required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (3) The detergent additive manufacturer (or other certifying party) 
shall submit a certification letter for the detergent additive package 
to the address in Sec. 80.174(b). The party must use certified or 
express mail with return receipt service. The letter shall be signed by 
a person legally authorized to represent the certifying party and shall 
contain the following information:
    (i) Identifying information.
    (A) The name and address of the detergent additive manufacturer.
    (B) In any case where the certifier is not the detergent additive 
manufacturer, such as in the case of a fuel-specific certification 
pursuant to Sec. 80.163(c), the name and address of the certifier.
    (C) The commercial identifying name of the detergent additive 
product as registered under the requirements of Sec. 79.21 of this 
chapter.
    (ii) A statement attesting that:
    (A) The detergent package which is the subject of this 
certification has been tested according to applicable procedural and 
test fuel requirements in this subpart and has met the applicable 
performance standards; and
    (B) The testing was conducted in a manner consistent with good 
engineering practices; and
    (C) Complete documentation of the test fuel formulation and IVD 
demonstration procedures, detergent performance test procedures, and 
test results are available for EPA's inspection upon request.
    (iii) The name and location of the laboratory(ies) at which the 
certification testing was conducted and the dates during which the 
testing was conducted.
    (iv) For each option under which certification is sought pursuant 
to Sec. 80.163, specifications of the test fuel(s) in which the 
detergent underwent performance testing. These fuel specifications must 
include:
    (A) The sulfur content in weight percent.
    (B) The T-90 distillation point in degrees Fahrenheit.
    (C) The olefin content in volume percent.
    (D) The aromatic content in volume percent.
    (E) The identity and volume percent of any oxygenate compound.
    (F) The source of the test fuel(s) and/or fuel blend stocks used to 
formulate the test fuel(s).
    (v) In the case of a national or PADD certification (pursuant to 
Sec. 80.163 (a) or (b)) for which the test fuel was specially 
formulated from refinery blend stocks, the results of the IVD 
demonstration test, pursuant to Sec. 80.164(b)(3).
    (vi) In the case of a fuel-specific detergent certification, 
pursuant to Sec. 80.163(c), the definition of the segregated gasoline 
pool, including any permitted PRC, for which the certification is 
sought, and the fuel parameter percentile distributions determined for 
the subject gasoline pool, as specified in Sec. 80.164(c). The 
percentile distributions must include all of the fuel parameters listed 
in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) (A) through (D) of this section, along with any 
other fuel parameter(s) which the certifier wishes to use to define the 
certification fuel. As specified in Sec. 80.164(c)(1)(iv), the 
procedures used to measure the additional parameters must be 
identified, as well as the levels of these additional parameters 
present in the test fuel(s).
    (vii) In the case of a certification for California gasoline based 
on an existing certification granted by CARB, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.163(d), a copy of the CARB certificate.
    (viii) The test concentration(s) of the subject detergent additive 
in each test fuel, and the corresponding test results (percent flow 
restriction demonstrated in the PFID test and milligrams of deposit per 
valve demonstrated in the IVD test).
    (ix) For each option under which certification of the detergent is 
sought, the minimum recommended concentration which the certifying 
party seeks to establish for the detergent additive package, pursuant 
to paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (4) EPA will acknowledge receipt of the detergent certification 
letter. The effective date of certification will be the sooner of 60 
days from the date on which EPA receives the certification letter, or 
the certifier's receipt of EPA's acknowledgement of the certification 
letter. However, neither the passage of 60 days nor EPA's 
acknowledgement will signify acceptance by EPA of the validity of the 
information in the certification letter or the adequacy or potency of 
the detergent sample submitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section. EPA may elect at any time to review the detergent 
certification data, analyze the submitted detergent additive sample, or 
subject the detergent additive package to confirmatory testing as 
described in Sec. 80.167 and, where appropriate, may disqualify a 
detergent certification according to the provisions in paragraph (e) of 
this section.
    (c) The minimum concentration reported in the detergent 
registration according to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of 
this section, plus any restrictions in use associated with that 
concentration, must be accurately communicated in writing by the 
additive manufacturer to each fuel manufacturer or detergent blender 
who purchases the subject detergent for purpose of compliance with the 
gasoline detergency requirements of this subpart, and to any additive 
manufacturer who purchases the subject additive with the intent of 
reselling it to a fuel manufacturer for this purpose.
    (d) The rate at which a detergent blender treats gasoline with a 
detergent additive package must be no less than the minimum recommended 
concentration reported for the subject detergent additive pursuant to 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, except under the following 
conditions:
    (1) If a detergent blender possesses deposit control performance 
test results as specified in Sec. 80.165 or Sec. 80.166 which show that 
the minimum treat rate recommended by the manufacturer of a detergent 
additive product exceeds the amount of that detergent actually required 
for effective deposit control, then, upon informing EPA in writing of 
these circumstances, the detergent blender may use the detergent at the 
lower concentration substantiated by these test results.
    (2) The notification to EPA must clearly specify the name of the 
detergent product and its manufacturer, the concentration recommended 
by the detergent manufacturer, and the lower concentration which the 
detergent blender intends to use. The notification must also attest 
that the required data are available to substantiate the deposit 
control effectiveness of the detergent at the intended lower 
concentration. The notification must be sent by certified mail to the 
address specified in Sec. 80.174(b).
    (3) At its discretion, EPA may require that the detergent blender 
submit the test data purported to substantiate the claimed 
effectiveness of the lower concentration of the detergent additive. In 
addition, EPA may require the manufacturer of the subject detergent 
additive to submit test data substantiating the minimum recommended 
concentration specified in the detergent additive registration. In 
either case, EPA will send a letter to the appropriate party; the 
supporting data will be due to EPA within 30 days of receipt of EPA's 
letter.

[[Page 35366]]

    (i) If the detergent blender fails to submit the required 
supporting data to EPA in the allotted time period, or if EPA judges 
the submitted data to be inadequate to support the detergent blender's 
claim that the lower concentration provides a level of deposit control 
consistent with the requirements of this section, then EPA will 
disapprove the use of the detergent at the lower concentration. 
Further, the detergent blender may be subject to applicable liabilities 
and penalties pursuant to Secs. 80.169 and 80.172 for any gasoline or 
PRC it has additized at the lower concentration.
    (ii) If the detergent manufacturer fails to submit the required 
test data to EPA within the allotted time period, EPA will proceed on 
the assumption that data are not available to substantiate the minimum 
recommended concentration specified in the detergent registration, and 
the subject additive may be disqualified for use in complying with the 
requirements of this subpart, pursuant to the procedures in paragraph 
(e) of this section. The detergent manufacturer may also be subject to 
applicable liabilities and penalties in Secs. 80.169 and 80.172.
    (iii) If both parties submit the required information, EPA will 
evaluate the quality and results of both sets of test data, and will 
either approve or disapprove the use of the lower treat rate submitted 
by the detergent blender. EPA will inform both parties of the results 
of its analysis.
    (e) Disqualification of a detergent additive package. (1) When EPA 
makes a preliminary determination that a detergent additive certifier 
has failed to comply with the detergent certification requirements of 
this section, including a failure to submit required materials for a 
detergent additive or submission of materials which EPA deems 
inadequate, or if a detergent additive fails confirmatory testing 
conducted pursuant to Sec. 80.167, EPA shall notify the additive 
certifier by certified mail, return receipt requested, setting forth 
the basis for that determination and informing the certifier that the 
detergent may lose its eligibility to be used to comply with the 
detergency requirements of this section.
    (2) If EPA determines that the detergent certification was created 
by fraud or other misconduct, such as a negligent disregard for the 
truthfulness or accuracy of the required information, the detergent 
certification will be considered void ab initio and the 
disqualification will be retroactive to July 1, 1997 or the date on 
which the additive product was first certified, whichever is later.
    (3) The certifier will be afforded 60 days from the date of receipt 
of the notice of intent of detergent disqualification to submit written 
comments concerning the notice, and to demonstrate or achieve 
compliance with the specific requirements which provide the basis for 
the proposed disqualification. If the certifier does not respond in 
writing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice of intent 
of disqualification, the detergent disqualification shall become final 
and the Administrator shall notify the certifier of such final 
disqualification order. If the certifier responds in writing within 60 
days from the date of receipt of the notice of intent to disqualify, 
the Administrator shall review and consider all comments submitted by 
the certifier before taking final action concerning the proposed 
disqualification. All correspondence regarding a disqualification must 
be sent to the address provided in Sec. 80.174(b).
    (4) As part of a written response to a notice of intent to 
disqualify, a certifier may request an informal hearing concerning the 
notice. Any such request shall state with specificity the information 
the certifier wishes to present at such a hearing. If an informal 
hearing is requested, EPA shall schedule such a hearing within 90 days 
from the date of receipt of the request. If an informal hearing is 
held, the subject matter of the hearing shall be confined solely to 
whether or not the certifier has complied with the specific 
requirements which provide the basis for the proposed disqualification. 
If an informal hearing is held, the designated presiding officer may be 
any EPA employee, the hearing procedures shall be informal, and the 
hearing shall not be subject to or governed by 40 CFR part 22 or by 5 
U.S.C. 554, 556, or 557. A verbatim transcript of each informal hearing 
shall be kept and the Administrator (or designee) shall consider all 
relevant evidence and arguments presented at the hearing in making a 
final decision concerning a proposed disqualification.
    (5) If a certifier who has received a notice of intent to 
disqualify submits a timely written response, and the Administrator (or 
designee) decides after reviewing the response and the transcript of 
any informal hearing to disqualify the detergent for use in complying 
with the requirements of this subpart, the Administrator (or designee) 
shall issue a final disqualification order and forward a copy of the 
disqualification order to the certifier by certified mail. Notice of 
the disqualification order will also be published in the Federal 
Register. The disqualification will become effective as of the date on 
which the copy of the order is received by the certifier. If the 
certifier is also a blender of the disqualified additive, then the 
certifier must stop using the ineligible detergent upon receipt of the 
disqualification order.
    (6) Within 10 days of receipt of EPA's notification of the final 
decision to disqualify a detergent additive package pursuant to this 
paragraph (e), the detergent certifier must submit to EPA, at the 
address specified in Sec. 80.174(b), a list of its customers who use 
the disqualified detergent. Failure to do so may subject the certifier 
to liabilities for violations of Sec. 80.168 that result from the use 
of the uncertified detergent. EPA shall inform the certifier's 
customers by certified mail that the detergent is no longer eligible 
for compliance with the requirements of this subpart. These parties 
must stop using the ineligible detergent additive package and 
substitute an eligible detergent additive within 45 days of receiving 
the notification, or within 45 days of publication of the 
disqualification notice in the Federal Register, whichever occurs 
sooner.


Sec. 80.162  Additive compositional data.

    For a detergent additive product to be eligible for use by 
detergent blenders in complying with the gasoline detergency 
requirements of this subpart, the compositional data to be supplied to 
EPA by the additive manufacturer for the purpose of registering a 
detergent additive package under Sec. 79.21(a) of this chapter must 
include the items listed in this section. In the case of items 
requiring measurement or other technical analysis, and for which a 
specific test procedure is not stipulated herein, the procedure must 
conform to reasonable and customary standards of repeatability and 
reproducibility, and reasonable and customary limits of detection and 
accuracy for the type of test procedure or analytic procedure in 
question. At EPA's request, detailed documentation of any such test 
procedure must be submitted within 10 days of the registrant's receipt 
of EPA's request.
    (a) A complete listing of the components of the detergent additive 
package and the weight and/or volume percent (as applicable) of each 
component of the package.
    (1) When possible, standard chemical nomenclature shall be used or 
the chemical structure of the component shall be given. Polymeric 
components may be reported as the product of other chemical reactants, 
provided that the supporting data specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section is also reported.

[[Page 35367]]

    (2) Each detergent-active component of the package shall be 
classified into one of the following designations:
    (i) Polyalkyl amine;
    (ii) Polyether amine;
    (iii) Polyalkylsuccinimide;
    (iv) Polyalkylaminophenol;
    (v) Detergent-active petroleum-based carrier oil;
    (vi) Detergent-active synthetic carrier oil; and
    (vii) Other detergent-active component (identify category, if 
feasible.)
    (3) Composition variability.
    (i) The composition of a detergent additive reported in a single 
additive registration (and the detergent additive product sold under a 
single additive registration) may not:
    (A) Include detergent-active components which differ in identity 
from those contained in the detergent additive package at the time of 
certification testing; or
    (B) Include a range of concentration for any detergent-active 
component such that, if the component were present in the detergent 
additive package at the lower bound of the reported range, the deposit 
control effectiveness of the additive package would be reduced as 
compared with the level of effectiveness demonstrated during 
certification testing.
    (ii) The identity or concentration of non-detergent-active 
components of the detergent additive package may vary under a single 
registration, provided that the range of such variation is specified in 
the registration and that such variability does not reduce the deposit 
control effectiveness of the additive package as compared with the 
level of effectiveness demonstrated during certification testing.
    (iii) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section, 
detergent additive packages which do not satisfy the restrictions in 
this paragraph (a)(3) must be separately registered. EPA may disqualify 
an additive for use in satisfying the requirements of this subpart if 
EPA determines that the variability included within a given detergent 
additive registration may reduce the deposit control effectiveness of 
the detergent package such that it may invalidate the minimum 
recommended concentration reported in accordance with the applicable 
requirements of Sec. 80.161(b)(1)(ii).
    (iv) A change in minimum concentration requirements resulting from 
a modification of detergent additive composition shall not require a 
new detergent additive registration or a change in existing 
registration if:
    (A) The modification is effected by a detergent blender only for 
its own use or for the use of parties which are subsidiaries of, or 
share common ownership with, the blender, and the modified detergent is 
not sold or transferred to other parties; and
    (B) The modification is a dilution of the additive for the purpose 
of ensuring proper detergent flow in cold weather; and
    (C) Gasoline is the only diluting agent used; and
    (D) The diluted detergent is subsequently added to gasoline at a 
rate that attains the detergent's registered minimum recommended 
concentration, taking into account the dilution; and
    (E) EPA is notified, either before or within seven days after the 
dilution action, of the identity of the detergent, the identity of the 
diluting material, the amount or percentage of the dilution, the change 
in treat rate necessitated by the dilution, and the locations and time 
period of diluted detergent usage. The notification shall be sent or 
faxed to the address in Sec. 80.174(c).
    (b) For detergent-active polymers and detergent-active carrier oils 
which are reported as the product of other chemical reactants:
    (1) Identification of the reactant materials and the manufacturer's 
acceptance criteria for determining that these materials are suitable 
for use in synthesizing detergent components. The manufacturer must 
maintain documentation, and submit it to EPA upon request, 
demonstrating that the acceptance criteria reported to EPA are the same 
criteria which the manufacturer specifies to the suppliers of the 
reactant materials.
    (2) A Gel Permeation Chromatograph (GPC), providing the molecular 
weight distribution of the polymer or detergent-active carrier oil 
components and the concentration of each chromatographic peak 
representing more than one percent of the total mass. For these results 
to be acceptable, the GPC test procedure must include equipment 
calibration with a polystyrene standard or other readily attainable and 
generally accepted calibration standard. The identity of the 
calibration standard must be provided, together with the GPC 
characterization of the standard.
    (c) For non-detergent-active carrier oils, the following 
parameters:
    (1) T10, T50, and T90 distillation points, and end boiling point, 
measured according to applicable test procedures cited in Sec. 80.46.
    (2) API gravity and viscosity
    (3) Concentration of oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen, if greater than 
or equal to 0.5 percent (by weight) of the carrier oil
    (d) Description of an FTIR-based method appropriate for identifying 
the detergent additive package and its detergent-active components 
(polymers, carrier oils, and others) both qualitatively and 
quantitatively, together with the actual infrared spectra of the 
detergent additive package and each detergent-active component obtained 
by this test method.
    (e) To provide a basis for establishing an affirmative defense to 
presumptive liability pursuant to Sec. 80.169(c)(4)(i)(D)(2)(i), 
specific physical parameters must be identified which the manufacturer 
considers adequate and appropriate, in combination with other 
information and sampling requirements under this subpart, for 
identifying the detergent additive package and monitoring its 
production quality control.
    (1) Such parameters shall include (but need not be limited to) 
viscosity, density, and basic nitrogen content, unless the additive 
manufacturer specifically requests, and EPA approves, the substitution 
of other parameter(s) which the manufacturer considers to be more 
appropriate for a particular additive package. The request must be made 
in writing and must include an explanation of how the requested 
physical parameter(s) are helpful as indicator(s) of detergent 
production quality control. EPA will respond to such requests in 
writing; the additional parameters are not approved until the certifier 
receives EPA's written approval.
    (2) The manufacturer shall identify a standardized measurement 
method, consistent with the chemical and physical nature of the 
detergent product, which will be used to measure each parameter. The 
documented ASTM repeatability for the method shall also be cited. The 
manufacturer's target value for each parameter in the detergent 
package, and the expected range of production values for each 
parameter, shall be specified.
    (3) EPA will consider the parameter measurements to be an 
acceptable basis for establishing an affirmative defense to presumptive 
liability, if the expected range of variability differs from the target 
value by an amount no greater than five times the standard 
repeatability of the test procedure, or by no more than 10 percent of 
the target value, whichever is less. However, in the case of nitrogen 
analysis or other procedures for measuring concentrations of specific 
chemical compounds or elements, when the target value is less than 10 
parts per million, a range of variability up to 50 percent

[[Page 35368]]

of the target value will be considered acceptable.
    (4) If a manufacturer wishes to rely on measurement methods or 
production variability ranges which do not conform to the above 
limitations, then the manufacturer must receive prior written approval 
from EPA in order to be assured that any related parameter measurements 
will be considered an acceptable basis for establishing an affirmative 
defense. A request for such allowance must be made in writing. It must 
fully justify the adequacy of the test procedure, explain why a broader 
range of variability is required, and provide evidence that the 
production detergent will perform adequately throughout the requested 
range of variability.


Sec. 80.163  Detergent certification options.

    To be used to satisfy the detergency requirements under 
Sec. 80.161(a), a detergent additive must be certified in accordance 
with the requirements of one or more of the options and suboptions 
described in this section. Where a certification option makes an 
additive eligible for use in a particular gasoline, that additive is 
also eligible for use in PRC which will be added to the particular 
gasoline. Under each option, the lowest additive concentration (LAC) or 
minimum recommended concentration registered for a detergent additive 
package, pursuant to Sec. 80.161(b)(1)(ii), must equal or exceed the 
lowest detergent treat rate shown to be needed in the designated test 
fuel in order to meet the deposit control performance requirements 
specified in Sec. 80.165.
    (a) National certification. A detergent certified under a national 
certification option is eligible for use in gasoline which can be sold 
or dispensed anywhere within the United States or its territories 
(subject to approved state programs).
    (1) National generic certification option. To be certified under 
this option, a candidate detergent must meet the deposit control 
performance test requirements and standards specified in Sec. 80.165 
using test fuels that conform to the requirements in Sec. 80.164(b)(1), 
Table 1, Line 1. A detergent certified under this option is eligible to 
be used at a conforming LAC in any grade of gasoline, with or without 
an oxygenate component.
    (i) National nonoxygenate suboption. The requirements for 
certification under this suboption are the same as those in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, except that, pursuant to Sec. 80.164(a)(2)(ii), 
the certification test fuel shall contain no ethanol or other 
oxygenate. A detergent certified under this suboption is eligible to be 
used at a conforming LAC only in gasoline that does not contain an 
oxygenate component.
    (ii) National oxygenate-specific suboption. The requirements for 
certification under this suboption are the same as those in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, except that, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.164(a)(2)(iii), the certification test fuel shall contain an 
oxygenate compound other than ethanol. A detergent certified under this 
suboption is eligible to be used at a conforming LAC only in gasoline 
that contains no oxygenate component other than the one present in the 
test fuel.
    (2) National premium certification option. To be certified under 
this option, a candidate detergent must meet the deposit control 
performance test requirements and standards specified in Sec. 80.165 
using test fuels that conform to the requirements in Sec. 80.164(b)(1), 
Table 1, Line 2. A detergent certified under this option is eligible to 
be used at a conforming LAC only in premium grade gasoline, with or 
without an oxygenate component.
    (i) National premium nonoxygenate suboption. The requirements for 
certification under this suboption are the same as those in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section, except that, pursuant to Sec. 80.164(a)(2)(ii), 
the certification test fuel shall contain no ethanol or other 
oxygenate. A detergent certified under this suboption is eligible to be 
used at a conforming LAC only in premium grade gasoline that does not 
contain an oxygenate component.
    (ii) National premium oxygenate-specific suboption. The 
requirements for certification under this suboption are the same as 
those in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, except that, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.164(a)(2)(iii), the certification test fuel shall contain an 
oxygenate compound other than ethanol. A detergent certified under this 
suboption is eligible to be used at a conforming LAC only in gasoline 
that is premium grade and contains no oxygenate component other than 
the one present in the test fuel.
    (b) Petroleum Administrative Defense District (PADD) Certification. 
A detergent certified under a PADD certification option is eligible for 
use in gasoline which can be sold or dispensed to the ultimate 
purchaser, or to those parties who sell or dispense to the ultimate 
consumer, only within the PADD for which the certification was granted. 
The states and jurisdictions included within each PADD are specified in 
Sec. 79.59(b)(3)(i) through (v), except that, for purposes of PADD 
certification, the state of California is excluded from PADD V.
    (1) PADD generic certification option. To be certified under this 
option, a candidate detergent must meet the deposit control performance 
test requirements and standards specified in Sec. 80.165 using test 
fuels that conform to the requirements in Sec. 80.164(b)(1), Table 2, 
for a selected PADD. A detergent certified under this option is 
eligible to be used at a conforming LAC in any grade of gasoline, with 
or without an oxygenate component, provided that the gasoline is 
ultimately dispensed in the selected PADD.
    (i) PADD nonoxygenate suboption. The requirements for certification 
under this suboption are the same as those in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, except that, pursuant to Sec. 80.164(a)(2)(ii), the 
certification test fuel shall contain no ethanol or other oxygenate. A 
detergent certified under this suboption is eligible to be used at a 
conforming LAC only in gasoline that is nonoxygenated and is ultimately 
dispensed in the selected PADD.
    (ii) PADD oxygenate-specific suboption. The requirements for 
certification under this suboption are the same as those in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, except that, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.164(a)(2)(iii), the certification test fuel shall contain an 
oxygenate compound other than ethanol. A detergent certified under this 
suboption is eligible to be used at a conforming LAC only in gasoline 
that contains no oxygenate component other than the one present in the 
test fuel and is ultimately dispensed in the selected PADD.
    (2) PADD premium certification option. To be certified under this 
option, a candidate detergent must meet the deposit control performance 
test requirements and standards specified in Sec. 80.165 using test 
fuels that conform to the requirements in Sec. 80.164(b)(1), Table 2, 
for a selected PADD. A detergent certified under this option is 
eligible to be used at a conforming LAC only in gasoline that is 
premium grade (with or without an oxygenate component) and is 
ultimately dispensed in the selected PADD.
    (i) PADD premium nonoxygenate suboption. The requirements for 
certification under this suboption are the same as those in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, except that, pursuant to Sec. 80.164(a)(2)(ii), 
the certification test fuel shall contain no ethanol or other 
oxygenate. A detergent certified under this suboption is eligible to be 
used at a conforming LAC only in gasoline that is premium grade, 
contains no

[[Page 35369]]

oxygenate component, and is ultimately dispensed in the selected PADD.
    (ii) PADD premium oxygenate-specific suboption. The requirements 
for certification under this suboption are the same as those in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except that, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.164(a)(2)(iii), the certification test fuel shall contain an 
oxygenate compound other than ethanol. A detergent certified under this 
suboption is eligible to be used at a conforming LAC only in gasoline 
that is premium grade, contains no oxygenate component other than the 
one present in the test fuel, and is ultimately dispensed in the 
selected PADD.
    (c) Fuel-specific certification. Except as provided in paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section, to be certified under the fuel-specific 
certification option, a candidate detergent must meet the deposit 
control performance test requirements and standards specified in 
Sec. 80.165 using test fuels that conform to the requirements of 
Sec. 80.164(c).
    (1) A detergent certified under this option is eligible to be used 
at a conforming LAC only in the defined gasoline pool reported in the 
certification letter pursuant to Sec. 80.161(b)(3).
    (i) The gasoline pool may only include gasoline produced or 
distributed from the facilities covered by the fuel survey which was 
used to define the fuel-specific certification test fuels, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.164(c)(1).
    (ii) The gasoline pool must be kept segregated from any other 
gasoline prior to blending with the detergent additive.
    (iii) Depending on the oxygenate components added to the test fuel 
pursuant to Sec. 80.164(a)(2), the gasoline pool may be inclusive of 
all grades and all oxygenate blending characteristics (i.e., generic), 
or may be restricted to non-oxygenated gasoline, or to gasoline 
containing a specific oxygenate compound. The certification may also be 
restricted to premium grade gasoline. Any such use restrictions must be 
specified in the certification letter. Provisions in Secs. 80.168 and 
80.171(a)(9) through (12) related to such use restrictions also apply.
    (2) Detergent certification under this option entails special 
initial and annual reporting requirements, specified under 
Secs. 80.161(b)(3)(vi) and 80.164(c)(3), which necessitate that the 
responsible party have control over and access to the segregated 
gasoline pool for which the detergent is certified. For this reason, 
the certifying party under this option is likely to be (but is not 
required to be) a fuel manufacturer or detergent blender, rather than 
the additive manufacturer.
    (3) If a certifier demonstrates that the required test fuel 
representing a segregated pool of gasoline meets the deposit control 
performance standards specified in Sec. 80.165 in the absence of a 
detergent additive, or using a detergent additive which has only PFID-
control activity, then this gasoline pool (and PFID detergent, if 
applicable) can be certified accordingly under the fuel-specific 
option.
    (4) Gasoline properly additized with a detergent certified under 
the fuel-specific option may be transferred or sold anywhere within the 
United States and its territories (subject to approved state programs).
    (d) CARB-Based Certification. A valid certification under section 
2257 of Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CARB certification) 
may be the basis for a certification under the following restrictions 
and conditions:
    (1) A detergent certified under this option may be used at the LAC 
specified in the CARB certification only in gasoline that meets the 
requirements of California Phase II reformulated gasoline (pursuant to 
Title 13, Chapter 5, Article 1, Subarticle 2, California Code of 
Regulations, Standards for Gasoline Sold Beginning March 1, 1996). The 
grade(s) of California gasoline which may be so additized, and the 
oxygenate(s) which may be present, are as specified in the CARB 
certification for the detergent in question.
    (2) The gasoline must be either: Additized in California; or sold 
or dispensed to the ultimate consumer in California (or to parties who 
sell or dispense to the ultimate consumer in California); or both 
additized and ultimately dispensed in California.
    (3) A certification under this option will continue to be valid 
only as long as the CARB certification remains valid. The certifier 
must cease selling or using a detergent immediately upon being notified 
by CARB that the CARB certification for this detergent has been 
invalidated, and must notify EPA within 7 days of receipt of this 
notification.


Sec. 80.164  Certification test fuels.

    (a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for 
the test fuels required in conjunction with the certification options 
described in Sec. 80.163. For each such certification option, the 
associated test fuel must meet or exceed the levels of four basic fuel 
parameters (aromatics, fuel sulfur, olefins, and T-90) prescribed here 
and may also contain specified oxygenate compounds. In addition, 
pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, some fuels must undergo 
an IVD demonstration test before they are eligible to be used as test 
fuels under this certification program. Test fuel characteristics must 
be reported to EPA in the detergent certification letter required 
pursuant to Sec. 80.161(b)(3).
    (1) Quantitative specifications for the four basic fuel parameters, 
provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, refer to the levels 
of these parameters in the base gasoline prior to the addition of any 
oxygenate. The levels of the basic fuel parameters must be measured in 
accordance with applicable procedures in Sec. 80.46.
    (2) Oxygenate components of certification test fuels must be of 
fuel grade quality. The type and amount of oxygenate to be blended into 
the test fuel (if any) shall be as follows:
    (i) To certify a detergent for generic use (i.e., for use in 
gasoline containing any oxygenate compound, as well as for use in 
nonoxygenated gasoline), the finished test fuel shall contain ethanol 
at 10 volume percent.
    (ii) To certify a detergent specifically for use in nonoxygenated 
gasoline, no oxygenate compounds shall be added to the test fuel.
    (iii) To certify a detergent specifically for use in gasoline 
blended with a specified oxygenate compound other than ethanol, the 
specified oxygenate must be added to the test fuel in an amount such 
that the finished fuel contains the oxygenate at the highest 
concentration at which the specific oxygenate may be used in in-use 
gasoline.
    (3) No detergent-active substance other than the detergent additive 
package undergoing testing may be added to a certification test fuel. 
Typical nondetergent additives, such as antioxidants, corrosion 
inhibitors, and metal deactivators, may be present in the test fuel at 
the discretion of the additive certifier. In addition, any nondetergent 
additives (other than oxygenate compounds) which are commonly blended 
into gasoline and which are known or suspected to affect IVD or PFID 
formation, or to reduce the ability of the detergent in question to 
control such deposits, should be added to the test fuel for 
certification testing.
    (4) Certification test requirements may be satisfied for a 
detergent additive using more than one batch of test fuel, provided 
that each batch satisfies all applicable test fuel requirements under 
this section.
    (5) Unless otherwise required by this section, finished test fuels 
must conform to the requirements for commercial gasoline described in 
ASTM D 4814-95c, ``Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition 
Engine

[[Page 35370]]

Fuel'', which 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. Copies may be 
inspected at U.S. EPA, OAR, 401 M Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 
20460, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. Copies of this material may be 
obtained from ASTM, 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    (b) National and PADD certification test fuels.
    (1) Test fuels for the national generic and premium certification 
options must contain levels of the designated fuel parameters which 
meet or exceed the applicable values in Table 1. Test fuels for the 
PADD generic certification options must contain levels of the 
designated fuel parameters which meet or exceed the applicable values 
in Table 2. Test fuels for the PADD premium certification options must 
contain levels of the designated fuel parameters which meet or exceed 
the applicable values in Table 3. Oxygenate requirements for the 
respective nonoxygenate and oxygenate-specific suboptions are specified 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

                                   Table 1.--National Certification Test Fuels                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Required minimum fuel parameter values                   
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Certification option           Sulfur                   Olefins     Aromatics                            
                                    (weight %)    T-90 (F)    (volume %)   (volume %)     Oxygenate (volume %)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. National Generic.............        0.034          339         11.4         31.1  10% Ethanol.             
2. National Premium..............        0.016          332          6.5         35.9                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Table 2.--PADD-Specific Generic Certification Test Fuels                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Required minimum fuel parameter values                   
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Certification option           Sulfur                   Olefins     Aromatics                            
                                    (weight %)    T-90 (F)    (volume %)   (volume %)     Oxygenate (volume %)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PADD 1 Generic...................        0.039          343         15.4         32.1                           
PADD 2 Generic...................        0.034          338         10.3         29.3                           
PADD 3 Generic...................        0.032          343         12.9         29.8  10% Ethanol.             
PADD 4 Generic...................        0.050          326         10.0         27.1                           
PADD 5 Generic...................        0.021          337          7.6         34.5                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table 3.--PADD-Specific Premium-Grade Certification Test Fuels                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Required minimum fuel parameter values                   
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Certification option           Sulfur                   Olefins     Aromatics                            
                                    (weight %)    T-90 (F)    (volume %)   (volume %)     Oxygenate (volume %)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PADD 1 Premium...................        0.018          332          9.2         38.6                           
PADD 2 Premium...................        0.014          333          6.0         34.3                           
PADD 3 Premium...................        0.015          334          6.0         34.6  10% Ethanol.             
PADD 4 Premium...................        0.040          319          6.0         22.3                           
PADD 5 Premium...................        0.011          332          4.3         36.7                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) National and PADD certification test fuels must either be 
formulated to specification from normal refinery blend stocks, or drawn 
from finished gasoline supplies. The source of such samples must be 
normally-operating gasoline production or distribution facilities 
located in the U.S. Samples must not be drawn from a segregated 
gasoline pool that is or will be covered by a fuel-specific 
certification under Sec. 80.163(c) on the date when the certification 
information under this option is submitted to EPA.
    (3) To be eligible for use in detergent additive certification 
testing, in addition to the specifications above, national and PADD 
test fuels which are specially formulated from refinery blend stocks 
must themselves undergo testing to demonstrate their deposit-forming 
tendency. For this purpose, the unadditized, nonoxygenated test fuel 
must be subjected to the IVD control test procedure described in 
Sec. 80.165(b). At the discretion of the tester, the duration of the 
demonstration test may be less than 10,000 miles, provided the results 
satisfy the standard of this paragraph. In order to qualify for use in 
certification testing, the formulated fuel's test results must meet or 
exceed the values shown in Table 4 for the relevant certification 
option. If the demonstration test results do not meet these criteria, 
then the formulated fuel may not be used for detergent certification 
testing.

                                    Table 4.--IVD Demonstration Test Criteria                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum required deposit level in IVD demonstration test  (mg/valve,    
                                                                      average)                                  
       Certification option        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      National      PADD 1       PADD 2       PADD 3       PADD 4       PADD 5  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic...........................          290          290          260          290          260          260

[[Page 35371]]

                                                                                                                
Premium...........................          260          260          235          260          235          235
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    (c) Fuel-specific certification test fuels. (1) Test fuels required 
for fuel-specific certification must contain levels of each of the four 
basic fuel parameters (aromatics, olefins, T-90, and fuel sulfur) at no 
less than their respective 65th percentile values in the segregated 
gasoline pool for which the detergent certification is sought in 
accordance with Sec. 80.163(c). These values must be determined by the 
certifier as follows:
    (i) At least once monthly for at least one complete year prior to 
the certification, the certifier must measure the levels of the 
required parameters in representative fuel samples contributed to the 
segregated gasoline pool by each participating refinery, terminal, or 
other fuel production or distribution facility. The fuel parameters 
must be measured in accordance with the test procedures in Sec. 80.46. 
If the applicability of the fuel-specific certification is to be 
limited to premium gasoline, then the required fuel compositional data 
must be collected only from samples of premium gasoline.
    (ii) The fuel composition survey results, weighted according to the 
percentage of gasoline contributed to the segregated gasoline pool from 
each participating facility, shall be used to construct a percentile 
distribution of the measured values for each of the fuel parameters.
    (iii) Data from more than one year may be used to construct the 
required statistical distribution provided that only the total data 
from complete consecutive years is used and that all survey data must 
have been collected within three years of the date the certification 
information is submitted to EPA.
    (iv) At the discretion of the certifier, other fuel parameters may 
be used to define the certification test fuels in addition to the four 
required parameters. To be taken into account by EPA in case of 
confirmatory testing pursuant to Sec. 80.167, such additional 
parameters must be surveyed and analyzed according to the same 
requirements applicable to the four standard parameters. In addition, 
any optional parameters must be measured using test procedures which 
conform to reasonable and customary standards of repeatability and 
reproducibility, and reasonable and customary limits of detection and 
accuracy for the type of test procedure or analytic procedure in 
question.
    (v) Using the percentile distributions calculated from the survey 
data for the four required parameters and any additional discretionary 
parameters, the 65th percentile value for each such parameter shall be 
determined. Prior to the addition of any oxygenate compound, the fuel-
specific certification test fuel shall contain each specified parameter 
at a level or concentration no less than this 65th percentile value. 
Test fuel oxygenate requirements for generic, nonoxygenate, and 
oxygenate-specific certification suboptions are specified in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section.
    (2) Fuel-specific certification test fuels must either be 
formulated to specification from the same refinery blend stocks which 
are normally used to blend the gasolines included in the subject 
gasoline pool, or drawn from the finished fuel supplies which 
contribute to this pool of gasoline. Fuel-specific certification test 
fuels need not undergo an IVD demonstration test prior to use in 
certification testing.
    (3) The certifier must submit an annual report to EPA within 30 
days of the anniversary of the initial certification effective date. 
Failure to submit the annual report by the required date will 
invalidate the fuel-specific certification and may subject the 
certifier to liability and penalties under Secs. 80.169 and 80.172. The 
purpose of the annual report is to update the information on the 
composition of the segregated gasoline pool that was characterized by 
the initial fuel survey.
    (i) For this purpose, the same fuel survey and statistical analysis 
requirements that were conducted pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(i),(ii), 
and (iv) of this section must be repeated, using data for the most 
current twelve-month period from each of the production/distribution 
facilities that contributed to the original fuel survey.
    (ii) The annual report must present the percentile distributions 
for each fuel parameter as determined from the new survey data and, for 
each measured fuel parameter, must compare the newly determined 50th 
percentile value with the 60th percentile value for that parameter as 
determined in the original fuel survey.
    (iii) If the new 50th percentile level for any fuel parameter is 
greater than or equal to the 60th percentile level reported in the 
initial certification, then the fuel-specific certification is no 
longer valid. In such instance, the certifier must immediately 
discontinue the sale and use of the subject detergent under the 
conditions of the fuel-specific certification and must immediately 
notify any downstream customers/recipients of the subject detergent 
that the certification is no longer valid and that their use of the 
detergent must discontinue within seven days. To avoid liability and 
penalties under Secs. 80.169 and 80.172, the certifier must take these 
remedial steps within 45 days of the anniversary of the original fuel-
specific certification. Downstream customers/recipients must 
discontinue usage of the detergent within seven days of receipt of 
notification of the detergent's invalidity to avoid such liability.
    (4) The fuel composition survey results which support the original 
test fuel specifications and the annual statistical analyses, along 
with related documentation on test methods and statistical procedures, 
shall be retained by the certifier for a period of at least five years, 
and shall be made available to EPA upon request.


Sec. 80.165  Certification test procedures and standards.

    This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and 
performance standards which must be met in order to certify detergent 
additives for use in unleaded gasoline, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2). These standards must be met in the context 
of the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. In 
any case, the testing must be conducted and the performance standards 
met when the subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuel meeting 
all relevant requirements of Sec. 80.164, including the deposit-forming 
tendency demonstration specified in Sec. 80.164(b)(3), if applicable. 
Complete test documentation must be submitted

[[Page 35372]]

by the certifying party within 30 days of receipt of a written request 
from EPA for such records.
    (a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. (1) The required test 
fuel must produce no more than 5% flow restriction in any one injector 
when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5598-94, ``Standard Test Method 
for Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for 
Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling,'' 1994, which 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. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA, OAR, 401 M Street, 
Southwest, Washington, DC 20460, or at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. 
Copies of this material may be obtained from ASTM, 1916 Race St., 
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    (2) At the option of the certifier, fuel injector flow may be 
measured at intervals during the 10,000 mile test cycle described in 
ASTM D 5598-94, in addition to the flow measurements required at the 
completion of the test cycle, but not more than every 1,000 miles.
    (b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel 
must produce the accumulation of less than 100 mg of intake valve 
deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5500-94, 
``Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive 
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation,'' 1994, 
which 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. Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA, 
OAR, 401 M Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20460, or at the Office of 
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC. Copies of this material may be obtained from ASTM, 1916 
Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    (c) If conducted using test fuels meeting all relevant requirements 
of Sec. 80.164, and completed prior to September 3, 1996, then the PFID 
and IVD control test procedures required for detergent certification in 
California (specified in section 2257 of Title 13, California Code of 
Regulations) will also be considered acceptable. California Air 
Resources Board, ``Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel Injector (PFI) 
Deposits in Vehicle Engines'', March 1, 1991, and California Air 
Resources Board, ``BMW--10,000 Miles Intake Valve Test Procedure'', 
March 1, 1991, are 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. Copies may be 
inspected at U.S. EPA, OAR, 401 M Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 
20460, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. Copies of this material may be 
obtained from the California Air Resource Board, Stationary Source 
Division, 2020 L Street, PO Box 2815, Sacramento, CA, 95814.


Sec. 80.166  Carburetor deposit control performance test and test fuel 
guidelines.

    EPA will use the guidelines in this section to evaluate the 
adequacy of carburetor deposit control test data, used to support the 
minimum concentration recommended for detergents used in leaded 
gasoline pursuant to Sec. 80.161(b)(1)(ii)(B).
    (a) Carburetor Deposit Control Test Procedure and Performance 
Standard Guidelines. For demonstration of carburetor deposit control 
performance, any generally accepted vehicle, engine, or bench test 
procedure and associated performance standard for carburetor deposit 
control will be considered adequate. Port and throttle body fuel 
injector deposit control test data will also be considered to be 
adequate demonstration of an additive's ability to control carburetor 
deposits. Examples of acceptable test procedures for demonstration of 
carburetor deposit control, in addition to the fuel injector test 
procedure listed in Sec. 80.165(a), are contained in the following 
references:
    (1) ``Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel Injector (PFI) Deposits 
in Vehicle Engines'', March 1, 1991, Section 2257, Title 13, California 
Code of Regulations.
    (2) ``A Vehicle Test Technique for Studying Port Fuel Injector 
Deposits--A Coordinating Research Council Program'', Robert Tupa et 
al., SAE Technical paper No. 890213, 1989.
    (3) ``The Effects of Fuel Composition and Additives on Multiport 
Fuel Injector Deposits'', Jack Benson et al., SAE Technical Paper 
Series No. 861533, 1986.
    (4) ``Injector Deposits--The Tip of Intake System Deposit 
Problems'', Brian Taneguchi, et al., SAE Technical Paper Series No. 
861534, 1986.
    (5) ``Fuel Injector, Intake Valve, and Carburetor Detergency 
Performance of Gasoline Additives'', C.H. Jewitt et al., SAE Technical 
Paper No. 872114, 1987.
    (6) ``Carburetor Cleanliness Test Procedure, State-of-the-Art 
Summary, Report: 1973-1981'', Coordinating Research Council, CRC Report 
No. 529, Coordinating Research Council Inc. (CRC), 219 perimeter Center 
Parking, Atlanta, Georgia, 30346.
    (b) Carburetor Deposit Control Test Fuel Guidelines. (1) The 
gasoline used in the tests described in paragraph (a) of this section 
must contain the detergent-active components of the subject detergent 
additive package in an amount which corresponds to the minimum 
recommended concentration recorded in the respective detergent 
registration, or less than this amount.
    (2) The test fuel must not contain any detergent-active components 
other than those recorded in the subject detergent certification.
    (3) The composition of the test fuel used in carburetor deposit 
control testing, conducted to support the claimed effectiveness of 
detergents used in leaded gasoline, should be reasonably typical of in-
use gasoline in its tendency to form carburetor deposits (or more 
severe than typical in-use fuels) as defined by the olefin and sulfur 
content. A test fuel conforming to these compositional guidelines may 
be sampled directly from finished gasolines or may be blended to 
specification using typical refinery blend stocks. Test data using 
leaded fuels is preferred for this purpose, but data collected using 
unleaded fuels may also be acceptable provided that some correlation 
with additive performance in leaded fuels is available.


Sec. 80.167  Confirmatory testing.

    EPA may test a detergent to confirm that the required performance 
levels are met. Based on the findings of this confirmatory testing, a 
detergent certification may be denied or revoked under the provisions 
of Sec. 80.161(e).
    (a) Confirmatory testing conducted to evaluate the validity of 
detergent certifications under the national, PADD, or fuel-specific 
options will generally entail a single vehicle test using the 
procedures detailed in Sec. 80.165. The test fuel(s) used in conducting 
confirmatory certification testing will contain the specified fuel 
parameters at or below the minimum levels specified in Sec. 80.164, and 
will otherwise conform to the applicable certification test fuel 
specifications therein.
    (b) Confirmatory certification testing conducted to evaluate the 
validity of CARB-based detergent certifications will use the subject 
detergent in test fuel(s) containing the relevant fuel parameters at 
levels no greater than the maximum levels for which the CARB 
certification was granted. The test procedures will be conducted 
pursuant to the procedures

[[Page 35373]]

specified under section 2257 of Title 13, California Code of 
Regulations.
    (c) Confirmatory testing conducted to evaluate the validity of 
registration and certification information specific to detergent use in 
leaded gasoline will use the subject detergent in a test fuel 
containing the test fuel parameters at levels no greater than those 
prescribed in Sec. 80.164. EPA will make all reasonable efforts to use 
the same test procedure for confirmatory testing purposes as was used 
by the certifier in conducting deposit control performance testing.
    (d) When EPA decides to conduct confirmatory testing on a fuel or 
additive which is not readily available in the open market, EPA may 
request that the detergent certifier and/or manufacturer of such fuel 
or additive furnish a sample in the needed quantity. If testing is 
conducted to evaluate the validity of a detergent certification under 
the fuel-specific option, the detergent blender must supply EPA with 
test fuel, or with blend stocks with which to formulate such test fuel, 
in sufficient quantity to conduct the specified deposit control 
performance testing. The fuel or additive manufacturer shall comply 
with a sample request made pursuant to this paragraph within 30 days of 
receipt of the request.


Sec. 80.168  Detergent certification program controls and prohibitions.

    (a)(1) No person shall sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, 
offer for supply, transport, or cause the transportation of gasoline to 
the ultimate consumer for use in motor vehicles or in any off-road 
engines (except as provided in Sec. 80.173), or to a gasoline retailer 
or wholesale purchaser-consumer, and no person shall detergent-additize 
gasoline, unless such gasoline is additized in conformity with the 
requirements of Sec. 80.161. No person shall cause the presence of any 
gasoline in the gasoline distribution system unless such gasoline is 
additized in conformity with the requirements of Sec. 80.161.
    (2) Gasoline has been additized in conformity with the requirements 
of Sec. 80.161 when the detergent component satisfies the requirements 
of Sec. 80.161 and when:
    (i) The gasoline has been additized in conformity with the 
detergent composition and purpose-in-use specifications of a detergent 
certified in accordance with this subpart, and in accordance with at 
least the minimum concentration specifications of that detergent as 
certified or as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.161(d); or
    (ii) The gasoline is composed of two or more commingled gasolines 
and each component gasoline has been additized in conformity with the 
detergent composition and purpose-in-use specifications of a detergent 
certified in accordance with this subpart, and in accordance with at 
least the minimum concentration specifications of that detergent as 
certified or as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.161(d); or
    (iii) The gasoline is composed of a gasoline commingled with a 
post-refinery component (PRC), and both of these components have been 
additized in conformity with the detergent composition and use 
specifications of a detergent certified in accordance with this 
subpart, and in accordance with at least the minimum concentration 
specifications of that detergent as certified or as otherwise provided 
under Sec. 80.161(d).
    (b) No person shall blend detergent into gasoline or PRC unless 
such person complies with the volumetric additive reconciliation 
requirements of Sec. 80.170.
    (c) No person shall sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer 
for supply, store, transport, or cause the transportation of any 
gasoline, detergent, or detergent-additized PRC, unless the product 
transfer document for the gasoline, detergent or detergent-additized 
PRC complies with the requirements of Sec. 80.171.
    (d) No person shall refine, import, manufacture, sell, offer for 
sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, store, transport, or cause 
the transportation of any detergent that is to be used as a component 
of detergent-additized gasoline or detergent-additized PRC unless such 
detergent conforms with the composition specifications of a detergent 
certified in accordance with this subpart and the detergent otherwise 
complies with the requirements of Sec. 80.161. No person shall cause 
the presence of any detergent in the detergent, PRC, or gasoline 
distribution systems unless such detergent complies with the 
requirements of Sec. 80.161.
    (e)(1) No person shall sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, 
offer for supply, transport, or cause the transportation of detergent-
additized PRC unless the PRC has been additized in conformity with the 
requirements of Sec. 80.161. No person shall cause the presence in the 
PRC or gasoline distribution systems of any detergent-additized PRC 
that fails to conform to the requirements of Sec. 80.161.
    (2) PRC has been additized in conformity with the requirements of 
Sec. 80.161 when the detergent component satisfies the requirements of 
Sec. 80.161 and when:
    (i) The PRC has been additized in accordance with the detergent 
composition and use specifications of a detergent certified in 
accordance with this subpart and in conformity with at least the 
minimum concentration specifications of that detergent as certified or 
as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.161(d), or
    (ii) The PRC is composed of two or more commingled PRCs, and each 
component has been additized in accordance with the detergent 
composition and use specifications of a detergent certified in 
accordance with this subpart, and in conformity with at least the 
minimum concentration specifications of that detergent as certified or 
as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.161(d).


Sec. 80.169  Liability for violations of the detergent certification 
program controls and prohibitions.

    (a) Persons Liable--(1) Gasoline non-conformity. Where gasoline 
contained in any storage tank at any facility owned, leased, operated, 
controlled or supervised by any gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, 
distributor, reseller, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, 
oxygenate blender, or detergent blender, is found in violation of any 
of the prohibitions specified in Sec. 80.168(a), the following persons 
shall be deemed in violation:
    (i) Each gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, distributor, 
reseller, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, or 
detergent blender, who owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises 
the facility (including, but not limited to, a truck or individual 
storage tank) where the violation is found;
    (ii) Each gasoline refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, 
retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent 
manufacturer, distributor, or blender, who refined, imported, 
manufactured, sold, offered for sale, dispensed, supplied, offered for 
supply, stored, detergent additized, transported, or caused the 
transportation of the detergent-additized gasoline (or the base 
gasoline component, the detergent component, or the detergent-additized 
post-refinery component of the gasoline) that is in violation, and each 
such party that caused the gasoline that is in violation to be present 
in the gasoline distribution system; and
    (iii) Each gasoline carrier who dispensed, supplied, stored, or 
transported any gasoline in the storage tank containing gasoline found 
to be in violation, and each detergent carrier who dispensed, supplied, 
stored, or transported the detergent component of

[[Page 35374]]

any PRC or gasoline in the storage tank containing gasoline found to be 
in violation, provided that EPA demonstrates, by reasonably specific 
showings by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the gasoline or 
detergent carrier caused the violation.
    (2) Post-refinery component non-conformity. Where detergent-
additized PRC contained in any storage tank at any facility owned, 
leased, operated, controlled or supervised by any gasoline refiner, 
importer, carrier, distributor, reseller, retailer, wholesale 
purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent manufacturer, carrier, 
distributor, or blender, is found in violation of the prohibitions 
specified in Sec. 80.168(e), the following persons shall be deemed in 
violation:
    (i) Each gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, distributor, 
reseller, retailer, wholesale-purchaser consumer, oxygenate blender, 
detergent manufacturer, carrier, distributor, or blender, who owns, 
leases, operates, controls or supervises the facility (including, but 
not limited to, a truck or individual storage tank) where the violation 
is found;
    (ii) Each gasoline refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, 
retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent 
manufacturer, distributor, or blender, who sold, offered for sale, 
dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, stored, detergent additized, 
transported, or caused the transportation of the detergent-additized 
PRC (or the detergent component of the PRC) that is in violation, and 
each such party that caused the PRC that is in violation to be present 
in the PRC or gasoline distribution systems; and
    (iii) Each carrier who dispensed, supplied, stored, or transported 
any detergent-additized PRC in the storage tank containing PRC that is 
in violation, and each detergent carrier who dispensed, supplied, 
stored, or transported the detergent component of any detergent-
additized PRC which is in the storage tank containing detergent-
additized PRC found to be in violation, provided that EPA demonstrates 
by reasonably specific showings by direct or circumstantial evidence, 
that the gasoline or detergent carrier caused the violation.
    (3) Detergent non-conformity. Where the detergent (prior to 
additization) contained in any storage tank or container found at any 
facility owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised by any 
gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, distributor, reseller, retailer, 
wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent 
manufacturer, carrier, distributor, or blender, is found in violation 
of the prohibitions specified in Sec. 80.168(d), the following persons 
shall be deemed in violation:
    (i) Each gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, distributor, 
reseller, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, 
detergent manufacturer, carrier, distributor, or blender, who owns, 
leases, operates, controls or supervises the facility (including, but 
not limited to, a truck or individual storage tank) where the violation 
is found;
    (ii) Each gasoline refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, 
retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent 
manufacturer, distributor, or blender, who sold, offered for sale, 
dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, stored, transported, or caused 
the transportation of the detergent that is in violation, and each such 
party that caused the detergent that is in violation to be present in 
the detergent, gasoline, or PRC distribution systems; and
    (iii) Each gasoline or detergent carrier who dispensed, supplied, 
stored, or transported any detergent which is in the storage tank or 
container containing detergent found to be in violation, provided that 
EPA demonstrates, by reasonably specific showings by direct or 
circumstantial evidence, that the gasoline or detergent carrier caused 
the violation.
    (4) Volumetric additive reconciliation. Where a violation of the 
volumetric additive reconciliation requirements established by 
Sec. 80.168(b) has occurred, the following persons shall be deemed in 
violation:
    (i) Each detergent blender who owns, leases, operates, controls or 
supervises the facility (including, but not limited to, a truck or 
individual storage tank) where the violation has occurred; and
    (ii) Each gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, distributor, 
reseller, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, or oxygenate blender, 
and each detergent manufacturer, carrier, distributor, or blender, who 
refined, imported, manufactured, sold, offered for sale, dispensed, 
supplied, offered for supply, stored, transported, or caused the 
transportation of the detergent-additized gasoline, the base gasoline 
component, the detergent component, or the detergent-additized PRC of 
the gasoline that is in violation, provided that EPA demonstrates, by 
reasonably specific showings by direct or circumstantial evidence, that 
such person caused the violation.
    (5) Product transfer document. Where a violation of Sec. 80.168(c) 
is found at a facility owned, leased, operated, controlled, or 
supervised by any gasoline refiner, importer, carrier, distributor, 
reseller, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, 
detergent manufacturer, carrier, distributor, or blender, the following 
persons shall be deemed in violation: each gasoline refiner, importer, 
carrier, distributor, reseller, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, 
oxygenate blender, detergent manufacturer, carrier, distributor, or 
blender, who owns, leases, operates, control or supervises the facility 
(including, but not limited to, a truck or individual storage tank) 
where the violation is found.
    (b) Branded Refiner Vicarious Liability. Where any violation of the 
prohibitions specified in Sec. 80.168 has occurred, with the exception 
of violations of Sec. 80.168(c), a refiner will also be deemed liable 
for violations occurring at a facility operating under such refiner's 
corporate, trade, or brand name or that of any of its marketing 
subsidiaries. For purposes of this section, the word facility includes, 
but is not limited to, a truck or individual storage tank.
    (c) Defenses. (1) In any case in which a gasoline refiner, 
importer, distributor, carrier, reseller, retailer, wholesale 
purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent distributor, carrier, 
or blender, is in violation of any of the prohibitions of Sec. 80.168, 
pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section as applicable, the 
regulated party shall be deemed not in violation if it can demonstrate:
    (i) That the violation was not caused by the regulated party or its 
employee or agent (unless otherwise provided in this paragraph (c));
    (ii) That product transfer documents account for the gasoline, 
detergent, or detergent-additized PRC in violation and indicate that 
the gasoline, detergent, or detergent-additized PRC satisfied relevant 
requirements when it left the party's control; and
    (iii) That the party has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs 
(c) (2) or (3) of this section, as applicable.
    (2) Branded refiner. Where a branded refiner is in violation of any 
of the prohibitions of Sec. 80.168 as a result of violations occurring 
at a facility (including, but not limited to, a truck or individual 
storage tank) which is operating under the corporate, trade or brand 
name of a refiner or that of any of its marketing subsidiaries, the 
refiner shall be deemed not in violation if it can demonstrate, in 
addition to the defense requirements stated in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, that the violation was caused by:
    (i) An act in violation of law (other than these regulations), or 
an act of sabotage or vandalism, whether or not

[[Page 35375]]

such acts are violations of law in the jurisdiction where the violation 
of the prohibitions of Sec. 80.168 occurred; or
    (ii) The action of any gasoline refiner, importer, reseller, 
distributor, oxygenate blender, detergent manufacturer, distributor, 
blender, or retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer supplied by any of 
these persons, in violation of a contractual undertaking imposed by the 
refiner designed to prevent such action, and despite the implementation 
of an oversight program, including, but not limited to, periodic review 
of product transfer documents by the refiner to ensure compliance with 
such contractual obligation; or
    (iii) The action of any gasoline or detergent carrier, or other 
gasoline or detergent distributor not subject to a contract with the 
refiner but engaged by the refiner for transportation of gasoline, PRC, 
or detergent, to a gasoline or detergent distributor, oxygenate 
blender, detergent blender, gasoline retailer or wholesale purchaser 
consumer, despite specification or inspection of procedures or 
equipment by the refiner which are reasonably calculated to prevent 
such action.
    (iv) In this paragraph (c)(2), to show that the violation ``was 
caused'' by any of the specified actions, the party must demonstrate by 
reasonably specific showings, by direct or circumstantial evidence, 
that the violation was caused or must have been caused by another.
    (3) Detergent blender. In any case in which a detergent blender is 
liable for violating any of the prohibitions of Sec. 80.168, the 
detergent blender shall not be deemed in violation if it can 
demonstrate, in addition to the defense requirements stated in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the following:
    (i) That it obtained or supplied, as appropriate, prior to the 
detergent blending, accurate written instructions from the detergent 
manufacturer or other party with knowledge of such instructions, 
specifying the appropriate LAC for the detergent, as specified in 
Sec. 80.161(b)(1)(ii), together with any use restrictions which pertain 
to this LAC pursuant to the detergent's certification; and
    (ii) That it has implemented a quality assurance program that 
includes, but is not limited to, a periodic review of its supporting 
product transfer and volume measurement documents to confirm the 
correctness of its product transfer and volumetric additive 
reconciliation documents created for all products it additized.
    (4) Detergent manufacturer.-- (i) Presumptive Liability Affirmative 
Defense. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, in any case in which a detergent manufacturer is liable for 
violating any of the prohibitions of Sec. 80.168, the detergent 
manufacturer shall be deemed not in violation if it can demonstrate 
each of the following:
    (A) Product transfer documents which account for the detergent 
component of the product in violation and which indicate that such 
detergent satisfied all relevant requirements when it left the 
detergent manufacturer's control.
    (B) Written blending instructions which, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.161(c), were supplied by the detergent manufacturer to its 
customer who purchased or obtained from the manufacturer the detergent 
component of the product determined to be in violation. The written 
blending instructions must have been supplied by the manufacturer prior 
to the customer's use or sale of the detergent. The instructions must 
accurately specify both the appropriate LAC for the detergent, pursuant 
to Sec. 80.161(b)(1)(ii), plus any use restrictions which may pertain 
to this LAC pursuant to the detergent's certification.
    (C) If the detergent batch used in the noncomplying product was 
produced less than one year before the manufacturer was notified by EPA 
of the possible violation, then the manufacturer must provide FTIR test 
results for the batch in question.
    (1) The FTIR analysis may have been conducted on the subject 
detergent batch at the time it was manufactured, or may be conducted on 
a sample of that batch which the manufacturer retained for such purpose 
at the time the batch was manufactured.
    (2) To establish that, when it left the manufacturer's control, the 
detergent component of the noncomplying product was in conformity with 
the chemical composition and concentration specifications reported 
pursuant to Sec. 80.161(b), the FTIR test results for the detergent 
batch used in the noncomplying product must, in EPA's judgment, be 
consistent with the FTIR results submitted at the time of registration 
pursuant to Sec. 80.162(d).
    (D) If the detergent batch used in the noncomplying product was 
produced more than one year prior to the manufacturer's notification by 
EPA of the possible violation, then the manufacturer must provide 
either:
    (1) FTIR test results for the batch in question as specified in the 
preceding paragraph (c)(4)(i)(C) of this Sec. 80.169(c); or
    (2) The following materials:
    (i) Documentation for the batch in question, showing that its 
measured viscosity, density, and basic nitrogen content, or any other 
such physical parameter(s) which EPA may have approved for monitoring 
production quality control, were within the acceptable range of 
production values specified in the certification pursuant to 
Sec. 80.162(e); and
    (ii) If the detergent registration identifies polymeric 
component(s) of the detergent package as the product(s) of other 
chemical reactants, documentation that the reagents used to synthesize 
the detergent batch in question were the same as those specified in the 
registration and that they met the manufacturer's normal acceptance 
criteria reported pursuant to Sec. 80.162(b)(1).
    (ii) Detergent manufacturer causation liability. In any case in 
which a detergent manufacturer is liable for a violation of 
Sec. 80.168, and the manufacturer establishes an affirmative defense to 
such liability pursuant to Sec. 80.169(c)(4)(i), the detergent 
manufacturer will nonetheless be deemed liable for the violation of 
Sec. 80.168 if EPA can demonstrate, by reasonably specific showings by 
direct or circumstantial evidence, that the detergent manufacturer 
caused the violation.
    (5) Defense against liability where more than one party may be 
liable for VAR violations. In any case in which a party is 
presumptively or vicariously liable for a violation of Sec. 80.170, 
except for the VAR record requirements pursuant to Sec. 80.170(g), such 
party shall not be deemed liable if it can establish the following:
    (i) Prior to the violation it had entered into a written contract 
with another potentially liable detergent blender party (``the assuming 
party''), under which that other party assumed legal responsibility for 
fulfilling the VAR requirement that had been violated;
    (ii) The contract included reasonable oversight provision to ensure 
that the assuming party fulfilled its VAR responsibilities (including, 
but not limited to, periodic review of VAR records) and the oversight 
provision was actually implemented by the party raising the defense;
    (iii) The assuming party is fiscally sound and able to pay its 
penalty for the VAR violation; and
    (iv) The employees or agents of the party raising the defense did 
not cause the violation.
    (6) Defense to liability for gasoline non-conformity violations 
caused solely by the addition of misadditized ethanol or other PRC to 
the gasoline. In any case in which a party is presumptively or 
vicariously liable for a gasoline non-conformity violation of 
Sec. 80.168(a)

[[Page 35376]]

caused solely by another party's addition of misadditized ethanol or 
other PRC to the gasoline, the former party shall not be deemed liable 
for the violation, provided that it can establish that it has fulfilled 
the defense requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) (i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (7) Detergent tank transitioning defenses. The commingling of two 
detergents in the same detergent storage tank will not be deemed to 
violate or cause violations of any of the provisions of this subpart, 
provided the following conditions are met:
    (i) The commingling must occur during a legitimate detergent 
transitioning event, i.e., a shift from the use of one detergent to 
another through the delivery of the new detergent into the same tank 
that contains the original detergent; and
    (ii) Any use restrictions applicable to the new detergent's 
certification also apply to the combined detergents; and
    (iii) The commingling event must be documented, either on the VAR 
formula record or on attached supporting records; and
    (iv) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in Sec. 80.170, a VAR 
formula record must be created for the combined detergents. The VAR 
compliance period must begin no later than the time of the commingling 
event. However, at the blender's option, the compliance period may 
begin earlier, thus including use of the uncombined original detergent 
within the same period, provided that the 31-day limitation pursuant to 
Sec. 80.170(a)(6) is not exceeded; and
    (v) The VAR formula record must also satisfy the requirements in 
one of the following paragraphs (c)(7)(v) (A) through (C) of this 
section, whichever applies to the commingling event. If neither 
paragraph (c)(7)(v) (A) nor (B) of this section initially applies, then 
the blender may drain and subsequently redeliver the original detergent 
into the tank in restricted amounts, in order to meet the conditions of 
paragraph (c)(7)(v) (A) or (B) of this section. Otherwise, the blender 
must comply with paragraph (c)(7)(v)(C) of this section.
    (A) If both detergents have the same LAC, and the original 
detergent accounts for no more than 20 percent of the tank's total 
delivered volume after addition of the new detergent, then the VAR 
formula record is required to identify only the use of the new 
detergent.
    (B) If the two detergents have different LACs and the original 
detergent accounts for 10 percent or less of the tank's total delivered 
volume after addition of the new detergent, then the VAR formula record 
is required to identify only the use of the new detergent, and must 
attain the LAC of the new detergent. If the original detergent's LAC is 
greater than that of the new detergent, then the compliance period may 
begin earlier than the date of the commingling event (pursuant to 
paragraph (c)(7)(iv) of this section) only if the original detergent 
does not exceed 10 percent of the total detergent used during the 
compliance period.
    (C) If neither of the preceding paragraphs (c)(7)(v) (A) or (B) of 
this section applies, then the VAR formula record must identify both of 
the commingled detergents, and must use and attain the higher LAC of 
the two detergents. Once the commingled detergent has been depleted by 
an amount equal to the volume of the original detergent in the tank at 
the time the new detergent was added, subsequent VAR formula records 
must identify and use the LAC of only the new detergent.
    (8) Transition from noncertified to certified detergent. 
Notwithstanding the prohibitions in Secs. 80.161(a)(3) and 80.168, 
after June 30, 1997, the addition to gasoline or PRC of a detergent 
which has not been certified pursuant to Sec. 80.161 shall not be 
deemed to violate or cause violations of provisions of this subpart, 
provided that all of the following conditions are met:
    (i) The detergent was received by the detergent blender prior to 
July 1, 1997 and is used prior to January 1, 1998. Documentation which 
supports these dates must be maintained for at least five years and 
must be available for EPA's inspection upon request;
    (ii) The detergent is added to gasoline or PRC only in combination 
with a certified detergent and, at any one time, accounts for no more 
than 10 percent of the detergent tank's delivered volume;
    (iii) The total volume of detergent added to the gasoline or PRC is 
sufficient to attain the LAC of the certified detergent; and
    (iv) Use restrictions associated with the certified detergent are 
adhered to.
    (g) Procedures for curing use restrictions. In the case of a fuel 
product which has been additized with a detergent under the conditions 
of a use-restricted certification (pursuant to Sec. 80.163), the use 
restriction can be negated (``cured'') by application of the procedures 
in this paragraph (g). A party shall not be liable for violations of 
Sec. 80.168(a) or (e) caused solely by the additization or subsequent 
use of gasoline or PRC in violation of such use restriction, provided 
that the following steps and conditions are applied before EPA has 
identified the nonconformity and prior to the sale or transfer of 
nonconforming product to the ultimate consumer:
    (i) Additional detergent must be added in sufficient quantity to 
provide effective deposit control, taking into account both the amount 
of detergent previously added and the final anticipated volume and 
composition of the subject fuel product.
    (ii) The additional detergent may be either the original detergent 
or a different detergent, so long as the additional detergent has been 
separately certified both for use with the subject fuel product and for 
use with the type of fuel product associated with the restriction which 
the party wishes to negate by the curing procedure. Detergents which 
have not been separately certified for both types of fuel products are 
not eligible to be used for this curing procedure.
    (iii) If a fuel product has been detergent additized under the 
conditions of a use-restricted certification which would preclude the 
addition of an oxygenate or other PRC, then such oxygenate or other PRC 
may nevertheless be added to that fuel product under this curing 
procedure, provided that additional eligible detergent is added, in an 
amount which equals or exceeds the number of gallons (D<INF>A) derived 
from the following equation:

Additional Detergent Volume=D<INF>A=Vp(LAC<INF>2-LAC<INF>1) + 
V(1-p)LAC<INF>2

Where:

V=Final volume of fuel product (in gallons)
p=Fraction of final fuel product composed of the original (uncombined) 
fuel product
LAC<INF>2=Detergent's LAC certified for the final combined fuel product 
(in gallons of detergent per 1,000 gallons of fuel product)
LAC<INF>1=Detergent's LAC certified for the original (uncombined) fuel 
product (in gallons of detergent per 1,000 gallons of fuel product)

    (iv) In other instances in which gasoline or PRC has been additized 
in violation of a detergent use restriction, and no additional fuel 
components are to be added, such use restriction can be cured by the 
addition of eligible detergent in an amount which equals or exceeds the 
number of gallons (DA) derived from the following equation, which is a 
simplified version of the previous equation:

Additional Detergent Volume=D<INF>A=V(LAC<INF>2-LAC<INF>1)

Where:


[[Page 35377]]


V=Volume of fuel product (in gallons) to be cured of the use 
restriction
LAC<INF>2=Detergent's LAC certified for the fuel product without the 
use restriction (in gallons of detergent per 1,000 gallons of fuel 
product)
LAC<INF>1=Detergent's LAC certified for the fuel product with the use 
restriction to be cured (in gallons of detergent per 1,000 gallons of 
fuel product)

    (v) In all such instances, a curing VAR must be created and 
maintained, which documents the use of the appropriate equation as 
specified above, and otherwise complies with the requirements of 
Sec. 80.170(f)(6).


Sec. 80.170  Volumetric additive reconciliation (VAR), equipment 
calibration, and recordkeeping requirements.

    This section contains requirements for automated detergent blending 
facilities and hand-blending detergent facilities. All gasoline and all 
PRC intended for use in gasoline must be additized unless otherwise 
noted in supporting VAR records, and must be accounted for in VAR 
records. The VAR reconciliation standard is attained under this section 
when the actual concentration of detergent used per VAR formula record 
equals or exceeds the applicable LAC certified for that detergent 
pursuant to Sec. 80.161(b)(3)(ix) or, if appropriate, Sec. 80.161(d). 
If a given detergent package has been certified under more than one 
certification option pursuant to Sec. 80.163, then a separate VAR 
formula record must be created for gasoline or PRC additized on the 
basis of each certification and its respective LAC. In such cases, the 
amount of the detergent used under different certification options must 
be accurately and separately measured, either through the use of a 
separate storage tank, a separate meter, or some other measurement 
system that is able to accurately distinguish its use. Recorded volumes 
of gasoline, detergent, and PRC must be expressed to the nearest gallon 
(or smaller units), except that detergent volumes of five gallons or 
less must be expressed to the nearest tenth of a gallon (or smaller 
units). However, if the blender's equipment cannot accurately measure 
to the nearest tenth of a gallon, then such volumes must be rounded 
downward to the next lower gallon. PRC included in the reconciliation 
must be identified. Each VAR formula record must also contain the 
following information:
    (a) Automated blending facilities. In the case of an automated 
detergent blending facility, for each VAR period, for each detergent 
storage system and each detergent in that storage system, the following 
must be recorded:
    (1) The manufacturer and commercial identifying name of the 
detergent additive package being reconciled, the LAC, and any use 
restriction applicable to the LAC. The LAC must be expressed in terms 
of gallons of detergent per thousand gallons of gasoline or PRC, and 
expressed to four digits. If the detergent storage system which is the 
subject of the VAR formula record is a proprietary system under the 
control of a customer, this fact must be indicated on the record.
    (2) The total volume of detergent blended into gasoline and PRC, in 
accordance with one of the following paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (i) For a facility which uses in-line meters to measure detergent 
usage, the total volume of detergent measured, together with supporting 
data which includes one of the following: the beginning and ending 
meter readings for each meter being measured, the metered batch volume 
measurements for each meter being measured, or other comparable metered 
measurements. The supporting data may be supplied on the VAR formula 
record or in the form of computer printouts or other comparable VAR 
supporting documentation.
    (ii) For a facility which uses a gauge to measure the inventory of 
the detergent storage tank, the total volume of detergent shall be 
calculated from the following equation:

Detergent Volume=(A)-(B)+(C)-(D)

Where:

A=Initial detergent inventory of the tank
B=Final detergent inventory of the tank
C=Sum of any additions to detergent inventory
D=Sum of any withdrawals from detergent inventory for purposes other 
than the additization of gasoline or PRC.

The value of each variable in this equation must be separately recorded 
on the VAR formula record. In addition, a list of each detergent 
addition included in variable C and a list of each detergent withdrawal 
included in variable D must be provided, either on the formula record 
or as VAR supporting documentation.
    (3) The total volume of gasoline plus PRC to which detergent has 
been added, together with supporting data which includes one of the 
following: the beginning and ending meter measurements for each meter 
being measured, the metered batch volume measurements for each meter 
being measured, or other comparable metered measurements. The 
supporting data may be supplied on the VAR formula record or in the 
form of computer printouts or other comparable VAR supporting 
documentation. If gasoline has intentionally been overadditized in 
anticipation of the later addition of unadditized PRC, then the total 
volume of gasoline plus PRC recorded must include the expected amount 
of unadditized PRC to be added later. In addition, the amount of 
gasoline which was overadditized for this purpose must be specified.
    (4) The actual detergent concentration, calculated as the total 
volume of detergent added (pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section), divided by the total volume of gasoline plus PRC (pursuant to 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section). The concentration must be calculated 
and recorded to four digits.
    (5) A list of each detergent concentration rate initially set for 
the detergent that is the subject of the VAR record, together with the 
date and description of each adjustment to any initially set 
concentration. The concentration adjustment information may be supplied 
on the VAR formula record or in the form of computer printouts or other 
comparable VAR supporting documentation. No concentration setting is 
permitted below the applicable certified LAC, except as may be modified 
pursuant to Sec. 80.161(d) or as described in paragraph (a)(7) of this 
section.
    (6) The dates of the VAR period, which shall be no longer than 
thirty-one days. If the VAR period is contemporaneous with a calendar 
month, then specifying the month will fulfill this requirement; if not, 
then the beginning and ending dates and times of the VAR period must be 
listed. The times may be supplied on the VAR formula record or in 
supporting documentation. Any adjustment to any detergent concentration 
rate more than 10 percent over the concentration rate initially set in 
the VAR period shall terminate that VAR period and initiate a new VAR 
period, except as provided in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
    (7) The concentration setting for a detergent injector may be set 
below the applicable LAC, or it may be adjusted more than 10 percent 
above the concentration initially set in the VAR period without 
terminating that VAR period, provided that:
    (i) The purpose of the change is to correct a batch misadditization 
prior to the end of the VAR period and prior to the transfer of the 
batch to another party, or to correct an equipment malfunction; and
    (ii) The concentration is immediately returned after the correction 
to a concentration that fulfills the

[[Page 35378]]

requirements of paragraphs (a) (5) and (6) of this section; and
    (iii) The blender creates and maintains documentation establishing 
the date and adjustments of the correction; and
    (iv) If the correction is initiated only to rectify an equipment 
malfunction, and the amount of detergent used in this procedure is not 
added to gasoline within the compliance period, then this amount is 
subtracted from the detergent volume listed on the VAR formula record.
    (8) If unadditized gasoline has been transferred from the facility, 
other than bulk transfers from refineries or pipelines to non-retail 
outlets or non-WPC facilities, the total amount of such gasoline must 
be specified.
    (b) Non-automated facilities. In the case of a facility in which 
hand blending or any other non-automated method is used to blend 
detergent, for each detergent and for each batch of gasoline and each 
batch of PRC to which the detergent is being added, the following shall 
be recorded:
    (1) The manufacturer and commercial identifying name of the 
detergent additive package being reconciled, the LAC, and any use 
restriction applicable to the LAC. The LAC must be expressed in terms 
of gallons of detergent per thousand gallons of gasoline or PRC, and 
expressed to four digits.
    (2) The date of the additization that is the subject of the VAR 
formula record.
    (3) The volume of added detergent.
    (4) The volume of the gasoline and/or PRC to which the detergent 
has been added. If gasoline has intentionally been overadditized in 
anticipation of the later addition of unadditized PRC, then the total 
volume of gasoline plus PRC recorded must include the expected amount 
of unadditized PRC to be added later. In addition, the amount of 
gasoline which was overadditized for this purpose must be specified.
    (5) The brand (if known), grade, and leaded/unleaded status of 
gasoline, and/or the type of PRC.
    (6) The actual detergent concentration, calculated as the volume of 
added detergent (pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section), divided 
by the volume of gasoline and/or PRC (pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of 
this section). The concentration must be calculated and recorded to 
four digits.
    (c) Every VAR formula record created pursuant to paragraphs (a) and 
(b) of this section shall contain the following:
    (1) The signature of the creator of the VAR record;
    (2) The date of the creation of the VAR record; and
    (3) A certification of correctness by the creator of the VAR 
record.
    (d) Electronically-generated VAR formula and supporting records.
    (1) Electronically-generated records are acceptable for VAR formula 
records and supporting documentation (including PTDs), provided that 
they are complete, accessible, and easily readable. VAR formula records 
must also be stored with access and audit security, which must restrict 
to a limited number of specified people those who have the ability to 
alter or delete the records. In addition, parties maintaining records 
electronically must make available to EPA the hardware and software 
necessary to review the records.
    (2) Electronically-generated VAR formula records may use an 
electronic user identification code to satisfy the signature 
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, provided that:
    (i) The use of the ID is limited to the record creator; and
    (ii) A paper record is maintained, which is signed and dated by the 
VAR formula record creator, acknowledging that the use of that 
particular user ID on a VAR formula record is equivalent to his/her 
signature on the document.
    (e) Automated detergent blenders must calibrate their detergent 
equipment once in each calendar half year, with the acceptable 
calibrations being no less than one hundred twenty days apart. 
Equipment recalibration is also required each time the detergent 
package is changed, unless written documentation indicates that the new 
detergent package has the same viscosity as the previous detergent 
package. Detergent package change calibrations may be used to satisfy 
the semiannual requirement provided that the calibrations occur in the 
appropriate half calendar year and are no less than one hundred twenty 
days apart.
    (f) The following VAR supporting documentation must also be created 
and maintained:
    (1) For all automated detergent blending facilities, documentation 
reflecting performance of the calibrations required by paragraph (e) of 
this section, and any associated adjustments of the automated detergent 
equipment;
    (2) For all hand-blending facilities which are terminals, a record 
specifying, for each VAR period, the total volume in gallons of 
transfers from the facility of unadditized base gasoline;
    (3) For all detergent blending facilities, product transfer 
documents for all gasoline, detergent and detergent-additized PRC 
transferred into or out of the facility; in addition, bills of lading, 
transfer, or sale for all unadditized PRC transferred into the 
facility;
    (4) For all automated detergent blending facilities, documentation 
establishing the brands (if known) and grades of the gasoline which is 
the subject of the VAR formula record; and
    (5) For all hand blending detergent blenders, the documentation, if 
in the party's possession, supporting the volumes of gasoline, PRC, and 
detergent reported on the VAR formula record.
    (6) For all detergent blending facilities, documentation 
establishing the curing of a batch or amount of misadditized gasoline 
or PRC, or the curing of a use restriction on the additized gasoline or 
PRC, and providing at least the following information: the date of the 
curing procedure; the problem that was corrected; the amount, name, and 
LAC of the original detergent used; the amount, name, and LAC of the 
added curing detergent; and the actual detergent concentration attained 
in, and the volume of, the total cured product.
    (g) Document retention and availability. All detergent blenders 
shall retain the documents required under this section for a period of 
five years from the date the VAR formula records and supporting 
documentation are created, and shall deliver them upon request to the 
EPA Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, 
automated detergent blender facilities and hand-blender facilities 
which are terminals, which physically blend detergent into gasoline, 
must make immediately available to EPA, upon request, the preceding 
twelve months of VAR formula records plus the preceding two months of 
VAR supporting documentation.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, other 
hand-blending detergent facilities which physically blend detergent 
into gasoline must make immediately available to EPA, upon request, the 
preceding two months of VAR formula records and VAR supporting 
documentation.
    (3) Facilities which have centrally maintained records at other 
locations, or have customers who maintain their own records at other 
locations for their proprietary detergent systems, and which can 
document this fact to the Agency, may have until the start of the next 
business day after the EPA request to supply VAR supporting 
documentation, or longer if approved by the Agency.
    (4) In this paragraph (g) of this section, the term immediately 
available

[[Page 35379]]

means that the records must be provided, electronically or otherwise, 
within approximately one hour of EPA's request, or within a longer time 
frame as approved by EPA.


Sec. 80.171  Product transfer documents (PTDs).

    (a) Contents. For each occasion when any gasoline refiner, 
importer, reseller, distributor, carrier, retailer, wholesale 
purchaser-consumer, oxygenate blender, detergent manufacturer, 
distributor, carrier, or blender, transfers custody or title to any 
gasoline, detergent, or detergent-additized PRC other than when 
detergent-additized gasoline is sold or dispensed at a retail outlet or 
wholesale purchaser-consumer facility to the ultimate consumer, the 
transferor shall provide to the transferee, and the transferee shall 
acquire from the transferor, documents which accurately include the 
following information:
    (1) The name and address of the transferee and transferor; the 
address requirement may be fulfilled, in the alternative, through 
separate documentation which establishes said addresses and is 
maintained by the parties and made available to EPA for the same length 
of time as required for the PTDs, provided that the normal business 
procedure of these parties is not to identify addresses on PTDs.
    (2) The date of the transfer.
    (3) The volume of product transferred.
    (4)(i) The identity of the product being transferred (i.e., its 
identity as base gasoline, detergent, detergent-additized gasoline, or 
specified detergent-additized oxygenate or detergent-additized gasoline 
blending stock that comprises a detergent-additized PRC). PTDs for 
detergent-additized gasoline or PRC are not required to identify the 
particular detergent used to additize the product.
    (ii) If the product being transferred consists of two or more 
different types of product subject to this regulation, i.e., base 
gasoline, detergent-additized gasoline, or specified detergent-
additized PRC, component, then the PTD for the commingled product must 
identify each such type of component contained in the commingled 
product.
    (5) If the product being transferred is gasoline to which an 
oxygenate or a PRC has been added, the PTD for the gasoline must 
identify the oxygenate or PRC. The PTDs for commingled additized 
gasolines must identify all the oxygenates and PRCs added to either 
component.
    (6) If the product being transferred is base gasoline, then in 
addition to the base gasoline identification, the following warning 
must be stated on the PTD: ``Not for sale to the ultimate consumer''. 
If, pursuant to Sec. 80.173(a), the product being transferred is exempt 
base gasoline to be used for research, development, or test purposes 
only, the following warning must also be stated on the PTD: ``For use 
in research, development, and test programs only''.
    (7) The name of the detergent additive as reported in its 
registration must be used to identify the detergent package on its PTD.
    (8) If the product being transferred is leaded gasoline, then the 
PTD must disclose that the product contains lead and/or phosphorous, as 
applicable.
    (9) If the product being transferred is gasoline or PRC that has 
been additized with detergent under a PADD-specific or CARB-based 
certification, or under a certification option which creates an 
oxygenate or PRC use restriction, then the PTD for the additized 
product must identify the applicable use restriction. The PTD for 
commingled additized gasolines or PRCs containing such restrictions 
must indicate the applicable restriction(s) from each component.
    (10) If the product being transferred is detergent-additized 
gasoline or PRC that has been overadditized in anticipation of the 
later (or earlier) addition of PRC, then the PTD must include a 
statement that the product has been overadditized to account for a 
specified volume in gallons, or a specified percentage of the product's 
total volume, of additional, specified PRC.
    (11) If a detergent package has been certified under only one 
certification option, and that option places a use restriction on the 
respective LAC, then the PTD must identify the detergent as use-
restricted; the PTD for a detergent package certified with more than 
one LAC must identify that the detergent has special use options 
available.
    (12) Base gasoline designated for fuel-specific certification.
    (i) The PTD for segregated base gasoline intended for additization 
with a specific fuel-specific detergent pursuant to Sec. 80.163(c) must 
indicate that it is for use with the designated, fuel-specific 
detergent.
    (ii) A PTD for base gasoline may not indicate that the product is 
for use with a designated, fuel-specific detergent, unless the entire 
quantity of base gasoline is from the segregated fuel supply specified 
in the detergent's certification and the gasoline contains only those 
oxygenates or PRCs, if any, specified and approved in the detergent's 
certification.
    (iii) If, pursuant to Sec. 80.163(c)(3), the fuel-specific 
certification for the segregated pool of gasoline has established that 
no detergent additives are necessary for such gasoline to comply with 
this subpart, then the PTD must identify this gasoline as detergent-
equivalent gasoline.
    (b) Use of product codes and other non-regulatory language.  (1) 
Product codes and other non-regulatory language may not be used as a 
substitute for the specified PTD warning language specified in 
paragraph (a)(6) of this section for base gasoline, except that:
    (i) The specified warning language may be omitted for bulk 
transfers of base gasoline from a refinery to a pipeline if there is a 
prior written agreement between the parties specifying that all such 
gasoline is unadditized and will not be transferred to the ultimate 
consumer;
    (ii) Product codes may be used as a substitute for the specified 
warning language provided that the PTD is an electronic data 
interchange (EDI) document being used solely for the transfer of title 
to the base gasoline, and provided that the product codes otherwise 
comply with the requirements of this section.
    (2) Product codes and other non-regulatory language may not be used 
in place of the PTD language specified in paragraph (a)(11) of this 
section regarding detergent package use restrictions.
    (3) Product codes and other language not specified in this section 
may otherwise be used to comply with PTD information requirements, 
provided that they are clear, accurate, and not misleading.
    (4) If product codes are used, they must be standardized throughout 
the distribution system in which they are used, and downstream parties 
must be informed of their full meaning.
    (c) PTD exemption for small transfers of additized gasoline. 
Transfers of additized gasoline are exempt from the PTD requirements of 
this section provided all the following conditions are satisfied:
    (1) The product is being transferred by a distributor who is not 
the product's detergent blender; and
    (2) The recipient is a wholesale purchaser-consumer (WPC) or other 
ultimate consumer of gasoline, for its own use only or for that of its 
agents or employees; and
    (3) The volume of additized gasoline being transferred is no 
greater than 550 gallons.
    (d) Recordkeeping Period. Any person creating, providing or 
acquiring product transfer documentation for gasoline, detergent, or 
detergent-additized PRC shall retain the documents required by this 
section for a period of five years from the date the product transfer

[[Page 35380]]

documentation was created, received or transferred, as applicable, and 
shall deliver such documents to EPA upon request. WPCs are not required 
to retain PTDs of additized gasoline received by them.


Sec. 80.172  Penalties.

    (a) General. Any person who violates any prohibition or affirmative 
requirement of Sec. 80.168 shall be liable to the United States for a 
civil penalty of not more than the sum of $25,000 for every day of such 
violation and the amount of economic benefit or savings resulting from 
the violation.
    (b) Gasoline non-conformity. Any violation of Sec. 80.168(a) shall 
constitute a separate day of violation for each and every day the 
gasoline in violation remains at any place in the gasoline distribution 
system, beginning on the day that the gasoline is in violation of the 
respective prohibition and ending on the last day that such gasoline is 
offered for sale or is dispensed to any ultimate consumer.
    (c) Detergent non-conformity. Any violation of Sec. 80.168(d) shall 
constitute a separate day of violation for each and every day the 
detergent in violation remains at any place in the gasoline or 
detergent distribution system, beginning on the day that the detergent 
is in violation of the prohibition and ending on the last day that 
detergent-additized gasoline, containing the subject detergent as a 
component thereof, is offered for sale or is dispensed to any ultimate 
consumer.
    (d) Post-refinery component non-conformity. Any violation of 
Sec. 80.168(e) shall constitute a separate day of violation for each 
and every day the PRC in violation remains at any place in the PRC or 
gasoline distribution system, beginning on the day that the PRC is in 
violation of the respective prohibition and ending on the last day that 
detergent-additized gasoline containing the PRC is offered for sale or 
is dispensed to any ultimate consumer.
    (e) Product transfer document non-conformity. Any violation of 
Sec. 80.168(c) shall constitute a separate day of violation for every 
day the PTD is not fully in compliance. This is to begin on the day 
that the PTD is created or should have been created and to end at the 
later of the following dates:
    (1) The day that the document is corrected and comes into 
compliance; or
    (2) The day that gasoline not additized in conformity with interim 
detergent program requirements, as a result of the PTD non-conformity, 
is offered for sale or is dispensed to the ultimate consumer.
    (f) Volumetric additive reconciliation recordkeeping non-
conformity. Any VAR recordkeeping violation of Sec. 80.168(b) shall 
constitute a separate day of violation for every day that VAR 
recordkeeping is not fully in compliance. Each element of the VAR 
record keeping program that is not in compliance shall constitute a 
separate violation for purposes of this section.
    (g) Volumetric additive reconciliation compliance standard non-
conformity. Any violation of the VAR compliance standard established in 
Sec. 80.170 shall constitute a separate day of violation for each and 
every day of the VAR compliance period in which the standard was 
violated.
    (h) Volumetric additive reconciliation equipment calibration non-
conformity. Any VAR equipment calibration violation of Sec. 80.168(b) 
shall constitute a separate day of violation for every day a VAR 
equipment calibration requirement is not met.


Sec. 80.173  Exemptions.

    (a) Research, development, and testing exemptions. Any detergent 
that is either in a research, development, or test status, or is sold 
to petroleum, automobile, engine, or component manufacturers for 
research, development, or test purposes, or any gasoline to be used by, 
or under the control of, petroleum, additive, automobile, engine, or 
component manufacturers for research, development, or test purposes, is 
exempted from the provisions of the detergent certification program, 
provided that:
    (1) The detergent (or fuel containing the detergent), or the 
gasoline, is kept segregated from non-exempt product, and the party 
possessing the product maintains documentation identifying the product 
as research, development, or testing detergent or fuel, as applicable, 
and stating that it is to be used only for research, development, or 
testing purposes; and
    (2) The detergent (or fuel containing the detergent), or the 
gasoline, is not sold, dispensed, or transferred, or offered for sale, 
dispensing, or transfer, from a retail outlet. It shall also not be 
sold, dispensed, or transferred or offered for sale, dispensing, or 
transfer from a wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, unless such 
facility is associated with detergent, fuel, automotive, or engine 
research, development or testing; and
    (3) The party using the product for research, development, or 
testing purposes, or the party sponsoring this usage, notifies the EPA, 
on at least an annual basis and prior to the use of the product, of the 
purpose(s) of the program(s) in which the product will be used and the 
anticipated volume of the product to be used. The information must be 
submitted to the address or fax number specified in Sec. 80.174(c).
    (b) Racing fuel and aviation fuel exemptions. Any fuel that is 
refined, sold, dispensed, transferred, or offered for sale, dispensing, 
or transfer as automotive racing fuel or as aircraft engine fuel, is 
exempted from the provisions of this subpart, provided that:
    (1) The fuel is kept segregated from non-exempt fuel, and the party 
possessing the fuel for the purposes of refining, selling, dispensing, 
transferring, or offering for sale, dispensing, or transfer as 
automotive racing fuel or as aircraft engine fuel, maintains 
documentation identifying the product as racing fuel, restricted for 
non-highway use in racing motor vehicles, or as aviation fuel, 
restricted for use in aircraft, as applicable;
    (2) Each pump stand at a regulated party's facility, from which 
such fuel is dispensed, is labeled with the applicable fuel 
identification and use restrictions described in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section; and
    (3) The fuel is not sold, dispensed, transferred, or offered for 
sale, dispensing, or transfer for highway use in a motor vehicle.
    (c) California gasoline exemptions. (1) Gasoline or PRC which is 
additized in the state of California is exempt from the VAR provisions 
in Secs. 80.168 (b) and (e) and 80.170, provided that:
    (i) For all such gasoline or PRC, whether intended for sale within 
or outside of California, records of the type required for California 
gasoline (specified in title 13, California Code of Regulations, 
section 2257) are maintained; and
    (ii) Such records, with the exception of daily additization 
records, are maintained for a period of five years from the date they 
were created and are delivered to EPA upon request.
    (2) Gasoline or PRC that is transferred and/or sold solely within 
the state of California is exempt from the PTD provisions of the 
detergent certification program, specified in Secs. 80.168(c) and 
80.171.
    (3) Nothing in this paragraph (c) exempts such gasoline or PRC from 
the requirements of Sec. 80.168 (a) and (e), as applicable. EPA will 
base its determination of California gasoline's conformity with the 
detergent's LAC on the additization records required by CARB, or 
records of the same type.

[[Page 35381]]

Sec. 80.174  Addresses.

    (a) The detergent additive sample required under Sec. 80.161(b)(2) 
shall be sent to: Manager, Fuels and Technical Analysis Group, Testing 
Services Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National 
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan 48105.
    (b) Other detergent registration and certification data, and 
certain other information which may be specified in this subpart, shall 
be sent to: Detergent Additive Certification, Director, Fuels and 
Energy Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6406J), 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (c) Notifications to EPA regarding program exemptions, detergent 
dilution and commingling, and certain other information which may be 
specified in this subpart, shall be sent to: Detergent Enforcement 
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Suite 214, 12345 West 
Alameda Parkway, Denver, CO 80228, (FAX 303-969-6490).

[FR Doc. 96-16666 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P