Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0012-0992
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-04-23T04:00Z

Cy
Henry
<
henrycp@
lab.
octel­
starreon.
com>
06/
13/
2003
06:
11
PM
To:
Paul
Machiele/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Jeff
Herzog/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
RE:
Your
testimony
in
New
York
Paul,
Thank
you
for
your
email.
The
aviation
industry
is
not
opposed
to
the
Proposed
Rule
as
a
whole.
Our
main
concern
is
that
we
cannot
evaluate
the
potential
effects
of
Solvent
Yellow
124
on
the
jet
fuel
supply
before
the
close
of
the
comment
period
on
August
20,
2003.
It
took
years
of
effort
to
fully
define
the
effects
from
red
dye.
Your
email
implies,
but
does
not
specifically
indicate
a
time
extension
for
aviation
industry
comments
and
recommendations.

The
CRC
and
ASTM
meetings
will
have
participants
from
all
of
the
interest
groups
present
to
discuss
this
matter.

Regards,
Cy
Henry
>
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
>
From:
Machiele.
Paul@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
SMTP:
Machiele.
Paul@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
>
Sent:
Friday,
June
13,
2003
2:
48
PM
>
To:
henrycp@
octel­
starreon.
com
>
Cc:
Herzog.
Jeff@
epamail.
epa.
gov
>
Subject:
Your
testimony
in
New
York
>
>
The
issue
you
raised
in
your
testimony
is
just
one
of
the
issues
we
are
>
seeking
comment
on
with
respect
to
the
use
of
a
marker
to
distinguish
>
heating
oil
from
diesel
fuel
in
our
proposed
rule.
>
>
Thank
you
for
your
invitation
to
participate
in
the
ASTM
meeting
next
>
week.
Unfortunately,
it
comes
at
a
rather
poor
time
for
our
>
participation,
given
that
our
hearing
on
the
nonroad
rule
is
also
on
the
>
17th
in
LA.
We
are
trying
to
get
coverage
at
the
meeting,
but
may
not
>
be
able
to.
If
not,
please
accept
my
regrets,
and
regardless,
follow
up
>
with
me
and/
or
Jeff
Herzog
on
my
staff
the
following
week.
>
>
We
along
with
API
and
NPRA
came
to
the
conclusion
that
the
best
way
to
>
enforce
the
new
nonroad
proposal
was
through
the
use
of
a
new
marker
for
>
heating
oil.
We
in
turn,
proposed
something
that
we
believed
might
meet
>
many
of
the
criteria
for
such
a
marker
given
its
acceptance
for
Europe.
>
However,
if
there
is
something
better
or
more
appropriate
for
the
>
purpose
we
are
willing
and
able
to
change
for
the
final
rule.
Since
>
this
is
a
rather
unique
and
technical
topic,
ideally
this
is
something
>
that
the
industry
(
refiners,
pipelines,
distributors,
additive
>
manufacturers,
and
any
other
appropriate
stakeholders)
can
come
to
some
>
concensus
on
and
EPA
can
then
adopt
the
industry
recommendation.
As
a
>
result,
I
encourage
you
to
broaden
your
focus
for
discussions
beyond
>
just
EPA
and
include
these
other
stakeholders
as
well.
>
I
look
forward
our
continued
dialogue
on
this
topic.