Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0012-0978
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-04-23T04:00Z

1
Christos.
Liolios@
cec.
eu.
int
07/
02/
2003
11:
55
AM
To:
Jeff
Herzog/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Jane
Armstrong/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Mats.
ERICSSON@
cec.
eu.
int,
Donato.
Raponi@
cec.
eu.
int
Subject:
RE:
Euro
marker
for
low­
tax
fuels
Dear
Mrs
Herzog,

First
good
luck
with
your
effort
to
resolve
all
the
problems
you
raised
in
your
email.
I
will
try
to
reply
to
as
many
as
possible
of
the
questions
you
pose:
1.
Contamination
and
relevant
problems:
This
issue
is
dealt
with
by
our
Member
States,
and
so
far
we
have
not
seen
the
need
to
develop
harmonised
legislation.
Certainly
refineries
use
pipelines
in
our
Member
States
to
send
out
their
products.
If
you
cannot
find
contact
persons
in
those
Member
States
of
the
EU
you
wish
to
obtain
information
(
both
from
oil
Companies
or
public
Administration)
please
let
me
know
to
try
to
find
some
for
you.
Under
this
question
I
would
like
to
inform
you
that
only
the
Solvent
Yellow
124
has
been
established
for
all
the
Community,
as
the
common
fiscal
marker.
Member
States
maintained
the
righyt
to
opt
for
the
colour
to
add
according
to
the
use
and,
if
they
so
wish
for
using
additionally
a
national
marker.
In
practice
some
MS
do
use
the
euromarker
and
a
national
marker
plus
different
colours
according
to
the
use
of
some
specific
mineral
oils.
We
have
suggested
some
detection
methods
for
the
Euromarker
but
MS
apply
the
method
they
wish
for
their
national
marker.
2.
Impact
on
jet
engines
and
environmental
and
health
aspects.
These
two
issues
were
2
out
of
the
7
criteria
to
which
all
candidate
products
had
to
reply
during
the
Euromarker
selection
procedure,
conducted
by
an
independent
consultant
and
the
ISPRA
Research
Centre.
From
the
Final
Report
it
appears
that
SY
124
met
successfully
these
two
criteria.
According
to
a
Scientific
Committee
on
Toxicity,
Ecotoxicity
and
Environment,
which
considered
the
additional
health
and
environmental
risks
of
SY
124,
this
product
was
seen
as
not
giving
rise
to
any
proven
harm.
3.
Concerning
the
study
you
mention
I
have
heard
that
this
has
been
carried
out
by
the
Swedish.
I
have
not
a
copy
in
my
hands
but
I
can
contact
our
Swedish
colleagues
and
try
to
obtain
one
(
possibly
in
electronic
version)
if
you
so
wish.
What
I
remember
from
the
discussions
is
that
the
conclusion
was
the
same,
i.
e.
SY
124
is
not
giving
rise
to
any
proven
harms.
I
recall
that
Sweden
used
this
product
as
national
fiscal
marker
before
it
was
established
as
common
Community­
wide
fiscal
marker
on
1st
August
2002.
I
hope
this
information
will
be
of
use
to
you.
2
Kind
regards
Ch.
Liolios
>­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
>
From:
Herzog.
Jeff@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Herzog.
Jeff@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
>
Sent:
Tuesday,
July
01,
2003
5:
01
PM
>
To:
LIOLIOS
Christos
(
TAXUD);
ERICSSON
Mats
(
ENV)
>
Cc:
Armstrong.
Jane@
epamail.
epa.
gov
>
Subject:
Re:
Euro
marker
for
low­
tax
fuels
>
Importance:
High
>
>
>
Dear
Mr.
Liolios:
>
>
I
appreciate
your
willingness
to
led
the
benefit
of
your
>
practical
experience
and
analysis
to
our
evaluation
of
potentially
>
requiring
the
use
of
solvent
yellow
124
in
US
heating
oil
under
the
>
recently
proposed
nonroad
rulemaking
>(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nonroad/).
Our
public
hearing
on
the
proposal
are
now
complete
and
the
public
comment
process
will
end
on
August
20th.
We
are
hoping
to
publish
a
final
rule
>
by
next
summer.
While
we
do
not
have
written
comments
on
our
proposal,
>
a
number
of
concerns
have
been
raised
regarding
the
proposed
use
of
>
solvent
yellow
124
which
I
am
hoping
that
you
might
be
able
to
help
us
>
evaluate.
>
>
Our
department
of
defense
and
some
members
of
the
aircraft
>
industry
are
concerned
about
the
potential
that
solvent
yellow
124
may
>
contaminate
jet
fuel
in
our
fuel
distribution
system.
As
you
are
>
probably
aware,
different
fuels
are
commonly
shipped
adjacent
to
each
>
other
with
no
physical
separation
in
our
pipeline
system.
>
Contamination
is
managed
either
by
cutting
the
mixed
products
in
the
interface
zone
>
into
the
product
with
the
more
lax
specifications
or
by
removing
the
>
interface
zone
into
a
storage
tank.
Our
analysis
for
the
proposal
>
indicated
that
potential
contamination
concerns
re
the
use
of
solvent
>
yellow
124
could
be
managed
in
our
fuel
distribution
system
using
>
standard
practices
(
much
as
contamination
concerns
with
our
>
currently­
required
red
dye
for
non­
taxed
diesel
fuel
is
managed
today).
>
We
had
also
concluded
that
the
successful
introduction
of
the
Euromarker
>
in
the
EU
would
assuage
potential
contamination
concerns
re
the
use
of
>
solvent
yellow
124
in
the
US
>
3
>
Commenters
have
stated
that
the
experience
in
the
EU
with
>
respect
to
limiting
contamination
of
other
products
with
solvent
yellow
>
124
is
not
applicable
to
the
US.
They
state
that
products
are
>
segregated
during
distribution
in
the
EU,
and
hence
the
potential
for
>
contamination
during
pipeline
shipments
(
which
I
outlined
above)
does
>
not
exist
in
the
EU.
Can
you
comment
on
this?
One
specific
concern
>
that
has
been
raised
is
that
solvent
yellow
124
may
stick
to
pipeline
>
and
storage
tank
walls
to
later
return
to
solution
when
these
>
facilities
>
are
used
for
jet
fuel.
To
date
I
have
one
data
point
from
Mick
Eames
of
>
BPA
pipelines
in
the
UK
which
indicates
that
Euromarked­
distillates
can
successfully
be
shipped
in
multi­
product
pipelines
systems
while
managing
potential
jet
fuel
contamination
concerns.
Re
the
concern
raised
re
the
potential
adsorption/
desorption
of
solvent
yellow
124,
I
believe
that
solvent
yellow
124
should
behave
in
a
like
fashion
to
the
red
dye
which
we
currently
require
in
non­
taxed
diesel
fuel.
Since
we
have
not
experienced
contamination
issues
with
respect
to
undue
adsorption/
desorption
of
red
dye
in
the
pipeline
system,
I
would
expect
>
that
there
should
be
not
such
issues
wrt
solvent
yellow
124.
>
>
Commenters
have
suggested
that
EPA
should
evaluate
the
potential
>
impact
of
solvent
yellow
124
on
jet
engines
before
we
require
its
use.
>
Have
there
been
any
studies
in
the
EU
on
this
subject.
My
thinking
on
>
the
subject
is
that
such
testing
is
not
needed
and
rather
that
>
the
focus
should
be
on
the
ability
to
limit
jet
fuel
contamination.
>
>
Commenters
have
raised
concerns
wrt
the
potential
health
>
effects
of
the
Euromarker.
A
specific
concerns
that
has
been
raised
re
>
the
use
of
Euromarked
fuels
in
unvented
space
heaters.
I
believe
that
a
study
was
>
done
in
Norway
on
this
subject.
Do
you
have
any
input
on
this
subject?
>
>
I
appreciate
your
consideration.
>
>
Jeffrey
A.
Herzog,
Mechanical
Engineer
>
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
>
National
Vehicle
and
Fuel
Emissions
Laboratory
>
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
>
2000
Traverwood
Drive
>
Ann
Arbor,
Michigan,
48105
>
Phone:
(
734)
214­
4227
>
Fax:
(
734)
214­
4816
>
E­
Mail:
herzog.
jeff@
epa.
gov
>
>
>
4
>
>
Jane
Armstrong
>
>
To:
>
Christos.
Liolios@
cec.
eu.
int
>
06/
30/
03
09:
22
AM
cc:
>
Mats.
ERICSSON@
cec.
eu.
int,
Jeff
>
>
Herzog/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
>
Subject:
Re:
>
Euro
marker
for
low­
tax
fuels(
Document
link:
>
Jeff
Herzog)
>
>
Dear
Mr.
Liolios:
>
Thank
you
for
your
response.
I
am
forwarding
your
message
to
my
>
colleague,
Jeff
Herzog.
I
expect
that
he
will
follow
up
with
specific
>
questions.
>
Thank
you
again,
>
Jane
>
>
Jane
Armstrong
>
Senior
Policy
Advisor,
International
Activities
>
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
>
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
>
2000
Traverwood
>
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48105
>+
1
(
734)
214­
4471
>+
1
(
734)
214­
4053
fax
>
armstrong.
jane@
epa.
gov
>
>
>
>
>
Christos.
Liolios@
cec.
eu.
int
To:
Jane
Armstrong/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
>
cc:
>
Mats.
ERICSSON@
cec.
eu.
int
>
06/
26/
2003
10:
28
Subject:
Euro
>
marker
for
low­
tax
fuels
>
AM
>
>
Dear
Mrs
Armstrong,
>
Indeed
I
am
one
of
the
persons
concerned
within
the
European
Commission
5
>
with
the
application
of
the
solvent
Yellow
124,
as
the
common
fiscal
marker.
>
We
adopted
a
Directive
(
sort
of
EC
Law)
no
1995/
60/
EC,
fixing
the
common
rules
and
later
on
a
Commission
Decision
2001/
574/
EC.
The
latter
only
establishes
SY
124
as
the
fiscal
marker.
Both
the
Directive
and
the
Decision
entered
into
force
on
1st
August
2002.
>
SY
124
has
been
established
as
Euromarker
for
5
years,
with
potential
prolongation.
Some
problems
in
application
have
been
mentioned
so
far.
>
Ex.
>
we
have
fixed
a
minimum
level
of
6
mg/
litre
of
SY
124
but
we
are
about
>
to
also
fix
a
maximum
of
9
mg/
litre.
We
also
need
to
improve
the
detection
methods
for
both
along
the
road
and
laboratory
checking.
>
>
In
general,
I
can
say
that
no
major
problems
have
been
reported
so
far.
>
We
have
a
technical
committee
which
is
entitled
to
deal
with
these
technical
problems.
>
I
will
not
be
in
office
tomorrow
but
you
can
contact
me
for
more
information
if
you
so
wish.
>
>
Best
regards
>
>
Ch.
Liolios
>
>
>
Dear
Paul
and
Mats,
>
In
our
recent
nonroad
publication,
we
proposed
to
adopt
the
Euro
>
marker
in
order
to
distinguish
nonroad
fuels
from
the
heating
oil
pool.
>
Jeff
Herzog
says
that
he
has
been
receiving
a
lot
of
comments
on
how
>
well
that
would
work.
Jeff
would
like
very
much
to
>
communicate
with
the
>
person
in
Europe
who
is
overseeing
the
implementation
of
the
>
Euro
marker
>
program
to
see
how
things
are
going
now
and
what
plans
you
may
have
for
>
the
future.
Can
you
tell
up
who
that
would
be?
>
Best
Regards,
>
Jane
>
>
Christos
LIOLIOS
>
>
European
Commission
>
Directorate­
General
>
Taxation
and
Customs
Union
>
Unit
C4
­
Excises
>
MO59
­
04/
27
>
Rue
Montoyer
59,
B­
1000
Brussels
>
Tel:
+
32.2.295.95.59
6
>
Fax:
+
32.2.295.05.51
>
E­
mail:
christos.
liolios@
cec.
eu.
int