[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26515]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 1, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 80



Fuels and Fuel Additives: Deposit Control Gasoline Additives; Final 
Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[AMS-FRL-5094-3]
RIN 2060-AD71

 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Interim Requirements for 
Deposit Control Gasoline Additives

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 6, 1993, EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to govern the use of deposit control (detergent) additives 
in all gasoline used in the United States beginning January 1, 1995. 
The proposal included a detergent additive certification program based 
on deposit control performance testing and standards. To provide 
adequate lead time to the regulated industry, however, simpler interim 
requirements were proposed to be in effect during the first year of the 
program. This final rule establishes an interim detergent additive 
program consistent with the proposed start-up provisions. In a 
subsequent action, EPA will take final action on the proposed more 
rigorous detergent additive testing and certification program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective January 1, 1995. 40 CFR 
80.141(c)-(f), 80.157, 80.158, and 80.160 which contain information 
collection requirements (ICR) are not effective until the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has approved them. EPA will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.

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 a.m. until 4 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 through the Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin 
Board System (TTNBBS). Details on how to access this bulletin board are 
included in Section VI 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, US EPA (RDSD-12), 
Regulation Development and Support Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann 
Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone: (313) 668-4227, Fax: (313) 741-7816. For 
information related to the registration of fuels and fuel additives 
under 40 CFR part 79 contact: James W. Caldwell, US EPA (6406J), Field 
Operations and Support Division, 401 M Street SW., Washington DC 20460; 
Telephone: (202) 233-9303, Fax: (202) 233-9556. For information related 
to enforcement contact: Judith Lubow, US EPA, Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, Western Field Office, 12345 West Alameda Parkway 
suite 300, Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone: (303) 969-6483, FAX: (303) 
969-6490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Legal Authority and Rulemaking History
    1. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
    2. Rulemaking History
    B. Proposed Regulatory Approach
    C. Scope of This Action
II. Applicability
    A. Summary of Proposed Applicability Provisions
    B. Applicability Provisions Finalized Under the Interim Program
III. Interim Program Basic Provisions
    A. Background
    B. Description of Interim Detergent Program Requirements
    1. Requirements for Detergent Additive Manufacturers
    a. Detergent Additive Compositional Data
    b. Recommended Minimum Effective Concentration
    c. Substantiation of Deposit Control Effectiveness
    d. Detergent Additive Identification Procedure
    2. Requirements for Fuel Manufacturers
    C. Requirements for Leaded Gasoline
    D. Summary and Analysis of Comments
    1. Applicability
    a. Leaded Gasoline
    b. Gasoline Used for Military Purposes
    c. Racing Gasoline
    d. Marine Gasoline
    e. Gasoline Used in Flexible-Fuel Vehicles
    f. Gasoline Used for Research and Vehicle Certification Purposes
    2. Interim Registration Requirements
    a. Need for the Demonstration of Both IVD and PFID Control 
Performance
    b. Additive Qualification Under the Interim Program
    c. Performance Demonstration for Different Versions of the Same 
Detergent Package
    d. Reporting Requirements, Confidential Business Information
IV. Interim Program Enforcement Provisions
    A. Introduction and Overview
    1. Part 79 Registration Conformity
    2. Volume Reconciliation
    3. Product Transfer Documents
    4. Liability and Defenses
    5. Exemptions
    B. Analysis of Public Comments and Significant Rule Changes
    1. Volumetric Additive Reconciliation (VAR)
    a. General Description of the Automated Facility VAR Formula in 
the Final Rule
    b. Detergent Measurement Equipment
    c. Use of Multiple Concentration Rates in One VAR Record
    d. Detergent Concentration Rate Adjustments
    e. Reconciliation Period
    f. Transfers of Unadditized Gasoline
    g. Equipment Calibration Requirements
    h. VAR Enforcement Tolerance
    i. Over-Additization
    j. VAR for Hand Blenders
    2. Record Maintenance Requirements
    a. Five Year Record Retention
    b. Place and Manner of Record Retention
    3. Transfer Documentation
    4. Liability Issues
    a. Presumptive Liability
    b. Liability for Failure To Comply With VAR Requirements
    c. Liability for Inadvertent Violations
    d. Detergent Manufacturer Liability: Legal Authority
    e. Sale of Unregistered Detergent
    f. Legal Authority To Regulate Carriers
    g. Interaction With Department of Transportation Safety 
Regulations
    h. Definition of ``Marketer'' Under Section 211(l)
    i. Special Situation of Carriers
    j. Liability of Common Carriers
    k. Liability Related to Insufficient Supporting Data or Test 
Procedures
    l. Vicarious Liability
    m. Affirmative Defenses to Liability
    5. California Gasoline
    6. Exemptions
    7. Penalties
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
    B. Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents

I. Background

A. Legal Authority and Rulemaking History

1. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
    The accumulation of fuel deposits in motor vehicle engines and fuel 
supply systems and the impacts of these deposits on vehicle performance 
have been studied by industry for many years. Fuel injector and intake 
valve deposits have been shown to have significant adverse effects on 
driveability, exhaust emissions and, in some cases, on fuel economy as 
well. The adverse effects of these deposits have been widely accepted, 
and industry has or will soon have in place standard test procedures to 
evaluate the deposit control effectiveness of gasoline detergent 
additives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The reader is referred to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM: 59 FR 64213, December 6, 1993) for an in-depth discussion of 
the causes of engine and fuel supply deposits, their impacts on 
vehicle performance, and deposit control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since detergent additives can help to prevent engine and fuel 
supply deposits,\2\ Congress specified in section 211(l) of the Clean 
Air Act that:

    \2\See Sen. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. at 116 
(Dec. 20, 1989) (``[F]uel additives, such as detergents, are 
available to maximize the performance of engines and minimize 
emissions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' As 
provided in section 211(l), today's rule specifies that all parties 
involved in the chain of gasoline production, distribution and sale are 
responsible for compliance with the detergent requirements. Certain 
compliance responsibilities will also apply to manufacturers of 
detergent, even before it is blended with gasoline. The registration 
reporting requirements of detergent additive manufacturers (under 40 
CFR part 79) have also been clarified and reinforced, and these 
requirements must be met before a detergent additive is eligible for 
use in complying with gasoline detergency requirements.
    EPA is issuing today's final rule under the authority of section 
211(c) as well as section 211(l) so that the preemption provisions of 
section 211(c)(4) will apply. This is consistent with the approach EPA 
has taken in its reformulated gasoline regulations (59 FR 7717, 
February 16, 1994). As explained there, whenever the federal government 
regulates in an area, the issue of preemption of state action in the 
same area is raised. Here, as with reformulated gasoline and the 
associated ``anti-dumping'' program, the regulations will affect 
virtually all of the gasoline sold in the United States. Also, in 
contrast to commodities produced and sold in a single area of the 
country, gasoline produced in one area is often distributed to other 
areas. The national scope of gasoline production and distribution 
indicates that this federal rule should preempt state action to avoid 
an inefficient patchwork of potentially conflicting regulations. 
Section 211(c), enacted in the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, 
provides that federal fuels regulations adopted under that authority 
preempt non-identical state controls except under certain specified 
circumstances set out in section 211(c)(4). Those exceptions apply: (1) 
To any state for which application of section 209(a) of the Act has at 
any time been waived under section 209(b); and (2) where non-identical 
state regulations are included in a State Implementation Plan as 
necessary to achieve the national primary or secondary ambient air 
quality standard which the plan implements. Thus, only California may 
regulate gasoline detergency under the first exception. Other states 
may adopt non-identical regulations only upon the specified showing 
under the second exception.
    Section 211(c) authorizes the Administrator, by regulation, to 
``control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, 
offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a 
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad 
vehicle'' if, under section 211(c)(1)(A), emission products of the fuel 
or additive cause or contribute to air pollution endangering the public 
health or welfare, or, under section 211(c)(1)(B), if emission products 
of the fuel or additive will impair to a significant degree the 
performance of an emission control device in general use. While EPA 
believes that it has clear authority to regulate gasoline detergency 
under section 211(c)(1)(A), the Agency also recognizes that it has such 
authority under section 211(c)(1)(B).
    That gasoline combustion emissions cause or contribute to harmful 
air pollution is now undisputed, and a requirement for proper detergent 
additization to mitigate such emissions is appropriate under the broad 
authority of section 211(c). This authority also supports certain 
program elements that EPA is implementing in order to make the 
detergent program most effective. As explained further below, these 
include a detergent registration scheme and, as explained in the 
enforcement section of the preamble (Section IV), application of 
certain requirements to detergent manufacturers even prior to blending 
of detergent with gasoline. Public comment on EPA's legal authority to 
make such requirements of detergent manufacturers is addressed in 
Section IV.
    EPA believes consideration of the factors under section 
211(c)(2)(A) support its authority under section 211(c)(1)(A). Air 
pollution from gasoline vehicles is clearly harmful. Further, while 
vehicle technology can affect deposit formation, EPA does not believe 
that the formation of the deposit types that are the focus of the 
regulatory controls implemented today, and the associated emissions 
effect, can reasonably or cost effectively be addressed by requiring 
changes in vehicle design. Vehicle manufacturers have an incentive and 
continue to work to minimize susceptibility to deposit formation, which 
affects driveability as well as emissions. In addition, detergents are 
also important to control deposits in vehicles currently in use and 
prone to deposit formation which will continue to remain in use for 
some time.
2. Rulemaking History
    The CAA requires that EPA promulgate a rule establishing 
specifications for detergent additives and requiring all gasoline to 
contain detergent additives by January 1, 1995. EPA encouraged full 
participation of the regulated industry and other interested parties in 
the development of the rule to implement these requirements. A public 
workshop was held on February 13, 1992 to initiate open discussion of 
the relevant issues and EPA met with numerous industry representatives 
separately to obtain their input.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published on December 
6, 1993 (58 FR 64213) and a public hearing was held in Ann Arbor, 
Michigan on January 11, 1994. Oral testimony was heard from 6 
presenters. EPA's initial intent was to accept subsequent written 
public comment on the NPRM until February 11, 1994. However, in 
response to industry requests for additional time, comments were 
accepted until March 11, 1994. EPA received 31 written comments on the 
NPRM. These comments are summarized and responded to in later sections 
of this preamble.
    For the reasons discussed further in Section I.C., EPA has decided 
to finalize the proposed detergent gasoline program in two stages. 
Today's final rule, establishing an interim detergent program, will be 
in effect until replaced by the anticipated second final rule. The 
latter is expected to cover the remaining issues from the NPRM as well 
as issues raised in a notice to reopen the comment period.

B. Proposed Regulatory Approach

    EPA proposed a performance-based detergent additive certification 
program under which all gasoline distributed and sold in the United 
States would be required to contain a detergent additive which, in the 
context of prescribed vehicle testing, had the demonstrated ability to 
meet specified standards of deposit control performance in a 
predetermined series of test fuels. Fuel injector deposit (PFID) and 
intake valve deposit (IVD) control performance tests and standards were 
proposed that would rely on industry-consensus test procedures. 
Additives meeting the detergent performance standards would qualify for 
certification. These detergents would then be acceptable for meeting 
gasoline deposit control requirements when used at the treatment rates 
which were needed to meet the performance standards during testing.
    Due to inadequate lead time for industry to complete the vehicle 
testing requirements for certification, EPA proposed a simpler interim 
program to be in effect January 1 through December 31, 1995. During 
this interim period, all gasoline would be required to contain 
detergent additives that satisfied simplified criteria, but compliance 
with the certification testing program would not be required until 
January 1, 1996. EPA proposed that additives could qualify for the 
interim program based either on data collected to satisfy California's 
detergent additive program,\3\ or on specifications on chemical 
composition and additive manufacturer recommendations regarding proper 
usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Title 13, section 2257 of the California Code of Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Scope of This Action

    As previously mentioned, this final rule implements only the 
interim detergent program, beginning January 1, 1995. Full 
certification requirements are expected to be promulgated by June 30, 
1995 and to go into effect about a year thereafter.\4\ The requirements 
of the interim program will remain in effect until replaced by the 
later rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\This expectation is based on EPA's estimate of the amount of 
lead time which industry will require to comply with anticipated 
testing requirements after promulgation of the detergent 
certification program in the second final rule. See memo to the 
Docket A-91-77 from Robert Johnson, entitled, ``Estimated Lead Time 
for Industry to Comply with Vehicle Testing Requirements,'' 
September 21, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is following this two-step approach for two reasons. The first 
reason is to allow the industry time to complete development of a 
consensus test procedure to evaluate an additive's ability to control 
fuel injector deposits. At the time the NPRM was published, many of the 
basic elements of the most widely used vehicle-based PFID and IVD 
control test procedures were broadly accepted by industry, but standard 
versions of these procedures had not been published. While the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) was actively developing 
standard versions of these procedures to enhance comparability of test 
results, the availability of finalized test specifications was 
uncertain. EPA thus proposed versions of these test procedures based on 
the most current ASTM drafts available at the time, which included many 
of the improvements under consideration by ASTM. EPA also proposed to 
adopt the ASTM versions of these procedures in the detergent program 
final rule if the final ASTM specifications became available in time 
and if they closely resembled the proposed procedures. Public comment 
on the NPRM supported EPA's intent to adopt the final ASTM procedures 
when available.
    Since the publication of the NPRM, ASTM finalized its intake valve 
deposit control procedure as ASTM D-5500, and EPA anticipates adopting 
it for use under the detergent certification program without further 
notice and comment. However, ASTM has not yet finalized its PFID 
control test procedure, and EPA believes it is appropriate to delay 
finalization of the detergent certification program until this 
procedure is available (expected in late 1994 or early 1995). Adoption 
of the final ASTM PFID control test procedure will result in improved 
confidence in the certification test results.\5\ Consistency of EPA 
testing requirements with an industry consensus standard test procedure 
will also avoid unnecessary industry burdens and confusion which would 
result from different regulatory and industry practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\EPA will evaluate whether changes to the ASTM PFID test 
procedure are necessary prior to its adoption for regulatory 
purposes, and will provide the opportunity for additional public 
comment if appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second reason to delay finalization of the full certification 
program is to allow EPA an opportunity to assess concerns raised by 
some commenters related to the possible incremental accumulation of 
combustion chamber deposits (CCD) which may result from the use of 
detergent additives designed to control PFID and IVD. EPA received 
contradictory public comments on this issue. On one side, the petroleum 
and additive manufacturing industries stated that the causes and 
impacts of CCD are not understood well enough to warrant EPA's 
implementation of any measures to control CCD at this time. These 
commenters further stated that, even if the need for CCD control is 
established, regulatory action should not be taken until a suitable CCD 
control test procedure and standard are available.
    On the other hand, automobile manufacturers claimed that the impact 
of CCD on driveability and emissions is sufficiently well demonstrated 
for EPA to take action. They strongly urged EPA to investigate the 
additive contribution to CCD as soon as possible, with the ultimate aim 
being a CCD control performance test and standard. Comments from 
automobile manufacturers further stated that, in the absence of a 
standardized CCD performance test, EPA should implement some interim 
measure to help limit the potential for increased CCD that could result 
from detergent additive over-use. To this end, the American Automobile 
Manufacturer's Association (AAMA) suggested a 70mg/100ml maximum limit 
on the unwashed gum level in additized gasoline, as determined by ASTM 
test procedure D381. AAMA stated that a correlation exists between the 
levels of unwashed gums in gasoline and the amount and type of 
detergent additive present, and hence the potential for such additives 
to have an adverse impact on CCD. However, comments from the petroleum 
industry stated that the unwashed gum level is an unreliable measure of 
detergent usage and is not well correlated with CCD formation. The 
relationship between detergent use, unwashed gums, and CCD will be 
addressed at length in the forthcoming reopening notice.

II. Applicability

A. Summary of Proposed Applicability Provisions

    The NPRM noted that section 211(l) refers to ``any gasoline,'' and 
does not distinguish between gasoline used for highway vehicles and 
engines and gasoline used in nonroad applications.\6\ Therefore, EPA 
proposed that detergent requirements apply to all gasoline used in 
highway vehicles and engines (including both reformulated and 
conventional gasolines,\7\ oxygenated gasoline, and the gasoline 
component of alcohol blends such as M85 and E85), as well as gasoline 
used in nonroad applications (including racing fuel and marine fuel). 
EPA also proposed that gasoline for military use be covered by this 
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\The reader is directed to the NPRM for a discussion of EPA's 
legal authority regarding the types of gasolines which were proposed 
to be covered by the proposed detergency requirements (58 FR 64213, 
December 6, 1993).
    \7\Reformulated and conventional gasolines are defined in 
``Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives; Standards for Reformulated 
and Conventional Gasoline,'' Final Rule, 59 FR 7715 (February 16, 
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed that both leaded and unleaded gasoline would be 
required to contain detergent additives that comply with the same 
proposed requirements. In the NPRM it was noted that, while barred from 
sale for highway vehicles as of January 1, 1996, leaded gasoline will 
still be permitted to be sold for off- highway use, for example, in 
certain construction equipment and farm vehicles. EPA also stated the 
belief that the use of detergent additives would have a beneficial 
impact on the emissions performance of engines using leaded gasoline.
    EPA proposed that the detergent requirements would not apply to 
gasoline used in internal combustion aircraft engines because they are 
separately regulated under Part B of Title II of the Clean Air Act. EPA 
also proposed that test fuels for research and developmental purposes 
would be exempted from the detergency requirements provided that 
certain requirements for exemption were satisfied (see Section IV).

B. Applicability Provisions Finalized Under the Interim Program

    The detergency requirements adopted in today's rule closely follow 
the proposed provisions. They apply to all gasoline, highway and off-
road, including both reformulated and conventional gasolines, 
oxygenated gasoline, and the gasoline component of alcohol blends such 
as M85 and E85, as well as to marine fuel and gasoline used for 
military purposes. Gasoline service accumulation fuel will also be 
required to comply with detergency requirements, as will the gasoline 
component of alcohol blend service accumulation fuel.\8\ However, 
racing fuel, aviation fuel, emissions certification fuel, and gasoline 
used for research and developmental purposes will be exempted from 
compliance. Different requirements for leaded gasoline will be 
implemented to allow optimization of the additive used (see Section 
III.C.). The reader is directed to Section III.D for a summary and 
analysis of comments on the applicability of gasoline detergency 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Service accumulation fuels are used to demonstrate compliance 
with durability requirements during vehicle emission certification 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Interim Program Basic Provisions

A. Background

    As noted above, to allow adequate time for industry to comply with 
the specific vehicle testing requirements of the detergent 
certification program, EPA proposed a simplified interim program as an 
available option during 1995. Under the proposal, compliance with the 
full detergent certification program would not be required until 
January 1, 1996. EPA estimated that the one-year duration of the 
interim program would be sufficient to allow industry to complete the 
testing requirements of the certification program.
    Under the interim program, EPA proposed that all gasoline sold to 
the ultimate consumer (unless otherwise exempted) would be required to 
contain a detergent which had been registered under the 40 CFR Part 79 
Fuels and Fuel Additives (F/FA) Registration Program and which: (1) Was 
composed primarily of at least one, or a combination of, four chemical 
classes of detergent that EPA believed to be effective in controlling 
deposits based on current industry practices (polyalkyl amines, 
polyether amines, polyalkylsuccinimides, and polyalkylaminophenols); or 
(2) had been approved under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
detergent certification program. Detergents that met the chemistry-
based criteria would be required to be used at least at the minimum 
concentration recommended by the manufacturer for keep-clean control of 
intake and fuel injector deposits, and those that met the criteria 
based on CARB certification would be required to be used at least at 
the minimum concentration approved in the CARB certification. 
Detergents used under the interim program would be required to be 
identified by an interim detergent certification number issued by EPA.
    EPA proposed that an application for an interim detergent 
certification number would need to be submitted to EPA containing the 
following: the name of the detergent manufacturer and the detergent as 
supplied by the detergent manufacturer to satisfy the standard 
registration requirements of 40 CFR part 79, a complete description of 
the detergent additive's chemical composition including the weight 
percent of each of the components that compose the detergent package, 
the minimum concentration of each component of the detergent additive 
that will be used, and a suitable analytical procedure to identify the 
detergent additive in its pure state.
    In addition to these proposed requirements, EPA asked for comment 
on whether some form of performance test data should also be required 
to be submitted for detergents used under the interim program, and the 
appropriate acceptance criteria for this data. EPA proposed to reserve 
the right to examine any substantiating data and could deny or revoke a 
detergent registration based on this review. The enforcement task of 
ensuring that the proper type and amount of additive has been added to 
the gasoline in the market was proposed to be accomplished primarily 
through paper audit ``mass balance'' procedures rather than actual 
chemical or vehicle-based testing.
    The interim detergent program finalized in today's rule retains the 
basic structure and intent of the proposed program, but departs from 
the proposal in a number of implementation details. As was proposed, 
the interim program requires precise composition and concentration 
information on detergent additives which are to be used for compliance 
with the detergency requirements of today's rule, as well as 
consistency between this information and the additive treat rate 
reported for (and used in) detergent gasoline. However, to reduce paper 
flow and other administrative procedures, a detergent certification 
number will not be issued by EPA to acknowledge properly registered 
additives during the interim program. Furthermore, the final rule does 
not contain the proposed restriction that a detergent additive must 
either be CARB-certified or belong to one of four specified chemical 
classes. Other departures from the proposed rule have been made, as 
well.
    The specific requirements of the interim detergent program as 
finalized in today's rule are described in sections B-D below. The key 
differences between the proposed and final requirements for the interim 
program are discussed in Section D, the Summary and Analysis of 
Comments. The enforcement provisions included in todays rule are 
discussed in Section IV.

B. Description of Interim Detergent Program Requirements

    Since CAA section 211(l) requires that all gasoline contain 
detergent additive(s) prior to sale to the consumer, the direct 
responsibility rests on the fuel manufacturer/marketer to ensure that a 
suitable registered detergent has been added to gasoline at an 
effective concentration. However, detergent manufacturers are 
responsible for properly registering their detergent additives and for 
providing detergent products which conform to these registrations. This 
section describes how EPA will implement the registration aspects of 
the interim program, and addresses the responsibilities of both 
gasoline manufacturers/marketers and detergent manufacturers. This 
section focuses on requirements related specifically to unleaded 
gasoline. Special provisions applicable to leaded gasoline are 
discussed in Section III.C.
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed that any interested party (detergent 
manufacturer, fuel manufacturer/marketer, or other) could take 
responsibility for the informational requirements under the interim 
program. EPA recognized that, in many cases, the fuel manufacturer/
marketer would likely accept most of this responsibility since it would 
bear the ultimate accountability for ensuring the proper use of 
detergent additives. EPA further proposed that the detergent additive 
data (e.g. composition, treatment rates) would be submitted in a 
separate application. However, comments indicated that much of the same 
information was already required under the existing F/FA registration 
program. Furthermore, in many cases, fuel marketers would have to be 
dependent on data generated by additive manufacturers to comply with 
the detergent information requirements.
    Therefore, as described below, the requirements of this interim 
program are based primarily on information items already required for 
F/FA registration. EPA has selected this approach for three reasons: 
(1) It utilizes an existing reporting program rather than creating a 
new one; (2) it minimizes additional information submittal; and (3) it 
eliminates the confidential business information (CBI) concerns raised 
by additive manufacturers in their comments on the NPRM (see Section 
III.E).
1. Requirements for Detergent Additive Manufacturers
    For a detergent additive to be eligible for use in complying with 
gasoline detergency requirements, its manufacturer must ensure that the 
additive registration data provided under 40 CFR part 79 meets the 
registration information requirements described below.\9\ To the extent 
that existing detergent additive registrations do not comply with these 
specifications, they must be updated prior to the January 1, 1995 start 
date for the interim program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Detergents used to comply with gasoline detergency 
requirements must, of course, comply with other applicable 
registration requirements prescribed in Part 79, including those 
recently finalized in Subpart G (see 59 FR 33042, June 27, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Detergent Additive Compositional Data. Pursuant to pre-existing 
requirements under Sec. 79.21(a), the registration of fuel additives 
requires the submittal of information on the identity and amounts of 
the components of the additive product. Today's rule specifies that, to 
be eligible for use in compliance with gasoline detergency 
requirements, the compositional information submitted for registration 
of a detergent additive must include: (1) A complete description of the 
chemical composition of the detergent additive package, such that the 
chemical structure of each of the components in the detergent package 
can be determined; and (2) the exact weight and/or volume percent (as 
applicable) of each of the components that compose the detergent 
package. In addition, components of the detergent additive package 
which have an effect on deposit control efficiency (i.e. detergent-
active components) must be identified as such. Specifically, the 
registration must indicate which of the following chemical or other 
designations pertains to each detergent-active component: (1) polyalkyl 
amine, (2) polyether amine, (3) polyalkylsuccinimide, (4) 
polyalkylaminophenol, (5) detergent-active carrier oil, (6) other 
detergent-active component.
    In the past, in registering their additives, some detergent 
manufacturers have reported detergent-active components as a product of 
the reaction of specified chemical reactants. Since yields of 
detergent-active components from these reactions could vary from 0 to 
100 percent, chemical specifications of this type are inadequate for 
EPA to determine the composition of the detergent additive package. For 
example, the package could contain unknown amounts of unchanged primary 
reactants as well as chemical products of different molecular weight 
and different side reactants. To be eligible for use after the 
effective date of this rule, more precise identification of the 
components of the detergent additive package will now be required. In 
the case of polymer components, IUPAC nomenclature with a molecular 
weight distribution should be specified.
    Within a given detergent additive registration, no variation will 
be allowed in the identity or concentration of any of the detergent-
active components. The identity and concentration of other components 
of the detergent additive package may vary under a single registration 
provided that such variability does not change the treat rate needed 
for effective deposit control. Detergent additive packages which differ 
in identity or concentration of detergent-active components must be 
separately registered. Variability in other possible additive package 
components such as the antioxidant, corrosion inhibitor, metal 
deactivator, and/or handling solvent is acceptable, provided that such 
variability does not affect the concentration of the active ingredients 
in the additive package. It should be noted that EPA will continue to 
evaluate what is an acceptable level of variability in additive 
compositional data and may revise these requirements for the detergent 
certification program in a later rulemaking.
    b. Recommended Minimum Effective Concentration. As specified by 
Sec. 79.21(d), a fuel additive registration must include the 
recommended range of concentration for the additive when mixed in fuel. 
To qualify for use in detergent gasoline under the requirements of 
today's rule, the lower bound of this recommended range, in the case of 
a detergent additive, must equal or exceed the minimum concentration 
which the detergent additive manufacturer deems necessary for the 
control of fuel injector and intake valve deposits. While not required 
to be submitted on a routine basis, data which supports the claim of 
deposit control effectiveness at this concentration is expected to be 
available to EPA on request. Requirements for such supporting data are 
further discussed in Section B.1.c, below.
    The minimum effective concentration of the detergent additive, as 
reported in the detergent registration,\10\ must correlate with the 
concentrations reported to be used by the fuel manufacturer. 
Specifically, the lower end of the detergent additive concentration 
range listed in a gasoline registration must equal or exceed the 
minimum recommended concentration specified in the respective additive 
registration.\11\ Thus, it is incumbent upon the detergent additive 
manufacturer to accurately communicate the recommended concentration to 
his customers, in writing, for each registered detergent package. As 
described below in Section III.C, different concentration 
recommendations may be specified for leaded and unleaded gasoline, and, 
in the case of carburetor detergents, restriction to leaded gasoline 
should be indicated. If the detergent manufacturer recommends a minimum 
concentration to his customers that is higher than the minimum recorded 
on the additive registration, this could be construed as a potentially 
fraudulent misrepresentation. On the other hand, if the detergent 
manufacturer recommends to his customers a minimum additive 
concentration that is lower than the minimum amount recorded on the 
additive registration, then a misadditization of the gasoline would be 
presumed to occur, and both the fuel and additive manufacturers might 
be liable for the nonconforming gasoline. These liability issues are 
discussed further in Section IV of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\Detergent additive concentration must be reported in gallons 
of detergent additive per gallons of gasoline, to facilitate 
compliance with volume accounting reconciliation requirements (see 
section IV).
    \11\Exceptions to this requirement are permitted when 
specifically approved by EPA, as discussed in Section III.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an analogous case, detergent additive registrants must also 
accurately communicate the recommended detergent concentration and any 
usage restrictions, in writing, to their customers who are secondary 
additive manufacturers. Such secondary manufacturers purchase detergent 
from original manufacturers with the intent to resell the detergent, 
with or without additional ingredients in the additive package. In many 
instances, the secondary additive manufacturer will not know the 
identity and/or concentration of the components of the purchased 
additive product. However, provided with the recommended concentration 
of the purchased additive, the secondary manufacturer can, in turn, 
specify the proper concentration rate for his ``relabeled'' or ``re-
registered'' detergent additive package. By linking registrations, EPA 
will be able to ascertain whether consistent concentrations of the same 
detergent are recommended by the original manufacturer and used (as a 
minimum) by any related secondary additive manufacturers and, 
ultimately, by the fuel manufacturers who are customers of either the 
original or secondary additive manufactures.
    c. Substantiation of Deposit Control Effectiveness. As discussed in 
detail in the Summary and Analysis of Comments, the weight of public 
comment on the NPRM supported requirements for data to substantiate 
claims of detergent performance, even during the interim program. 
Public comment further stated that reputable detergent manufacturers 
would already have such data. Accordingly, this final rule requires 
that, during the interim program, supporting data must be available to 
demonstrate effective deposit control, but does not adopt specific test 
procedures and standards. This approach should provide reasonable 
assurance of effective deposit control performance, without sacrificing 
the flexibility which manufacturers will need in order to rely on 
existing data during the interim period. On a case-by-case basis, 
therefore, EPA may require that test data be provided to support the 
claim of deposit control effectiveness which is implicit in the minimum 
recommended concentration submitted by the detergent additive 
manufacturer pursuant to the F/FA registration requirements in 
Sec. 79.21(d). EPA may request supporting data for a variety of 
reasons, for example, as the result of a review of detergent additive 
registration information disclosing an apparent anomaly in the type or 
concentration of the detergent additive used.
    EPA will request the supporting test data from the party who 
registered the detergent additive. EPA regards the supporting test data 
as substantiation of the ``recommended range of concentration'' data 
which the additive manufacturer is required to submit under 
Sec. 79.21(d) of the F/FA registration program. As such, EPA believes 
that the regulatory authority to require this data from the additive 
manufacturer derives from CAA section 211 (a) and (b). This authority 
is further supported by CAA section 114, which provides that the 
Administrator may require the submission of any information that is 
necessary to implement the requirements of the Act from any party 
subject to the provisions of the Act.
    When requested, 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 suspend or revoke the eligibility of the 
subject detergent for use in compliance with the requirements of this 
rule and may notify all fuel manufacturers (and secondary additive 
manufacturers) whose registrations contain the subject detergent of 
this revocation. In addition, EPA may initiate the enforcement actions 
described in Section IV.
    EPA will be guided by the following considerations during the 
interim program when evaluating the adequacy of data used as evidence 
of detergent additive performance in controlling fuel injector and 
intake valve deposits. First, during the interim program, EPA will 
accept the data required by CARB to obtain a valid California detergent 
certification for gasoline sold anywhere in the United States, provided 
that the subject detergent was not certified by CARB specifically for 
use in California Phase II reformulated gasoline (Title 13, Chapter 5, 
Article 1, Subarticle 2, California Code of Regulations, Standards for 
Gasoline Sold Beginning March 1, 1996). CARB detergent certification 
specific to California Phase II reformulated gasoline will not be 
considered adequate to support the effectiveness of a detergent 
additive in gasoline sold outside the State of California.
    EPA may also accept other test data to demonstrate adequate deposit 
control performance, provided that good engineering practices were 
followed during the conduct of the test and provided that the test 
fuels were reasonably typical of in-use fuels. For example, data 
collected using industry standard BMW 318i IVD and Chrysler 2.2 liter 
PFID tests (including the CARB procedures) will generally be 
acceptable. Other vehicle or engine tests may be acceptable, provided 
that a reasonable correlation with the BMW and Chrysler tests and the 
associated industry standards can be demonstrated.\12\ Bench test data 
may be acceptable to support performance claims for fuel injector 
deposits but not for IVD. Furthermore, the validity of bench-test data 
will likely require a high level of scrutiny by EPA due to concerns 
that it may not be as representative of actual in-use performance as 
vehicle or engine test data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\The reader is directed to the NPRM for a discussion of IVD 
and PFID control test procedures. The historical industry standard 
for the BMW 318i test requires the maintenance of less than 100 mg 
per valve on average over the accumulation of 10,000 miles. The 
historical industry standard for the Chrysler 2.2 liter test 
requires the maintenance of less than 10 percent flow loss in any 
injector over the accumulation of 10,000 miles. The basic elements 
of these tests have been well established (driving cycle, test 
vehicle, etc.). However, various laboratories have conducted these 
tests over the years by following their own in-house procedures 
regarding other less vital aspects of the tests. For the purposes of 
the interim program, EPA will allow latitude in regard to the manner 
in which these tests were performed provided that a reasonable level 
of test quality was maintained per industry practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test fuels used in obtaining the required supporting data must 
contain the active components of the detergent additive package at no 
more than the minimum concentration recorded in the subject gasoline 
registration. Also, these test fuels must not contain any active 
detergent components other than those recorded in the subject gasoline 
registration. Any test fuel that was taken directly from commercial 
refinery production stock will be acceptable for deposit control 
testing. Specially refined low-deposit-forming fuels such as indolene 
are not acceptable.
    Other specially blended test fuels will be evaluated by EPA for 
acceptability based on the following criteria. The composition of the 
blended test fuel(s) used in deposit control testing should be 
reasonably typical of in-use gasoline in its tendency to form such 
deposits (or more severe than typical in-use fuels). As an example, EPA 
will likely consider a test fuel acceptable if the key fuel parameters 
identified in the NPRM as affecting a gasoline's tendency to form PFID/
IVD (sulfur, olefins, aromatics, T-90, and oxygenates) are at least at 
average levels.\13\ To help account for the deposit forming tendency of 
oxygenates, the test fuel(s) used for PFID/IVD control testing should 
preferably contain an oxygenate (ethanol, MTBE, ETBE, TBA, etc. * * *) 
at greater than 7 volume percent. Seven percent total oxygenate content 
was chosen because it will permit the use of data collected on most of 
the oxygenates for which waivers have been granted under Section 211(f) 
of the CAA. EPA is not requiring that fuels used in testing to support 
additive performance claims contain an oxygenate during the interim 
program. However, EPA anticipates that testing of oxygenated gasoline 
will be required under the detergent certification program and wishes 
to encourage this practice under the interim program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\In this regard the following national 50th percentile levels 
were determined as part of the analysis performed for the NPRM: 
sulfur 0.015 weight percent, olefins 8.8 volume percent, aromatics 
28.6 volume percent, and T-90 335  deg.F. The NPRM contains a 
detailed discussion of the method by which these values were 
calculated using American Automobile Manufacturers Association 
(AAMA) fuel survey data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test fuel evaluation criteria discussed above are significantly 
less stringent than the test fuel specifications proposed for the 
performance testing under the detergent certification program. However, 
EPA's intent in using test fuel evaluation criteria for the interim 
program is primarily to preclude the use of test data collected on 
fuels that have an abnormally mild tendency to form deposits. Also, EPA 
recognizes the need for manufacturers to use existing data to the 
fullest extent possible, and believes that these specifications will 
not disqualify most existing test data. To help ensure that this is the 
case, a manufacturer may petition EPA to accept test data that does not 
conform to the guidelines for acceptability described above. Such a 
petition should include information demonstrating that the test data 
submitted to support additive performance claims will ensure an 
equivalent level of deposit control as that provided by data based on 
test fuels conforming to the guidelines described above.
    d. Detergent Additive Identification Procedure. EPA's enforcement 
responsibilities require the ability to analyze detergent additive 
samples to determine whether the composition of such additives is 
consistent with the compositional information supplied by the additive 
manufacturer (see Section IV). For this purpose, a suitable analytical 
procedure capable of identifying the detergent additive in its pure 
state is needed. Thus, EPA reserves the right to request such a 
procedure from any party who has registered a detergent additive.
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed that the party ``certifying'' a detergent 
additive under the interim program would be responsible for supplying 
the analytic test procedure. The NPRM further assumed that the fuel 
manufacturer, rather than the detergent additive manufacturer, would 
most often be the certifier. Public comment did not dispute the need 
for EPA to have access to such a procedure. However, commenters did 
point out that detergent manufacturers consider such procedures to be 
confidential business information, and would be unwilling to provide 
these procedures to the fuel manufacturers, who are their customers. 
This final rule therefore specifies that, when EPA determines that an 
identification test procedure is needed for a detergent additive, EPA 
will direct its request for such a procedure to the detergent additive 
registrant. Similar to the argument concerning the provision of 
supporting test data by the detergent additive producer, EPA regards 
the identification test procedure as substantiation of the registration 
information which the additive manufacturer is required to submit under 
Sec. 79.21(a). EPA thus believes that the regulatory authority to 
require this data from the additive manufacturer derives from CAA 
section 211 (a) and (b). In fact section 211(b)(2)(b) specifically 
calls for the 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 
submission of this data 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.
    The detergent registrant will be required to comply with EPA's 
request for the analytical test procedure within 30 days of the 
request. The procedure must be acceptable to the Administrator in its 
ability to both qualitatively and quantitatively identify each 
component of the detergent additive package. EPA reserves the right to 
reject aspects of this procedure if the Administrator determines that 
they are insufficient. EPA will evaluate the adequacy of the test 
procedure by conducting such procedure, attempting to repeat the 
results submitted by the additive manufacturer. To be acceptable, the 
procedure must be able to provide results that conform to reasonable 
and customary standards of repeatability and reproducability, and 
reasonable and customary limits of detection and accuracy, for the type 
of test in question. If the detergent manufacturer does not supply an 
adequate procedure within the allotted time, the detergent will no 
longer be eligible for use in complying with the requirements of this 
rule. Fuel manufacturers (and secondary additive manufacturers) whose 
registrations include the ineligible additive will be given 45 days to 
switch to another additive product.
    Although not required under the interim detergent program, EPA 
prefers that the test procedure provided to satisfy the requirements of 
this rule be a fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) test 
method which will yield a qualitative and quantitative infrared 
spectrum of the detergent additive package in its pure state. As part 
of such a FTIR method, an actual infrared spectrum of the detergent 
additive package and each component part of the detergent package 
obtained from this test method would be needed to make a full 
identification possible. EPA intends to require that such a FTIR test 
procedure be provided by the additive manufacturer as part of the 
standard requirements of the detergent certification program to be 
finalized in a later rulemaking.
2. Requirements for Fuel Manufacturers
    The registration information provided by the fuel blender (i.e., 
the fuel manufacturer who adds detergent to gasoline fuel) must include 
the exact trade name and manufacturer of the detergent additive product 
(pursuant to Secs. 79.11(b) and (c)). In addition, except as discussed 
below, the range of concentration submitted pursuant to Sec. 79.11(c) 
must indicate that the gasoline contains the subject detergent additive 
at a concentration no less than the minimum recommended concentration 
specified in the detergent additive registration for control of 
deposits. Fuel manufacturers should be aware that their existing 
gasoline registrations, which list detergent additives as components, 
may need to be changed to conform to these requirements, reflecting 
potential changes in the additive registrations necessitated by this 
rule. Accurate identification of the detergent additive being used is 
critical to the validity of the fuel registration. Fuel manufacturers 
must provide identifying information adequate to enable EPA to 
determine which registered detergent additive product is being used by 
the fuel manufacturer.
    It is EPA's expectation that fuel marketers will ensure that a 
detergent is effective in controlling deposits prior to purchasing the 
product from the detergent manufacturer. If EPA finds that performance 
claims are unsubstantiated, the fuel marketer and/or detergent 
registrant may both potentially be liable for violations as described 
in Section IV. EPA is aware that, as part of current good business 
practice, fuel marketers generally do insist on such evidence for 
themselves before purchasing the additive for purposes of blending 
detergent gasoline. Consistent with current business practice, this 
regulatory approach recognizes the responsibility of both the fuel and 
detergent manufacturers in assuring that an effective detergent is 
used.
    EPA recognizes that, theoretically, the requirements discussed 
above could put additive manufacturers in the position of being able to 
dictate the minimum amount of their detergent additive products which 
their customers (i.e., the fuel manufacturers) are required to 
purchase. In practice, EPA believes that competitive forces in the 
marketplace will generally prevent additive manufacturers from 
inflating the minimum recommended concentration in their detergent 
registrations in order to boost their sales. However, as an additional 
safeguard against this possibility, the final rule contains a special 
provision which permits fuel manufacturers to record and use a lower 
detergent concentration than is specified in the respective detergent 
registration.
    Under this provision, fuel manufacturers may use a detergent 
additive product at a treat rate lower than the minimum specified by 
the additive manufacturer, provided that the fuel manufacturer informs 
EPA in writing of the intent to use the lower concentration, and states 
in this notification that data demonstrating the deposit control 
effectiveness of the lower treat rate is available at EPA's request. In 
exercising this option, the fuel manufacturer thus undertakes 
responsibilities normally assigned to the additive manufacturer. When 
requested by EPA, the fuel manufacturer must supply, within 30 days, 
the data necessary to support the claim of detergent effectiveness at 
the lower treat rate. In such an instance, EPA will also require that 
the additive manufacturer submit data, in support of the higher treat 
rate specified in the subject additive registration. EPA will then 
evaluate whether the lower treat rate provides adequate deposit control 
by comparing the quality and results of both sets of test data in 
relation to each other and to industry-consensus practices and 
standards. EPA will inform both the fuel manufacturer and the additive 
manufacturer of its decision within 60 days of receipt of both sets of 
data. Either party may appeal EPA's decision. If EPA determines that 
the fuel manufacturer's data does not adequately demonstrate the 
effectiveness of the lower detergent concentration, the fuel 
manufacturer may be subject to penalties (described in Section IV) for 
any gasoline which has been additized using the lower concentration.

C. Requirements for Leaded Gasoline

    Although barred from sale for highway vehicles as of January 1, 
1996 (under CAA section 211(n)), leaded gasoline will still be 
permitted to be sold for off-highway use. Since deposit-related 
emissions problems are not restricted to highway vehicles, EPA believes 
that it is necessary to require a proper level of deposit control in 
leaded gasoline. However, due to the less sophisticated nature of the 
emissions control equipment in leaded fuel vehicles, the prevention of 
deposit-related emissions does not necessitate the same level of 
deposit control performance in leaded gasoline as in unleaded gasoline. 
EPA agrees with public comment that a sufficient level of deposit 
control can be achieved in leaded gasoline by the use of carburetor-
type detergents as well as IVD/PFID detergents, at relatively low 
concentrations, with a concomitant savings in additive treatment cost 
(see summary and analysis of comments on this subject in Section D.1.a, 
below). Therefore, this final rule allows the use of either carburetor-
type 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.
    Carburetor-type detergent additives intended for use in leaded 
gasoline, as well as IVD/PFID detergents (which are effective in both 
leaded and unleaded gasoline) must still be registered and leaded fuel 
manufacturers must use a registered detergent at a concentration that 
is effective in controlling deposits. To comply with gasoline 
detergency requirements, the leaded fuel manufacturer has the option of 
using a carburetor-type detergent at the minimum concentration 
recommended by the additive manufacturer for the control of carburetor 
deposits, or an IVD/PFID-type detergent. If the latter is used, it may 
be added at the minimum concentration recommended by the additive 
manufacturer for IVD/PFID control or, if available, the manufacturer's 
lower recommendation for carburetor deposit control. In any case, the 
minimum concentration used by the fuel manufacturer must correspond to 
the minimum effective concentration stated in the detergent 
manufacturer's additive registration for the control of the relevant 
type of deposits, unless a specific exception is allowed by EPA.
    Under the same provisions described earlier in the case of unleaded 
gasoline, EPA may require the submission of data by the additive 
manufacturer to support the applicable minimum treatment rates 
recommended in the detergent registration. As mentioned in the previous 
section, if the fuel manufacturer believes a lower effective treatment 
rate is supported by available data, then he may submit data to EPA 
which substantiates the effectiveness of the detergent at the lower 
concentration. EPA will follow the same evaluation process as described 
previously in relation to treat rates for unleaded gasoline.
    EPA will be guided by the following considerations during the 
interim program when evaluating the adequacy of data used as evidence 
of detergent additive performance in controlling carburetor deposits. 
Any type of vehicle, engine, or bench test data may be acceptable for 
demonstration of carburetor deposit control, provided that a reasonable 
level of test quality was maintained per industry practice. Since the 
control of port and throttle body fuel injector deposits requires a 
greater degree of detergent effectiveness than the control of 
carburetor deposits, EPA may also accept port and throttle body fuel 
injector deposit control test data as adequate demonstration of an 
additive's ability to control carburetor deposits.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\See the NPRM for a discussion of the relative difficulty of 
controlling port fuel injector deposits, throttle body injector 
deposits, and carburetor deposits through the use of detergent 
additives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA prefers that carburetor deposit control test data be collected 
using leaded fuels, but may also accept data collected using unleaded 
fuels, provided that the data on detergent performance in unleaded 
fuels can be shown to be indicative of its performance in leaded fuels. 
The guidelines for evaluating the adequacy of test fuels used in 
carburetor deposit control testing otherwise parallels those for IVD/
PFID control testing. As for unleaded gasoline, specially blended test 
fuels will be acceptable provided they are reasonably typical of in-use 
gasoline in its tendency to form such deposits (or more severe than 
typical in-use fuels). As an example, EPA will likely consider a test 
fuel acceptable for demonstration of carburetor deposit control if the 
key fuel parameters identified as affecting a gasoline's tendency to 
form carburetor deposits (sulfur, olefins) are at least at average 
levels.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\The reader is directed to the following SAE paper for a 
review of data which indicates that levels of sulfur and olefins 
impact a gasoline's tendency to form carburetor deposits: SAE 
Technical Paper 902105, ``Deposits in Gasoline Engines--A Literature 
Review'', Gautam Kalghatgi. As discussed previously, the following 
national 50th percentile levels were determined as part of the 
analysis performed for the NPRM: sulfur 0.015 weight percent, 
olefins 8.8 volume percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Summary and Analysis of Comments

1. Applicability
    Public comment on various aspects of EPA's proposal regarding the 
applicability of the proposed detergency requirements are discussed 
below by topic. There was no objection to EPA's proposal that gasoline 
detergency requirements would apply to all gasoline, whether used in 
motor vehicles on nonroad vehicles, except where noted.
    a. Leaded Gasoline. Summary of Comments: The public comment opposed 
the applicability of the proposed detergency requirements to leaded 
gasoline. The comment stated that leaded gasoline would be obsolete in 
1995 and that such fuels represent only a tiny share of total gasoline 
used. The comment further stated that, in leaded gasoline, the use of 
deposit control additives that are formulated to control fuel injector 
and intake valve deposits in modern engines per EPA's proposal would 
not provide benefits in improved performance or emissions control 
commensurate with the added cost associated with their use. It was 
stated that leaded fuels are used in older carbureted engines where the 
additional detergency protection provided by the use of PFID/IVD 
control additives would have no effect on performance or emissions over 
that which is achieved by the use of less expensive carburetor- type 
detergents. The comment further noted that it is current industry 
practice to use carburetor-type detergents in leaded fuels.
    Analysis and Conclusion: EPA agrees that adequate deposit control 
can be achieved in leaded gasolines by the use of either carburetor-
type detergents or IVD/PFID detergents. Engines that use leaded 
gasoline are typically carbureted and employ less sophisticated 
emissions control technology than those that use unleaded gasoline. The 
control of carburetor deposits can be achieved with the use of 
relatively unsophisticated and inexpensive carburetor-type detergents 
at low concentrations or with either PFID or PFID/IVD control additives 
at concentrations lower than required for engines that use unleaded 
gasoline. In addition, intake valve deposits are not likely to increase 
the emissions in engines that use leaded gasoline.\16\ However, EPA 
disagrees with the comment that leaded gasoline should be exempted from 
the requirements of today's regulation. Leaded gasoline will still be 
available for non-road applications, and the fact that it is current 
practice to use carburetor-type detergent additives does not mean this 
practice will continue in the absence of regulation. Thus, EPA believes 
that it would be more appropriate to tailor the detergency requirements 
that must be met in leaded gasoline to provide that adequate protection 
is achieved without additive overuse and undue cost. As described above 
in section III.C, this final rule provides an option for leaded 
gasoline, allowing the use of either an IVD/PFID detergent or one 
capable of controlling carburetor deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\For a review of published literature related to the control 
of carburetor, fuel injector, and intake valve deposits the reader 
is directed to SAE Technical Paper 902105, ``Deposits in Gasoline 
Engines--A Literature Review'', Gautam Kalghatgi, and the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Gasoline used for Military Purposes. Summary of Comments: Public 
comment was in support of EPA's proposal to require gasoline used for 
military purposes to comply with the proposed detergency requirements. 
Comments from automobile manufacturers supported this position by 
stating that many military vehicles are subject to the same deposit 
control concerns as civilian vehicles. The Department of the Army in 
its response to issues raised at the public workshop on the regulation 
of detergent additives did not oppose the applicability of detergency 
requirements to military fuels (Docket A-91-77, item I-D-01). No 
comment was received from the Department of Defense (DOD) on this 
issue.
    Analysis and Conclusion: EPA agrees that many military vehicles are 
subject to the same deposit control concerns as are civilian vehicles. 
Given that there was no comment indicating otherwise, the final rule 
makes gasoline used for military purposes subject to the detergency 
requirements.
    c. Racing Gasoline. Summary of Comments: Public comment was divided 
on whether racing gasoline should be covered by the proposed 
requirements. Automobile manufacturers supported their position that 
racing gasoline should not be covered by stating that racing engines 
are frequently rebuilt and the racing drivers take appropriate steps to 
prevent the formation of deposits. The comment from the petroleum 
industry that racing gasoline should be required to comply with 
gasoline detergency requirements was not elaborated upon.
    Analysis and Conclusion: EPA believes that, given the short 
lifetime of racing engines, the frequent maintenance that is performed 
on such engines, their relatively unique design, and the fact that 
significant mileage accumulation must occur for deposits to form, it is 
unlikely that deposits accumulate to any appreciable degree in racing 
engines. Therefore, EPA believes that it is appropriate to exempt 
racing gasoline from compliance with the detergency requirements 
adopted in today's rule since the added cost would not be likely to 
result in a commensurate emissions benefit. EPA defines racing gasoline 
to be gasoline that is specially blended for racing purposes, is 
segregated from other gasoline, and is delivered directly to racing 
facilities. Gasoline that does not meet this definition will not be 
considered racing gasoline for the purposes of exemption from the 
requirements of this regulation.
    d. Marine Gasoline. Summary of Comments: Public comment supported 
the applicability of the proposed detergency requirements to marine 
gasoline. No specific supporting details were provided to support this 
position.
    Analysis and Conclusion: EPA continues to believe that marine 
gasoline should be required to comply with gasoline detergency 
requirements. Marine gasoline is not specially formulated and is 
delivered to marine filling stations by the same distribution system 
that supplies gasoline to highway vehicles. Also, much of the engine 
technology used in marine engines is very similar to that employed for 
motor vehicles and hence similar concerns regarding the need for 
deposit control are likely to be present. Many current gasoline marine 
engines use carburetor technology. Leaded fuel for marine engines may 
employ the carburetor detergent additive option discussed above. 
Unleaded fuel using IVD/PFID additives will provide control for 
carbureted and fuel injected marine engines.
    e. Gasoline Used in Flexible-Fuel Vehicles. Summary of Comments: 
Comment from the petroleum industry stated that available data indicate 
that in-use problems with fuel filter plugging in flexible-fuel 
vehicles which were suspected to be caused by an incompatibility of 
gasoline detergent additives in flexible fuel vehicles are in fact 
caused by the corrosion of incompatible metal parts in the fuel 
distribution and dispensing system.
    Analysis and Conclusion: EPA is also aware of data brought forward 
in the context of investigations made by the Coordinating Research 
Council (CRC) which indicate that the filter plugging in flexible-
fueled vehicles that had been attributed to the use of gasoline 
detergent additives is actually caused by the corrosion of incompatible 
metal parts in the fuel system. No public comment expressed any current 
concerns regarding the use of gasoline detergent additives in flexible-
fueled vehicles. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to exempt the 
gasoline component of alcohol blends such as M85 and E85 from 
compliance with this regulation. EPA believes that this approach is 
beneficial because gasoline detergent additives are also likely to 
provide a level of deposit control in flexible fuel vehicles since the 
technology used in such vehicles is very similar to that employed in 
gasoline-fueled vehicles. Data brought forward as the result of 
activity by the CRC also have highlighted the need for deposit control 
in flexible-fueled vehicles to maintain proper vehicle performance.
    f. Gasoline Used for Research and Vehicle Certification Purposes. 
Summary of Comments: The public comment stated that gasoline used for 
emissions certification purposes should be exempt from detergent 
requirements since such gasoline is used only for brief periods in the 
engine. The comment also stated that gasoline used for emissions 
durability demonstration should be required to contain a detergent 
additive. Public comment agreed with the Agency position that test 
fuels for research and developmental purposes should be exempted from 
the detergency requirements of today's rule. However, these comments 
stated that the procedures to obtain an exemption from EPA must be 
streamlined. Comments related to research exemptions are discussed in 
Section IV.
    Analysis and Conclusion: The applicability of detergency 
requirements to gasoline used for vehicle certification was not 
addressed in the NPRM. The Agency agrees with public comment that the 
gasoline emission test fuel used for emission certification and fuel 
economy vehicles should be exempt from the gasoline detergent 
requirements adopted today. Therefore, no changes are made to the 
current test fuel specifications found in 40 CFR 86.113-94(a)(1). Such 
gasoline is used only for brief periods in new vehicles and hence there 
is little likelihood of a deposit-related emissions impact.
    No comments were received specific to methanol certification test 
fuel. However, the rationale that supports exempting gasoline emissions 
certification fuel from the requirements of this rule also applies to 
the gasoline portion of methanol emissions certification test fuel. 
Therefore, the gasoline portion of methanol emissions certification 
test fuel will be exempt from the gasoline detergency requirements of 
today's rule.
    Today's action will require the service accumulation fuel used in 
gasoline-fueled vehicles and the gasoline portion of the service 
accumulation fuel used in methanol-fueled vehicles to meet gasoline 
detergency requirements. This is consistent with (1) Public comment 
that the emissions certification durability fuel should continue to 
contain a deposit control additive package; (2) the current provisions 
of 40 CFR 86.113-94(a)(2), which state that ``unleaded gasoline 
representative of commercial gasoline which will be generally available 
through retail outlets shall be used in service accumulation for 
petroleum-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles''; and (3) the current provisions 
of 40 CFR 86.113-94(a)(3) and (b)(4) which require methanol fuel used 
for service accumulation of Otto-cycle and diesel-cycle methanol-fueled 
vehicles be ``representative of commercially available methanol fuel''. 
As previously discussed, today's regulation will require that the 
gasoline portion of methanol fuel comply with gasoline detergency 
requirements.
2. Interim Registration Requirements
    Public comment supported the need for an interim detergent 
registration program with simplified requirements to allow industry 
adequate time to comply with the vehicle testing requirements and other 
provisions of the detergent certification program. Comments related to 
specific provisions of the proposed interim registration program are 
discussed below by topic.
    a. Need for the Demonstration of Both PFID and IVD Control 
Performance. Summary of Comments: As a condition of certification under 
the proposed detergent certification program, EPA proposed that the 
ability of a detergent additive to control both intake valve deposits 
(IVD) and fuel injector deposits (PFID) to specified performance 
standards must be demonstrated through separate vehicle-based tests. 
Public comment was mostly in favor of this approach, although one 
commenter stated that requiring fuel injector deposit control testing 
was unnecessary because demonstration of adequate intake valve deposit 
control also ensured proper fuel injector deposit control. Although 
this comment was directed at the proposed vehicle testing requirements 
under the detergent certification program, it is also applicable to the 
interim program requirements for supporting data to substantiate 
detergent performance.
    Analysis and Conclusion: For many detergent additives, 
demonstration of intake valve deposit control will also ensure adequate 
control of fuel injector deposits. However, some detergent-active 
chemicals may be effective for IVD alone, and thus EPA continues to 
believe that separate PFID control performance data is necessary. This 
approach is supported by the weight of public comment, which agreed 
that both PFID and IVD control performance tests are necessary to 
determine if effective deposit control is achieved. In fact, ASTM is 
currently completing development of a standard vehicle-based test 
procedure for PFID and the Coordinating Research Council is working on 
an updated PFID-test procedure for the future. These activities provide 
further evidence that the affected industry also considers PFID control 
performance tests to be necessary in addition to IVD tests.
    b. Additive Qualification Under the Interim Program. Summary of 
Comments: Comments from the petroleum and additive industry generally 
supported the acceptability of CARB-certified detergent additives to 
satisfy federal detergency requirements under the interim program. 
Comments from automobile manufacturers stated, however, that a 
certification under California's detergent additive program should not 
be allowed to serve as proof of performance for non-California 
gasolines after 1996, when California's Phase II reformulated gasoline 
program goes into effect. These comments stated that California Phase 
II reformulated gasoline is likely to have a significantly lower 
tendency to form deposits than gasoline in the rest of the country and 
hence demonstration of performance under CARB's program after 1996 
would not provide adequate deposit control for non-California gasoline. 
These comments from automobile manufacturers were primarily focused on 
issues related to additive qualification under the proposed detergent 
certification program but are also relevant to additive qualification 
under the interim program since the interim program is now projected to 
continue until June of 1996.
    Commenters were divided on what criteria to apply under the interim 
program for additives not certified by CARB. Comments from the 
petroleum industry supported the proposed use of chemical criteria 
along with the requirement that the additive be used at no less than 
the additive manufacturer's recommended minimum keep-clean treatment 
rate. These commenters stated that test data to demonstrate the 
effective performance of detergent additives was not necessary under 
the interim program. This position was not discussed in depth.
    Comments from the additive manufacturing industry opposed EPA's 
proposed approach for non-CARB certified additives and stated that EPA 
must insist on some basis in engine or vehicle test results to support 
a manufacturer's recommended minimum treatment rate. These commenters 
argued that there is no established absolute relationship between 
additive chemistry and deposit control performance and that belonging 
to one of the four proposed chemical classes would provide no assurance 
of satisfying the statutory requirement. Concerns were voiced that the 
proposed chemistry-based interim program requirements, without a 
requirement for supporting test data, would allow unscrupulous 
manufacturers to concoct inexpensive additives for quick profit that 
could have little or no efficacy in controlling deposits. These 
commenters also stated that an additive with demonstrated effectiveness 
in controlling deposits should not be precluded from use because it 
does not belong to one of the four chemical classes.
    Comments from additive manufacturers further stated that all 
responsible detergent manufacturers will have test data available to 
support claimed deposit control effectiveness. One commenter suggested 
that EPA require at least two different tests for both IVD and PFID 
control performance, both at the recommended treatment level, before an 
interim certification is granted.
    Analysis and Conclusion: EPA agrees with the commenters that it is 
appropriate to allow the use of CARB-certified detergent additives to 
satisfy federal detergency requirements in the entire United States 
under the interim program, provided that the certification was not 
obtained for California Phase II reformulated gasoline (RFG). EPA 
agrees that the introduction of California Phase II reformulated 
gasoline (RFG) requirements effective in March, 1996 may cause gasoline 
sold in California to be significantly less severe in deposit-forming 
tendency than gasoline used in other areas of the nation. Thus, the 
introduction of California Phase II gasoline may result in CARB 
certifications at a significantly lower concentration for a given 
detergent relative to earlier CARB certifications. Therefore, 
detergents certified under the CARB program for use in California Phase 
II RFG may not provide adequate detergency protection for gasolines 
sold outside of California and, under this final rule, may only be used 
to satisfy federal detergency requirements in gasoline sold in 
California.
    EPA agrees with the additive manufacturers that the proposed 
chemical compositional criteria would not adequately ensure that 
effective detergent additives are used under the interim program and 
could prevent the use of otherwise suitable additives unless they are 
certified under CARB's program. EPA has reviewed the available 
literature and cannot confirm that the proposed chemical compositional 
criteria would assure detergent efficacy. Although many commonly used 
detergents belong to the four chemical classes which EPA proposed would 
be acceptable, relatively minor differences in composition which are 
not addressed by the compositional criteria could result in a 
significant change in deposit control efficiency and additive cost. 
Also, it is of course possible that an effective detergent could be 
introduced which does not fall into one of these four classes. Thus, 
EPA agrees that claims of keep-clean fuel injector and intake valve 
deposit control must be based on some form of engine or vehicle test 
data.
    To provide the flexibility needed under the interim program, it is 
necessary to evaluate the adequacy of supporting data on a case-by-case 
basis. Otherwise, if EPA were to codify strict or limited criteria by 
which test data were to be evaluated for adequacy, much of the 
available data could be precluded from use due to the diversity of the 
deposit control procedures that have been used. This would be 
inconsistent with the aims of the interim program. Therefore, EPA will 
request and evaluate the adequacy of deposit control test procedures, 
and quality assurance and quality control procedures used during 
testing, on an individual basis, using the criteria discussed earlier.
    Public comment largely supported the validity of the fuel 
parameters that EPA proposed to use to define the tendency of gasoline 
to form deposits (sulfur, olefins, aromatics, T-90, and oxygenates) 
although there was some conflicting comment regarding the relative 
importance of these parameters. Based on the general agreement 
regarding the use of these parameters, EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to use them to evaluate the tendency of the test fuels used 
in the supporting data procedures. However, since no specific test fuel 
parameters were proposed specifically for the interim program, any test 
fuel that is reasonably typical in its tendency to form deposits will 
be acceptable for the purposes of the interim program.
    The guidelines that will be used by EPA to evaluate whether 
detergent additive performance data is sufficient are discussed in 
Section III.B. EPA's intention in establishing these guidelines is to 
allow the use of any credible vehicle, engine, or bench test data to 
support claims of additive performance under the interim rule.
    c. Performance Demonstration for Different Versions of the Same 
Detergent Package. Summary of Comments: Comment from additive 
manufacturers stated that EPA should allow the same test data to be 
used to demonstrate the performance of all versions of the same 
detergent package. They stated that it is common industry practice to 
vary certain minor nondetergent components in a detergent additive 
package without changing the active deposit control components of the 
detergent package. The commenters further stated that it would be 
burdensome and redundant to require performance data on each separate 
variant of a detergent additive package. While this comment pertained 
specifically to the requirements of the proposed full detergent 
certification program, it is also relevant to the requirements for 
supporting data under the interim program.
    Analysis and Conclusion: EPA agrees that separate performance tests 
should not be needed for multiple detergent additive packages which 
contain the same active detergent ingredients in different 
concentrations, provided that the minimum recommended treat rate 
specified in the registration information for each additive package 
properly accounts for the variations in concentration. Specifically, 
for each registered detergent package which the manufacturer intends to 
support with a single set of test data, the final concentration of 
active detergent ingredients (resulting when the detergent package is 
added to gasoline at its respective minimum recommended treat rate) 
must be no less than the minimum concentrations shown to be effective 
by the testing.
    In summary, any variation affecting the active detergent 
ingredients of an additive package, whether affecting the composition 
or the concentration of such ingredients, requires generation of a 
separate detergent registration. However, separate supporting data are 
needed only if the actual chemical identity of an active detergent 
ingredient is changed. If only the concentration of active detergent 
ingredients is changed from one detergent package to another, then 
separate supporting data are not required so long as the recommended 
treat rate is changed accordingly.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\An exception to this provision is the case when an additive 
manufacturer submits two registrations with the same detergent 
ingredients, but with differing recommended treat rates--one for use 
in controlling carburetor deposits and one for use in IVD/PFID 
control. In this case, data supporting the effectiveness of the 
carburetor detergent concentration could not be used as evidence of 
the effectiveness of that concentration in controlling PFID/IVD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, it is not always possible for EPA to discern which 
components of an additive package are important to deposit control 
effectiveness. Detergent additive packages may be composed of numerous 
components that provide different functions in addition to deposit 
control. These components may potentially include: the detergent, a 
carrier oil necessary for detergency action to take place, an 
antioxidant, a corrosion inhibitor, a metal deactivator, and a handling 
solvent. Additive manufacturers commonly vary nondetergent active 
components in response to market needs and to tailor the flow 
characteristics of the detergent package to seasonal variations in 
temperature. Thus, this final rule requires detergent additive 
registrations to specifically identify all active ingredients.
    d. Reporting Requirements, Confidential Business Information. 
Summary of Comments: Comments received from additive manufacturers 
stated that information on the chemical composition of the detergent 
additive(s), including the identity and minimum concentration of each 
component in the detergent package, are highly confidential trade 
secrets. Although useful to EPA's enforcement purposes, it would be 
inappropriate for EPA to compel additive manufacturers to share this 
data with their fuel marketer clients. The commenters suggested that, 
to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets, EPA should require 
fuel registration submissions to contain the name of the additive as 
registered under 40 CFR part 79, and that the information needed 
regarding the chemical composition of the detergent additive could then 
be accessed by EPA through review of its part 79 registration files. 
The comment also stated that EPA should not implement duplicate 
reporting requirements, but rather should rely on registration 
information provided under 40 CFR part 79.
    Additive manufacturers were not opposed to the proposed requirement 
that a suitable test procedure be made available to EPA to identify the 
composition of the detergent additive in its pure state. However, their 
concerns regarding the confidential nature of additive compositional 
data also apply to additive identification test procedures, since these 
procedures may be tailored to the additive type targeted for 
evaluation. Thus, they objected to the proposed process whereby EPA 
would seek the detergent identification procedure from the fuel 
manufacturer, who would in turn be expected to obtain it from the 
additive manufacturer. Finally, additive manufacturers stated that the 
detergent additive treatment rate is competitively sensitive 
information that should not be made part of the public record.
    Analysis and Conclusion: EPA recognizes the confidential nature of 
additive compositional data and agrees that additive manufacturers 
should not be required to provide such information to their fuel 
marketer clients. EPA further agrees that the Agency could access the 
detergent registration information and, if it is adequately and 
correctly identified, link it to the associated fuel registrations for 
purposes of this program. However, the registration data supplied by 
manufacturers under part 79 in the past has not always been of 
sufficient quality, detail, and scope to allow its use for this 
program's purposes. To remedy this shortcoming, the detergent 
registrations submitted under 40 CFR part 79 must meet specified data 
quality criteria if these additives are to be eligible for use in 
complying with the detergency requirements in today's notice. For 
example, additive manufacturers must meet minimum requirements on 
additive compositional data, must obtain a separate registration under 
40 CFR part 79 for each significantly different formulation of their 
additive package, and must report their recommended minimum treatment 
rate to control either PFID and IVD or carburetor deposits (see Section 
III.B.1). Obviously, each detergent additive product registered by an 
additive manufacturer must be assigned a unique trade name so that EPA 
can properly link specific detergents to the additive information 
supplied by fuel manufacturers in their detergent gasoline 
registrations.
    To address additive manufacturer concerns regarding the 
confidentiality of detergent identification procedures, this final rule 
provides that, if EPA's enforcement responsibilities call for such a 
procedure, then EPA may require it to be submitted by the detergent 
registrant rather than the fuel manufacturer. EPA's authority to take 
this action is further supported by section 211(b)(2), which requires 
the F/FA registrant to provide such information, and by section 114 of 
the CAA, which provides that EPA may require the submission of 
information if it is necessary to implement the requirements of the 
CAA.
    EPA recognizes that, to address the CBI concerns of additive 
manufacturers, the availability of information on detergent additive 
treatment rates should be restricted to those parties who have a need 
to know such information to fulfill their obligations under this rule, 
e.g., fuel manufacturers and other additive manufacturers who list the 
additive as a component of their gasoline or secondary additive 
product, respectively. EPA fully intends to honor this restriction, 
unless enforcement and/or appeal procedures require EPA to reveal a 
contested treat rate publicly.

IV. Interim Program Enforcement Provisions

A. Introduction and Overview

    Today's rule adopts the general interim program enforcement scheme 
proposed in the NPRM. It incorporates the following major elements:
    (1) Gasoline must be additized pursuant to a part 79 detergent 
registration, and must meet registration specifications as to detergent 
composition, minimum detergent concentration, and use. In addition, the 
detergent must comply with part 79 composition specifications in its 
pure (unadditized) state.
    (2) Detergent blenders (as defined by this rule) must perform 
volume accounting and reconciliation procedures to determine the 
accuracy of their detergent additization. The sale or transfer of 
additized product that fails to conform to the detergent's part 79 
minimum concentration rate, as established through the mandatory 
reconciliation procedures, is prohibited. Product reconciliation 
records must be maintained for at least 5 years.
    (3) Each detergent equipment system measuring the amount of 
detergent added to gasoline by automated detergent blending facilities 
must be calibrated every calendar quarter. Such systems must also be 
calibrated whenever the composition of the detergent package being 
measured is changed. Calibration records must be maintained by the 
blender for at least 5 years.
    (4) All parties in the gasoline and detergent distribution systems 
must transfer to receiving parties product transfer documents with 
necessary additive information. Receiving parties have the obligation 
to obtain such records. These records must be maintained by 
transferring and receiving parties for at least five years.
    (5) Presumptive and vicarious liability are the cornerstones of the 
liability scheme for the detergent program, as they are for other major 
EPA fuels programs. Certain parties will be required to establish the 
existence of quality assurance, product testing, and/or contractual 
oversight programs, as part of establishing their defenses to 
liability.
    An overview of these key enforcement provisions follows below.
1. Part 79 Registration Conformity
    In order to be additized in conformity with the interim detergent 
program, gasoline must be blended with detergent that complies with 
both the chemical composition and the concentration specifications of a 
part 79 detergent registration. Except as described previously in 
Section III.B.2, the detergent package's concentration in the gasoline 
must not be less than the manufacturer's minimum recommended 
concentration as specified in the additive registration.
    A detergent registered under part 79 for the control of only 
carburetor deposits may be used only with leaded gasoline. If a 
detergent is registered with one concentration for the control of 
carburetor deposits only, and a higher concentration for the control of 
port fuel injector and intake valve deposits, then the lower 
concentration may only be used with leaded gasoline while the higher 
concentration may be used with either leaded or unleaded gasoline. 
Otherwise, during the interim program, any registered detergent, with 
the exception of certain detergents certified by CARB for use in 
California Phase II reformulated gasoline (see discussion in Section 
III.B.c) may be used with any registered gasoline. As a caveat, 
however, part 79 fuel registrations must specify the specific additive 
products to be included in the fuel formulations. A fuel registration 
that fails to include such specification is in violation of the part 79 
registration requirements.
    Today's rule addresses the problem of certain components, such as 
oxygenates or raffinate, which are added to gasoline after the refining 
process and must be additized at some point before being added to 
gasoline to be sold to an ultimate consumer. These post-refinery 
components may be additized separately from the gasoline to which they 
will ultimately be added, provided that they are additized with a 
registered detergent at no less than the concentration specified for 
gasoline.
    Under today's rule, an additized gasoline may properly be 
commingled with another gasoline which has been additized under a 
different part 79 registration, provided that each has been separately, 
properly additized.
    If a detergent blender discovers that it has under-additized a 
batch of gasoline, the blender may correct the problem before the 
product is transferred. The detergent blender may add more of the same 
detergent that was originally added to the under-additized batch, 
bringing the batch up to the compliance concentration rate, provided 
the product has not been transferred, and provided that the blender 
maintains documentation of the correction.
    For example, if a batch of unleaded gasoline was additized at a 
concentration rate applicable to the control of carburetor deposits 
only (and thus restricted to leaded gasoline), the detergent blender 
could add more of the same detergent so that the treat rate equals the 
higher concentration specified for use of that detergent with unleaded 
gasoline. This must occur prior to the product's transfer to another 
party, and must be fully documented. This remedy would only be 
appropriate if the same detergent was registered as effective at two 
different rates for the two different products.
2. Volume Reconciliation
    The interim detergent program requires detergent blenders to 
regularly reconcile the volume of detergent used with the amount of 
gasoline or post-refinery component additized. In the NPRM, this 
accounting procedure was called mass balance accounting, a typical 
industry nomenclature. In this final rule, however, in response to 
comments discussed below, the reconciliation will be identified as 
volumetric additive reconciliation (``VAR'').
    Under the VAR requirements promulgated today, blenders must use a 
specified formula, under which the actual concentration of detergent 
used in the compliance period is compared to the correct concentration 
of detergent that should have been used according to the concentration 
specified in the fuel registration. Manual detergent blenders, who have 
the ability to ascertain the exact amount of detergent used in each 
blend, will be required to perform and record the VAR calculations for 
each blend. Automated blenders, whose automated recording equipment may 
not be able to record per-batch additization, will be required to 
perform and record the VAR calculations on a monthly basis.
    In order to ensure that automated detergent blenders can accurately 
measure their detergent use, today's rule requires that these blenders 
calibrate their detergent additization systems at the start of every 
calendar quarter, i.e., in the months of January, April, July, and 
October, and at any time that the detergent package is changed.
    Whenever the required VAR procedures reveal an averaged under-
additization of the blended product, a VAR standard violation has 
occurred. VAR violations also exist if investigation shows that the 
detergent blender inaccurately performed the VAR calculations in a way 
that masks under- additization, if VAR records are not created or 
maintained as required by today's rule, and if the required calibration 
procedures are not performed.
    Parties should be aware that violations of today's rule can occur 
outside of VAR calculations. For example, it is a violation of this 
rule to blend a detergent registered only for control of carburetor 
deposits into unleaded gasoline. As discussed above, such detergent 
should only be used with leaded product. Similarly, it is a violation 
of today's rule for any party to sell gasoline which is inadequately 
additized, even though that party might not have been involved with the 
VAR procedures.
    As in all cases of presumptive liability under the interim 
detergent rule, potentially liable parties in these situations have the 
right to raise affirmative defenses. They can also assert, where 
appropriate, that a violation has not happened, such as when they can 
establish that proper VAR averaging procedures had been followed by the 
automated detergent blender for the gasoline in question, and that no 
irregularities beside low single batch detergent concentration existed.
3. Product Transfer Documents
    Under today's rule, each transfer of gasoline, detergent or 
detergent-additized post-refinery component from one party to another 
must include the transfer of a product transfer document. This document 
must identify the product being transferred and its additization 
status, and must contain other important information to facilitate both 
proper additization of the product and EPA's ability to confirm that 
proper additization has taken place.
4. Liability and Defenses
    Today's rule establishes a scheme of liability for violations that 
is similar to existing liability schemes in other fuel programs 
administered by EPA, such as the fuel volatility program and the 
reformulated/conventional gasoline program. EPA decided to erect a 
similar structure in this rule because the Agency believes that such 
liability schemes have been demonstrated to work successfully in other 
fuel programs.
    Under today's rule, all parties in the distribution chain prior to 
the point at which a violation is discovered are presumed to be liable 
for gasoline non-conformities (other than VAR violations), detergent 
non-conformities, and detergent-additized post-refinery component non-
conformities. In addition, each party who fits within the regulatory 
definition of ``detergent blender'' promulgated today is presumed to be 
liable for a violation of the VAR requirements discussed above. For 
failure to meet product transfer document requirements, any party who 
owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises the facility at which 
the violation was found will be presumed liable.
    Any party who is held presumptively liable for a violation of this 
rule can rebut that presumption by successfully establishing an 
affirmative defense. In general, to establish an affirmative defense, a 
party must show that it did not cause the violation and that product 
transfer documents met applicable requirements when the product left 
the party's control. Specific additional affirmative defense 
requirements pertaining to particular parties in the gasoline and 
detergent distribution chain are described below.
    Under today's rule, refiners are subject to vicarious liability for 
violations that occur at branded facilities, including VAR violations 
as well as non-conformity violations affecting gasoline, detergent, 
and/or detergent-additized post-refinery component. Branded refiners 
must establish, as an affirmative defense to such liability, (1) That 
they did not cause the violation, and (2) that product transfer 
documents account for the product and indicate that it met the relevant 
requirements. In addition, they must establish either: (1) That the 
violation resulted from an act in violation of law, or of sabotage or 
vandalism, or (2) that the violation occurred despite a contractual 
obligation designed to prevent such violation, and that compliance with 
the contractual obligation was monitored by an adequate oversight 
program.
    Under today's rule, detergent manufacturer is defined as ``any 
person who owns, operates, leases, controls, or supervises a facility 
that manufactures detergent.'' Detergent manufacturers are subject to 
presumptive liability for non-conforming detergent, gasoline, and 
detergent-additized post refinery components, as described above. They 
can rebut the presumption of liability for such violations by 
establishing an affirmative defense. The required elements of such an 
affirmative defense under this rule are as follows: (1) Product 
transfer documents that indicate conformity with applicable 
requirements, (2) test results that indicate conformity of detergent 
with applicable requirements when it left the manufacturer's control, 
and (3) demonstration that adequate blending instructions were supplied 
to the customer.
    Under this final rule, carriers of detergent and gasoline may also 
be held liable for violations, since they are an important component of 
the distribution chain of detergent and detergent-additized gasoline, 
and have the potential to cause violations of this rule.
    Gasoline carriers are subject to liability for all violations 
discovered at their facilities. Carriers of gasoline are also subject 
to liability for non-conformity of such gasoline discovered downstream, 
provided that EPA satisfactorily demonstrates that the carrier caused 
the violation. In addition, gasoline carriers are also liable for 
detergent-additized post-refinery component non-conformity and 
detergent non-conformity discovered downstream, if they dispensed, 
supplied, stored or transported any such component or detergent found 
to be in violation, and if EPA can demonstrate that the carrier caused 
the violation.
    Detergent carriers are also subject to liability for certain 
violations of this rule, since they have the potential to cause non-
conforming detergent to be introduced into commerce. The role that 
detergent carriers play in the product distribution chain provides them 
with significant control over the detergent that is subject to the 
requirements of this rule.
    Detergent carriers, like gasoline carriers, are subject to 
liability for all violations discovered at their facilities. Under 
today's rule, detergent carriers are also liable for detergent and 
gasoline non-conformity discovered downstream, if they dispensed, 
supplied, stored, or transported any of the detergent, or any of the 
detergent in the non-conforming gasoline, and if EPA can demonstrate 
that they caused the violation. In addition, detergent carriers are 
liable for detergent-additized post-refinery component non-conformity 
if they dispensed, supplied, stored, or transported any of the 
detergent portion of the non-conforming component, and if EPA can show 
that they caused the violation.
    Carriers who are found to be in violation of any requirement of 
this rule have the right to establish an affirmative defense. To 
successfully establish an affirmative defense to liability for a 
violation found at its facilities, a carrier must show that it did not 
cause the violation, and that it complied with product transfer 
document requirements. For violations discovered downstream, carriers 
are only liable if EPA shows that they caused the violation.
    Under this rule, manufacturers and carriers of post-refinery 
components will not be held liable for violations. This approach is 
consistent with other fuel programs administered by EPA where the 
addition of a post-refinery component to gasoline is relevant, such as 
the volatility and reformulated/conventional gasoline programs. In 
these other programs, the responsibility to ensure the appropriate 
addition of post-refinery components rests on the party additizing the 
gasoline, and not on the manufacturer or carrier of such components. 
EPA believes a similar approach is reasonable under today's rule, since 
additizing parties are likely to have the practical ability to ensure 
conforming additization of post-refinery components. It is important to 
note that the composition of post-refinery components is not 
proprietary information, and can be easily ascertained by sampling and 
testing. Therefore, EPA is not aware of any concern that additizers 
will not be able to obtain sufficient information about the composition 
of post-refinery component.
    EPA believes that manufacturers and carriers of post-refinery 
components will have very little impact on the accuracy of the 
additization of such components, unlike manufacturers and carriers of 
detergents. The composition of post-refinery components is less 
important to the effectiveness of this rule than is the proper 
additization of the component itself and the proper blending of the 
detergent-additized post-refinery component with detergent-additized 
gasoline. EPA believes that the requirements promulgated today provide 
sufficient control over these critical activities. Therefore, EPA has 
decided not to bring manufacturers or carriers of post-refinery 
components under the purview of this rule.
5. Exemptions
    Parties who create fuels or additives for research, development or 
testing purposes (including emission certification testing) are exempt 
from the requirements of this rule, provided certain requirements are 
met. Racing and aviation fuel will also be exempt from the requirements 
of this rule, as discussed in more detail in Section IV.B.6, below.
    The remainder of this section of the preamble discusses key changes 
to the detergent program from the provisions proposed in the NPRM, 
together with analysis of public comments on enforcement issues in the 
NPRM. Comments received that impact solely upon the detergent 
certification program will be addressed at the time the certification 
program is promulgated.

B. Analysis of Public Comments and Significant Rule Changes

1. Volumetric Additive Reconciliation (VAR)
    One of the areas of major concern to commenters was the proposed 
product reconciliation requirements. Product reconciliation is 
important in the detergent enforcement program because it is difficult 
to determine compliance through sampling and testing. As previously 
mentioned in the NPRM, there does not presently exist a standardized 
test method to determine the identity and concentration of detergent in 
gasoline. It would therefore be difficult to make a sampling and 
testing program the cornerstone of detergent enforcement efforts.
    Under these circumstances, required product reconciliation is a 
useful enforcement tool. It will be relied on as an alternative to an 
extensive testing-oriented program. EPA does, however, reserve the 
right to conduct sampling and testing to determine compliance with the 
interim detergent program in appropriate circumstances, such as in 
determining: the conforming identity of detergent in its pure state; 
the presence of lead in gasoline additized with detergent only 
effectively registered for use with leaded product; and assisting in 
determining whether VAR compliance standards have been accurately 
attained or if non-conforming gasoline is being sold.
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed that detergent blenders had to conduct 
mandatory detergent reconciliations, called mass balance accounting, 
using one of three specified formulas. The detergent blender was 
required to use the formula applicable to the type of blending 
operation it used, i.e., an automated detergent blending operation 
using meters on every injector; an automated operation that did not 
have meters on every injector; and a hand blending additization 
operation. The automated formulas required weekly reconciliations, 
while the hand blending formula required that a reconciliation be 
completed for each batch of product additized. If an automated blender 
altered the detergent concentration rate within the weekly compliance 
period, such alteration terminated the reconciliation period and 
required the start of a new period. Each formula required the detergent 
blender to account for transfers of detergent and gasoline into and out 
of inventory. Each formula also required the blender to record the 
opening and closing volumes of detergent and gasoline used in the 
accounting period.
    The American Petroleum Institute (API) commented that the term 
``mass balance accounting'' was inaccurate, because the proposed 
procedure did not incorporate temperature adjustments for product 
measurements and, without them, the accounting was actually an analysis 
of volume. API proposed that the name for the required accounting 
procedure be changed to volumetric additive reconciliation (``VAR''). 
EPA agrees, and the interim detergent program incorporates this change.
    API also recommended that EPA adopt a more generic approach to VAR 
formula use, and adopt one comprehensive formula that would be 
applicable to all blenders. API expressed concern that the VAR formula 
should require the basic information necessary for EPA to determine 
that the correct detergent concentration was being attained, while 
being flexible enough to permit industry to use the additization 
procedures presently in place. EPA agrees that one simplified formula 
would be appropriate for all automated blenders. The final rule has 
therefore condensed into one comprehensive formula the two formulas 
previously proposed for VAR calculations for automated detergent 
blenders. The components of this automated formula are discussed below.
    a. General Description of the Automated Facility VAR Formula in the 
Final Rule. Under the comprehensive formula of the final rule, 
automated detergent blenders must complete an additive reconciliation 
record for all of the product additized with each detergent used. At a 
minimum, one VAR record must be created each calendar month for each 
additive storage tank used. At the blender's option, the record may be 
completed for smaller, discrete additive system units, such as for each 
additive injector. If the same additive package in a detergent storage 
tank is being used in different concentrations for different products, 
i.e., different treat rates for different grades of gasoline, then the 
automated blender will generally be able to combine the product 
additized under the different concentrations in the same VAR record. 
However, if the detergent has been registered with two different 
minimum effective concentrations, with the lower registered 
concentration being effective only for use with leaded product, then a 
separate VAR record must be created for the leaded product being 
additized at the lower, leaded-only rate.
    Detergent blenders must indicate each detergent concentration for 
which their equipment is set at the beginning of the VAR period. Any 
changes in the concentration set rate(s) must either be recorded on the 
VAR document, or be made available on other documentation such as 
computer printouts. No concentration may be set lower than the minimum 
recommended concentration specified in the Part 79 detergent 
registration.
    Automated blenders will be permitted under the interim program to 
adjust upward from the initially set concentration rate by as much as 
10 percent within the same VAR period. If a rate is altered by more 
than 10 percent above the initially indicated rate, either at one time 
or cumulatively, then the VAR period terminates, and a new VAR record 
must be started as of that point.
    Under the comprehensive formula for automated blenders, the blender 
is required to note the volume of detergent used from the storage unit, 
and the volume of gasoline and/or post-refinery component additized by 
the detergent from the measured unit. The blender will be required to 
indicate, either on the VAR form or on other documentation, such as 
computer printouts, which will be made available to EPA, the 
measurement figures from which these detergent volumes are derived, 
i.e., the beginning and ending metered flow readings, the metered per-
batch volume readings for the period, or other comparable metered 
readings; or the beginning and ending gauge inventory measurements, 
with corrections for additions to the storage tank and subtractions of 
unadditized product leaving the storage tank.
    The actual concentration of detergent in additized product is then 
calculated, and compared to the correct concentration, i.e., the 
minimum concentration specified in the detergent's Part 79 registration 
(or as provided in Section III.B.2). Compliance period additization in 
which the actual concentration is equal to or above the specified 
concentration, is in compliance with the VAR standard. In addition to 
recording the comparison of the actual concentration with the Part 79 
minimum registered concentration, detergent blenders, if they choose 
for the convenience of their own operators, may also indicate 
compliance comparison by percentage figures.
    Hand blenders will remain outside the comprehensive automated 
formula and will have their own formula under the interim program. The 
automated formula requires monthly calculations, based on present 
limitations in the automated equipment measurement and recording 
capabilities of some automated blenders. Since manual blenders do not 
have these equipment limitations and can easily calculate per-batch 
additization, they will be required to compute VAR compliance on a per-
batch basis. EPA would prefer that all blenders conduct per batch 
detergent reconciliation, since such frequent reconciliation would give 
much greater assurance that each batch of additized product is 
additized with at least the minimum concentration of detergent 
specified in the detergent's Part 79 registration. However, the 
equipment limitations of many automated blenders are acknowledged in 
this rule, and automated blenders are therefore permitted to conduct 
detergent reconciliations on a monthly basis during the interim period.
    Hand detergent blenders require a separate formula for the 
additional reason that they often do not have access to the gasoline 
inventory or flow readings that are the basis of the gasoline volume 
figures in the automated formula.
    b. Detergent Measurement Equipment. For the sake of clarity and 
simplicity, the interim program's comprehensive formula for automated 
blenders will be flexible enough to be used by automated blenders using 
a variety of detergent measuring equipment that is presently in use, 
namely, gauge measurement equipment, meters on every injector, or 
master metered equipment. The gauge system uses sight or stick 
measuring gauges to ascertain the level of inventory in a tank at a 
particular time. A metering measuring system is typically in one of two 
configurations, i.e., either one meter per injector measures product 
flow running through each detergent injector, or there is a master 
meter which measures total flow, which is situated prior to the 
separation of the detergent lines running to the individual injectors.
    The Agency considered requiring the use by all automated detergent 
blenders of metered detergent measurements in the VAR calculations, 
since meters are a more accurate measurement system than gauges. 
However, several commenters indicated that not all automated blenders 
presently were equipped with metered detergent measuring equipment, and 
EPA is not mandating the use of detergent metering during the interim 
detergent program. However, the Agency encourages and prefers the use 
of metered detergent measurements for the VAR calculations, and intends 
to request comment in the reopening notice about implementing a 
potential metering requirement in the final certification rule. This 
provision would require all automated blenders to use meters to measure 
detergent usage, and might also require the use of meters on each 
detergent injector.
    The National Petroleum Marketers Association expressed concern that 
automated blenders might be required to perform detergent tank gauging 
at the beginning and ending of each VAR period, whether or not their 
system was also metered. This was not the intent of the proposed 
formulas, and the rule finalized today clarifies that either tank-
gauged or metered measurements must be the basis of the detergent 
volume figures reported on the VAR record. Since there must be some 
numeric measurement as a realistic basis for the reported VAR detergent 
volumes, however, today's rule does require that either meters or 
gauges must be used.
    c. Use of Multiple Concentration Rates in One VAR Record. Arco 
Refining Company commented that its additization equipment was capable 
of measuring and automatically switching to a variety of set 
concentration rates depending on the type of gasoline needing 
additization. One detergent package was sometimes used at different 
concentration rates, as needed for the different grades of gasoline 
being additized. Arco was concerned because the automated formulas 
proposed in the NPRM would require the creation of a new VAR 
calculation period every time the concentration rate was automatically 
altered. EPA agrees that this would be burdensome, and the Agency does 
not desire to penalize parties for acquiring newer equipment that can 
measure several concentration rates. Therefore, the interim program's 
automated formula permits automated parties to utilize different 
concentrations in actual usage, provided that only one physical 
detergent package is being measured, and provided that each 
concentration rate being used is indicated on the VAR record (except as 
discussed in the following paragraph). If any of the initial 
concentration rates are raised in the reconciliation period, the 
blender must follow the procedures described below.
    The exception to the general principle that multiple concentration 
rates will be permitted to be measured in one VAR record concerns 
detergents to be used with leaded product. If a detergent has been 
registered with two minimum effective lowest concentrations, and the 
lower of the two is to be used solely with leaded gasoline, a single 
VAR record cannot be used to calculate compliance for both 
concentrations. This is because the actual concentration rate attained 
would have to be compared to two different lowest effective rates, 
which would make the formula meaningless. In order to determine if a 
VAR violation has occurred in the above circumstances, the blender 
would have to complete a separate VAR record for each concentration 
rate at which the detergent is registered for use. For this record to 
be accurate, the blender must separately measure the detergent being 
used at the lower rate. The blender could have a separate tank for the 
detergent so used, or a separate meter for it, or some other way to 
accurately distinguish the use of detergent at the lower concentration.
    d. Detergent Concentration Rate Adjustments. The Agency is very 
concerned with preventing automated blenders from compensating for 
significant under-additization discovered in a compliance period by 
altering their concentration rate so as to significantly over-additize 
later loads in the compliance period. Additization of any load of 
gasoline below the minimum concentration is not acceptable, because the 
Agency wants to assure that all gasoline being sold to the consumer is 
appropriately additized. Over-additization of later batches of gasoline 
as compensation for prior under-additization is also inappropriate 
because of concerns that over-additization may contribute to automotive 
combustion chamber deposits.
    To address this concern, the NPRM proposed that detergent blenders 
would not be permitted in a VAR period to alter the concentration rates 
that their additization equipment had been set for. In the NPRM 
proposal, if any such adjustment occurred, then the VAR period was 
terminated, and a new VAR period was required to be initiated.
    API presented the results of an industry survey indicating that 
industry presently experienced an enormous range in ability to attain a 
VAR standard accurately. API suggested that EPA should institute the 
use of an enforcement tolerance in determining compliance with the VAR 
standard to acknowledge and account for the wide range in equipment 
variation in ability to ensure full accuracy.
    For reasons discussed below, the Agency has decided that the use of 
an enforcement tolerance in the detergent regulatory context is 
inappropriate. However, the Agency acknowledges that without an 
enforcement tolerance, many detergent blenders would find it extremely 
difficult to attain the VAR standard without the ability to adjust 
detergent concentration rates throughout the compliance period. 
Consequently, the final rule will permit limited adjustment of 
concentration rates within the VAR period during the interim period. 
Extreme adjustments, however, will be prohibited, so that excessive 
swings in additization will not occur. In no event may any 
concentration rate be altered in any compliance period higher than 10 
percent over the concentration specified as the initially set rate.
    The 10 percent figure was chosen because the industry VAR survey 
results submitted by API reveal that at least 10 percent VAR monthly 
accuracy is already obtained by many automated blending parties (73 
percent of company-owned responding parties, and 37 percent of systems 
operated by exchange agreement or third party terminals). Since many 
detergent blenders already attain a monthly VAR accuracy within 10 
percent of target, the interim program reasonably prohibits automated 
blenders from altering their concentration rate above 10 percent of the 
target. This provides blenders with some flexibility in meeting the 
monthly compliance standard, while discouraging excessive fluctuations 
from the standard per-batch additization rate.
    To assure that adjustments beyond 10 percent of the indicated 
concentration will not be made, the final rule requires that any 
adjustment beyond the 10 percent cut-off will terminate the VAR period, 
necessitating the start of a new VAR calculation. Blenders will be 
required to indicate on the VAR record each set concentration rate used 
at the beginning of the VAR period, and all changes to each rate that 
occurred during the period must be reported on the VAR record or 
otherwise be made available.
    e. Reconciliation Period. EPA proposed that automated blenders must 
perform at least weekly detergent reconciliations. This final rule, 
however, permits monthly reconciliation periods. The vast majority of 
commenters urged adoption of the longer period. They asserted that a 
monthly period was more consistent with the reconciliation period 
presently being used by industry and the recordkeeping period required 
in the CARB detergent regulation. API presented evidence from its 
member survey indicating that none of the 2,199 exchange agreement or 
third party systems responding to its survey conducted reconciliation 
more frequently than monthly.
    The Agency has decided to accept the monthly reconciliation period 
already being used by a majority of industry, rather than require a 
shift to a shorter period for the interim rule. One goal of choosing 
this period was to prevent lead time problems that parties might 
experience in implementing a weekly reconciliation period in time for 
the January 1, 1995 effective date of this rule.
    EPA believes the monthly time frame provides reasonable assurance 
that individual loads will be additized properly. Although monthly 
averaging includes greater volumes than weekly calculations, and thus 
tolerates somewhat greater inaccuracy than weekly reconciliation, the 
number of additizations performed by the typical additization terminal 
per month is sufficiently small to ensure the results should reasonably 
approximate per-batch additization accuracy. In addition, EPA feels 
that the prohibition against altering the detergent concentration in 
the compliance period above 10 percent of the set concentration rate 
will further assure that significant per-batch under-additization will 
not occur.
    However, EPA is not willing to further lengthen the VAR compliance 
period. Some commenters urged adoption of a quarterly reconciliation 
period, saying that a quarterly approach would be consistent with some 
other EPA record keeping requirements, such as the quarterly lead phase 
down and quarterly reformulated gasoline reporting requirements. EPA 
does not agree that quarterly reconciliation would be appropriate for 
detergent additization. First, the detergent program does not have the 
reporting requirements or the exhaustively detailed reconciliation 
requirements that exist alongside the quarterly reconciliation 
requirements found in the reformulated gasoline program. Second, a 
quarterly detergent reconciliation period would involve averaging 
approximately 2,500 truckloads for the typical terminal, so that a 
quarterly averaging period would not give sufficient guarantee that the 
gasoline being sold to the ultimate consumer was adequately additized 
as required by section 211(l). Even if the typical number of truckloads 
is actually somewhat smaller, as the National Petroleum Refiners 
Association argues, the large number of batches being additized over a 
quarterly period in the typical terminal is too great to permit 
reasonable assurance of adequate per-batch additization.
    Although the Agency is promulgating a monthly reconciliation 
requirement in this rule, the Agency is still concerned about assuring 
as much per-gallon accuracy as possible in the final detergent 
certification rule. Some ideas being considered for the certification 
rule, in addition to the 10 percent concentration alteration cut off, 
involve creating a weekly compliance period and/or establishing a 
minimum per-gallon requirement that must be met in addition to meeting 
the averaged standard within the compliance period.
    f. Transfers of Unadditized Gasoline. As was proposed in the NPRM, 
the transfer of unadditized gasoline from detergent blending terminals 
is not prohibited under this final rule. Information about such 
transfers, however, will be required to be recorded. The NPRM required 
transfers of unadditized product to be accounted for within the VAR 
formula. The interim program deletes this requirement from the formula 
itself. Such information about transfers from inventory is only 
significant to the accuracy of formulas based on inventory 
measurements. The new automated VAR formula permits measurements based 
on metered flow usage as well as on inventory changes. In cases of such 
metered measurements, information on inventory transfers is not 
relevant to the formula's accuracy. However, information about such 
transfers, outside of the formulas, is required to be compiled as a 
supporting document to the VAR records of all automated parties, since 
such information is vitally important to EPA in ascertaining that all 
product has been properly additized. In addition, any hand detergent 
blender which is a terminal must also compile this information.
    g. Equipment Calibration Requirements. EPA received several 
comments about the quarterly calibration requirement for automated 
detergent blenders proposed in the NPRM. The National Petroleum 
Refiners Association urged EPA to clarify whether the calibration 
requirement would pertain only to the detergent equipment meters, or 
also to the injectors. The Agency clarifies in this rule that it is the 
additization system, i.e., the injector flow as measured by the meters, 
that must be regularly calibrated to ensure that the system's 
measurements are accurate. It is the additization system's accuracy as 
a whole that is important.
    EPA is today finalizing the requirement proposed in the NPRM that 
the automated equipment be calibrated quarterly, in spite of the 
National Petroleum Refiners' request that calibration be required only 
annually. The detergent rule continues the quarterly calibration 
requirement because such calibration intervals should result in some 
realistic compensation for the temperature-related changes in equipment 
accuracy resulting from seasonal variations in detergent viscosity. 
Since it would be unrealistic and expensive to require continuous 
equipment calibration to compensate for every temperature-related 
viscosity change, a quarterly calibration requirement would at least 
give some assurance of accuracy of the VAR required measurements. It 
would also give assurance of timely correction of normal variations in 
equipment accuracy that occur over time.
    EPA received industry comment that variations in viscosity between 
different detergent packages requires calibration of the additization 
equipment when detergent packages are changed, in order to maintain 
measurement accuracy. In response to this comment, the final rule 
requires automated blenders to calibrate their measuring equipment each 
time they change the detergent package being measured.
    h. VAR Enforcement Tolerance. Many parties commented on the need 
for an enforcement tolerance to be used in determining VAR violations. 
After reviewing these comments, EPA reaffirms the position taken in the 
NPRM that enforcement tolerance for VAR violations would be 
inappropriate. The Clean Air Act does not require the Agency to 
establish an enforcement tolerance in the detergent program. Absent a 
specific directive from Congress, the matter of enforcement tolerance 
is left to the Agency's discretion, and EPA considers such a tolerance 
in the VAR context to be neither necessary nor environmentally 
beneficial.
    The Agency has never announced an enforcement tolerance in its 
fuels programs for parties with primary control over attaining 
standards. Such tolerances have only periodically been established for 
downstream parties who have much less ability than primary parties to 
control accuracy. Furthermore, EPA fuels programs have never announced 
enforcement tolerances for parties with primary control when standards 
can be met through averaging, since averaging is a process that has 
built-in tolerance of deviations from the standard.
    While API has submitted survey data to EPA indicating that many 
automated detergent blenders do not presently attain a high degree of 
VAR accuracy, this information does not at all confirm that, in the 
future, industry would not be able to fulfill an averaged compliance 
standard if it were legally required. EPA believes industry should be 
able to attain the VAR compliance standard over the reconciliation 
period. The interim rule will allow detergent blenders to correct, and 
even compensate for, mis-additizations that occur within the VAR 
period, provided that they do so within the 10 percent rate alteration 
limit. The averaging implicit in this flexibility is sufficient to 
permit responsible parties to meet the standard, provided that they 
implement reasonable quality control procedures. Therefore, EPA does 
not believe that an enforcement tolerance is appropriate here.
    An enforcement tolerance is also not needed, nor would it be 
beneficial, in the hand blending situation, since hand blenders do not 
have to use variable mechanical equipment in their blending.
    Industry commented about the need for enforcement tolerances in 
other areas involving enforcement standards proposed in the NPRM, such 
as in performance testing of detergents. None of these comments pertain 
directly to today's rule, since the rule promulgated today does not 
require specific detergent performance tests. However, if the presence 
of lead in gasoline being additized with a detergent effectively 
registered for use only with leaded gasoline should become an issue, 
testing of lead and phosphorus to determine the legal identity of 
leaded gasoline will be conducted by the Agency according to the 
specifications listed in Appendices B and A, respectively, of 40 CFR 
Part 80. No enforcement tolerance has been created in the past for lead 
or phosphorus testing, and none is being contemplated now.
    i. Over-Additization. Under the proposed regulations, over-
additization of gasoline was considered a violation of the VAR 
standard, since compliance with the proposed VAR formula only existed 
if actual usage of detergent equalled the required usage. In the NPRM, 
however, the Agency explained that it did not intend to treat over-
additization as a violation, since data was not available establishing 
the point at which over-additization became environmentally harmful.
    The final rule promulgated today clarifies this situation, and 
specifies that VAR accounting compliance occurs when the actual 
detergent concentration equals or exceeds the minimum concentration 
specified in the detergent's Part 79 registration. This clarification 
codifies EPA's intent that over-additization would not be considered a 
violation of the VAR standard. Both API and Amoco had commented that 
they did not support a limit on additization over the minimum treat 
rate.
    Some auto industry commenters expressed fears that over-
additization might result in an increase in combustion chamber 
deposits. As discussed in Section I.C, EPA is concerned about this 
matter, and intends to re-visit this issue in the near future. For the 
duration of this interim program, however, over-additization will not 
be considered a violation.
    The Agency does not believe that our decision to permit over-
additization in the interim period will result in the occurrence of 
significant over-additization. The expense involved with adding 
detergents to gasoline should mitigate against any significant overuse 
of detergents. However, the fact that over-additization cannot at this 
time be considered a violation should not be construed as approval by 
EPA of over-additization, since serious concerns do exist about the 
potential harmful effects of over-additization.
    j. VAR for Hand Blenders. EPA also received comment about the 
formula proposed for hand blending detergent facilities. The National 
Petroleum Refiners Association informed EPA that, typically, carrier 
drivers do not have the information necessary to comply with the VAR 
calculation requirements proposed in the NPRM. EPA agrees with this 
comment, and has thus modified the formula for hand blending facilities 
to include only information that the hand blender must possess in order 
to additize properly, i.e., the amount of gasoline or post-refinery 
component additized, the amount of detergent actually blended, and the 
Part 79 registered minimum recommended detergent concentration rate.
2. Record Maintenance Requirement
    a. Five Year Record Retention. The NPRM proposed that all VAR and 
transfer documents required to be created under the detergent rule must 
be maintained for five years. Many commenters requested that the 
proposed five year requirement be reduced because it was considered too 
burdensome. Western Independent Refiners Association also asserted that 
the proposed retention period violated the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501 et seq; 5 CFR Sec. 1320. Regulations 
promulgated under the PRA state that the Office of Management and 
Budget will not approve record retention requirements for periods 
greater than three years, unless an Agency can establish substantial 
need for a longer required retention period. Alternative retention 
periods suggested by commenters included three, two, or even one year.
    In this rule, EPA is promulgating the five year record retention 
period. EPA is aware of the burden of retaining records for the five 
year time period, and has alleviated this burden by deleting the 
proposed ``place of creation'' record retention requirements in the 
final rule (see next section).
    The five year retention period is necessary for several reasons. 
The first is the enforcement reality that there are an enormous number 
of gasoline facilities subject to enforcement under this rule. 
Typically, inspections at particular facilities will therefore be 
widely spaced. Under these circumstances, EPA needs to be able to deter 
detergent violations by having the ability to review records over a 
significant period. Secondly, EPA expects that the detergent program 
will be enforced, to a significant extent, through review of records, 
as no standardized test has yet been developed to identify detergent in 
gasoline. In the absence of the ability to conduct extensive testing, 
records become extremely important in determining violations, and the 
Agency needs to have extensive record review ability to effectively 
enforce the program. Finally, the five year period is reasonable 
because it corresponds to the five year statute of limitations typical 
for fuels enforcement violations. Pursuant to the regulations 
implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act, 5 CFR 1320.6, EPA believes 
that these factors demonstrate that there is substantial need for 
record maintenance beyond three years.
    b. Place and Manner of Record Retention. The NPRM proposed that 
records must be retained in the place that they were created. It 
further proposed that VAR records must be maintained together with the 
transfer documents for the product covered by the VAR records.
    Several commenters argued that industry should be able to maintain 
records centrally, or in any appropriate place, as long as the records 
were made available to EPA when requested. These commenters felt the 
proposed requirement that records be maintained at the facility where 
created was inconsistent with current business practices and was unduly 
burdensome. EPA agrees that the place of record retention should be 
left to the discretion of the regulated party, provided that the 
records are available for EPA inspection. The final rule reflects this 
revision.
    National Petroleum Refiners Association disapproved of the proposed 
requirement that product transfer documents be maintained together with 
the mass balance (VAR) records with which they are associated. The 
National Petroleum Refiners argued that this requirement would 
necessitate a massive amount of burdensome sorting and collating of 
records. The intent of the proposed requirement was to help EPA in its 
auditing of the VAR records, by making easily accessible some of the 
primary records that support the validity of the VAR calculations. EPA 
agrees, however, that this collating requirement would produce 
significant space and labor costs for industry. Since other EPA fuels 
enforcement programs are effective without such a requirement, EPA has 
decided to delete this collating requirement from the interim detergent 
program.
3. Transfer Documentation
    EPA proposed that product transfer documents be created and 
transferred with each transfer of detergent, gasoline, and post-
refinery component. The product transfer documents would identify the 
product and provide important information about the product.
    Several parties had comments about the proposed product transfer 
document requirements. Unocal Corporation argued that product transfer 
documents should not be required to be maintained at all, since the 
Agency was requiring mass balance (VAR) records to be created and 
maintained. Presumably, Unocal believed that VAR records documenting 
detergent blending would be sufficient to ascertain detergent program 
compliance. Western Independent Refiners Association made a similar 
argument that the CARB requirement of monthly compilation of suppliers 
and purchasers should be an adequate, less burdensome substitute for 
maintaining product transfer documents.
    EPA disagrees with these comments. First, EPA has authority to 
require that regulated parties provide product transfer documents when 
they transfer detergent, gasoline, or detergent- additized gasoline to 
another party. Section 211(1) requires EPA to establish specifications 
for detergent additives. To ensure that detergents meet the 
specifications promulgated today, it is necessary to require transfer 
documents that properly identify the product to be provided with each 
transfer of the product.
    In addition, section 211(c)(1) allows EPA to control the sale of 
any fuel or fuel additive if the Administrator determines that 
emissions from such fuel or fuel additive cause or contribute to air 
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to harm the public health 
or welfare. As stated below in Section IV.B.4.d., this provision allows 
EPA to require that gasoline be additized to reduce harmful emissions. 
To ensure that gasoline is properly additized, it is necessary for EPA 
to require all parties to provide transfer documents that identify the 
product whenever the product is transferred to another party. Such 
documents are necessary to provide important information to receiving 
parties about blending restrictions. Further, transfer documents can 
establish the existence of violations that occurred prior to the 
detergent blending process, such as improper labelling of gasoline or 
detergent. An analysis of VAR records would not indicate such 
violations. Product transfer documents are an essential part of the 
primary records which can be used to verify the validity of the VAR 
records. EPA's experience conducting lead phase down audits confirms 
the necessity of assuring the retention of the primary records which 
are the basis for figures contained in reconciliation records.
    Product transfer documents are also necessary to provide important 
information to receiving parties about blending restrictions. 
Furthermore, transfer documents can establish the existence of 
violations that occurred prior to the detergent blending process, such 
as improper labeling of leaded product. An analysis of the later VAR 
records would not detect such violations.
    Finally, EPA does not expect the transfer document requirement of 
this rule to be unduly burdensome to industry. The reformulated 
gasoline rule already requires these documents, and transfer documents 
are already routinely transferred by industry in many product 
transactions. Typically, the added burden of this requirement will only 
involve some additional data requirements on already existing 
documents. Thus, this rule contains requirements for both product 
transfer documents and VAR records.
    Western Independent Refiners Association raised another concern 
about product transfer documents. The Western Refiners advised the 
Agency that fuels and fuel additives sent through pipelines are not 
always accompanied by documentation. These products are often fungible 
and they are not transported in discrete packages. Western Refiners 
argued that requiring the transfer of a product transfer document at 
the same time as the physical transfer of such product would be 
burdensome to those parties not presently simultaneously transferring 
both the product and the document.
    EPA agrees that some parties in the gasoline distribution system 
may not presently transfer documentation at the same time as they 
physically transfer the product to another party. The Agency's position 
is that the information required by this rule to be supplied on the 
product transfer document is important to proper additization. It thus 
must be supplied to the receiving party in such manner, and within such 
time, as to give adequate notice of the relevant information. The 
Agency therefore believes that contemporaneous transfer may not always 
be necessary, although document transfer at or near the same time as 
the transfer of the product is expected.
    It is important to clarify that the detergent program only requires 
the transfer of a product transfer document when custody or title to 
product is transferred from one party to another party. Such a document 
is not required to be created when product is merely being transferred, 
or even commingled, within one party's own organization.
    As a further clarification, this final rule does not require 
transfer documents to physically accompany the product they cover at 
all times, as was a concern of one commenter. Parties who receive 
gasoline, detergent, or detergent-additized post-refinery components 
from other parties and who have received the transfer documents for 
such products, will be expected to produce, for EPA inspection, product 
transfer documents for any such product in their possession. The 
transfer documents need not, however, be attached to or stored in the 
same physical location as the product. Receiving parties must be 
prepared to account for product as it passes within their 
organizational structures, however, in order to establish that they are 
accurately producing the applicable transfer documents when requested.
    The product transfer document requirements promulgated in this rule 
are much simpler than those proposed in the NPRM, since this rule does 
not contain certification restrictions. For example, gasoline transfer 
documents in the interim period need not include fuel-specific or PADD-
specific information. Furthermore, product transfer documents for 
additized gasoline or post-refinery component are not required to 
identify the specific detergent used to additize the product. This 
requirement was deleted in response to an industry lead time concern 
about being able to implement this requirement in the product document 
software in time for the January 1, l995 detergent rule implementation 
date.
    Several parties commented about the required contents of product 
transfer documents. Koch Refining Company was concerned about the need 
to identify on a product transfer document each component base gasoline 
when several base gasolines have been commingled. EPA agrees that such 
multiple identification would be burdensome and unnecessary. In the 
interim program, only the type of regulated product, i.e., base 
gasoline, detergent-additized gasoline, detergent, or detergent-
additized post-refinery component, will be required to be listed. Thus, 
if product contains commingled base gasolines, the transfer document 
would only need to identify the product as base gasoline. However, if 
different types of covered product, such as base gasoline and 
detergent-additized ethanol, are added together, then the transfer 
document for the combined product must identify each of the combined 
components. It is necessary in the interim program rule promulgated 
today for the regulated parties and the Agency to know if unadditized 
product has been added to additized product.
    The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) urged EPA to clarify 
the proposed requirement to list ``identity of product'' on the 
transfer document. With this requirement, EPA intended that the generic 
type of transferred product regulated under the detergent rule must be 
specified, i.e., base gasoline, detergent-additized gasoline, 
detergent, etc. See Sec. 80.158(a)(5).
    CMA further urged EPA to delete the requirement that time of 
transfer be listed on the transfer document. In the interest of 
streamlining transfer document contents, the Agency agrees to this 
request, especially in light of the fact that the reformulated/
conventional gasoline program has also deleted this requirement. Date 
of transfer, however, is still required to be listed on each product 
transfer document.
    Product transfer documents for leaded gasoline must identify the 
product as containing lead or phosphorus. This requirement is necessary 
because detergent registered for use only with leaded gasoline cannot 
be used with unleaded gasoline, as described earlier in this preamble. 
Such detergents can only be blended into gasolines whose transfer 
documents identify them as leaded.
    Finally, API requested that EPA allow the use of approved product 
codes on transfer documents, as a means of compactly presenting the 
information required by the regulation. The intent is to streamline the 
space requirements for these documents. EPA appreciates industry's 
concern about lack of space on commercial documents and will consider 
special requests by regulated parties to use product codes on transfer 
documents. To be considered, such requests must demonstrate that all 
required information items will be included and that the information 
can be easily accessed and decoded by EPA.
4. Liability Issues
    a. Presumptive Liability. The detergent rule's presumptive 
liability scheme is modeled after, and substantially similar to, the 
liability scheme already existing in previously-established EPA fuels 
programs, such as lead contamination, volatility, and diesel 
desulfurization, and in the reformulated/conventional gasoline program 
which is soon to be implemented. The rationale for the imposition of a 
presumptive liability framework is the same for the detergent rule as 
for the other rules. Typically, many parties handle and control 
gasoline, detergent, and detergent-additized post-refinery component. 
Much of the product is also fungible. It will, therefore, often be 
difficult for EPA to determine which party has caused a detergent 
program violation.
    EPA must have the ability to hold presumptively liable all parties 
in the gasoline and detergent distribution networks that are involved 
in a particular violation, in order to effectively enforce the rule 
when multiple parties may have caused the violation. EPA's previous 
experience indicates that this type of enforcement scheme is highly 
effective. The comprehensive threat of liability is an incentive to all 
parties to comply with the regulation, and once a violation is found, 
to cooperate in determining which party actually caused the violation.
    Several parties have commented that the detergent program should 
not be based on a presumptive liability scheme since this program is 
different than the other fuels programs which have this type of scheme. 
According to these commenters, detergent is typically blended into 
gasoline downstream, prior to transfer of the gasoline to the retail 
outlet. These commenters argue that such downstream additization means 
that upstream parties, contrary to the situation in other fuels 
programs, cannot cause detergent program violations. Therefore, they 
assert, upstream parties should not be held presumptively liable for 
detergent program violations, and liability should only be imposed if 
EPA can establish actual responsibility.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that gasoline is typically additized 
at a terminal prior to its transfer to the retail outlet. EPA 
disagrees, however, with the further assertion that detergent program 
violations cannot be caused by upstream parties. Upstream parties may 
cause gasoline non-conformity violations in a variety of ways. For 
example, they may fail to indicate on a product transfer document that 
the subject gasoline is leaded, and they may fail to provide accurate 
information about blending restrictions to detergent blending parties. 
Upstream parties may also cause gasoline, detergent, or detergent-
additized post-refinery component non-conformity violations by 
improperly manufacturing detergent or commingling it.
    Upstream parties may thus cause detergent program violations in a 
multitude of ways and circumstances, and all the parties in the 
gasoline and detergent distribution system have the potential to cause 
such violations. Given the multitude of potential causes of detergent 
program violations, and given the fact that it is the regulated parties 
themselves who have the most knowledge of, and ability to know what 
happens in their distribution system, EPA believes that the imposition 
of a presumptive liability scheme is as essential in the detergent 
program as it is in the other EPA fuels programs. The interim program 
rule promulgated today, therefore, continues the NPRM's presumptive 
liability scheme.
    In the case of VAR violations, however, upstream parties are 
relieved of presumptive liability under today's rule, because detergent 
blenders will typically be solely responsible for the accuracy of their 
own detergent blending and VAR calculations. This issue may be 
revisited, however, when the certification program final rule is 
issued, since other parties could cause VAR violations in specific 
circumstances. These circumstances include the failure of upstream 
parties to provide adequate blending instructions, and the 
participation and collusion of other parties in intentional mis-
additization by a detergent blender.
    (1) Detergent Manufacturers and Detergent Distributors. CMA 
commented that, even if EPA has the authority to regulate detergent 
manufacturers, they should not be subject to presumptive liability for 
violations that are discovered downstream, because they do not retain 
sufficient control over the detergent to cause such violations once it 
leaves their facility.
    EPA does not agree with CMA's argument. The presumptive liability 
scheme in today's rule, as is true with similar schemes found in other 
EPA fuels programs, is not dependent upon the control upstream parties 
may have over downstream parties. Control over the activities of 
another is the basis for vicarious liability. Detergent manufacturers 
will not be subject to vicarious liability under today's rule.
    On the other hand, the basis of presumptive liability in the EPA 
fuels programs, including today's rule, is that a multitude of parties 
have the ability to cause a fuels program violation, given the fungible 
nature of gasoline and the extensive number of parties typically 
involved in its distribution. Given the difficulty in establishing 
which party actually caused a violation under these circumstances, 
presumptive liability needs to be imposed on all parties who could 
cause the violation. Detergent manufacturers can cause detergent 
program violations discovered downstream in a number of ways. For 
example, they may improperly manufacture the detergent. In addition, 
they may fail to properly identify the detergent on product transfer 
documents, or to provide accurate blending instructions. Therefore, it 
is appropriate to include detergent manufacturers in the presumptive 
liability scheme of today's rule.
    Further, detergent manufacturers will not be required to 
demonstrate, as an independent element of an affirmative defense to 
liability for a detergent rule violation, that they did not cause the 
violation. EPA believes that the demonstration that: (1) The 
manufacturer provided proper product transfer documents; (2) testing 
when the product left the manufacturer's control indicated compliance 
with registration specifications; and (3) the manufacturer provided 
accurate written blending instructions about minimum concentration 
requirements and, where relevant, leaded gasoline use restrictions, is 
sufficient in most situations to effectively establish that the 
manufacturer did not cause the violation.
    The Agency, however, needs to acknowledge and provide for the fact 
that unusual situations will exist in which a detergent manufacturer 
could cause a violation even though it has established all the required 
elements of an affirmative defense to liability for that violation. For 
example, situations could arise in which there was complicity on the 
part of the manufacturer in intentional downstream mis-additizations, 
or in which the manufacturer provided inaccurate oral instructions.
    Therefore, under today's rule, manufacturers will be liable for 
violations even when the above affirmative defense documentation 
elements are satisfied, if the Agency can establish that the detergent 
manufacturer actually caused the violation. This provision is necessary 
to ensure that a manufacturer who actually causes a violation does not 
escape liability for that violation, which recognizing that most 
manufacturers who meet the requirements of the affirmative defense 
stated above will not have caused downstream violations. EPA does not 
believe that any regulated party who actually causes a violation should 
ever escape the imposition of liability for that violation.
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed that all parties in the detergent 
distribution system, including distributors of detergent, be subject to 
presumptive liability for non-conformity violations affecting 
detergent, detergent-additized gasoline, and detergent-additized post-
refinery component. EPA received no comments disputing the imposition 
of such liability on detergent distributors. Recognizing that detergent 
distributors may cause nonconformity violations in a number of ways, 
EPA has retained the proposed detergent distributor liability scheme in 
the final rule. Examples of such violations include commingling of 
mislabeled detergent and transfer of inaccurate blending instructions.
    (2) Detergent and Gasoline Carriers. The Truck Carriers correctly 
point out that the proposed carrier liability for violations discovered 
downstream is different than, and inconsistent with, carrier liability 
under the volatility and reformulated/conventional gasoline rules. 
Under those programs, carriers are only held liable for violations 
discovered downstream when EPA can prove that they caused the 
violation. In the proposed detergent program, however, carriers were to 
be presumed liable for downstream violations.
    EPA agrees that this inconsistency is inappropriate, since 
carriers' legal relationship with their products is the same in the 
detergent situation as it is in other fuels programs. Therefore, 
carrier liability for downstream violations is changed in this final 
rule to be consistent with the other programs. Gasoline carrier 
liability under the volatility program, which is the model for carrier 
liability in today's rule, was upheld in the National Tank Truck 
Carriers case, supra.
    b. Liability for Failure to Comply with VAR Requirements. 
Commenters expressed concern regarding who EPA would hold responsible 
for performing VAR accounting procedures, and who EPA would hold liable 
for violations resulting from failure to comply with the requirements 
for such procedures. Commenters noted that parties commonly enter into 
arrangements concerning the manner in which detergent is blended into 
gasoline. Therefore, for any single blending operation, several 
different parties may separately own, lease, operate, control, and/or 
supervise the blending, and all such parties would be considered 
blenders under the proposed regulations.
    EPA is aware of this situation, and intends that all parties who 
control or have the power to control the product and/or its 
additization should be held responsible for compliance with VAR 
requirements under today's rule. In the other fuel programs 
administered by EPA, the definitions of various regulated parties are 
sufficiently broad to include several types of persons or 
organizations. For example, the definition of ``oxygenate blender'' (40 
CFR 80.2(mm)) could include a branded refiner, independent terminal 
operator, carrier, or other party. Under these other fuels programs, 
EPA may hold several parties, all of whom fit within the relevant 
definition, liable for the same violation, and may collect the full 
penalty amount from each such party. The reader is referred to the 
discussion of liability in the reformulated/conventional gasoline 
rulemaking (59 FR 7777).
    In the reformulated/conventional gasoline program, EPA stated that 
it would not require multiple responsible parties to comply with the 
same requirement. EPA intends to take a similar approach under this 
rule, and does not intend to require multiple blenders to fulfill VAR 
requirements for a single blending operation. However, if VAR 
requirements are not fulfilled, all parties who qualify as blenders 
under the definition promulgated today will be presumed liable as 
discussed above.
    EPA expects that parties will enter into contractual agreements 
with other parties to perform the required VAR calculations and 
equipment calibrations, and to establish adequate quality assurance 
programs. As part of raising an affirmative defense, a detergent 
blender may, where appropriate, establish that it reasonably relied on 
another party to fulfill the VAR requirements of this rule. Of course, 
parties have the legal right to establish an indemnification system 
among themselves if penalties are imposed.
    The National Tank Truck Carrier Association (``Truck Carriers'') 
submitted a comment to EPA stating that carriers should not be held 
liable for detergent blending violations, since they merely loaded the 
blend components according to the product owner's instructions. EPA is 
aware that, in many instances, detergent manufacturers and other 
parties expected to obtain detergent registrations do not actually 
blend the detergent into the base gasoline. This blending is often 
performed by distributors, refiners, carriers, and other parties. Thus, 
many detergent blenders must obtain information from other parties 
regarding the proper treat rate and any other applicable blending 
limitations.
    However, EPA believes that carriers who blend detergent into 
gasoline, even if they do so pursuant to manufacturers' instructions, 
can cause violations, and should therefore be included in the liability 
scheme under today's rule. As discussed above, EPA lacks the ability to 
adequately determine the cause of a particular violation, and will thus 
impose liability on all parties, including carriers who are detergent 
blenders, who could have caused the violation. Carriers who blend 
detergent into gasoline can cause such violations in several ways: 
improper commingling of products, misdelivery, improper identification 
of products, and failure to obtain or follow instructions provided by 
manufacturer. Further, to ensure that carriers who blend detergent into 
gasoline obtain proper blending instructions, detergent blenders must 
demonstrate possession of adequate written blending instructions as 
part of an affirmative defense to liability. Such instructions should 
specify the minimum recommended detergent concentration, as specified 
in the registration. In addition, the instructions must state whether 
the detergent is registered for use at that concentration only in 
leaded gasoline.
    Detergent blenders who purchase detergents from other parties may 
have sufficient influence over the sellers to insist on the receipt of 
this necessary information as a condition of purchase. However, 
carriers who are detergent blenders may not have such purchasing or 
contractual power, but must depend on their clients, the owners of the 
detergent, to provide adequate blending instructions. Therefore, EPA 
will require detergent blenders to demonstrate, as part of establishing 
an affirmative defense to liability, that they either supplied or 
obtained, depending on their position in the distribution chain, 
appropriate written additization instructions. The reciprocal nature of 
this duty satisfies the requirements of National Tank Truck Carriers v. 
EPA, 907 F.2d. 177, 185 (D.C.Cir. 1990). In this case, the court 
refused to allow EPA, in its fuel volatility regulations, to require 
carriers to obtain documents from shippers as part of establishing the 
carrier's affirmative defense to liability, unless EPA also imposed a 
reciprocal requirement on shippers to supply their carriers with such 
documents.
    Of course, if a detergent blender believes that a violation 
resulted from inaccurate blending instructions supplied to the blender, 
the blender could demonstrate that as part of establishing an 
affirmative defense to liability for the violation. As always, EPA will 
review all the relevant facts and circumstances of a specific 
enforcement case to determine whether the party had actual culpability 
in that situation.
    The Truck Carriers commented that gasoline carriers should not be 
held liable as blenders, even if they add detergent to gasoline, since 
carriers typically follow instructions provided by the owner when 
blending detergent into gasoline. The Agency agrees that when gasoline 
carriers blend detergent into gasoline, they typically do so pursuant 
to the product owners' instructions. However, EPA does not agree that 
this reliance on the instructions of others means that gasoline 
carriers cannot be considered detergent blenders. Such carriers, like 
any other party, will be considered a detergent blender under today's 
rule if they own, lease, operate, control or supervise the blending 
operation of a detergent blending facility, including a truck (see 40 
CFR 80.139(j)).
    EPA expects that gasoline carriers will be considered detergent 
blenders under today's rule in truck hand-blending situations, as will 
the shippers who control the product and provide the blending 
instructions to the carriers. Gasoline carriers may also be considered 
detergent blenders in automated blending situations, depending on the 
degree of control they exercise over the automated detergent blending 
process. The situation is analogous to the ethanol blending process 
under the volatility regulations. In many instances in the volatility 
program, gasoline carriers have been considered ethanol blenders, 
especially in hand blending situations.
    c. Liability for Inadvertent Violations. Western Independent 
Refiners commented that only the knowing sale or transfer of 
noncompliant product should be the basis of liability under this rule. 
EPA disagrees. Knowledge of non-compliance has never been the 
prerequisite for liability in any of the EPA fuels programs. Since many 
detergent program violations could, and probably will, be caused by 
negligence or error, it would be counter-productive for the Agency to 
tolerate mis-additization merely because it is inadvertent. For the 
Agency to do otherwise would discourage parties from instituting the 
quality control procedures necessary to ensure compliance.
    Furthermore, if parties unknowingly sell or transfer non-conforming 
product that is later found to be in violation, they will not be 
treated unfairly under the detergent rule. First, as mentioned above, 
if the violation is a VAR violation that is discovered through an audit 
of VAR calculations, only detergent blenders are presumed liable in 
this interim period. Even if the violation is a detergent program 
violation not discovered through the VAR calculations, parties will 
always have the right to establish that they did not cause the 
violation, as part of an affirmative defense to liability.
    The Western Refiners further commented that liability should not 
attach if parties contracted to avoid liability. EPA's response is that 
the Agency is not bound, and should not be bound, by contracts between 
private parties that seek to avoid the imposition of liability imposed 
by regulations. However, parties may legally decide between themselves 
about private indemnification if liability is imposed. Parties may also 
contract between themselves as to the fulfillment of regulatory 
responsibilities. If these responsibilities are not actually fulfilled, 
however, each party subject to them faces liability if a violation is 
found.
    The Western Refiners also argued that a party should not be subject 
to liability for violations in situations where the party relied on 
misrepresentations of another. EPA again disagrees. If a party believes 
a detergent program violation was caused because the party relied on 
improper blending instructions or other misrepresentations of another, 
the potential respondent can assert this fact as evidence of lack of 
causation of the violation, as part of its affirmative defense. EPA 
will review all such relevant information in determining if the 
respondent has established its affirmative defense.
    d. Detergent Manufacturer Liability: Legal Authority. EPA proposed 
to include manufacturers of detergent additives within the presumptive 
liability scheme of this rule. In the NPRM, EPA claimed authority to 
regulate detergent manufacturers under CAA sections 211(l) and 
211(c)(1), as well as under section 301(a). CMA strongly objected to 
EPA's proposed imposition of liability on detergent manufacturers, and 
claimed that EPA did not have the authority to regulate detergent 
manufacturers under the Act.
    EPA disagrees. First, section 211(l) directs EPA to promulgate 
regulations ``establishing specifications'' for detergent additives. In 
today's rule, the Agency is exercising its authority to set 
specifications by insisting that detergents be properly registered 
under Part 79, and that registrants provide upon EPA request 
information required to substantiate the registration information (such 
as test procedures for identifying the claimed components of the 
registered product).
    To establish effective detergent specifications, it is reasonable 
to include the manufacturer of the product that must meet the required 
specifications within the scope of the regulatory scheme. The 
manufacturer is in the best position to determine whether the product 
meets the regulatory specifications. Therefore, EPA believes that 
Congress did not intend to prohibit EPA from regulating the very party 
who has primary control over determining whether the regulatory 
specifications are met. This is especially true since detergent 
manufacturers typically claim that the chemical identity of a detergent 
package is confidential business information. The detergent 
manufacturer, therefore, may be the only non-governmental party with 
the ability to determine whether its product conforms to the applicable 
specifications.
    Section 301(a) of the Act provides EPA with additional authority to 
regulate detergent manufacturers, by providing EPA with the general 
authority to promulgate such regulations ``as are necessary to carry 
out'' the Agency's functions under the Act. EPA believes that it is 
necessary to regulate detergent manufacturers in order to effectively 
implement the requirements of section 211(l). As explained above, 
detergent manufacturers are in the best position to ensure that their 
product meets the specifications that EPA is required to promulgate 
under section 211(l). Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to impose 
certain obligations on detergent manufacturers in this rule. Although 
manufacturers do have a business incentive to respond to their 
customers' desire to use detergent that complies with EPA requirements, 
EPA does not believe such a market incentive is sufficient to ensure 
that the product meets the applicable requirements. Of course, 
liability will attach only where problems arise.
    Further, to effectively regulate detergents, it is necessary to 
regulate all parties in the chain of distribution of detergents and 
detergent-additized gasoline who could cause violations of this rule, 
especially since, in some cases, EPA may not be in a good position to 
determine the cause of a particular violation. EPA believes that it is 
possible for detergent manufacturers to cause violations of today's 
rule. For example, if detergents are manufactured incorrectly, they may 
not provide the expected degree of deposit control. In addition, 
detergent manufacturers may improperly label the product, or may fail 
to provide adequate instructions. Finally, downstream parties rely on 
the manufacturer to properly produce and identify a detergent additive.
    In addition, EPA believes it has authority to regulate detergent 
manufacturers under section 211(c)(1) of the Act. This provision states 
that EPA may, under certain circumstances, control or prohibit the 
manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of 
a fuel additive. CMA concedes in its comments that section 211(c)(1) 
provides EPA with the authority to regulate gasoline for the purpose of 
reducing harmful emissions from gasoline, and to require that gasoline 
contain detergent additives that would help control such emissions. 
However, CMA states that section 211(c)(1) does not provide EPA with 
authority to regulate manufacturers of detergents, since this 
regulation is not directed at controlling harmful emissions from 
detergents.
    EPA disagrees that its authority under section 211(c) is limited to 
regulating only marketers and producers of gasoline. Section 211(c)(1) 
grants to EPA the authority to ``control or prohibit the manufacture, 
introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale of any fuel or 
fuel additive * * * if in the judgment of the Administrator any 
emission product of such fuel or fuel additive causes or contributes to 
air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the 
public health or welfare.'' The requirement that gasoline contain 
detergent additives is intended to reduce harmful emissions from 
gasoline, and is therefore a ``control'' on the manufacture and sale of 
gasoline within the meaning of the term as used in section 211(c)(1).
    In Amoco I, supra, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's promulgation of an 
affirmative unleaded gasoline marketing requirement as a proper 
exercise of section 211(c)(1) authority. Under EPA's unleaded gasoline 
regulations, retailers were required to sell at least one grade of 
unleaded gasoline at their retail outlets. The court stated that this 
requirement was a ``control'' on the sale of leaded gasoline (which 
impairs the emission control system), since it effectively prevented 
retailers from selling leaded gasoline unless they also offered for 
sale at least one grade of unleaded gasoline. In addition, EPA had the 
authority to impose such a requirement to assure the availability of 
unleaded gasoline.
    Similarly, under today's rule, EPA is promulgating a control on the 
manufacture and sale of gasoline by requiring all gasoline to contain 
detergent additives at a concentration designed to control the 
formation of deposits which could cause increased emissions. In 
addition, this regulation is designed to ensure that properly additized 
gasoline, which will result in reduced emissions of harmful pollutants 
compared to unadditized or improperly additized gasoline, will be 
available for consumer use. For the same reasons, EPA believes it also 
has authority to regulate distributors of detergent, under sections 
211(l), 211(c), and 301(a).
    Finally, sections 114 provides EPA with authority to require 
detergent manufacturers to register detergent additives, and to submit 
certain information upon EPA request. Section 114 grants EPA broad 
authority to require the submittal of any information from any person 
subject to the requirements of the Act for the purpose of enforcing 
those requirements. This provision further supports EPA's authority to 
require detergent manufacturers to submit supporting data in order to 
receive detergent registration, and to submit test data as part of 
establishing an affirmative defense to liability. To ensure that 
gasoline is properly additized with detergent, it is necessary for EPA 
to have information supporting the manufacturer's recommended detergent 
concentration.
    API submitted a comment about the information which upstream 
parties should be required to provide to establish their affirmative 
defenses for downstream misadditization violations. API argued that 
upstream parties should only be required to establish that they 
transferred the product with a product transfer document accurately 
identifying it as base gasoline that should not be sold to the ultimate 
consumer.
    EPA agrees that compliance with product transfer document 
requirements is an important element of an affirmative defense to 
liability for downstream violations. However, EPA does not agree that 
such compliance should by itself be sufficient to establish an 
affirmative defense. As discussed above, upstream parties may cause 
downstream violations in a variety of ways, and all such causes cannot 
be detected through the product transfer document. Therefore, EPA is 
including as a required element of an affirmative defense for most 
downstream parties a demonstration that the party did not cause the 
violation.
    In the case of detergent manufacturers, an affirmative defense will 
be established if the manufacturer demonstrates the following: (1) 
Product transfer document requirements were met; (2) testing of the 
detergent when it left the manufacturers control showed compliance with 
applicable requirements; and (3) the manufacturer provided proper 
blending instructions to its customer. EPA does not believe that a 
manufacturer who demonstrates these elements could have caused a 
downstream violation.
    e. Sale of Unregistered Detergent. CMA expressed concern that the 
proposed prohibition against selling or offering to sell or supply 
detergent that does not conform to Part 79 registration specifications 
would prevent detergent manufacturers from selling to prospective 
customers detergents that have not yet been developed and registered. 
EPA does not intend to prohibit detergent manufacturers from having 
sales discussions with prospective customers about possible future 
sales of detergents yet to be developed. Such sales discussions are too 
far in time from the offering for sale of actual detergent for actual 
use, to be considered covered by the prohibition in today's rule 
against offering for sale a non-conforming product. Once the product is 
in the actual development stage, it may qualify for an exemption from 
the requirements of this rule under the research and development 
exemption discussed above.
    f. Legal Authority to Regulate Carriers. The National Tank Truck 
Carriers (``Truck Carriers'') commented that EPA lacked the statutory 
authority to regulate detergent carriers under CAA sections 211(l) and 
301(a). EPA disagrees with these comments. EPA believes that it has 
sufficient authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carriers of 
detergent additives.
    First, section 211(l) requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
``establishing specifications'' for detergents. In addition, as stated 
above, section 301(a) grants EPA the authority to promulgate 
regulations that are necessary to carry out its functions under the 
Act. As stated above, EPA often lacks the ability to accurately 
determine the actual cause of a detergent program violation. Therefore, 
to ensure that gasoline sold to the ultimate consumer is properly 
additized, EPA is establishing a scheme of liability under which all 
parties in the distribution chain who could cause a violation are 
presumed liable for that violation. Detergent carriers are an essential 
component of the chain of distribution of detergent additives, and 
exercise sufficient control over a portion of that distribution chain 
such that it is necessary for EPA to regulate detergent carriers in 
order to ensure that detergent additives comply with the regulations 
promulgated today.
    Detergent carriers have the ability to cause violations of this 
rule. For example, carriers may improperly commingle detergents, or may 
fail to provide accurate identification of the detergent to the 
receiving party. EPA is therefore concerned that, without regulation of 
detergent carriers, neither the requirements of this rule nor the 
mandate of Congress in Section 211(l) will be effectively implemented, 
because of the potential for carriers to cause violations, the need to 
impose a duty on carriers to exercise care in transporting or storing 
detergent and gasoline, and the need for EPA to determine the cause of 
violations of today's rule.
    The Truck Carriers also commented that EPA does not have the 
authority to regulate common carriers under section 211(c), since they 
do not manufacture, introduce into commerce, offer for sale, or sell 
fuels or fuel additives. EPA disagrees with this argument, and believes 
that carriers clearly participate in the introduction of fuels and/or 
fuel additives into commerce. The term ``introduce into commerce'' is 
not defined by Congress in the Act. The common definition of the term 
is sufficiently broad to include carriers of gasoline. The Webster's 
New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1983 edition, defines ``to 
introduce'' as ``to take or bring into a given place or position.'' EPA 
believes that it is reasonable to include common carriers' transporting 
activities within this definition.
    Furthermore, EPA's ability to regulate carriers pursuant to the 
authority of section 211(c) has long been recognized by the Agency and 
industry in other fuels enforcement programs, such as the lead 
contamination and volatility programs. Under these programs, EPA 
regulates all parties in the gasoline distribution system, including 
carriers, pursuant to section 211(c). The Agency's authority, pursuant 
to section 211(c), to regulate gasoline carriers under today's program 
is consistent with its long-held authority under these prior programs. 
In National Tank Truck Carriers v. EPA, 907 F.2d. 177 (D.C.Cir. 1990), 
the court found that EPA's rationale for imposing liability on carriers 
in the volatility program was sufficiently reasonable to uphold such 
regulation of carriers. The Agency's rationale in the volatility 
program was similar to the rationale for imposing liability on carriers 
in this rule, i.e., that it is necessary to impose some degree of 
responsibility for compliance on all parties in the chain of 
distribution of the regulated product.
    EPA also disagrees with the Truck Carriers' argument that section 
301(a) of the Act does not give the Agency authority to regulate 
carriers. As previously mentioned in the discussion of detergent 
manufacturer liability, section 301(a) gives EPA the general authority 
to prescribe regulations necessary to carry out its statutory 
functions. It is reasonable to interpret this general authority to 
include the authority to create a detergent program liability scheme 
covering all parties, including carriers, within the gasoline and 
detergent distribution systems. The creation of this comprehensive 
scheme is necessary to ensure effective enforcement of the detergent 
program, which is a statutorily mandated function of the Agency.
    g. Interaction with Department of Transportation Safety 
Regulations. The Truck Carriers commented that the Department of 
Transportation is the only federal agency that has authority to 
regulate the transportation of gasoline, and therefore gasoline 
carriers, since the Hazardous Metals Transportation Safety Act (HMTSA) 
designates the Secretary of Transportation as the sole source of all 
regulations affecting commerce in hazardous materials.
    EPA does not agree with this argument. It is true that gasoline is 
a hazardous substance, and is therefore subject to the safety 
regulations and other requirements of the HMTSA. However, the fact that 
the Department of Transportation has the authority to promulgate safety 
regulations governing the transportation of gasoline does not deprive 
EPA of the authority to regulate the sale and transfer of gasoline to 
implement the goals of the Clean Air Act. The regulation promulgated 
today is not intended to regulate any aspect of transportation safety, 
and therefore does not implicate the HMTSA.
    h. Definition of ``Marketer'' under Section 211(l). The Truck 
Carriers also stated that common carriers were not subject to the 
prohibitions of section 211(l) because they were not ``marketers'' of 
gasoline. EPA disagrees with this argument, and believes that it is 
reasonable to include carriers in the term ``marketers'' as used in 
section 211(l).
    The Act does not define ``marketers'' for purposes of section 
211(l). The term generally appears to indicate a broad category of 
persons involved in the distribution system of a product (see sections 
211(h)(4), 211(k)(5), and 211(m)(2)). As used in these provisions, the 
scope of the term ``marketers'' may be broader or narrower, depending 
on the detail with which Congress specified the parties covered by each 
provision. For example, the long list of parties referenced in section 
211(h)(4) makes it clear that ``marketer'' as used in that provision 
means an undefined category of persons other than distributors, 
blenders, resellers, carriers, retailers, or wholesale purchaser-
consumers. However, in sections 211(l) and 211(m)(2), the term includes 
an undefined category of parties other than refiners.
    The generally accepted meaning of the term marketer is ``one that 
deals in the market.'' (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 
1990.) A carrier would reasonably fall within this definition. Given 
the lack of a clear definition in the Act for this vague term, the 
indications that Congress intended the term as used in section 211(l) 
to have a broad meaning, and the reasons provided above supporting 
EPA's inclusion of carriers as regulated parties in today's rule, EPA 
has reasonably determined that carriers are included in the term 
``marketer'' for purposes of section 211(l).
    i. Special Situation of Carriers. The Truck Carriers commented 
that, even if EPA has the authority to regulate gasoline carriers, 
under the Act, the Agency should not exercise that authority because of 
the special nature of carrier services. The Truck Carriers claimed that 
gasoline carriers merely follow the owner's instructions when they 
transport products, and should therefore not be held liable for such 
products that are in violation of this rule.
    EPA disagrees with this argument. EPA has established similar 
liability schemes in the other fuel programs that the Agency 
administers, i.e. lead volatility program, lead contamination program, 
and reformulated/conventional gasoline program. The rationale for the 
imposition of liability on carriers of gasoline is the same for all 
these programs, including the rule promulgated today. Although carriers 
do not take title to the product they transport, they can and do 
exercise sufficient control of gasoline at some point in the 
distribution chain, and can therefore cause violations.
    It is EPA's experience in the lead contamination and volatility 
programs that carriers have the ability to improperly commingle, label, 
or deliver products. These actions could result in violations of the 
requirements of this rule. Therefore, EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to include gasoline carriers within the liability scheme 
promulgated today.
    j. Liability of Common Carriers. The Truck Carriers expressed 
concern that the proposed liability scheme placed common carriers at a 
competitive disadvantage compared to private carriers, because the 
private carrier would not bear the same risk of penalties and costs of 
defenses against presumptive liability for violations found in a truck. 
The Truck Carriers stated that EPA has no rational basis for treating 
common carriers in a different manner than private carriers.
    EPA recognizes the Truck Carriers' concern, but does not agree that 
the liability scheme in today's rule treats common carriers differently 
from private carriers. If a refiner chooses to transport its own 
product, rather than hiring a common carrier, the refiner will be 
subject to liability for violations found in its transport vehicle. In 
addition, if the transport vehicle is a branded facility, the refiner 
will be subject to vicarious liability for violations found at that 
facility.
    Further, carriers will not be presumed liable under today's rule 
for violations found downstream from their facilities. Carriers will 
only be held liable for such violations if EPA can demonstrate that 
they caused the violation. Regarding violations at their own 
facilities, carriers will be held liable in the same manner that any 
party is held liable for a violation found at its own facility, and can 
establish a defense to such liability by showing that they did not 
cause the violation, and that it complied with product transfer 
document requirements. Therefore, EPA believes that the liability 
scheme promulgated today treats common carriers equitably.
    k. Liability Related to Insufficient Supporting Data or Test 
Procedures. Today's rule requires that a detergent manufacturer who 
registers a detergent under part 79 must make available to EPA, upon 
EPA's request, supporting data which adequately establishes the 
effectiveness of the detergent at the minimum recommended concentration 
specified under the part 79 registration. A workable test procedure, 
including test results where necessary, to identify the detergent in 
its pure state is also required upon request.
    If the Agency requests such supporting data and/or identification 
test procedure and results, and the information is not available or is 
determined by the Agency to be inadequate, the detergent will no longer 
meet the requirements of this rule, and can no longer be used in 
gasoline to be sold to the ultimate consumer. Detergent blenders (fuel 
manufacturers) who continue to use an unacceptable detergent after EPA 
or the detergent registrant has notified them that the detergent has 
been disqualified for use in compliance with this rule will be liable 
for violations resulting from the improper additization. The detergent 
blenders will be given a 45-day grace period from the date of 
notification to switch to an eligible detergent product.
    However, if the Agency determines that the detergent manufacturer 
was guilty of fraud or other serious transgression in registering the 
detergent, then the detergent registration will be considered void ab 
initio  as a means of complying with the detergent program requirements 
of this rule, starting from the time of the detergent's use under the 
interim detergent program. The detergent manufacturer would thus be 
liable for the improper use of the detergent from the date it was first 
used under this program. Fuel marketers who used the detergent will 
also be liable for such prior use if they cannot establish that they 
did not cause the violation by having culpability in the improper use, 
such as by failing to ask to review the detergent manufacturer's 
supporting data, or by other culpable behavior.
    l. Vicarious Liability. Today's rule provides for imposition of 
vicarious liability on branded refiners when violations are discovered 
at facilities operating under the refiner's name or that of a marketing 
subsidiary. The vicarious liability concept has been used in many other 
EPA fuels programs, such as the volatility, lead contamination, and 
reformulated/conventional gasoline programs. The reason for imposing 
vicarious liability in today's rule is the same as it is under the 
other programs.
    Vicarious liability in the EPA fuels programs is predicated upon 
the control the branded refiner has over its branded outlets and other 
facilities operating under the brand name or the name of a marketing 
subsidiary. Branded refiners have great contractual and practical 
ability to control such facilities. This control includes the ability 
to dictate and determine the attributes and quality of product being 
stored, transferred or sold in these facilities.
    This control is especially apparent in the case of detergent 
additization, where branded refiners typically advertise their gasoline 
based on the alleged efficiency or supremacy of their additive 
packages. The additive package may actually be the only major 
distinguishing factor between different branded gasolines, which may be 
substantially fungible in other respects. Branded refiners, 
accordingly, go to great lengths to ensure that their additive packages 
are properly blended into their gasoline, even to the point of 
maintaining their own additive systems in facilities operated by other 
parties, such as by exchange agreement refiners.
    EPA, therefore, does not agree with the comments of API and Amoco 
Oil Company that vicarious liability on branded refiners should not be 
imposed. As previously mentioned, branded refiner control over branded 
facilities is just as significant, or even more significant, in regard 
to detergent quality than it is in the other EPA programs where 
vicarious liability has been successfully imposed. In addition, the 
detergent program's presumptive and vicarious liability scheme is 
consistent with prior judicial decisions. See Amoco Oil Co. v. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 501 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (``Amoco 
I''); Amoco Oil Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 501 F.2d 270 
(D.C. Cir. 1976) (``Amoco II'') and National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. 
v. U.S. E.P.A., 907 F.2d 177 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
    There are several significant aspects of branded refiner vicarious 
liability under today's rule. First, vicarious liability will not 
attach to a branded refiner for VAR or other violations found at a 
terminal operating under that refiner's name, where the violation 
involves an exchange agreement refiner's designated product. In these 
circumstances, although the terminal refiner's brand name is on the 
overall facility, it is not on the other refiner's product in 
violation, and the branded terminal refiner does not have sufficient 
control of such product to impose vicarious liability here. However, 
the terminal branded refiner may, in appropriate circumstances, be 
considered an actual detergent blender if the facts warrant such a 
conclusion and the terminal refiner fits within the detergent blender 
definition. Also, the exchange agreement branded refiner has potential 
vicarious liability for VAR violations that occur which involve its 
branded product in additization equipment that is used solely for that 
branded product.
    Another important clarification of branded refiner vicarious 
liability involves the imposition of such liability for detergent 
program violations after the additization process. As previously 
mentioned, only detergent blenders have presumptive liability for VAR 
violations. However, downstream parties are presumptively liable for 
gasoline nonconformity violations, such as those involving the sale of 
inadequately additized product or unleaded product improperly additized 
only with a carburetor detergent.
    If such violations are found at branded downstream facilities, then 
the branded refiner would be subject to vicarious liability for those 
violations. As is always the case under the provisions of this rule and 
EPA's other fuels programs, the branded refiner would have the right to 
assert its affirmative defense to the imposition of such liability. 
Similarly, the retailer would also have the right to assert its 
affirmative defense, including lack of causation, to the imposition of 
liability for the violation. Both the branded refiner and the retailer 
would, additionally, have the right to raise the argument, when 
appropriate in under-additized gasoline situations, that VAR procedures 
for the gasoline were followed and that no averaging violation of the 
VAR standard actually occurred.
    Another important point about branded refiner vicarious liability 
involves downstream product transfer document violations. Such 
violations will not be the basis for any vicarious or presumptive 
liability, since proper care of these documents is a matter under the 
sole control of the violating party itself. This approach is consistent 
with the approach to these violations found in the reformulated/
conventional gasoline program, where no presumptive or vicarious 
liability attaches to these violations.
    API and Amoco Oil Company raised an additional concern about 
vicarious liability under the proposed rule. These commenters urged 
that the vicarious liability affirmative defense requirements should 
not include the need to establish that the violations were caused, or 
must have been caused, by other parties. This requirement, according to 
these commenters, creates an unfair burden to refiners.
    EPA disagrees. The Amoco II case, supra, upheld EPA's right to 
require branded refiners to establish, as part of an affirmative 
defense to vicarious liability, that a lead contamination violation was 
not caused by the refiner, and was instead either caused by an 
unforeseeable act of vandalism of another, or by an unpreventable 
breach of contract by another. The language to which these commenters 
object is the same vicarious liability affirmative defense language 
which was crafted by the Court and which commenter Amoco and other 
branded refiners consented to, in the Amoco II decision. See Amoco II, 
supra, note 8, p.273.
    As previously mentioned, EPA does not believe that a branded 
refiner has any less control over its branded facilities in the context 
of the detergent rule than in the context of EPA's other fuels 
programs. Today's rule, therefore, contains this judicially sanctioned 
affirmative defense requirement language, as proposed in the NPRM.
    One clarification of the proposed vicarious liability affirmative 
defense requirements is contained in this detergent rule. The NPRM 
mentioned that the proposed vicarious liability affirmative defense 
requirements were similar to those found in the volatility program. The 
volatility program liability provision, 40 CFR 80.28(g)(4), requires 
that branded refiners establish as part of their affirmative defenses, 
inter alia, that the violation was either caused by an act in violation 
of law, vandalism or sabotage, or by an unavoidable breach of contract. 
Intentional commingling is not considered to be an act in violation of 
law, or of vandalism or sabotage, under the volatility rule, but is 
instead covered by the provision requiring the branded refiner to 
establish existence of an effective contractual oversight program to 
prevent the violation. To be consistent with the volatility and with 
the reformulated/conventional gasoline rules, this final rule (at 40 
CFR 156(c)(2)(ii)) also places acts of intentional commingling in the 
defense section requiring branded refiner establishment of contractual 
oversight programs.
    m. Affirmative Defenses to Liability. The Western Independent 
Refiners Association (``Western Refiners'') commented that the 
affirmative defense provisions, as proposed by EPA, would be simpler to 
understand if EPA adopted a quality assurance program requirement as a 
condition of detergent certification. In this rule, EPA is not 
promulgating a certification program for detergent additives; however, 
EPA at this time does not believe that a quality assurance requirement 
should be required as a condition of receiving certification, but that 
it should remain a required element of an affirmative defense to 
liability for certain violations of this rule. Agency experience with 
similar affirmative defense requirements in other fuels programs 
indicates that industry is able to understand and work with this 
concept. In fact, the threat of potential liability if adequate quality 
assurance programs are not established has proven to be a powerful 
incentive ensuring the continued existence of such programs. Further, 
regulated parties are free to choose not to meet the required elements 
of an affirmative defense, and will not be subject to liability because 
of that choice as long as no violations occur.
    (1) Detergent Manufacturers. EPA proposed that conformity of a 
detergent with applicable requirements be determined at the time the 
product was transported from the manufacturer's facility. CMA suggested 
in its comments on the proposed rule that EPA change the point at which 
detergent manufacturers must demonstrate through test results, as part 
of establishing an affirmative defense, that their product conformed 
with applicable requirements. CMA noted that the detergent product 
leaves the control of the manufacturer at the point of loading for 
transport, rather than at the time of actual transport. EPA agrees with 
the logic and fairness of CMA's argument, and is therefore requiring in 
this final rule that, for the purposes of a manufacturer's affirmative 
defense to liability, conformity will be determined at the time the 
detergent was loaded for transport or otherwise left the manufacturer's 
control.
    (2) Detergent and Gasoline Carriers. The Truck Carriers also 
expressed concern that carriers will find it difficult to demonstrate, 
as part of an affirmative defense, that they did not cause a violation, 
because carriers do not have sufficient power in the gasoline 
distribution chain to elicit other parties' cooperation in 
demonstrating lack of causation.
    EPA recognizes the Truck Carriers concern, but does not believe 
that it is valid. It is EPA's experience that, in the other fuel 
programs implemented by the Agency, all involved parties typically 
cooperate with EPA to discover who caused the violation. Under this 
rule, carriers have the burden of demonstrating lack of causation as an 
element of an affirmative defense only if they are held liable for 
violations discovered at their own facilities. Carriers should have 
sufficient control over information regarding activities at facilities 
that they own or control. For all other violations, carriers will only 
be held liable where EPA can satisfactorily demonstrate that they 
caused the violation.
    The Truck Carriers also commented that the possession of proper 
product transfer documents should be the only element required to 
establish an affirmative defense to carrier liability. EPA disagrees, 
and does not believe that such an approach would ensure successful 
implementation of today's rule. Carriers can cause violations in a 
number of ways that would not necessarily be reflected on or related to 
the product transfer document, such as improper commingling or 
blending.
5. California Gasoline
    Several California fuel marketers have commented about the 
detergent program's treatment of gasoline already subject to the CARB 
detergent program. These commenters argue that the CARB detergent 
certification program already instituted for California gasoline is as 
effective as the proposed federal program would be. According to these 
commenters, California marketers should be exempted from the federal 
program enforcement requirements since the federal requirements would 
merely be duplicative of the CARB requirements, unnecessarily 
burdensome, and not environmentally beneficial.
    EPA does not agree with this argument. CARB does have a detergent 
certification program in place for gasoline sold in California. The 
federal program does not preempt the California program with respect to 
certification testing for gasoline sold in California.
    CARB bases enforcement of its detergent program on a review of 
blending records to determine adequate additization. In this respect, 
the CARB and federal programs are very similar. However, the federal 
program promulgated today has some additional enforcement requirements 
that are not found in the CARB program. These additional federal 
requirements include requiring: detergent accuracy in its unadditized 
state; transfer documents to accurately identify additive status of 
product; and quarterly automated equipment calibrations.
    The federal enforcement program, therefore, is not identical to 
CARB's, and can be said to be stricter in some important respects. 
These differences may result in greater additization accuracy. EPA does 
not believe it is appropriate to have a more lenient program in 
California, in certain important aspects, than in the rest of the 
country, merely because the gasoline sold in California is also subject 
to enforcement by another regulatory agency. Consumers of gasoline in 
California should have the same environmental benefits from the federal 
rule promulgated today as consumers in other states will acquire.
    Furthermore, fulfilling the federal enforcement requirements should 
assist California marketers in meeting CARB's additization mandates. 
The federal program requirements are, thus, neither duplicative nor 
unduly burdensome.
6. Exemptions
    Many parties commented about the need to simplify the research 
waiver provisions of the detergent rule. Commenters advised that 
detergent research is ongoing, with new products being continuously 
developed. The research waiver process proposed in the detergent rule 
NPRM would disrupt industry's ability to develop new detergents in a 
timely manner, according to these commenters.
    EPA agrees that a less cumbersome research control process than the 
one proposed in the detergent NPRM would be appropriate and would still 
be effective. Therefore, the interim detergent program takes a much 
more streamlined approach. All detergent and detergent-additized 
gasoline being used for research, development, or testing (including 
certification testing) purposes only, will be exempt from the 
provisions of the rule, provided certain requirements are met. To be 
exempt, the fuel will have to be properly identified by documentation, 
cannot be sold from retail outlets or from non-research wholesale 
purchaser consumer facilities, and will have to be covered by an annual 
research notification to EPA.
    Racing fuel and aviation fuel will also be exempted from the 
detergent program requirements. The exemption requirements are similar 
to those promulgated for research fuels, except that manufacturers will 
not be required to annually notify EPA of the production of such fuel 
in order to obtain an exemption. EPA does not believe such an annual 
notification requirement is necessary or beneficial. However, only 
racing fuel sold from racing facilities will be exempt from the 
requirements of today's rule. Fuel will not be exempt if it is sold 
from retail outlets or for use in motor or nonroad vehicles. The 
rationale for this requirement is to ensure that such fuel is not 
available for sale to the general public, since the basis for the 
exemption is that racing fuel is not being sold or transferred to the 
public. Aviation and racing fuel must also be covered by documentation 
establishing such fuels as the specified exempt fuel.
7. Penalties
    In the NPRM, it was proposed that there would be a presumption of 
the number of days of VAR violation, based on the number of days that 
the product in violation was in the gasoline distribution system. The 
Western Independent Refiners Association objected to the idea that 
there should be a presumed number of days for violations of the VAR 
standard.
    The Agency agrees that such a presumption is inappropriate in 
regard to the detergent rule's VAR violations, since violations of the 
VAR standard are averaged violations. Section 211(d)(1) specifies that 
violations of section 211(l) standards based upon multi-day averaging 
periods shall constitute a day of violation for every day of the 
averaging period. Consequently, the rule promulgated today complies 
with this statutory requirement and deletes the number of days 
presumption proposed in the NPRM.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA 
must determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines ``significant 
regulatory action'' as one 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, it has been 
determined that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory 
action''. EPA's regulatory impact analysis (RIA), available in the 
docket and summarized below, indicates that the annual costs to 
producers for compliance with the requirements of the interim program 
are not expected to exceed $100 million. However, the analysis 
demonstrates that the annual costs to producers for compliance with the 
expected full certification program (to be finalized in a later 
rulemaking) would be expected to exceed $100 million. Therefore, EPA 
has treated this action as significant, and has submitted a regulatory 
analysis to OMB for review.
    The total cost of the detergent additive interim registration 
program to the gasoline industry is estimated at about $130 million 
over an 18-month period, nearly all of which is associated with the 
cost of incremental detergents added to gasoline. Annual costs from the 
start of the interim program (January 1, 1995) through the fourth full 
year of the expected certification program (i.e., the year 2000), 
discounted at a rate of 7 percent, amount to a net present value in 
1995 of about $650 million. Full certification program costs include 
costs associated with certification testing and additional registration 
and recordkeeping requirements, as well as additization costs. Still, 
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. This cost is generally expected to be passed along to 
the consumer, increasing the average price of gasoline by about .10 to 
.25 cents per gallon. This would amount to only a dollar or two per 
motorist per year, and would be more than compensated by the increased 
fuel economy and decreased maintenance requirements which improved 
deposit control would be 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 about 700,000 tons during 
the 18-month interim program, and about 600,000 tons per year 
thereafter. These emission reductions will be achieved at relatively 
low cost, i.e., about $220 per ton. Fuel economy benefits are also 
expected as a result of the detergent program, amounting to over 390 
million gallons during the 1995-2000 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 emission reduction to about 
$120.
    The program is not expected to be a significant cost burden to 
individual businesses. As described above, incremental costs for 
detergent additive are expected to be passed on to the consumer. 
Furthermore, 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. Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq., federal agencies are required to assess the 
economic impact of federal regulations on small entities. Accordingly, 
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) has been prepared. The RFA is 
included as Chapter 5 in the Regulatory Impact Analysis described in 
the previous section of this notice, and is available for review in the 
public docket.
    The RFA 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 markedly. 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 would be incurred by gasoline producers in the price of 
the additional detergent additive required to be added to gasoline. As 
described above, this cost is expected to be passed along the 
distribution chain to consumers. In any case, if small businesses were 
permitted a special provision allowing under-additization, this would 
minimize realization of the program's projected air quality benefits. 
EPA has thus concluded that significant adverse economic impacts on 
small businesses are extremely unlikely. On the contrary, in the case 
of small additive manufacturers and additive injection equipment 
manufacturers, this interim registration regulation and the expected 
certification rulemaking could result in significant economic 
opportunities through increased sales.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The 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. 1655.02) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, 
Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M Street, SW., (Mail Code 2136); 
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. These requirements 
are not effective until OMB approves them and a technical amendment to 
that effect is published in the Federal Register.
    This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden 
averaging 6.3 hours per response and an estimated annual recordkeeping 
burden averaging less than one hour per respondent. These estimates 
include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing the 
collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden to: Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M Street, SW., 
(Mail Code 2136); 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.''

VI. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents

    Electronic copies of the preamble, the Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
and the regulatory text of this final rule are available 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.
    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
(K)  Rulemaking and Reporting

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

DCA__PRE.ZIP  (Preamble from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
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__RIA.ZIP  (Regulatory Impact Analysis)

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

ownload, rotocol, xamine, ew, ist, elp or  to 
exit.

    To download a file, e.g.,  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 ystems Utilities from the top menu, under 
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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

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

    Dated: October 14, 1994.
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: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a)).
    2. A new subpart G, consisting of Secs. 80.140 through 80.169, is 
added to part 80, to read as follows:

Subpart G--Detergent Gasoline

Sec.

80.140  Definitions.
80.141  Interim detergent gasoline program.
80.142--80.154  [Reserved]
80.155  Controls and prohibitions.
80.156  Liability for violations of the interim detergent program 
controls and prohibitions.
80.157  Volumetric additive reconciliation (``VAR''), equipment 
calibration, and recordkeeping requirements.
80.158  Product transfer documents.
80.159  Penalties.
80.160  Exemptions.
80.161--80.169  [Reserved]

Subpart G--Detergent Gasoline


Sec. 80.140  Definitions.

    The definitions in this section apply only to subpart G of this 
part. Any terms not defined in this subpart shall have the meaning 
given them in 40 CFR part 80, subpart A, or, if not defined in 40 CFR 
part 80, subpart A, shall have the meaning given them in 40 CFR part 
79, subpart A.
    Additization means the addition of detergent to gasoline or post-
refinery component in order to create detergent-additized gasoline or 
detergent-additized post-refinery component.
    Automated detergent blending facility means any facility 
(including, but not limited to, a truck or individual storage tank) at 
which detergent is blended with gasoline or post-refinery component, by 
means of an injector system calibrated to automatically deliver a 
prescribed amount of detergent.
    Base gasoline means any gasoline that does not contain detergent.
    Carburetor deposits means the deposits formed in the carburetor 
during operation of a carburetted gasoline engine which can disrupt the 
ability of the carburetor to maintain the proper air/fuel ratio.
    Carrier of detergent means any distributor of detergent who 
transports or stores or causes the transportation or storage of 
detergent without taking title to or otherwise having any ownership of 
the detergent, and without altering either the quality or quantity of 
the detergent.
    Deposit control effectiveness means the ability of a detergent 
additive package to prevent the formation of deposits in gasoline 
engines.
    Deposit control efficiency means the degree to which a detergent 
additive package at a given concentration in gasoline is effective in 
limiting the formation of deposits. The addition of inactive 
ingredients to a detergent additive package, to the extent that this 
addition dilutes the concentration of the detergent-active components, 
reduces the deposit control efficiency of the package.
    Detergent additive package means any chemical compound or 
combination of chemical compounds, including carrier oils, that may be 
added to gasoline, or to post-refinery component blended with gasoline, 
in order to control deposit formation. Carrier oil means an oil that 
may be added to the package to mediate or otherwise enhance the 
detergent chemical's ability to control deposits. A detergent additive 
package may contain non-detergent-active components such as corrosion 
inhibitors, antioxidants, metal deactivators, and handling solvents.
    Detergent blender means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls or supervises the blending operation of a detergent blending 
facility. Pursuant to the definition in 40 CFR 79.2(d), a detergent 
blender is also considered a fuel manufacturer.
    Detergent blending facility means any facility (including, but not 
limited to, a truck or individual storage tank) at which detergent is 
blended with gasoline or post-refinery component.
    Detergent-active components means the components of a detergent 
additive package which act to prevent the formation of deposits, 
including, but not necessarily limited to, the actual detergent 
chemical and any carrier oil (if present) that acts to enhance the 
detergent's ability to control deposits.
    Detergent-additized gasoline (also called detergent gasoline) means 
any gasoline that contains base gasoline and detergent.
    Detergent-additized post-refinery component means any post-refinery 
component that contains detergent.
    Distributor of detergent means any person who transports or stores 
or causes the transportation or storage of detergent at any point 
between its manufacture and its introduction into gasoline.
    Fuel injector deposits (also known as port fuel injector deposits 
or PFID) means the deposits formed on fuel injector(s) during and after 
operation of a gasoline engine, as evaluated by the reduction in the 
gasoline flow rate through the fuel injector(s).
    Gasoline means any fuel for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
engines, including both highway and off-highway vehicles and engines, 
and commonly or commercially known or sold as gasoline. The term 
``gasoline'' is inclusive of base gasoline, detergent gasoline, and 
base gasoline or detergent gasoline that has been commingled with post-
refinery component.
    Hand blending detergent facility means any facility (including, but 
not limited to, a truck or individual storage tank) at which detergent 
is blended with gasoline or post-refinery component by the manual 
addition of detergent, or at which detergent is blended with these 
substances by any means that is not automated.
    Intake valve deposits (IVD) means the deposits formed on the intake 
valve(s) during operation of a gasoline engine, as evaluated by weight.
    Manufacturer of detergent means any person who owns, leases, 
operates, controls, or supervises a facility that manufactures 
detergent. Pursuant to the definition in 40 CFR 79.2(f), a manufacturer 
of detergent is also considered an additive manufacturer.
    Post-refinery component means any gasoline blending stock or any 
oxygenate which is blended with gasoline subsequent to the gasoline 
refining process.


Sec. 80.141  Interim detergent gasoline program.

    (a) Effective date of requirements; responsible parties. Beginning 
January 1, 1995, all gasoline sold or transferred to the ultimate 
consumer, or to the marketer who sells or transfers gasoline to the 
ultimate consumer, must contain detergent additive(s) meeting the 
requirements of this section. The applicability of these detergency 
requirements to specific types of gasoline is specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section. Pursuant to paragraphs (c) through (f) of this 
section, compliance with the requirements of this section 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.
    (b) Applicability of gasoline detergency requirements. Except as 
specifically exempted in Sec. 80.160, the detergency requirements of 
this subpart apply to all gasoline, including highway-use, off-road, 
reformulated, conventional, and oxygenated gasolines, as well as the 
gasoline component 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), and 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).
    (c) Detergent registration requirements. To be eligible for use by 
fuel manufacturers in complying with the gasoline detergency 
requirements of this subpart, a detergent additive package must be 
registered by its manufacturer under 40 CFR part 79 according to the 
specifications in paragraphs (c) (1) through (3) of this section. After 
evaluating the adequacy of registration data provided by the detergent 
manufacturer pursuant to these requirements, if EPA finds the data to 
be deficient, EPA may disqualify the detergent package for use in 
complying with the gasoline detergency requirements of this subpart, 
under the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section.
    (1) Compositional data. The compositional data supplied to EPA by 
the additive manufacturer for purpose of registering a detergent 
additive package under Sec. 79.21(a) of this chapter must include:
    (i) A complete listing of the components of the detergent additive 
package, using standard chemical nomenclature when possible or 
providing the chemical structure of any component for which the 
standard chemical name is not precise. Detergent-active components may 
not be reported as the product of other chemical reactants.
    (ii) The exact 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.
    (iii) For each detergent-active component of the package, 
classification into one of the following designations:
    (A) Polyalkyl amine;
    (B) Polyether amine;
    (C) Polyalkylsuccinimide;
    (D) Polyalkylaminophenol;
    (E) Detergent-active carrier oil; and
    (F) Other detergent-active component.
    (2) Allowable variation in compositional data. A single detergent 
additive registration may contain no variation in the identity or 
concentration of any of the detergent-active components identified 
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. The identity and/or 
concentration of other 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 change the minimum recommended concentration of the additive 
package reported in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section. Detergent additive packages which constitute a 
variation from 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 affects the concentration of 
detergent-active components.
    (3) Minimum recommended concentration. (i) The lower boundary of 
the recommended range of concentration for the detergent additive 
package in gasoline, reported by the additive manufacturer 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. This concentration must be reported in gallons of 
the detergent additive package per gallons of gasoline.
    (A) When registered for use in unleaded gasoline, the minimum 
recommended concentration must not be less than the concentration 
necessary for the control of PFID and IVD.
    (B) When registered for use in leaded gasoline, the minimum 
recommended concentration must not be less than the concentration 
necessary for the control of carburetor deposits.
    (ii) The minimum concentration reported in the detergent 
registration according to the provisions of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this 
section must also be communicated in writing by the additive 
manufacturer to each fuel manufacturer 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.
    (iii) Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (e) of this 
section, EPA may require the additive manufacturer to submit data to 
support the deposit control effectiveness of the detergent package at 
the specified minimum effective concentration. EPA may disqualify an 
additive for use in satisfying the requirements of this subpart upon 
finding that the supporting data is inadequate. Manufacturers may be 
subject to the liabilities and enforcement actions in Secs. 80.156 and 
80.159 if such a finding is made.
    (d) Detergent gasoline registration requirements. (1) Pursuant to 
the fuel registration requirements of Sec. 79.11 of this chapter, a 
detergent blender/fuel manufacturer must include adequate information 
in the gasoline's registration to identify which registered detergent 
additive(s) will be used in the gasoline. This information must at a 
minimum include the specific commercial identifying name and 
manufacturer of the detergent additive package(s), the range of 
concentration of each such additive package intended to be used in the 
base gasoline, and any additional information needed to clearly 
identify which registered detergent additive(s) are to be used. A fuel 
registration shall be deemed insufficient if the registered additive to 
be used cannot be clearly identified based on the information provided. 
To comply with the detergency requirements of this subpart, the lower 
boundary of the range of concentration of the detergent additive 
package, reported by the fuel manufacturer pursuant to the registration 
requirements of Sec. 79.11(c) of this chapter, must equal or exceed the 
minimum recommended concentration specified in the detergent additive's 
registration, unless otherwise approved by EPA under the provisions of 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (2) 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, 
then, upon informing EPA of these circumstances pursuant to paragraph 
(d)(2)(i) of this section, the detergent blender may use the detergent 
at a lower concentration than recommended by the detergent 
manufacturer. Under the provisions of paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this 
section, EPA may subsequently require the detergent blender to provide 
test data substantiating the effectiveness of the detergent at the 
lower concentration. Pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, 
if EPA determines that the lower concentration does not provide a level 
of deposit control consistent with the requirements of this section, 
the detergent blender may be subject to the penalties described in 
Secs. 80.156 and 80.159 for any gasoline additized at the lower 
concentration.
    (i) The detergent blender must inform EPA in writing of an intent 
to use a detergent product at a lower concentration than the minimum 
recommended by the detergent manufacturer. This notification must 
clearly specify the name of the detergent product and its manufacturer, 
the concentration recommended by the detergent manufacturer, and the 
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 should be sent by certified mail 
to the address specified in Sec. 80.160(a).
    (ii) At its discretion, EPA may request that the detergent blender 
submit the test data purported to substantiate the claimed 
effectiveness of the lower concentration of the detergent additive. In 
such instance, EPA shall 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 each case, the supporting data will be due to EPA 
within 30 days of receipt of EPA's request.
    (A) If the detergent blender fails to submit the required 
supporting data to EPA in the allotted time period, EPA will proceed on 
the assumption that data are not available to substantiate the 
effectiveness of the lower detergent concentration, and the detergent 
blender will be subject to any applicable liabilities and penalties in 
Secs. 80.156 and 80.159 for any gasoline it has additized at the lower 
concentration.
    (B) 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 in Secs. 80.156 and 80.159.
    (iii) If both parties submit the requested 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 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. Either party may appeal EPA's decision, 
using procedures analogous to those specified in paragraphs (g)(3) 
through (g)(4) of this section.
    (e) Demonstration of deposit control efficiency. At its discretion, 
EPA may require a detergent additive registrant to provide test data to 
support the deposit control effectiveness of a detergent at the minimum 
concentration recommended, pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this section 
and Sec. 79.21(d) of this chapter. The required supporting data must be 
submitted to EPA within 30 days of receipt of EPA's request. EPA will 
notify the submitter, within 60 days after receiving the supporting 
data, whether the data is adequate to support the deposit control 
efficiency claimed. Subject to the procedures specified in paragraph 
(g) of this section, if the supporting data are not submitted or if EPA 
finds the data insufficient, the detergent may be disqualified for use 
by fuel manufacturers in complying with the requirements of this 
subpart. EPA will use the following guidelines in determining the 
adequacy of the supporting data:
    (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 
gasoline sold outside of California. For CARB-based supporting data to 
be used to demonstrate detergent performance, the concentration of the 
detergent-active components reported in the subject CARB detergent 
certification must not exceed the minimum recommended concentration 
reported in the applicable detergent additive registration.
    (2) EPA will evaluate the adequacy of other supporting data 
according to the following guidelines:
    (i) Test fuel guidelines.
    (A) The gasoline used in the supporting tests must contain the 
detergent-active components of the subject detergent additive package 
in an amount which corresponds to the minimum recommended 
concentrations recorded in the respective detergent registration, or 
less than this amount.
    (B) The test fuels must not contain any detergent-active components 
other than those recorded in the subject detergent registration.
    (C) The test fuels used must be reasonably typical of in-use fuels 
in their tendency to form deposits. Test fuel taken directly from 
commercial refinery production stock is acceptable. Specially refined 
low-deposit-forming fuels such as indolene are not acceptable. Other 
specially blended test fuels will be evaluated by EPA for acceptability 
based on the extent to which such fuels adequately represent the 
deposit-forming tendency of typical (average) in-use fuels, as 
reflected in the levels of the following fuel parameters: sulfur 
content, aromatic content, olefin content, T-90, and oxygenate content.
    (D) The composition of the blended test fuel(s) 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. 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.
    (ii) Test procedure guidelines.
    (A) To be acceptable, test data submitted to support the deposit 
control effectiveness of a detergent additive must derive from testing 
conducted in conformity with good engineering practices.
    (B) For demonstration of fuel injector and intake valve deposit 
control performance, vehicle-based tests using standard industry 
procedures and standards is preferred. Engine-based tests may also be 
acceptable, assuming a reasonable correlation with vehicle-based tests 
and standards can be demonstrated. Bench test data may be acceptable to 
demonstrate fuel injector deposit control performance, assuming the 
results can be correlated with vehicle- or engine-based tests and 
standards. Bench testing will not be considered acceptable for 
demonstration of IVD control performance. Examples of acceptable test 
procedures are contained in the following references:
    (1) Intake Valve Deposit Test Procedures:
    (i) ``Intake Valve Deposits--Fuel Detergency Requirements 
Revisited'', Bill Bitting et al., Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE 
Technical Paper No. 872117, 1987.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 400 Commonwealth 
Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) ``BMW--10,000 Miles Intake Valve Test Procedure'', March 1, 
1991, Section 2257, Title 13, California Code of Regulations.
    (iii) ``Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit 
Formation'', American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM Test 
Method D-5500.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1916 Race 
Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103-1187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) ``Effect on Intake Valve Deposits of Ethanol and Additives 
Common to the Available Ethanol Supply'', Clifford Shilbolm et al., SAE 
Technical Paper Series No. 902109, 1990.
    (2) Fuel Injector Deposit Test Procedures:
    (i) ``Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel Injector (PFI) Deposits 
in Vehicle Engines'', March 1, 1991, Section 2257, Title 13, California 
Code of Regulations.
    (ii) ``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.
    (iii) ``The Effects of Fuel Composition and Additives on Multiport 
Fuel Injector Deposits'', Jack Benson et al., SAE Technical Paper 
Series No. 861533, 1986.
    (iv) ``Injector Deposits--The Tip of Intake System Deposit 
Problems'', Brian Taneguchi, et al., SAE Technical Paper Series No. 
861534, 1986.
    (C) For demonstration of carburetor deposit control performance, 
any generally accepted vehicle, engine, or bench test procedure 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 procedures listed above in paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B)(2) of 
this section, are contained in the following references:
    (1) ``Fuel Injector, Intake Valve, and Carburetor Detergency 
Performance of Gasoline Additives'', C.H. Jewitt et al., SAE Technical 
Paper No. 872114, 1987.
    (2) ``Carburetor Cleanliness Test Procedure, State-of-the-Art 
Summary, Report: 1973-1981'', Coordinating Research Council, CRC Report 
No. 529.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Coordinating Research Council Inc. (CRC), 219 perimeter 
Center Parking, Atlanta, Georgia, 30346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Detergent identification test procedure. (1) At its discretion, 
EPA may require the additive registrant to submit an analytical 
procedure capable of identifying the detergent additive in its pure 
state. The test procedure will be due to EPA within 30 days of the 
registrant's receipt of the request. Subject to the provisions in 
paragraph (g) of this section, if the registrant fails to submit an 
analytical procedure, or if EPA judges a submitted procedure to be 
inadequate, EPA may deny or withdraw the detergent's eligibility to be 
used to satisfy the detergency requirements in this section.
    (2) The analytical procedure submitted by the registrant must be 
able to both qualitatively and quantitatively identify each component 
of the detergent additive package. To be acceptable, the procedure must 
provide results that conform to reasonable and customary standards of 
repeatability and reproducibility, and reasonable and customary limits 
of detection and accuracy, for the type of test in question.
    (3) A fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)-based 
procedure, including an actual infrared spectrum of the detergent 
additive package and each component part of the detergent package 
obtained from this test method, is preferred.
    (g) Disqualification of a detergent additive package. (1) When EPA 
makes a preliminary determination that a detergent additive registrant 
has failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph (c), 
(d)(2)(ii)(B), (e), or (f) of this section, either by failing to submit 
required information for a subject detergent additive or by submitting 
information which EPA deems inadequate, EPA shall notify the additive 
registrant by certified mail, return receipt requested, setting forth 
the basis for that determination and informing the registrant 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 registration was created 
by fraud or other misconduct, such as a negligent disregard for the 
truthfulness or accuracy of the required information or of the 
application, the detergent registration will be considered void ab 
initio and the revocation of qualification will be retroactive to 
January 1, 1995 or the date on which the additive product was first 
registered, whichever is later.
    (3) The registrant 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 data requirements which provide the basis 
for the proposed disqualification. If the registrant 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 by operation of law and the Administrator shall notify the 
registrant of such disqualification. If the registrant 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 registrant before taking final action concerning the 
proposed disqualification. The registrants' communications should be 
sent to the following address: Director, Field Operations and Support 
Division, Mail Code: 6406J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (4) As part of a written response to a notice of intent to 
disqualify, a registrant may request an informal hearing concerning the 
notice. Any such request shall state with specificity the information 
the registrant 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 registrant has complied with the specific data 
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 shall consider all relevant 
evidence and arguments presented at the hearing in making a final 
decision concerning a proposed cancellation.
    (5) If a registrant who has received a notice of intent to 
disqualify submits a timely written response, and the Administrator 
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 shall issue a final 
disqualification order, forward a copy of the disqualification order to 
the registrant by certified mail, and promptly publish the 
disqualification order in the Federal Register. Any disqualification 
order issued after receipt of a timely written response by the 
registrant shall become legally effective five days after it is 
published in the Federal Register.
    (6) Upon making a final decision to disqualify a detergent additive 
package pursuant to this paragraph (g), EPA shall inform all fuel 
manufacturers and secondary additive manufacturers whose product 
registrations report the potential use of the disqualified detergent 
that such detergent is no longer eligible for compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart. Such fuel manufacturers and secondary 
additive manufacturers shall have 45 days in which to stop using the 
ineligible detergent additive package and substitute an eligible 
detergent additive. When applicable, EPA shall also notify such parties 
that the detergent registration had been created by fraud or other 
misconduct, pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.


Sec. 80.142--80.154  [Reserved]


Sec. 80.155  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 
engine use (except as provided in Sec. 80.160), or to a gasoline 
retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer, and no person shall additize 
gasoline, unless such gasoline has been 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, in accordance 
with at least the minimum concentration specifications of a detergent 
registered under 40 CFR part 79 or as otherwise provided under 
Sec. 80.141(d)(2); 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, in accordance with at least the 
minimum concentration specifications of a detergent registered under 40 
CFR part 79 or as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.141(d)(2); or
    (iii) The gasoline is composed of a gasoline commingled with a 
post-refinery component, 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, in 
accordance with at least the minimum concentration specifications of a 
detergent registered under 40 CFR part 79 or as otherwise provided 
under Sec. 80.141(d)(2).
    (b) No person shall blend detergent into gasoline or post-refinery 
component 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 post-refinery component 
unless the product transfer document for the gasoline, detergent or 
detergent-additized post-refinery component 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 post-refinery 
component unless the 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.
    (e) (1) No person shall sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, 
offer for supply, transport, or cause the transportation of detergent-
additized post-refinery component unless the post-refinery component 
has been additized in conformity with the interim detergent program 
requirements of Sec. 80.141.
    (2) Post-refinery component has been additized in conformity with 
the interim detergent program requirements of Sec. 80.141 when the 
detergent component satisfies the requirements of Sec. 80.141 and:
    (i) The post-refinery component 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 a detergent registered under 40 
CFR part 79 or as otherwise provided under Sec. 80.141(d)(2); or
    (ii) The post-refinery component is composed of two or more 
commingled post-refinery components, 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 a 
detergent registered under 40 CFR part 79 or as otherwise provided 
under Sec. 80.141(d)(2).


Sec. 80.156  Liability for violations of the interim detergent 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. 80.155(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, 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; 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 any post-refinery 
component or gasoline in the storage tank containing gasoline found to 
be in violation, provided that the 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 post-refinery component 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 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-additized post-refinery component, 
or the detergent component of the post-refinery component, in 
violation; and
    (iii) Each carrier who dispensed, supplied, stored, or transported 
any detergent-additized post-refinery component in the storage tank 
containing post-refinery component in violation, and each detergent 
carrier who dispensed, supplied, stored, or transported the detergent 
component of any detergent-additized post-refinery component which is 
in the storage tank containing detergent-additized post-refinery 
component found to be in violation, provided that the 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. 80.155(d), the following persons 
shall be 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
    (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, providing 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. 80.155(b) has occurred, 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, shall be in 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 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. 80.155 has occurred, with the exception 
of violations of Sec. 80.155(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. 80.155, 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;
    (ii) That product transfer documents account for the gasoline, 
detergent, or detergent-additized post-refinery component in violation 
and indicate that the gasoline, detergent, or detergent-additized post-
refinery component satisfied relevant requirements when it left their 
control; and
    (iii) That the party has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs 
(c) (2) or (3) of this section, as applicable.
    (2) Branded refiner. (i) Where a branded refiner, pursuant to 
paragraph (b) of this section, is in violation of any of the 
prohibitions of Sec. 80.155 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:
    (A) An act in violation of law (other than these regulations), or 
an act of sabotage or vandalism, whether or not such acts are 
violations of law in the jurisdiction where the violation of the 
prohibitions of Sec. 80.155 occurred; or
    (B) 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
    (C) 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, 
post-refinery component, 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.
    (ii) 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. 80.155, 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, written instructions from the detergent 
manufacturer or other party with knowledge of such instructions, 
specifying the detergent's minimum recommended concentration as found 
in the 40 CFR part 79 registration and, where appropriate, the 
detergent's use limitations in regard to leaded product; and
    (ii) That it has implemented a quality assurance program that 
includes, but is not limited to, a periodic review of supporting 
product transfer and volume measurement documents to confirm the 
correctness of the product transfer and volumetric additive 
reconciliation documents created for the additized product.
    (4) Detergent manufacturer. In any case in which a detergent 
manufacturer would be liable for violating any of the prohibitions of 
Sec. 80.155 pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the detergent 
manufacturer shall not be in violation if it can demonstrate the 
following:
    (i) Product transfer documents which account for the detergent 
component of the product in violation and which indicate that such 
detergent satisfied relevant requirements when it left the detergent 
manufacturer's control;
    (ii) Test results performed in accordance with the detergent 
testing analysis submitted, or available for submission, by the 
manufacturer to EPA as part of the interim detergent program 
requirements. The test results must accurately establish that the 
detergent component of the product determined to be in violation was in 
conformity with the composition and concentration specifications of the 
detergent's 40 CFR part 79 registration when the detergent left the 
manufacturer's control; and
    (iii) Written blending instructions that 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, which must have 
been supplied by the manufacturer to the customer prior to the 
customer's use or sale of the detergent, must accurately identify the 
minimum recommended concentration of the detergent necessary to control 
deposits, as 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.
    (d) Detergent manufacturer causation liability. In any case in 
which a detergent manufacturer is liable for a violation of Sec. 80.155 
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, and the manufacturer 
establishes affirmative defense to such liability pursuant to paragraph 
(c) of this section, the detergent manufacturer will be liable for the 
violation of Sec. 80.155 pursuant to this paragraph (d) of this 
section, provided that EPA can demonstrate, by reasonably specific 
showings by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the detergent 
manufacturer caused the violation.


Sec. 80.157  Volumetric additive reconciliation (``VAR''), equipment 
calibration, and recordkeeping requirements.

    This section contains requirements for automated detergent blending 
facilities and hand-blending detergent facilities. All gasolines and 
all post-refinery components (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 record equals or exceeds the lowest additive concentration 
(LAC) specified for that detergent in its 40 CFR part 79 registration, 
except as may be modified pursuant to Sec. 80.141(d)(2). Each VAR 
record must identify the brands and grades of gasoline, and the types 
of PRC, being measured on that record. There must be a separate VAR 
record for leaded gasoline being additized with a detergent registered 
as effective for use with leaded gasoline only, or used at a 
concentration that is registered as effective for leaded gasoline only. 
Detergent being so used must be accurately and separately measured, 
either through the use of a separate storage tank for it, or a separate 
meter, or the use of some other measurement system that is able to 
accurately distinguish its use from that of other detergents. 
Measurements of detergent and gasoline must be precise to at least the 
nearest gallon.
    (a) For an automated detergent blending facility, for each VAR 
period, for each detergent storage tank and each detergent in that 
storage tank, the following must be recorded:
    (1) The manufacturer and commercial identifying name of the 
detergent additive package being reconciled, and the LAC specified for 
that detergent in its 40 CFR part 79 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 gallons of gasoline. The 
record must indicate if the specified LAC is only effective for use 
with leaded gasoline.
    (2) The total volume of detergent blended into gasoline and PRC, in 
accordance with either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or paragraph (a)(2)(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 in the form of 
computer printouts or other comparable documentation.
    (ii) (A) 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.

    (B) The value of each of the variables in the equation in paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii)(A) of this section must be separately recorded. 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.
    (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 in the form of computer printouts or 
other comparable data.
    (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).
    (5) A list of each 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 in the form of 
computer printouts or other comparable documentation. No concentration 
setting is permitted below the applicable LAC specified in the 
detergent's 40 CFR part 79 registration, except as may be modified 
pursuant to Sec. 80.141(d)(2).
    (6) The dates of the VAR period, which shall be no greater than a 
calendar month, and which shall in no event terminate beyond the end of 
the calendar month in which that VAR period began. 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.
    (b) For a hand-blending detergent facility where any 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 for 
that detergent in its 40 CFR part 79 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 gallons of gasoline. The 
record must indicate if the specified LAC is only effective for use 
with leaded gasoline.
    (2) The date of the additization that is the subject of the VAR 
record.
    (3) The volume of added detergent.
    (4) The volume of the batch of gasoline and/or PRC to which the 
detergent has been added.
    (5) The brand, 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).
    (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) Automated detergent blenders must calibrate their detergent 
equipment each calendar quarter, in January, April, July, and October 
and each time the detergent package is changed.
    (e) The following VAR supporting documentation must also be created 
and maintained; all volume measurements must be to at least the nearest 
gallon in accuracy:
    (1) For all automated detergent blending facilities, documentation 
reflecting performance of the calibrations required by paragraph (d) of 
this section, and any associated adjustments of the automated detergent 
equipment;
    (2) For all automated detergent blending facilities, a record 
specifying, for each VAR period, the volume in gallons of each transfer 
from the facility of unadditized base gasoline, identifying its date of 
transfer and the name of the recipient;
    (3) For all hand blending facilities which are terminals, a monthly 
record specifying the volume in gallons of each transfer from the 
facility of unadditized base gasoline, identifying its date of transfer 
and the name of the recipient; and
    (4) For all detergent blending facilities, product transfer 
documents for all gasoline, detergent and detergent-additized post-
refinery component transferred into or out of the facility; in 
addition, bills of lading, transfer, or sale for all unadditized post-
refinery component transferred into the facility.
    (f) All detergent blenders shall retain the documents required to 
be created by this section for a period of five years from the date the 
VAR calculation records and VAR supporting documentation are created 
pursuant to this section, and shall deliver them to the EPA 
Administrator, or the Administrator's authorized representative, upon 
the Administrator's or the Administrator's authorized representative's 
request.


Sec. 80.158  Product transfer documents.

    (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 post-refinery component 
other than when detergent-additized gasoline is sold or dispensed at a 
retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility to the ultimate 
consumer for use in motor vehicles, 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;
    (2) The name and address of the transferor;
    (3) The date of the transfer;
    (4) The volume of product transferred;
    (5)(i) The identity of the product being transferred (i.e., its 
identity as base gasoline, detergent, detergent-additized gasoline, or 
a specifically named detergent-additized oxygenate or detergent-
additized gasoline blending stock that comprises a detergent-additized 
post-refinery component);
    (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 post-refinery component, then the product transfer document 
for the commingled product must identify each such type of component 
contained in the commingled product;
    (6) If the product being transferred is base gasoline, the 
following must be stated on the product transfer document: ``Base 
gasoline--Not for sale to the ultimate consumer'';
    (7) The name of the detergent as specified in its 40 CFR part 79 
registration must be used to identify the detergent on its product 
transfer document;
    (8) If the product being transferred is a leaded gasoline as 
defined in Sec. 80.2(f), then the product transfer document must 
identify the product as leaded base gasoline or leaded detergent-
additized gasoline, 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 over-additized in anticipation of the later (or 
earlier) addition of post-refinery component, a statement that the 
product has been over-additized to account for a specified volume in 
gallons of additional, specified post-refinery component.
    (b) Gasoline cannot 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 
cannot 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) Recordkeeping period. Any person creating, providing or 
acquiring product transfer documentation for gasoline, detergent, or 
detergent-additized post-refinery component 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, 
and shall deliver such documents to EPA upon request.


Sec. 80.159  Penalties.

    (a) General. Any person who violates any prohibition or affirmative 
requirement of Sec. 80.155 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. 80.155(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. 80.155(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. 80.155(e) shall constitute a separate day of violation for each 
and every day the post-refinery component in violation remains at any 
place in the post-refinery component or gasoline distribution system, 
beginning on the day that the post-refinery component is in violation 
of the respective prohibition and ending on the last day that 
detergent-additized gasoline containing the post-refinery component is 
offered for sale or is dispensed to any ultimate consumer.
    (e) Product transfer document non-conformity. Any violation of 
Sec. 80.155(c) shall constitute a separate day of violation for every 
day the product transfer document is not fully in compliance. This is 
to begin on the day that the product transfer document is created or 
should have been created and to end at the later of the following 
dates: Either the day that the document is corrected and comes into 
compliance, or the day that gasoline not additized in conformity with 
interim detergent program requirements, as a result of the product 
transfer document non-conformity, is offered for sale or is dispensed 
to the ultimate consumer.
    (f) Volumetric additive reconciliation (VAR) record keeping non-
conformity. Any VAR recordkeeping violation of Sec. 80.155(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 (VAR) compliance standard 
non-conformity. Any violation of the VAR compliance standard 
established in Sec. 80.157 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 (VAR) equipment calibration 
non-conformity. Any VAR equipment calibration violation of 
Sec. 80.155(b) shall constitute a separate day of violation for every 
day a VAR equipment calibration requirement is not met.


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, is exempted from the 
provisions of the interim detergent program, provided that:
    (1) The detergent (or fuel containing the detergent) 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) is not sold, 
offered for sale, transferred, or offered for transfer from a retail 
outlet. It shall also not be transferred or offered for transfer from a 
wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, unless such facility is 
associated with detergent or fuel research, development or testing; and
    (3) The party using the product for research, development, or 
testing purposes 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 volume of the product to be 
used. This information must be submitted to the following EPA address: 
Director (6406J), Field Operations and Support Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 
20460.
    (b) Racing fuel and aviation fuel exemptions. Any fuel that is 
refined, sold, offered for sale, transferred, or offered for transfer 
as automotive racing fuel or as aircraft engine fuel, is exempted from 
the provisions of the interim detergent program, provided that:
    (1) The fuel is kept segregated from non-exempt fuel, and the party 
possessing the fuel for the purposes of refining, selling, offering for 
sale, transferring, or offering for transfer the fuel as automotive 
racing fuel or as aircraft engine fuel, maintains documentation 
identifying the product as racing fuel or aviation fuel, as applicable, 
and stating that is it not for street or highway use in motor vehicles; 
and
    (2) The fuel is not sold, offered for sale, transferred, or offered 
for transfer for highway use in a motor vehicle; and
    (3) In the case of racing fuel, the fuel is sold, offered for sale, 
transferred, or offered for transfer to the ultimate consumer only at a 
racing facility.


Sec. 80.161-80.169  [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 94-26515 Filed 10-31-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P