1
Michele
Joy
<
mjoy@
aopl.
org>
03/
29/
2004
04:
36
PM
To:
Paul
Machiele/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jeff
Herzog/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Buster
Brown
<
bbrown@
colpipe.
com>,
James
Scandola
<
JScandola@
buckeye.
com>
Subject:
EPA
Proposal
and
AOPL
Position
on
Locomotive
&
Marine
ULSD
Dear
Paul
and
Jeff:

We
have
had
a
few
conversations
over
the
last
several
months
regarding
the
EPA's
proposed
rule
on
NRLM
diesel
fuel.
Based
on
the
fire
drill
Friday
regarding
a
requirement
for
locomotive
and
marine
(
L&
M)
to
be
15
ppm
ex­
refinery
and
subsequent
conversations
with
my
members
and
other
segments
of
the
industry,
I
do
not
believe
we
have
a
universal
understanding
of
what
is
being
proposed
or
of
AOPL's
position.
I
therefore
thought
it
would
be
helpful
to
lay
both
out.

The
current
NPRM
proposes
moving
NRLM
diesel
to
500
ppm
on
2007
and
Non­
road
(
NR)
15
ppm
at
the
point
of
delivery
on
2010,
but
to
leave
LM
at
500
ppm.
AOPL
has
supported
this
move
as
long
as
the
500
NRLM
may
be
moved
fungibly
with
the
500
ppm
on­
road
between
2007
and
2010.
We
support
leaving
L&
M
at
500
ppm
beyond
2010,
which
also
will
enable
us
to
have
a
larger
market
for
downgrades
of
15
ppm
interface
than
just
a
heating
oil
market
and
provide
fungibility
with
small
refiner
and
early
credit
non­
road
through
2012.

We
understand
that
EPA
is
now
considering
requiring
L&
M
diesel
to
be
15
ppm
ex­
refinery.
I
want
to
emphasize
that
we
would
prefer
not
making
this
change
in
the
current
rule
and
leaving
it
for
a
subsequent
rulemaking.
However,
if
EPA
insists
on
moving
L&
M
to
15
ppm
ex­
refinery,
the
pipeline
industry
strongly
supports
your
proposal
to
leave
end
market
L&
M
at
500
ppm
to
engender
flexibility
in
the
downstream
distribution
system
to
enable
downgraded
15
ppm
to
be
used
in
the
L&
M
market.

We
have
some
confusion
about
the
how
this
proposal
would
apply
to
PADD
I.
I
thought
I
understood
from
my
conversation
with
you,
Paul,
that
the
Designate
&
Track
(
D&
T)
would
continue
to
apply
after
2010
if
this
proposal
were
adopted
to
ensure
that
heating
oil
did
not
move
back
into
the
500
L&
M
market
except
that
PADD
I
would
not
have
a
tracking
requirement
due
to
the
size
of
the
heating
oil
market.
Based
on
my
conversation
with
Jeff
on
Friday,
I
understood
that
D&
T
would
continue
to
apply
everywhere
to
ensure
that
only
downgraded
15
ppm
interface
material
would
be
blended
with
L&
M,
up
to
a
500
ppm
level.
API
tells
me
that
neither
is
correct,
and
that
the
EPA
proposal
is
that
PADD
I
would
have
a
15
ppm
L&
M
requirement
at
the
point
of
delivery
2
and
that
any
interface
to
be
downgraded
must
go
into
the
heating
oil
market.
I
should
point
out
that
while
PADD
I
has
a
large
heating
oil
market,
it
is
not
universally
present.
If
it
is
EPA's
view
that
PADD
I
would
not
need
a
500
ppm
L&
M
outlet
for
off­
spec
15
ppm
diesel,
that
view
is
not
correct.

Bottom
line,
if
the
decision
to
take
L&
M
to
15
ppm
in
2010
has
not
been
made,
then
AOPL
continues
to
support
leaving
L&
M
at
500
ppm
to
facilitate
refinery
and
distribution
flexibilities.
We
believe
the
benefit
of
lowering
L&
M
to
15
ppm
is
not
worth
the
cost
until
new
engines
can
be
introduced.
If
the
decision
to
take
L&
M
to
15
ppm
is
made,
and
the
question
revolves
around
at
which
point
in
the
distribution
system
the
15
ppm
requirement
would
apply,
then
pipelines
favor
an
ex­
refinery
requirement
only
to
facilitate
the
maximum
flexibility
in
the
distribution
system
possible.

I
hope
this
clarifies
our
position.

Michele
Michele
Joy
General
Counsel
Association
of
Oil
Pipe
Lines
Suite
604
1101
Vermont
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
2005
(
202)
408­
7970
(
202)
408­
7983
fax
mjoy@
aopl.
org
