1
John
Huber
<
jhuber@
nora­
oilheat.
org>
01/
24/
2004
12:
22
PM
To:
Jeff
Herzog/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
MELeister@
MAPLLC.
com,
Andrea.
Grant@
piperrudnick.
com,
sallen@
gwec.
com,
JRobinson@
AMREF.
com,
ddoane@
ilta.
org,
EGustafson@
epamail.
epa.
gov
cc:
Subject:
RE:
Latest
thinking
on
definition
of
Northeast
exclusion
area
(
re
the
NR
heating
oil
marker
issue)

Jeff
First,
it
seems
like
the
exclusions
anticipated
would
cover
most
of
the
heating
oil
states,
and
I
suspect
sharply
reduce
the
costs
of
the
marker
requirement.
Unfortunately,
some
areas
will
still
have
to
ensure
they
have
injection
systems
for
the
new
fuel.

I
know
when
the
red
dye
was
first
imposed,
that
many
of
the
smaller
terminals
used
splash
dying
as
an
alternative.
You
might
want
to
consider
a
situation
whereby
if
an
area
does
not
receive
the
product
for
a
period
of
time,
six
months
or
a
year,
then
the
requirement
goes
away
and
there
is
no
need
for
the
additional
dye.
In
this
way
we
would
be
providing
some
flexibility
in
the
border
regions
that
have
been
raised.
However,
if
the
flexibility
is
not
used,
we
could
slip
the
annual
costs
in
the
future.

Thanks
John
Gentlefolk,
Following
is
my
latest
draft
concept
re
how
we
might
balance
terminal
operator
concerns
re
limiting
the
need
to
install
additional
injection
equipment
to
add
a
marker
to
heating
oil
(
as
well
as
concerns
regarding
limiting
the
volume
of
heating
oil
that
must
be
marked)
and
our
desire
to
maintain
the
intended
small
refiner
flexibilities
under
EPA's
upcoming
non­
highway
diesel
(
nonroad,
loco,
and
#
2
marine)
rule:

Under
the
current
draft,
the
areas
that
would
be
excluded
from
the
marker
requirement
and
thus
in
which
the
sale
of
fuel
manufactured
under
the
credit
and
hardship
provision
of
today's
rule
would
be
prohibited
are:
North
Carolina,
Virginia,
Maryland,
Delaware,
New
Jersey,
Connecticut,
Rhode
Island,
Massachusetts,
Vermont,
New
Hampshire,
Maine,
Washington
D.
C.,
New
York
(
except
for
the
counties
of
Chautauqua,
Cattaraugus,
and
Allegany),
and
Pennsylvania
(
except
for
the
counties
of
Erie,
Warren,
Mc
Kean,
Potter,
Cameron,
Elk,
Jefferson,
Clarion,
Forest,
Venango,
Mercer,
and
Crawford).

The
area
in
which
the
heating
oil
marker
would
be
required
to
be
added
at
terminals
(
and
at
refinery
racks),
and
consequently
in
which
2
small
refiner
and
credit
fuel
could
be
sold
is
the
unshaded
area
in
the
attached
map.
I
would
appreciate
any
input
that
you
might
have
on
this
draft
concept.

There
is
two
specific
issues
that
I
would
appreciate
input
on
>>>
If
it
is
unlikely
that
refiners
would
market
small
refiner
or
credit
fuel
in
South
Carolina,
I
would
like
to
designate
SC
as
an
exclusion
area
State.
The
current
draft
has
SC
outside
of
the
exclusion
area
because
heating
oil
use
drops
off
significantly
as
you
move
South
from
North
Carolina
to
South
Carolina.
However,
there
is
still
a
sizeable
(
albeit
relatively
much
smaller)
volume
of
heating
oil
used
in
South
Carolina.
Also,
would
it
be
more
appropriate
to
assign
the
Eastern
most
~
8
counties
in
the
"
handle"
of
Western
Virginia
to
the
exclusion
area.

Please
let
me
know
if
there
is
anyone
else
that
you
think
it
would
be
good
to
have
input
from
on
this
issue.

Thanks
for
your
consideration
Draft
Northeast
Heating
Oil
Marker
and
Small
Refiner/
Credit
NRLM
Exclusion
Area
(
Embedded
image
moved
to
file:
pic18060.
jpg)

Jeffrey
A.
Herzog,
Mechanical
Engineer
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
National
Vehicle
and
Fuel
Emissions
Laboratory
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
2000
Traverwood
Drive
Ann
Arbor,
Michigan,
48105
Phone:
(
734)
214­
4227
Fax:
(
734)
214­
4816
E­
Mail:
herzog.
jeff@
epa.
gov
