An official website of the United States government.

This is not the current EPA website. To navigate to the current EPA website, please go to This website is historical material reflecting the EPA website as it existed on January 19, 2021. This website is no longer updated and links to external websites and some internal pages may not work. More information »

Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance Help

With regard to test methods, would EPA consider the following two approaches to be equally sound in terms of a defense to presumptive liability? (1) qualify the test method chosen for downstream oversight purposes per the precision and accuracy criteria i

No, for the testing of fuel for compliance with the 15 ppm sulfur standard, we do not consider the two approaches to be equivalent. The second approach listed is not an option for approval of a test method under the diesel fuel regulations, and therefore testing with methods not approved under § 80.581 and § 80.585 would not be considered an adequate defense to presumptive liability.

Test results from test methods that have not been approved under the regulations might be considered as evidence of compliance or noncompliance with the standard, but use of the unapproved method would not be considered as meeting the periodic sampling and testing requirement for defense purposes; nor would use of an unapproved method be considered to have fulfilled the requirement for refiners and importers to test every batch. Testing for 500 ppm fuel has a different situation.

Question and Answer was originally posted at Questions and Answers on the Clean Diesel Fuel Rules (PDF)(135 pp, 888 K, EPA420-B-06-010, July 2006, About PDF)