VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSA #0889/01 0621225
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 031225Z MAR 06
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1972
INFO RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 0207
RUCPDC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS PRETORIA 000889 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/S, AF/EPS, EB/TPP 
DEPT PLEASE PASS TO USTR/STROJE, PCOLEMAN 
COMMERCE FOR 4510/ITA/IEP/ANESA/OA/JDIEMOND 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD ENRG SENV SF
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICA: INFORMATION ABOUT PROPOSED 
REGULATIONS ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SPQIFICATIONS AND 
STANDARDS 
 
REF: SECSTATE 19075 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary. Econoff met with Department of Minerals and 
Energy and Department of Trade and Industry officials to 
deliver reftel points.  In both instances, officials 
confirmed that they had not notified the WTO Secretariat of 
the revised regulations gazetted on January 13, and seemed 
unsure as to whether they would or were required to do so. 
The officials also offered their views as to how the 
regulations did or did not affect the use of 
Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl (MMT) as an 
octane raising fuel additive in South Africa.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) At the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) on 
February 23, Econoff met with Chief Director for Hydrocarbons 
Henry Gumede, Director for Petroleum Regulations Muzi Mkhize, 
and Director for Petroleum Policies Elizabeth Marabwa. 
Gumede explained that the comment period on the revised 
Vehicle Emissions Standards (VES) gazetted on January 13 
would end March 14 and that the new standards would be 
promulgated by March 31.  He stated that DME had reviewed all 
available scientific evidence and continued to consult with 
the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the South African 
Bureau of Standards, the Chemical and Allied Industries 
Association, as well as other stakeholders.  None of the 
three DME officials had given any thought to again notifying 
the WTO Secretariat of the revised VES released on January 
13, but did say that they would to look into it. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Acknowledging Afton Chemical's concerns that the new 
VES would exclude its product, MMT, from the unleaded market 
in South Africa (because MMT was relegated to cars equipped 
to take lead replacement gasoline from large nozzles), Mkhize 
explained that the new regulation did "not even once mention 
the nozzle size."  He claimed that "exactly the same standard 
was being applied to "metal containing" and "non metal 
containing" fuel pumps."  As far as nozzle sizes on the pumps 
were concerned, it was up to the industry to decide which 
pumps and nozzles would be used and for what.  The Department 
of Minerals and Energy had no influence on the decision. 
Gumede further explained that DME had looked into it and 
"decided that it was not our battle," since, as far as they 
were concerned, there was clearly no technical regulation 
involved.  He then asked rhetorically, "What in our 
regulations is saying that we are effectively banning MMT?" 
 
¶4. (SBU) Mkhize, who chaired the stakeholders meeting on 
February 8, made a point of adding that Afton Chemical "was 
the only one who showed up (to the stakeholders meeting) with 
lawyers," an act which he clearly viewed as offensive. 
(Comment: Separately, Afton reported a number of 
irregularities inQhe conduct of the day-long stakeholders' 
meeting, including the fact that MMT was not raised until the 
last 30 minutes, although MMT was first on the revised 
agenda.  In addition, in contravention to stated rules of the 
meeting, which was that all stakeholders should be given the 
opportunity to hear comments made by others, one notable 
stakeholder opposing MMT was allowed to refuse comment on its 
submission because Afton had a lawyer present. End Comment.) 
 
¶5. (SBU) On February 27, Econoff met with the Director for 
Market Access Rudolph Brits at the Department of Trade and 
Industry to go over reftel points.  Brits confirmed that 
South Africa had not notified the WTO of the revised Vehicle 
Emissions Standards (VES) released for comment on January 13, 
but argued that South Africa had no obligation to notify the 
WTO since the proposed VES were based on established 
international standards and not formulated domestically.  He 
explained that the VES was based on "Euro 2 Standards" and 
the "Worldwide Fuel Charter," as well as other industry and 
international standards, in addition to consultations with 
motor vehicle manufacturers, etc."  (Comment: Afton claims 
that the Worldwide Fuel Charter is not an international 
standard, but rather a motor industry document that advocates 
an industry position.)  Furthermore, Brits said that the 
proposed VES were in line with the World Summit on 
Sustainable Development.  Brits later commented that while 
many of the refiners were international companies, the 
government would probably endeavor to also consult 
internationally on the VES. 
 
¶6. (SBU) On the role of technical standards supporting the 
VES, Brits said that, for the time being, the technical 
committee at the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) 
 
 
that formulated South African National Standard (SANS) 1598 
on unleaded gasoline, was governed by both DME and DTI. 
(Note: Afton points out that that SANS 1598 is the standard 
referred to in the VES that restricts gasoline containing MMT 
to pumps with nozzles that fit only vehicles designed for 
leaded gasoline -- vehicles being phased out in South 
Africa).  However, since DME possessed the operational 
expertise needed in this instance, Brits said that governance 
of the SABS technical committee on unleaded fuel fell to DME; 
the final decision would be up to them.  He added that in the 
future, governance of all technical committees at SABS may 
fall under DTI, since SABS reported to DTI, but no decision 
had yet been taken. 
TEITELBAUM