Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources
Related Material
[Federal Register: August 4, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 151)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48057-48105]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04au00-25]
[[Page 48057]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 80 and 86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources;
Proposed Rule
[[Page 48058]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 80 and 86
[AMS-FRL-6839-2]
Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A range of compounds known as hazardous air pollutants are
emitted from motor vehicles and fuels and are known or suspected to
have serious health impacts. This document describes EPA's program to
address emissions of hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources. In
this document, we develop a framework to construct a national mobile
source air toxics program and propose additional controls on gasoline
to prevent increases in emissions of benzene. We also describe a plan
to continue to conduct research and analysis on mobile source air
toxics and make a commitment to revisit the issue of mobile source air
toxics controls in a 2004 rulemaking.
More specifically, we look at the various compounds that are
emitted by motor vehicles and identify those compounds that should be
considered Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). Our list of 21 MSATs
includes various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as well as metal
compounds and diesel exhaust. We then evaluate the effectiveness of
current controls in reducing on-highway emissions of these MSATs. Our
analysis shows that the programs we currently have in place or have
recently proposed are expected to yield significant reductions of
mobile source air toxics. Between 1990 and 2020, these programs are
expected to reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-
butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 75 percent or more. In addition, we
expect to see on-highway diesel PM emission reductions of over 90
percent.
We then consider whether there are additional air toxics controls
that should be put in place at this time to further reduce on-highway
MSAT inventories. With regard to fuels-based controls, we are proposing
a gasoline benzene control program that requires refiners to maintain
the current levels of over-compliance with RFG and anti-dumping toxics
requirements. Because the proposed standard for each refinery is the
same as the 1998-1999 average gasoline benzene level for that refinery,
EPA currently anticipates that the proposed standards would impose only
negligible costs, if any. With regard to additional vehicle-based
controls, we conclude that it is not appropriate at this time to
propose more stringent standards than the technology forcing standards
found in our recently adopted Tier 2 and recently proposed HD2007 rule
standards.
Finally, because of our concern about the potential future health
impacts of exposure to the public of air toxics from the remaining
emissions from mobile sources in the future, including emissions from
nonroad equipment and fuels, we propose to continue our toxics-related
research activities, in conjunction with other activities currently
being conducted by the Agency. These include our National Air Toxics
Activities (NATA) and the National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated
Urban Strategy (UATS). Under this strategy, EPA will continue to
improve our understanding of emissions inventories, assessments of
exposure, and the need for and appropriateness of additional mobile
source air toxics controls for on-highway and nonroad sources. Based on
the information developed through this research, EPA is proposing to
conduct a future rulemaking to evaluate whether such additional mobile
source air toxic controls should be adopted. This rulemaking would be
completed no later than 2004.
DATES: Comments: We must receive your written comments on this document
by September 20, 2000.
Hearings: We will hold a public hearing on August 21, 2000, in
Romulus, Michigan. The hearing will begin at 10 am and will continue
until all testifiers have spoken.
ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form and/or
by e-mail. We must receive them by the date indicated under DATES
above. Send paper and/or e-mail copies of written comments (in
duplicate if possible) to the contact person listed below.
Docket: EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking
available for review in Public Docket No. A-2000-12 at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102),
Room M-1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air
Docket by telephone at (202) 260-7548, and by facsimile (202) 260-4400.
We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as
provided in 40 CFR part 2.
Hearings: We will hold a public hearing at the Crowne Plaza
Detroit-Metro Airport Hotel, 8000 Merriman Road, Romulus, Michigan
48174. We request that parties who want to testify at a hearing notify
the contact person listed below ten days before the date of the
hearing. Please see section IX, ``Public Participation'' below for more
information on the comment procedure and public hearings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Connell, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone (734) 214-4349; FAX: (734) 214-4816; E-mail:
connell.carol@epa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
This proposed action would affect you if you produce new motor
vehicles, alter individual imported motor vehicles to address U.S.
regulation, or convert motor vehicles to use alternative fuels. It
would also affect you if you produce, distribute, or sell gasoline
motor fuel.
The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to
follow the proposed regulations. But because these are only examples,
you should carefully examine the proposed and existing regulations in
40 CFR parts 80 and 86. If you have questions, call the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially regulated
Category NAICS codes \1\ SIC codes \2\ entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................. 336111 3711 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.
336112
336120
Industry.............................. 336311 3592 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters.
336312 3714
422720 5172
454312 5984
811198 7549
[[Page 48059]]
541514 8742
541690 8931
Industry.............................. 811112 7533 Commercial Importers of Vehicles and
Vehicle Components.
811198 7549
541514 8742
Industry.............................. 324110 2911 Petroleum Refiners.
Industry.............................. 422710 5171 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.
422720 5172
Industry.............................. 484220 4212 Gasoline Carriers.
484230 4213
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
Access to Rulemaking Documents through the Internet: Today's
document is available electronically on the day of publication from the
Office of the Federal Register Internet Web site listed below.
Electronic copies of the preamble, regulatory language and other
documents associated with today's proposal are available from the EPA
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site listed below shortly
after the rule is signed by the Administrator. This service is free of
charge, except any cost that you already incur for Internet
connectivity.
Federal Register Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/epa-air/
(Either select a desired date or use the Search feature)
Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq
(Look in ``What's New'' or under the specific rulemaking topic)
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.
Outline of this Preamble
I. Introduction
A. Background
B. Brief Overview of Air Toxics
C. Basic Components of Today's Proposal
1. Identification of Mobile Source Air Toxics
2. Assessment of Emission Benefits from Current Standards
3. Consideration of Additional Controls at This Time
4. Technical Analysis Plan and Future Rulemaking
5. Nonroad Air Toxics
D. EPA's Statutory Authority for Proposing Today's Action
E. Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Studies
F. Other Air Toxics Activities
1. Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
2. National Air Toxics Assessment
II. What Are the Mobile Source Air Toxics?
A. Introduction
B. The Methodology Used to Identify Our List of Mobile Source
Air Toxics
1. Identifying Pollutants Emitted From Mobile Sources
2. Using IRIS to Identify Pollutants With Potential Adverse
Health Effects
C. List of Mobile Source Air Toxics
D. How Our List of MSATs Compares to Other Lists or Sources of
Data on Toxics
E. Diesel Health Assessment Document
F. Diesel Exhaust and Diesel Particulate Matter
III. How Are Motor Vehicle Emission Control Programs Reducing MSAT
Emissions?
A. Baseline Inventories
B. Impacts of Motor Vehicle Emission Controls on Emissions
Inventories
1. Description of Emission Control Programs
2. Emission Reductions From Control Programs
C. Summary
IV. Evaluation of Additional Motor Vehicle-based Controls
A. MSATs and Motor Vehicle-based Controls
B. EPA's Motor Vehicle-based Emission Control Program
1. Light-duty Vehicles
2. Heavy-duty Vehicles
C. Feasibility of More Stringent Vehicle-based Standards to
Reduce MSATs
1. Light-duty Vehicles
2. Heavy-duty Vehicles
3. Conclusion
V. Evaluation of Additional Fuel-based Controls
A. What Current Gasoline Programs Control Toxics Emissions?
B. Why Is EPA Focusing on Benzene?
C. Given the Existing Over-compliance, Why Is EPA Considering
Additional Gasoline Benzene Controls?
D. What Type of Gasoline Control Program Is EPA Proposing Today?
E. Will the Proposed Benzene Standards Pre-Empt State Benzene
Controls?
F. What Are the Expected Impacts of EPA's Proposed Program?
G. Determination of the Need for Future Controls Deferred to
Technical Analysis Plan and Future Rulemaking
H. What Are the Details of Today's Proposed Program?
1. Standards and Dates
2. Entities Subject to the Proposed Regulation
3. California Gasoline
4. Proposed Baseline Development and Submittal Requirements
5. Flexibility Provisions
6. Downstream Standards
7. Sampling and Testing
8. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
9. Exemptions for Research, Development, and Testing
10. Liability and Penalty Provisions for Noncompliance
I. Toxics Performance Standard
VI. Nonroad Sources of MSAT Emissions
A. Nonroad MSAT Baseline Inventories
B. Impacts of Current Nonroad Mobile Source Emission Control
Strategies
1. Description of the Emission Control Programs
2. Emission Reductions From Current Programs
C. Gaps in Nonroad Mobile Source Data
D. Summary
VII. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data Gaps and Reopening of
Rulemaking
A. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data Gaps
B. Commitment for Further Rulemaking
VIII. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
B. Public Hearings
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Intergovernmental Relations
1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
2. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
3. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Introduction
A. Background
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments provide a key part of the
foundation for our current national air toxics program. The Act
provides a statutory framework designed to characterize, prioritize,
and address the serious impacts of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) on
the public health and the environment through a strategic combination
of regulatory approaches, partnerships, ongoing research and
assessments, risk initiatives, and education and outreach.
[[Page 48060]]
Since 1990, our national air toxics control program for stationary
sources has consisted primarily of technology-based emissions standards
to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from major stationary
sources, as required in section 112(d) of the Act. These actions have
resulted, or are projected to result, in substantial reductions in HAP
emissions.
Mobile source regulatory actions have also resulted in significant
reductions of air toxics since 1990. In general, these mobile source
air toxic reductions have been achieved through the implementation of
controls put in place primarily to achieve attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter
(PM), and carbon monoxide (CO). For example, hydrocarbon controls for
motor vehicles to reduce ozone formation also reduce emissions of
gaseous air toxics such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.
Mobile source PM controls on diesel engines have considerably reduced
diesel exhaust emissions as well. Additional toxics reductions have
been achieved through fuel controls, including the federal reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program, and through refiner over-compliance with toxics
requirements of our RFG and conventional gasoline programs.
Today's proposal takes our mobile source toxics control program a
step further by considering more specifically the contribution mobile
sources make to national inventories of specific air toxics and by
evaluating the appropriateness of setting additional standards to
reduce contributions from on-highway vehicles. In performing our
analysis of additional controls, we will follow the requirements
specified in section 202(l)(2) of the Act: these motor vehicle or motor
fuel standards must ``reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology which will be
available, taking into consideration the standards established under
[section 202(a)], the availability and costs of the technology, and
noise, energy, and safety factors, and lead time.'' Our program is also
consistent with the National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban
Strategy (also called the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, or UATS) published
July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38706).
With this background, we now turn to an overview of today's
proposal. Section I of this preamble will give you a brief overview of
our proposal and the rationale for proposing it. Subsequent sections
expand on the identification of mobile source air toxics (MSATs), the
impact of current and proposed motor vehicle emission control programs
on MSAT emissions, and the evaluation of additional control programs
for motor vehicles and their fuels. Additional sections deal with the
contribution of nonroad engines to MSAT inventories and our plan to
continue to evaluate MSAT emissions and evaluate the appropriateness of
setting additional air toxics control standards in the future. The
final sections deal with several subjects, including opportunities for
public participation.
B. Brief Overview of Air Toxics
Before proceeding to a summary of today's action, we want to
provide a brief overview of air toxics: what they are, their general
health and environmental effects, and their sources. Today's action
addressing motor vehicle air toxics occurs in the context of extensive
earlier air toxics work, primarily relating to stationary sources of
these pollutants. These topics are discussed in more detail later in
this proposal and in the draft TSD.
What are air toxics?
Air toxics, which are also known as ``hazardous air pollutants'' or
HAPs, are those pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other
serious health or environmental effects. They include pollutants like
benzene found in gasoline, perchloroethylene emitted from dry cleaners,
methylene chloride used as an industrial solvent, heavy metals like
mercury and lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and some
pesticides. While the harmful effects of air toxics are of particular
concern in areas closest to where they are emitted, they can also be
transported and affect other geographic areas. Some can persist for
considerable time in the environment and/or bioaccumulate in the food
chain.
What are the sources of air toxics?
There are literally millions of sources of air toxics, including:
major stationary sources \1\ such as large industrial complexes like
chemical plants, oil refineries and steel mills; small (area)
stationary sources \2\ such as dry cleaners, gas stations, and small
manufacturers; and mobile sources such as cars, trucks, buses, and
nonroad vehicles such as construction and farm equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Major stationary sources are sources that emit, or have the
potential to emit, 10 tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25
tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs.
\2\ Area sources are those stationary sources that are not major
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What health and environmental effects do air toxics cause?
Hazardous air pollutants can cause many ill health effects. Many of
these substances are known or suspected to be human carcinogens. Some
of these chemicals are known to have negative effects on people's
respiratory, neurological, immune, or reproductive systems. Some
chemicals pose particular hazards to people with preexisting illnesses,
or those of a certain age or stage in life, such as children or the
elderly.
What are mobile source air toxics?
We use the term ``mobile source air toxics,'' or ``MSATs,'' to
signify those air toxics are emitted by nonroad engines and motor
vehicles. Section 202(l) of the Act, which addresses controls for
hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels,
does not specify which pollutants are to be evaluated as air toxics,
other than benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene. As a result, the
first thing a mobile source air toxics control program must do is
develop a list of compounds to be addressed. Using the methodology
described in section II of this proposal, we have identified 21 mobile
source air toxics (MSATs), listed in Table I-1 below.
Of our 21 MSATs, thirteen (those marked with an asterisk in Table
I-2) are also included on the list of urban HAPs for the Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (see below). Of the remainder, all but one are
specifically identified in the CAA section 112(b) HAP list. Diesel
exhaust is not included in these other two lists because this pollutant
was not included by Congress in the section 112(b) HAP list and,
consequently, was not included in the group of pollutants that were
considered for inclusion in the urban HAP list. It is, however, a
pollutant that we identified in the UATS as a concern in urban areas.
Table I-1.--List of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde a.............. Diesel Exhaust...... MTBE.
Acrolein a.................. Ethylbenzene........ Naphthalene.
Arsenic compounds a......... Formaldehyde a...... Nickel compounds. a
Benzene a................... n-Hexane............ POM (Sum of 7 PAHs)a
[[Page 48061]]
1,3-Butadiene a............. Lead compounds a.... Styrene.
Chromium compounds a........ Manganese compounds Toluene.
a.
Dioxin/Furans a............. Mercury compounds a. Xylene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Also on the list of urban HAPs for the Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
How are air toxics from mobile sources formed?
Mobile source air toxics come from four sources. First, some air
toxics are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when it
evaporates or passes through the engine as unburned fuel. Benzene, for
example, is a component of gasoline. Cars emit small quantities of
benzene in unburned fuel, or as vapor when gasoline evaporates. Second,
mobile source air toxics are formed through engine combustion
processes. A significant amount of automotive benzene comes from the
incomplete combustion of compounds in gasoline such as toluene and
xylene that are chemically very similar to benzene. Like benzene
itself, these compounds occur naturally in petroleum and become more
concentrated when petroleum is refined to produce high octane gasoline.
Diesel exhaust emissions, as well as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
1,3-butadiene, are also by-products of incomplete combustion. Third,
some compounds, like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, are also formed
through a secondary process when other mobile source pollutants undergo
chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Finally, metal air toxics result
from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. They can also
be present in fuel additives.
What are the Urban HAPs?
The urban HAPs are the 33 compounds that have been identified by
the Agency in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS) \3\ as those HAPs
posing the greatest threat to human health in the largest number of
urban areas. These compounds are a subset of the 188 compounds listed
in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act. The 33 urban HAPs are as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban Strategy;
Notice (64 FR 38706-38740 (19 July 1999)).
Table I-2.--List of Urban HAPs for the Urban Air Toxics Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde Coke oven emissions Mercury compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein.................... 1,2-dibromomethane.. Methylene chloride
(dichloromethane).
Acrylonitrile............... 1,2-dichloropropane Nickel compounds.
(propylene
dichloride).
Arsenic compounds........... 1,3-dichloropropene. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Benzene..................... Ethyl dichloride Polycyclic organic
(1,2- matter (POM).
dichloroethane).
Beryllium compounds......... Ethylene oxide...... Quinoline.
1,3-Butadiene............... Formaldehyde........ 1,2,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxine (and
cogeners and TCDF
cogeners).
Cadmium compounds........... Hexachlorobenzene... 1,2,2,2-
tetrachloroethane.
Carbon tetrachloride........ Hydrazine........... Tetrachloroethylene
(perchloroethylene)
.
Chloroform.................. Lead compounds...... Trichloroethylene.
Chromium compounds.......... Manganese compounds. Vinyl chloride.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Basic Components of Today's Proposal
Many motor vehicle and fuel emission control programs of the past
have reduced air toxics. EPA has recently created or proposed several
programs that further reduce air toxics emissions from a wide variety
of mobile sources. These include our reformulated gasoline (RFG)
program, which has substantially reduced mobile source air toxics in
certain areas of the country, our national low emission vehicle (NLEV)
program, our Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline
sulfur control requirements, and our recently proposed heavy-duty
engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control
requirements. In addition, certain other mobile source control programs
have been specifically aimed at reducing toxics emissions (i.e., our
lead phase-out programs).
While these mobile source standards were put in place primarily to
reduce ozone and particulate matter inventories through VOC and diesel
PM controls, and thereby to help states and localities come into
attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
they have reduced and will continue to reduce on-highway emissions of
gaseous air toxics very significantly.\4\ By 2020, these programs are
expected to reduce 1990 levels of on-highway emissions of benzene by 75
percent, formaldehyde by 87 percent, 1,3-butadiene by 75 percent, and
acetaldehyde by 82 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Included among the numerous chemicals that make up total VOC
emissions--that thus are reduced when VOCs are reduced--are several
gaseous toxics (e.g., benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and
acetaldehyde).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we have issued or proposed regulations to control
diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions from mobile sources,
including the recent light- and heavy-duty vehicle programs mentioned
above. By 2020, we expect to see on-highway diesel PM emission
reductions of 94 percent from 1990 levels.
Nevertheless, there is a continuing public health concern about the
ambient levels of several key air toxics. Today's proposal therefore
contains a plan to address mobile sources of these air toxics. We begin
by considering the different kinds of emissions from motor vehicles and
identifying a list of compounds that should be considered Mobile Source
Air Toxics (MSATs). We then evaluate the effectiveness of current and
proposed controls in reducing on-highway emissions of these MSATs. We
then consider whether there are additional air toxics controls that
should be put in place at this time to reduce on-highway MSAT
inventories even more. Based on this assessment, we are proposing
standards that will require individual refiners to maintain their
current gasoline benzene content levels. Finally, we describe a
[[Page 48062]]
process to conduct research and analysis to continue to assess the need
for and feasibility of additional mobile source air toxics controls. We
are proposing to conduct another rulemaking to be completed by December
2004, based on the additional research and analysis we conduct and any
additional information that becomes available in that timeframe. That
future rulemaking would re-evaluate the various decisions on motor
vehicle and fuel air toxics controls made in this rulemaking.
1. Identification of Mobile Source Air Toxics
There are hundreds of different compounds and elements that are
known to be emitted from passenger cars, on-highway trucks, and various
types of nonroad equipment. Today's action identifies a list of
pollutants known to be emitted from motor vehicles or their fuels and
considered by EPA to pose potential adverse human health risks. This
list is not intended to be a fixed one; additional compounds may be
added to the list, in a future rulemaking, as we learn more about the
pollutants emitted from mobile sources and the health effects of those
pollutants. Similarly, compounds may be removed from the list if new
information on the pollutants emitted by mobile sources or their health
effects supports a different conclusion. Based on the available data,
we are proposing a list of 21 mobile source air toxics (MSATs). We are
requesting comment both on the list we have developed and on our
approach to developing that list.
2. Assessment of Emission Benefits From Current Standards
Once we identified the MSATs, we were able to assess the impact
that current and future mobile source controls will have on national
emissions inventories of these pollutants. Today's action describes how
our current mobile source emission control programs are expected to
reduce these emissions. The very good news is that, by 2020, we expect
existing programs like the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program,
national low emission vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier 2 motor vehicle
emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements (Tier 2),
and our recently proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and
on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements (HD2007 rule), to
significantly reduce on-highway emissions of key air toxics. Between
1990 and 2020, these programs are expected to reduce on-highway
emissions of benzene by 75 percent, formaldehyde by 87 percent, 1,3-
butadiene by 75 percent, and acetaldehyde by 82 percent. In addition,
we expect to see on-highway diesel PM emission reductions of 94
percent.
3. Consideration of Additional Controls at This Time
Although we anticipate substantial reductions in emissions of key
toxic pollutants by 2020, the serious health effects associated with
many of these compounds lead us to evaluate whether additional controls
are appropriate at this time. For the purpose of our analysis, we
divide potential control measures into two broad categories: vehicle-
based controls and fuel-based controls. Vehicle-based controls include
programs that would reduce evaporative and exhaust emissions from
vehicles and engines. Fuel-based controls explore how changing fuel
formulation can reduce air toxic emissions.
The only toxics control program we are proposing today is fuel-
based. Specifically, we are proposing to require refiners and importers
to maintain the gasoline benzene content of the fuel they produce or
import at the current benzene levels of such gasoline for the
foreseeable future. We are also seeking comment on whether additional
volumes of gasoline produced above the volumes produced in a baseline
year should be subject to a different benzene standard. The overall
goal of this program is to ensure that benzene emissions due to
gasoline fuel benzene do not increase above current emission levels.
The details of this program are discussed in section V below, as well
as the various vehicle and fuel controls EPA has considered.
With regard to vehicle-based air toxics controls, EPA believes that
it is not appropriate at this time to propose additional motor vehicle
or fuel based controls under section 202(l)(2), beyond the controls
currently adopted or proposed by the Agency. This is based on
consideration of the technical feasibility, cost, and other factors
relevant to a proposal of further controls at this time. EPA is also
proposing a regulatory provision providing for a future rulemaking that
would determine, based on the information available at that time,
whether additional motor vehicle or fuel controls would be appropriate
under section 202 (l)(2) to control emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from motor vehicles and their fuels. Finally, the rulemaking
would consider the contribution of nonroad engines to emissions of air
toxics and whether controls that reduce these emissions along with
motor vehicle emissions are appropriate under the Act.
4. Technical Analysis Plan and Future Rulemaking
We believe our evaluation to date of the need for, and
appropriateness of, additional mobile source toxics control measures
provides adequate support for today's proposal. At this time, EPA is
also engaged in other toxics-related research activities through the
NATA activities and the UATS described below. This emerging information
will help us in further evaluating potential additional mobile source
air toxics controls in the future.
In light of this ongoing work, we are proposing to conduct a
Technical Analysis Plan as described in section VII below. This Plan
would coordinate work within the Agency in several key areas, including
development of emission factors for nonroad sources, analysis of toxics
exposures in microenvironments, and examination of additional fuel- and
vehicle-based air toxics controls for both motor vehicles and engines
and nonroad engines. This work would be fully coordinated with the new
work with NATA and the UATS. This will allow us to take full advantage
of what is collectively learned and provide a solid basis for future
rulemaking. The results of this research and analysis would form the
basis of a future rulemaking, as discussed below.
5. Nonroad Air Toxics
While section 202(l)(2) of the Act specifies that we set standards
to control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and motor
vehicle fuels, we believe it is also necessary to discuss nonroad
sources in today's proposal, making it a comprehensive mobile source
air toxics program, for two important reasons. First, today's proposal
is intended to be a companion piece to EPA's Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
As described above, the Urban Air Toxics Strategy is intended to
address air toxics inventories in urban areas. Because both on-highway
and nonroad engines contribute to those inventories, it is important to
address both categories in a comprehensive strategy to reduce urban air
toxics. Second, currently available data suggests that nonroad sources
contribute approximately the same amount to national inventories of key
air toxics as on-highway sources. Therefore, a comprehensive control
strategy must include nonroad sources. Section 213 of the Act allows us
to control emissions from those classes or categories of new nonroad
engines that cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger
[[Page 48063]]
public health or welfare. To the extent emissions of MSAT from these
engines is found to cause or contribute to air pollution problems, EPA
may decide to adopt further nonroad controls in the future, as
specified in section 213 of the Act.
At the same time, while we are including nonroad sources in our
discussions of inventory impacts and expected reductions from current
nonroad emission control strategies, we are not proposing new emission
control standards for these engines in this proposal. This is because
we are lacking relevant data that are required to assess the
appropriateness of additional MSAT controls. These include speciation
data for some categories of nonroad engines, geographic dispersion of
emissions, and information, including cost information, about
technologies that can reduce these emissions further. Our Technical
Analysis Plan, described below, would help us obtain the data we need
to consider and in the future evaluate whether additional nonroad air
toxics controls are needed and appropriate.
D. EPA's Statutory Authority for Proposing Today's Action
We are proposing today's action under the authority of section
202(l) of the Clean Air Act. The gasoline benzene standards in today's
action are proposed under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act.
Section 202(l) of the Act consists of two parts. Section 202(l)(1)
calls on EPA to study the need for and feasibility of controlling toxic
air pollutants associated with motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels.
That study is to focus on those categories of emissions that pose the
greatest risk to human health or about which significant uncertainties
remain. The Act specifies that, at a minimum, the study focus on
emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
Section 202(l)(2) instructs us to set standards to control
hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, or
both. These standards, which may be revised from time to time, are to
reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through
the application of technology which will be available, taking into
consideration the motor vehicle standards established under section
202(a) of the Act, the availability and cost of the technology, and
noise, energy and safety factors, and lead time. The regulations are to
apply, at a minimum, to benzene and formaldehyde emissions.
We completed the study required under section 202(l)(1) in April
1993. The report, entitled ``Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study,''
is available on our website (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm).
Specific pollutants or pollutant categories discussed in this report
include benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, diesel
particulate, gasoline particulate, gasoline vapors, and selected
metals. The emissions and exposure aspects of this report were recently
updated in November 1999 for several of the air toxics covered in the
1993 study. That report, entitled ``Analysis of the Impacts of Control
Programs on Motor Vehicle Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas
and Nationwide,'' is also available on our website, and is described in
more detail in section I.E., below. We sought peer review comments on
both the 1993 and 1999 studies. We considered the 1993 comments in
developing the 1999 document and will consider the 1999 comments in
developing our future activities (e.g., in the development of version 4
of the Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure Model, HAPEM4).
Today's action is pursuant to section 202(l)(2). In this action, we
identify a list of MSATs and discuss the impacts of existing mobile
source emission control programs on their emissions. In a separate
rulemaking, the HD2007 rule, we are proposing stringent emission
standards that would lead to significant reductions of the gaseous and
PM components in diesel exhaust emissions. In today's proposal, we are
proposing standards to maintain the benzene content of gasoline fuel at
1998-1999 levels for volumes produced in that time period. We are also
seeking comment on whether additional volumes of gasoline produced
above the volumes produced in a baseline year should be subject to a
different benzene standard.
Today's proposal is based on all the information EPA has available
at this time. EPA recognizes that there are various gaps in the data,
and that further analysis and evaluation would be useful in evaluating
the appropriateness of and need for additional future controls on motor
vehicles or their fuels. Given the important contribution of mobile
sources to the national inventory of air toxics, we are proposing a
plan to conduct this additional work in the near future. The results of
this additional research would form the basis for a future rulemaking
to re-evaluate the question of whether additional controls on motor
vehicles and nonroad engines or their fuels are appropriate under the
Act based on all of the information available to the Agency at that
time.
E. Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Studies
In 1993, EPA released a study of motor vehicle-related air toxics
in compliance with section 202(l)(1) of the Clean Air Act.\5\ The study
provided estimates of motor vehicle emissions of several pollutants
believed to pose the greatest risk to public health. Using these
estimates of emissions, the study modeled the exposure and risk
attributable to motor vehicle emissions and projected emissions,
exposures, and risk for the year 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA, 1993. Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study. Report
No. EPA 420-R-93-005. This report can be accessed at http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peer review of this study was completed in 1994.\6\ The comments
from the peer review included suggestions for improving EPA's exposure
modeling and risk assessment methodology. In response to these
comments, EPA updated its exposure model for motor vehicle-related air
toxics. Also, since 1993, significant new information on vehicle
emission rates has been developed as part of the Auto/Oil program, the
development of the Complex Model for reformulated gasoline, CARB test
programs, and other sources, and much more is known about the impact of
fuel properties on toxic emissions. Furthermore, EPA has developed new
programs, such as the NLEV and Tier 2 standards, which have significant
effects on projections of toxic emissions and exposure. Finally, EPA
has released an updated cancer risk assessment for benzene, a draft
reassessment for 1,3-butadiene, and a draft assessment for diesel
exhaust emissions.7, 8, 9,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Peer review comments on the 1993 study can be accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm.
\7\ EPA 1998. Environmental Protection Agency, Carcinogenic
Effects of Benzene: An Update, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. 1998. This report can be accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/benzene.htm.
\8\ EPA 1998. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Risk
Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene. EPA/600/P-98/001A, February 1998. This
report can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/butadiene.htm.
\9\ EPA 1999. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions:
SAB Review Draft. EPA/600/8-90/057D Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. The document is available
electronically at www.epa.gov/ncea/diesel.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of all of this new information that has been developed
since 1993, and in response to peer review comments, EPA has updated
the estimates of emissions and exposure contained in
[[Page 48064]]
the 1993 study.\10\ The Agency is making further efforts to improve its
understanding of toxic emissions, exposure, and risk associated with
on-highway vehicles, nonroad equipment, and other sources as part of
the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) process discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor
Vehicles Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide
(Volumes 1 and 2), November 1999. EPA420-R-99-029/030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above air toxics studies, there are limitations in how
ranges of exposures are modeled or characterized. For instance, the
screening models the Agency has used do not consider ``hotspots'' for
elevated air toxics concentrations. For this reason, EPA has not been
able to conduct a complete exposure assessment. The Agency also needs
to do more work on considering the costs and performance levels of
pollution controls on air toxics. These activities would be included in
the proposed Technical Analysis Plan discussed later in this preamble.
F. Other Air Toxics Activities
As we developed and prepared today's mobile source air toxics
program, we worked in the context of two other important activities
that are ongoing at the Agency. These are EPA's Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (UATS) development and the National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) activities. Because these two programs are also
important parts of our efforts to reduce toxic emissions from all
sources, this section contains a brief summary of their key components.
Interested readers are encouraged to visit EPA's Toxics website for
more information about these programs (www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm).
1. Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
EPA's Urban Air Toxics Strategy (the UATS) focuses on reducing the
human health threats of air toxics in urban areas. In urban areas,
toxic air pollutants raise special concerns because sources of
emissions and people are concentrated in the same geographic areas,
leading to large numbers of people being exposed to the emissions of
many HAPs from many sources. In the UATS, EPA outlines future actions
that we plan to take to reduce emissions of air toxics and improve our
understanding of the health threats posed by air toxics in urban areas.
The over-arching goal for the UATS is to reduce cancer and noncancer
risks associated with air toxics in urban areas. Also, because air
toxics in urban areas may threaten the health of some people more than
others, depending on factors such as where they live in relation to
toxic sources, we intend to characterize exposure and risk
distributions both geographically and demographically. This will
include particular emphasis on highly exposed individuals (such as
those in geographic hot spots) and specific population subgroups (e.g.,
children, the elderly, and low-income communities).
The overall UATS goals are: (1) To reduce by 75 percent from 1990
levels the risk of cancer associated with air toxics from stationary
sources (both large and small commercial and industrial sources); (2)
to substantially reduce the noncancer health effects (e.g., birth
defects and reproductive effects) associated with air toxics from small
commercial and industrial sources; and (3) to address disproportionate
impacts in certain areas (e.g., highly-exposed individuals in toxics
``hot spots'') or experienced by certain populations (e.g., children,
the elderly, or minority and low-income communities).
As a first step in the UATS, EPA identified 33 of the 188 Section
112(b) toxic air pollutants that EPA concluded pose the greatest threat
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (see Table I-2,
above). It should be noted that while diesel exhaust emissions are not
included as a specific pollutant in the list of 33 urban HAPs, many of
the hazardous constituents of diesel exhaust emissions are included
among them, and it is a pollutant that we identified in the UATS as a
concern in urban areas.
The UATS outlines several steps that EPA will take to reduce urban
air toxics and address risks, and as a part of the UATS, EPA has
prepared an Action Plan. The key components of the Action Plan are as
follows:
Achieve reductions through regulatory actions and related
projects. The strategy presents a framework for reducing air toxic
emissions from all types of sources found in urban areas, including
mobile sources, major industrial sources, and smaller stationary
sources. Today's proposal contains mobile source-specific toxics
regulations. We are also developing programs to reduce emissions from
several area source categories (i.e., smaller commercial and industrial
operations), and plan to complete regulations to address the new 13
sources identified in the UATS by 2004. Regulations are already under
development or exist for the 16 other area source categories listed in
the UATS.
Collaborate with interested parties. We are working with
state, local, and tribal agencies, environmental groups, environmental
justice communities, and affected industries, including small
businesses, to assure that any actions under the UATS are responsive to
health concerns while promoting fairness, encouraging urban
redevelopment, and minimizing regulatory burdens.
Education and outreach efforts. We will make an effort to
inform stakeholders about the UATS and get their input into designing
programs to implement it.
2. National Air Toxics Assessment
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) activities are an important
component of the UATS and EPA's overall goal of reducing exposure to
air toxics. These assessment activities include air toxics monitoring,
emissions inventory development, exposure modeling, research
activities, and risk assessment. Over time, these activities will help
us set program priorities, characterize risks, and track progress
toward reducing exposure to air toxics. Specifically, our current NATA
activities include expanding air toxics monitoring, improving and
periodically updating emissions inventories, periodically conducting
national- and local-scale air quality, multimedia and exposure
modeling, characterizing risks associated with air toxics exposures,
and continued research on health and environmental effects and
exposures to both ambient and indoor sources of air toxics.
As part of these NATA activities, EPA is now conducting an initial
national screening-level assessment to demonstrate our approach to
characterizing air toxics risks nationwide. This initial screening-
level assessment will help to characterize the potential health risks
associated with inhalation exposures to the 33 urban HAPs and diesel
exhaust emissions.\11\ While such a broad-scale assessment is
necessarily limited in the scope of the risks that it can assess
quantitatively, and by the uncertainties inherent in the various types
of data and methods currently available, it represents an important
step in characterizing air toxics risks nationwide. Our initial
national, screening-level air toxics assessment includes four major
steps:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For an explanation of the connection between diesel
exhaust, which is one of our MSATs, and diesel PM, see section II.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compiling a national emissions inventory of 1996 air
toxics emissions from outdoor sources of air toxics emissions.
[[Page 48065]]
Estimating 1996 air toxics ambient concentrations across
the continental United States (and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands)
for the 33 urban HAPs and diesel PM.
--Model evaluation comparing ambient concentrations with available
monitored values.
Estimating 1996 population exposures across the
continental United States (and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) to
the 33 urban HAPs and diesel PM.
Characterizing potential public health risks due to
inhalation of these 33 urban HAPs.
In describing what NATA will include, it is also important to note
the potentially important sources and pathways of risks to public
health that are beyond the scope of this quantitative assessment. For
example, while we recognize that indoor sources of air toxics emissions
likely contribute substantially to the total exposures that people
experience for a number of these HAPs, assessing these indoor sources
of exposure cannot be done on a national scale at this time. Further,
for a subset of these HAPs (i.e., those that persist and bioaccumulate
in the environment), dietary exposures (e.g., eating contaminated fish)
likely contribute much more to the total risk associated with exposure
to these pollutants than do the inhalation exposures that will be
addressed in this assessment. These and other important aspects of
total population exposures to air toxics will be addressed more fully
over time as part of our NATA activities as more comprehensive data and
assessment tools become available.
Additionally, NATA activities include other key activities that
will support further risk characterizations on the local and national
level in the future. These include:
Developing and implementing a plan to characterize the
concentrations of ambient air toxics through an expanded monitoring
network. Data from existing state and local air monitoring programs
will be compiled to summarize our current knowledge about ambient
concentrations of air toxics. Existing ambient air toxics monitoring
data will be compiled and summarized and then used as a ``reality
check'' on model output.
Improving existing monitoring networks, guided by data
analysis and model predictions, to improve the collection of ambient
concentration data for future model evaluations. As the monitoring
program matures, trend sites will be established to assess the
effectiveness of all of our air toxics control programs.
Evaluating air toxics on a more local scale (e.g., an
urban area) using more refined air quality modeling tools that factor
in specific local information such as terrain (e.g., mountainous or
flat) and local weather patterns. The results of national and local-
scale modeling can be compared to provide a more complete context for
the evaluation of air toxics.
Comparing air toxics inventories from 1990 and 1996 on a
toxicity-weighted basis to help inform future assessments of progress
toward meeting the risk reduction goals.
Recommending tools to state, local and tribal regulatory
agencies for evaluating air toxics concentrations, exposures and risk.
This will include a comparison of the results from national-scale
models to those from more local-scale models.
While there continue to be significant uncertainties and gaps in
methods, models, and data that limit our ability to assess risks to
public health and the environment associated with exposures to air
toxics, continued research will enable future assessment activities,
both at the national screening-level and at more local refined levels,
to yield improved assessments of cumulative air toxics risks.
II. What Are the Mobile Source Air Toxics?
A. Introduction
There are hundreds of different compounds and elements that are
known to be emitted from passenger cars, on-highway trucks, and various
nonroad equipment. Several of these compounds may have adverse effects
on human health and welfare. In recognition of this fact, Congress
instructed EPA, in section 202(l)(2) of the Act, to set emission
control standards for hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and
their fuels. Except for benzene and formaldehyde (specifically
mentioned in 202(l)(2)), the Act does not specify the compounds that
should be included in such a control program. Therefore, the first step
in developing a mobile source air toxics control program is to identify
the compounds that should be treated as hazardous air pollutants for
purpose of section 202(l)(2). Since EPA data suggests that nonroad
engines and vehicles emit the same pollutants, EPA will identify this
list as a list of mobile source air toxics (MSATs).\12\ EPA has used
the methodology described below to develop this list of MSATs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We have chosen to call our list of toxics a mobile sources
list to acknowledge that nonroad sources may also contribute
emissions of these pollutants. For purposes of section 202(l)(2),
each of the MSATs would be considered a ``hazardous air pollutant
from motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Methodology Used To Identify Our List of Mobile Source Air
Toxics
EPA developed the list of MSATs by first compiling all available
recent (i.e., less than 10 years old) studies which speciated emissions
from motor vehicles and their fuels. We then compared the list of
compounds in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database
to the speciated lists of compounds in these studies. IRIS is a
database of compounds that identifies EPA's consensus scientific
judgment on the characterization of the potential adverse health
effects that may result from a lifetime or acute exposure to various
substance. IRIS may also indicate that based on the current data a
compound can be found to have ``evidence of noncarcinogenicity'' i.e.,
the compound does not cause cancer.
By comparing the list of compounds in IRIS to these emission
speciation studies, we generated a list of 21 compounds. An evaluation
of the potential for adverse health effects reflected in IRIS and in
the ongoing agency scientific assessments of these compounds indicates
that the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to these
compounds warrants inclusion as a MSAT.
It is important to note that inclusion on the list is not itself a
determination by EPA that emissions of the compound in fact present a
risk to public health or welfare, or that it is appropriate to adopt
controls to limit the emissions of such a compound from motor vehicles
or their fuels. The purpose of the list is more as a screening tool--it
identifies those compounds emitted from motor vehicles or their fuels,
and where the available information about their potential for adverse
health or welfare effects indicates that further evaluation of
emissions controls is appropriate. In conducting any such further
evaluation, pursuant to sections 202(a) or 211(c) of the Act, EPA would
consider whether emissions of the compound cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public
health or welfare. Such an evaluation would also consider the
appropriate level of any controls, based on the criteria established in
section 202(l)(2). Inclusion of a compound on the MSAT list does not
decide these issues, but instead identifies those compounds for which
such an
[[Page 48066]]
evaluation would appear to be warranted.
EPA also compared its universe of known compounds emitted from
motor vehicles against other lists or sources of information on toxic
substances, and did not identify any additional substance that we
believe should be listed at this time. EPA believes this process allows
for re-evaluation of the MSAT list in the future, as information is
learned about additional compounds or new information is learned about
the 21 compounds. Compounds may be added to or removed from the list in
a rulemaking.
EPA invites comment on an alternative listing approach whereby any
compound emitted from motor vehicles or their fuels that is listed
under section 112(b) would be considered a MSAT. Additional compounds
not on the section 112(b) list, such as diesel exhaust, would be
considered a MSAT where EPA has sufficient scientific evidence, such as
an EPA health assessment or similar analysis, indicating a potential
for adverse effects on public health or welfare that would warrant
inclusion on the list.
1. Identifying Pollutants Emitted From Mobile Sources
In identifying a list of MSAT, EPA first compiled all available
recent studies which speciated emissions from motor vehicles and their
fuels. To do this, EPA reviewed a number of databases that contain
information on the various species of compounds emitted from motor
vehicles and their fuels. It is difficult to get a precise picture of
these emissions due to the variety and number of databases in the
literature. This is particularly true for hydrocarbon (HC) speciation
databases. Most toxic air pollutants are hydrocarbons by their chemical
nature and thus will be detected only if the HCs are chemically
separated and identified (speciated). Many test programs that
characterize vehicle emissions identify only total hydrocarbons (THC)
without separating out the individual species of hydrocarbons and many
use different test methods. The issue is further complicated by the
limited availability of these databases for certain vehicle classes.
We have recent (less than ten years old) speciation profiles for
emissions from light-duty gas vehicles (LDGV), heavy-duty diesel
vehicles (HDDV), heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGV), gasoline powered
nonroad engines, and turbine engine aircraft.\13\ Data for other
vehicle and engine types (e.g., light-duty diesel engines and nonroad
diesel engines) either do not exist or are outdated (more than 10 years
old) and thus are judged not to be representative of current emissions.
However, it is unlikely that the lack of recent data for these vehicle
and engine types would result in the absence of compounds from the
list, since the combustion process is similar to vehicle and engine
types for which we do have data. Forty-four speciation studies were
found that met this age criteria. All of these speciation profiles
attempt to accomplish more or less the same objective: separating and
identifying the compounds that comprise the hydrocarbon portion and
particulate phase of mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See appendix I, chapter 2 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to alternative-fueled vehicles, most of the compounds
included in their exhaust are included on our list of MSATs (e.g.,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde). It should be noted that, depending on
their fuel, these vehicles may also emit unburned ethanol and methanol,
which were not included in our speciation data.
Low level ethanol mixtures (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline) are
widely used in the United States. Higher level ethanol mixtures (e.g.,
85% ethanol) are used as alternative fuel sources in a small number of
flexible fuel vehicles. However, there is a paucity of data on
potential inhalation effects of ethanol, and the compound is not listed
in IRIS. Thus it is not included on the list of MSATs. EPA requests
comment on whether it should be included.
Methanol is also a promising alternative fuel for motor vehicles,
and a small number of flexible fuel vehicles operate on a methanol
mixture (e.g., 85% methanol). Inhalation of methanol at high
concentrations (greater than 1000 ppm) has caused birth defects in rats
and mice and at low levels can cause symptoms such as eye irritation,
headaches, dizziness, and nausea. Methanol is highly toxic by oral
exposure routes and is listed in IRIS. Because of the small numbers of
vehicles using methanol currently in use, EPA requests comment on
whether this compound should also be included in our MSAT list.
EPA requests comment on our list of compounds associated with motor
vehicles and their fuels provided here.
2. Using IRIS To Identify Pollutants With Potential Adverse Health
Effects
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an EPA database of
scientific information that contains the Agency consensus scientific
positions on potential adverse health effects that may result from
lifetime (chronic) or short-term (acute) exposure to various substances
found in the environment.\14\ IRIS currently provides health effects
information on over 500 specific chemical compounds. The information
contained in the IRIS database includes an EPA finding for each
compound that: (1) there is a health hazard, either cancer or
noncancer, associated with exposure to the compound, (2) the compound
is noncarcinogenic based on current data, or (3) the data is
insufficient to determine if the compound is a hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA IRIS Database, http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris/
index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of qualitative and
quantitative health information. IRIS information may include the
reference dose (RfD) for noncancer health effects resulting from oral
exposure, the reference concentration (RfC) for noncancer health
effects resulting from inhalation exposure, and the carcinogen
assessment for both oral and inhalation exposure. Combined with
information on specific exposure situations, the summary health hazard
information in IRIS may be used in evaluating potential public health
risks from environmental contaminants.
Before a substance is listed on the IRIS database, it goes through
a thorough scientific evaluation. This consensus and review process,
managed by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), consists of
(1) an annual Federal Register announcement of the IRIS agenda and a
call for scientific information from the public on the selected
chemical substances, (2) a search of the current literature, (3)
development of health assessment and draft IRIS summaries, (4) internal
EPA peer review, (5) external peer review, (6) Agency consensus review
and management approval within EPA, (7) preparation of final IRIS
summaries and supporting documents, and (8) entry of summaries and
supporting documents into the IRIS database.
C. List of Mobile Source Air Toxics
By comparing the list of compounds in IRIS to the motor vehicle
emissions identified in the speciation studies, we identified 21 MSAT.
This list is set out in Table II-1. Each of these pollutants are known,
probable, or possible human carcinogens (Group A, B or C) or were
considered by the Agency to pose a risk
[[Page 48067]]
of adverse noncancer health effects.\15\ EPA requests comment on the
appropriateness of the compounds on the list of compounds associated
with motor vehicles and their fuels provided here as well as the need
to consider other hazardous or toxic air pollutants for inclusion on
the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A further discussion of the potential cancer and noncancer
risks, and other dose-response information for each MSAT can be
found in chapter 3 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to identify the specific form of metals being
emitted in motor vehicle exhaust because the databases only report the
total amount of metal compound identified. As a result, we have chosen
to list the entire group of metal compounds if any compound of the
metal has been detected in motor vehicle exhaust and any compound of
the metal is listed in IRIS as potentially causing adverse human health
effects. For example, if we assume most chromium (Cr) emissions for
mobile sources are unidentified as to the species, we would present the
emissions as total chromium and not attempt to allocate these emissions
because of the lack of accurate metal speciation information in most
cases. When we assess the range of potential health impacts associated
with exposure to chromium compounds, we consider the health effects
associated with each compound for which we have information. For
chromium, the most toxic form in IRIS is Cr+6; hence the health impacts
described for chromium compounds include these most serious effects
even though it is highly unlikely that all motor vehicle emissions are
Cr+6. EPA believes this listing approach is a reasonable, health-
protective way to handle the uncertainty surrounding motor vehicle
emissions of metals. We also recognize that this is not an appropriate
methodology for assessing the actual health risks of the entire group
of metal compounds emitted from motor vehicles.
Table II-1.--Proposed List of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde................ Diesel Exhaust...... MTBE.\c\
Acrolein.................... Ethylbenzene........ Naphthalene.
Arsenic Compound \a\........ Formaldehyde........ Nickel Compounds.\a\
Benzenen.................... n-Hexane............ POM.\d\
1,3-Butadiene............... Lead Compounds \a\.. Styrene.
Chromium Compounds \a\...... Manganese Compounds Toluene.
\a\.
Dioxin/Furans \b\........... Mercury Compounds Xylene.
\a\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Although the different species of the same metal differ in their
toxicity, the onroad mobile source inventory contains emissions
estimates for total compounds of the metal identified in particulate
speciation profiles (i.e., the sum of all forms).
\b\ This entry refers to two large groups of chlorinated compounds. In
assessing their cancer risks, their quantitative potencies are usually
derived from that of the most toxic, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin.
\c\ MTBE is listed due to its potential inhalation air toxics effects
and not due to ingestion exposure associated with drinking water
contamination.
\d\ Polycyclic Organic Matter includes organic compounds with more than
one benzene ring, and which have a boiling point greater than or equal
to 100 degrees centigrade. A group of seven polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, which have been identified by EPA as probable human
carcinogens (benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, 7,12-
dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) are sometimes
used as a surrogate for the larger group of POM compounds.
D. How Our List of MSATs Compares to Other Lists or Sources of Data on
Toxics
There are other sources that provide information characterizing the
cancer and noncancer health effects associated with exposure to air
toxics. In identifying our MSAT list we relied upon the health effects
data from the EPA IRIS database because it represents EPA's scientific
consensus opinion on the health effects associated with exposure to
various pollutants.
We also compared our emissions speciation data to four other lists
of toxic air pollutants to confirm that our MSAT list is reasonable.
The four lists of toxic air pollutants are: the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 112(b) list of hazardous air pollutants; California EPA
(CalEPA) list of toxic air contaminants (TAC); U.S. Department of
Health and Human Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) list of Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs); and International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monographs on cancer.
Comparing these four lists against the emissions speciation
studies, we identified two additional compounds not included on our
list of 21 MSAT `` propionaldehyde and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane. Both the
Cal EPA TAC list and the CAA section 112(b) HAP list contain these
compounds.
At this time EPA is not including propionaldehyde or 2,2,4-
trimethylpentane in the list of MSATs because EPA has not drawn a
conclusion on the potential adverse health effects associated with
exposure to these pollutants. We request comment on whether these two
compounds should be included on our MSAT list and, if so, why. Comments
should include scientific information on the potential health effects
of these pollutants.
E. Diesel Health Assessment Document
One of the key features of today's program is that we are proposing
to designate diesel exhaust as a mobile source air toxic. The following
paragraphs describe the most current information regarding the EPA's
assessment of the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust and
provide information regarding actions by other agencies to evaluate the
hazard associated with exposure to diesel exhaust.
EPA determined a reference concentration in 1993 to minimize
noncancer health effects resulting from exposure to diesel exhaust. EPA
has summarized available information to characterize the cancer and
noncancer health effects from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions in
the draft Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions (the
Assessment). This information is also presented in the TSD.
The key components of the current draft Assessment are: (1)
information about the chemical components of diesel exhaust and how
they can influence toxicity, (2) the cancer and noncancer health
effects of concern for humans, and (3) the possible impact or risk to
an exposed human population. EPA is currently revising the Assessment
based on a February 2000 review by the Agency's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). A revised
Assessment is expected to be available for peer review and public
comment in late July 2000. The Assessment will be reviewed by
[[Page 48068]]
CASAC late in 2000. The updated Assessment will inform the Technical
Analysis Plan described in today's proposed program.
The proposed finding in EPA's draft Health Assessment Document,
under review by CASAC, is that diesel exhaust is a likely human
carcinogen in the lung at environmental levels of exposure and that
exposure to diesel exhaust can pose a noncancer health hazard.
The concern for the cancer and noncancer health hazard resulting
from diesel exhaust exposure is widespread. Several national and
international agencies have designated diesel exhaust or diesel
particulate matter as a ``potential'' or ``probable'' human carcinogen.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers diesel
exhaust ``probably carcinogenic to humans''. Based on IARC findings,
the State of California identified diesel exhaust in 1990 as a chemical
known to the State to cause cancer and has listed diesel PM as a toxic
air contaminant. The National Institutes for Occupational Safety and
Health has classified diesel exhaust a ``potential occupational
carcinogen.'' The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
recently designated diesel exhaust particulates as ``reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen'' in its Ninth Report on
Carcinogens.
F. Diesel Exhaust and Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel exhaust include gaseous and particulate components. Gaseous
components of diesel exhaust include organic compounds, nitrogen-
containing compounds, sulfur compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and excess air (nitrogen and oxygen). Among these
gaseous organic compounds are benzene (a known human carcinogen),
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene (possible or probable
human carcinogens). Particulate components include many organic
compounds that are mutagenic as well as several trace metals (including
chromium, manganese, mercury and nickel) that may have general
toxicological significance (depending on the specific species). In
addition, small amounts of dioxins have been measured in diesel
exhaust, some of which may partition to the particle phase.
Because diesel exhaust is a mixture of particles and gases, the
choice of a measure of exposure (i.e., dosimeter) is important. EPA
believes that exposure to whole diesel exhaust is best described, as
many researchers have done over the years, by diesel particulate
concentrations expressed in units of mass concentration (e.g.,
g/m\3\). The choice of this dosimeter implies that the
contribution of the gaseous components and diesel particulate
constituents to toxicity are related by diesel particulate mass. This
assumption is consistent with historic practice, but can only be
validated when there is a better understanding of the toxicological
mode of action for diesel exhaust.
While some of the cancer and noncancer hazard may be associated
with exposure to the gaseous component of diesel exhaust, studies
suggest that the particulate component plays a substantial role in
carcinogenicity and noncancer effects. Investigations show that diesel
particles (the elemental carbon core plus the adsorbed organics) induce
lung cancer at high doses and that the particles, independent of the
gaseous compounds, elicit an animal lung cancer response. The presence
of non-diesel elemental carbon particles, as well as the organic-laden
diesel particles, correlate with an adverse inflammatory effect in the
respiratory system of animals. Additional evidence suggesting the
importance of the role of particulate matter in diesel exhaust includes
the observation that the extractable particle organics collectively
produce cancer and adverse mutagenic toxicity in laboratory
experiments.
Given the available information, we are proposing to list diesel
exhaust as a mobile source air toxic pollutant. We invite scientific
and policy rationales for listing only the particulate component of
diesel exhaust as an MSAT.
III. How Are Motor Vehicle Emission Control Programs Reducing MSAT
Emissions?
In the previous section we identified the 21 MSATs. We now turn to
an evaluation of the impact of existing and planned controls on
inventories of those air toxics by examining the emissions inventories
and estimated reductions expected to be achieved by our various mobile
source control programs.
The data and information available on emissions of these 21 MSATs
vary considerably. While we have baseline inventory data for all of the
MSATs except napthalene, we do not have inventory projections for all
of them. Therefore, we are examining the projected impacts of our
current and proposed mobile source control program by groupings of air
toxics. More specifically, we have projections of future emissions for
five gaseous toxics (benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene,
acetaldehyde, MTBE) and for diesel PM \16\ and we present these in this
section. However, we do not have emissions projections for the
remaining gaseous toxics (acrolein, POM, styrene, toluene, xylene,
ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and n-hexane), but because these compounds
are part of VOCs, we believe it is reasonable to utilize VOC emissions
inventory projections to track the expected impact of our control
programs on these other gaseous MSATs. Finally, we also do not have
emissions inventory projections for the metals on the MSAT list
(arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, mercury compounds, nickel
compounds, manganese compounds, and lead compounds) or for dioxins/
furans. While metal emissions and dioxin/furans emissions are
associated with particles, and it is possible that they track PM
emissions to some extent, we do not have good data on these
relationships. Therefore, we are not presenting emission projections
for these compounds in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In this notice the emissions inventory for diesel exhaust
is looked at in terms of diesel PM, as that is what we have measured
to date. Thus, even though we are proposing to list diesel exhaust
as an MSAT, all emissions inventory and trends numbers are stated in
terms of diesel PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we describe in the following discussion, there have been and
will continue to be significant reductions in MSAT emissions as a
result of implemented, promulgated, and proposed regulations. By 2020,
we project on-highway emissions of gaseous toxics such as benzene,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde, to decrease by 75
percent or more from 1990 levels as a result of our mobile source
control programs up to and including our Tier 2 control program and our
recently proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and on-
highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements (HD2007 rule). Under
these current and proposed controls we expect on-highway diesel PM
emissions to be reduced by more than 90 percent by 2020, as compared
with 1990 levels. Nonroad engines and equipment also contribute
substantially to levels of MSAT emissions and have only in recent years
been subject to emission standards. Since nonroad engines are not
subject to the same stringent controls as on-highway vehicles, the
reductions from these sources are more moderate than those for on-
highway sources.
The discussion in this section consists of two parts. First, we
describe current inventories of MSAT emissions. Next, we describe how
our on-highway emission control programs will reduce them. Interested
readers should refer to
[[Page 48069]]
chapter 4 of our Technical Support Document for more detailed
information about the methodology we used to compile these inventories
and the results of our analysis. We consider the impacts of our nonroad
engine control programs on MSAT emissions in section VI of this
preamble.
A. Baseline Inventories
We developed inventory estimates for several gaseous MSATs
(acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, MTBE) and also for
diesel PM as part of the 1999 study, ``Analysis of the Impacts of
Control Programs on Motor Vehicle Toxic Emissions and Exposure in Urban
Areas and Nationwide,'' described in Section I.E, above (hereafter
referred to as the 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study, or the 1999
Study).\17\ We addressed these five gaseous MSATs and diesel PM because
we had detailed information on the emission impacts of emission control
technologies, fuel properties, and other parameters for these
compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor
Vehicles Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide
(Volumes 1 and 2), November 1999. EPA420-R-99-029/030. This report
can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study provides 1990 and 1996
estimates of emissions for these compounds. The 1990 baseline
represents estimated emissions before any of the programs added by the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were implemented. The 1996 estimates
reflect toxics emissions with some of the new Clean Air Act programs in
place, such as Phase 1 of the RFG program. We present emission
estimates for these years in Table III-1. Note that since completion of
the Study, we have updated our estimates of diesel PM emissions; these
updated estimates are presented in Table III-1. It should also be noted
that these estimates are only for on-highway vehicles.
Table III-1.--Annual Emission Summary for the Total U.S. for Selected
Air Pollutants, On-Highway Vehicles Only
[Short tons \a\ per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990
Compound baseline 1996
emissions emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,3-butadiene................................. 36,000 22,000
Acetaldehyde.................................. 41,000 27,000
Benzene....................................... 257,000 165,000
Formaldehyde.................................. 139,000 80,000
Diesel PM \b\................................. 235,000 180,000
MTBE.......................................... 55,000 65,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ In this notice we report emissions in terms of short tons as opposed
to metric tons. One short ton is 2,000 pounds. To convert to metric
tons, multiply short tons by 0.9072. Note that all emissions and
percentages in this and subsequent tables are rounded.
\b\ The 1996 diesel PM estimate is based on the Tier 2 rulemaking
inventories, updated to reflect the Updated Tier 2 Emissions Inventory
for light-duty diesel exhaust and the proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine
rule for heavy-duty diesel exhaust. For 1990, we used estimates from
EPA's Trends Report for that year, as described below.
The 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI) prepared in connection
with the Agency's NATA \18,\ \19\ activities, described above, also
contains emission estimates for 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene,
formaldehyde and MTBE. The 1996 NTI emission estimates for these
compounds differ slightly from those generated in the 1999 Study, due
largely to revisions made to the NTI based on state comments. Since
diesel exhaust are not included on the list of 112(b) hazardous
pollutants, which is the focus of the 1996 NTI, diesel PM estimates
have not been compiled there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\-
\19\ [Reserved].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI) prepared in connection
with the Agency's NATA activities, described above, also contains
emission estimates for 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene,
formaldehyde and MTBE. The 1996 NTI emission estimates for these
compounds differ slightly from those generated in the 1999 Study, due
largely to revisions made to the NTI based on state comments. Since
diesel exhaust are not included on the list of 112(b) hazardous
pollutants, which is the focus of the 1996 NTI, diesel PM estimates
have not been compiled there.
The 1996 NTI also contains 1996 emissions estimates for several
other MSATs, and includes data for nonroad \20\ as well as on-highway
sources. We present these data in Table III-2. We also indicate the on-
highway and nonroad percentages of the national inventories for these
MSATs (the total national inventories include emissions from on-highway
and nonroad mobile sources, major and area stationary sources, and
other sources such as forest fires). Between the 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle
Air Toxics Study and the 1996 NTI, we have baseline inventory data for
all of the 21 MSATs except mercury compounds and naphthalene.\21\ \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The nonroad inventory in the 1996 NTI includes emissions
data for aircraft, commercial marine vessel, locomotives, and other
nonroad engines. Note that under the Clean Air Act definition,
nonroad does not include aircraft. For convenience, in this notice
the term ``nonroad'' will include aircraft except where otherwise
noted. It should be noted that the NONROAD model, on which the
estimates for nonroad engines other than locomotive, commercial
marine vessels, and aircraft are based, is still draft, and the
emissions estimates based on this model are subject to change.
\21\ [Reserved].
\22\ Naphthalene emissions are not reported in the 1996 NTI
separately from 16-PAH. Since diesel exhaust emissions are not
included in the list of 112(b) hazardous pollutants that is the
focus of the 1996 NTI, diesel PM emissions estimates have not been
compiled there. See Chapter 3 of the TSD for the explanation of the
linkage between diesel exhaust and diesel PM.
[[Page 48070]]
Table III-2.--1996 On-Highway and Nonroad Emission Inventories of Proposed MSATs 1996 NTI (Short Tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Highway Nonroad Mobile sources
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Percent of Percent of
Compound total national total national total national
Tons emissions Tons emissions Tons emissions
(percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,3-Butadiene a............................................... 23,500 42 9,900 18 33,400 60
Acetaldehyde a................................................ 28,700 29 40,800 41 69,500 70
Acrolein a.................................................... 5,000 16 7,400 23 12,400 39
Arsenic Compounds a........................................... 0.25 0.06 2.01 0.51 2.26 0.57
Benzene a..................................................... 168,200 48 98,700 28 266,900 76
Chromium Compounds a.......................................... 14 1.2 35 3 49 4.2
Dioxins/Furans a, b........................................... 0.0001 0.2 N.A. N.A. 0.0001 0.2
Ethylbenzene.................................................. 80,800 47 62,200 37 143,000 84
Formaldehyde a................................................ 83,000 24 86,400 25 169,400 49
Lead Compounds a.............................................. 19 0.8 546 21.8 565 22.6
Manganese Compounds a......................................... 5.8 0.2 35.5 1.3 41.3 1.5
Mercury Compounds a........................................... 0.2 0.1 6.6 4.1 6.8 4.2
MTBE.......................................................... 65,100 47 53,900 39 119,000 86
n-Hexane...................................................... 63,300 26 43,600 18 106,600 44
Napthalene.................................................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Nickel Compounds a............................................ 10.7 0.9 92.8 7.6 103.5 8.5
POM (as sum of 7 PAH) a....................................... 42.0 4 19.3 2 61.3 6
Styrene....................................................... 16,300 33 3,500 7 19,800 40
Toluene....................................................... 549,900 51 252,200 23 802,100 74
Xylene........................................................ 311,000 43 258,400 36 569,400 79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Indicates also on the list of urban HAPs for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
b Mass given in tons of TEQ (toxic equivalency quotient). The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has recently developed an inventory for
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds using different methods than those used in the NTI. For 1995, the EPA-ORD estimate of on-highway emissions of dioxin
compounds is 0.00005 tons TEQ, comprising 1.5 percent of the national inventory in that year.
The above inventory data reflect certain interesting
characteristics of mobile source air toxics emissions. First, mobile
sources account for the majority of the national inventory of three of
the gaseous MSATs that are included on the urban HAP list. These three
are 1,3-butadiene (60 percent), acetaldehyde (70 percent), and benzene
(76 percent). Mobile sources account for 39 percent of the national
inventory of acrolein, and 49 percent of the national inventory of
formaldehyde, two other gaseous urban HAPs. All of these MSATs are
formed as part of the combustion process. In addition, benzene is also
released through evaporative emissions from gasoline.
Second, with regard to the other MSATs that are included on the
urban HAP list, the mobile source contribution generally is small
(arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, manganese compounds, nickel
compounds, POM, and dioxins/furans). The sole exception is lead
compounds. Mobile sources contribute 23 percent to national inventories
of lead compound emissions, due primarily to nonroad sources and, more
specifically, to the use of a lead-additive package used to boost the
octane of aviation gasoline.\23\ The mobile source contribution to the
other metals on the urban HAP list comes primarily from engine wear,
some fuel additives, or impurities in engine oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Aviation gasoline is used by a relatively small number of
aircraft, those with piston engines, which are generally used for
personal transportation, sightseeing, crop dusting, and similar
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the gaseous MSATs that are not included on the urban
HAP list (ethylbenzene, MTBE, n-hexane, styrene, toluene, and xylene),
mobile source contributions are high because of the presence of these
compounds in gasoline.
In addition, mobile sources account for almost all of diesel PM
emissions. As shown in Table III-1, above, we estimate that 1996 on-
highway diesel PM emissions are approximately 180,000 tons. We estimate
that 1996 nonroad diesel PM emissions are approximately 346,000 tons,
as discussed in section VI of this document.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Note that the nonroad diesel PM emissions estimate is still
draft and is subject to change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Impacts of Motor Vehicle Emission Controls on Emission Inventories
1. Description of Emission Control Programs
Many of the programs that we have put in place since the passage of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to achieve attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, PM and CO have also
reduced MSAT and diesel PM emissions. For example, measures to control
hydrocarbons from motor vehicles are also effective in controlling
gaseous toxics. In addition, certain programs address air toxics
directly, such as the RFG program and the gasoline lead phase-out. In
this section we briefly describe several categories of mobile source
emission control measures that have helped reduce inventories of these
harmful compounds. These programs include:
More stringent vehicle standards and test procedures. The
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments set specific emission standards for
hydrocarbons and for PM. Air toxics are present in both of these
pollutant categories. As vehicle manufacturers develop technologies to
comply with the hydrocarbon and particulate standards (e.g., more
efficient catalytic converters), we expect air toxics to be reduced as
well. Since 1990, we have developed a number of programs to address
exhaust and evaporative hydrocarbon emissions and PM emissions. Some of
the key programs are the Tier 1 and NLEV standards for light-duty
vehicles and trucks; enhanced evaporative emissions standards; the
supplemental federal test procedures (SFTP); urban bus standards;
[[Page 48071]]
and heavy-duty diesel and gasoline standards for the 2004/2005 time
frame.
Recent motor vehicle/fuel control initiatives. Two of our
recent initiatives to control emissions from motor vehicles and their
fuels are the Tier 2 control program and our recently proposed 2007
heavy-duty engine rule. Together these two initiatives define a set of
comprehensive standards for light-duty and heavy-duty motor vehicles
and their fuels. In both of these initiatives, we treat vehicles and
fuels as a system. The Tier 2 control program establishes stringent
tailpipe and evaporative emission standards for light-duty vehicles and
a reduction in sulfur levels in gasoline fuel beginning in 2004. The
proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine rule proposes stringent exhaust
emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles for the 2007
model year as well as reductions in diesel fuel sulfur levels starting
in 2006.
Limits on gasoline volatility. Volatility is a measure of
how easily a liquid evaporates. As described earlier, some toxics such
as benzene are present in gasoline and get into the air when gasoline
evaporates. We imposed limits on gasoline volatility in the early 1990s
to control evaporative emissions of both hydrocarbon and toxic
compounds (most air toxics are hydrocarbons, so programs designed to
reduce hydrocarbon emissions also reduce air toxics).
Reformulated gasoline. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
required reformulated gasoline to be introduced in the nation's most
polluted cities beginning in 1995. From 1995 through 1999, these
gasolines were required to provide a minimum 16.5 percent reduction in
air toxics emissions over typical 1990 gasolines, increasing to a 21.5
percent minimum reduction beginning in the year 2000. The air toxics
reductions have been achieved mainly by further reducing gasoline
volatility and by reducing the benzene, aromatics, sulfur, and olefin
content of the gasoline.
Phase-out of lead in gasoline. One of the first programs
was the removal of lead from gasoline. The lead phase out began in the
mid-1970s. It was completed January 1, 1996 when lead was banned from
motor vehicle gasoline. The removal of lead from gasoline has
essentially eliminated on-highway mobile source emissions of this
highly toxic substance.
Ensuring emissions are controlled while vehicle actually
used. Many of our vehicle standards require certification of new
engines and vehicles, but ensuring continued performance of emission
controls can be difficult. The Clean Air Act establishes several
programs to make sure vehicle emission controls are functioning
properly in actual use. These programs include requirements for
periodic emission inspections (I/M, or inspection and maintenance
programs) and for computerized diagnostic systems that alert drivers
and mechanics to malfunctioning emission controls.
We encourage the interested reader to refer to chapter 1 of our TSD
for more detailed information about these programs.
2. Emission Reductions From Control Programs
We expect the mobile source emissions control programs described
above to have beneficial impacts on the national inventories of MSATs.
The remainder of this section summarizes our MSAT inventory
projections. First, we present an overview of our inventory
methodologies. Next, we present the results of our inventory
projections. We encourage interested readers to refer to chapter 4 of
our TSD for a more detailed discussion of these projections and how we
developed them. The inventory projections in this section are for on-
highway vehicles only, since we have the most complete information for
this category of mobile sources. Projections of nonroad MSAT emissions
are included in section VI of this preamble.
a. Overview of Inventory Sources
We have developed inventory projections for five gaseous MSATs, for
VOC, and for diesel PM for the years 2007 and 2020 under our current
and proposed control programs. These programs include the national low-
emission vehicle (NLEV) program, the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
program, the 2004 heavy-duty diesel and gasoline engine standards, the
Tier 2/Sulfur controls, and our recently proposed heavy-duty engine and
vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control
requirements (HD2007 rule).
The inventory projections for the five gaseous toxics are based on
the 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study, and data from a
spreadsheet model developed in support of the proposed 2007 heavy-duty
engine rule. \25\ The 1999 Study estimated on-highway motor vehicle air
toxics emissions for ten urban areas (Atlanta, Chicago, Denver,
Houston, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Spokane,
and St. Louis) and 16 geographic regions. These areas were selected to
reflect the range of potential fuels, temperatures, and I/M programs
observed in the U.S. The estimation methodology used in the 1999 Study
was similar to that used in our original 1993 Motor Vehicle Related Air
Toxics Study. In our approach, the MOBILE model is used to generate
total organic gas (TOG) emissions from on-highway motor vehicles by
vehicle class and model year. Toxics fractions, developed as a
percentage of the toxic compound of interest contained in TOG
emissions, are then applied to the MOBILE-based TOG emission rates
(reported in grams per mile) to arrive at toxics emission rates
(reported in grams per mile or milligrams per mile). These toxics
fractions are developed as a function of vehicle class (e.g., light-
duty, heavy-duty), fuel type (e.g., gasoline or diesel), fuel
composition, and technology type (e.g., non-catalyst, catalyst).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ This spreadsheet model can be found in EPA Air Docket A-99-
06, Item II-B-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not have detailed emissions data for gaseous MSATs other than
the five gaseous MSATs examined in the 1999 Study. However, we expect
the trend for other gaseous MSATs, including acrolein, POM, styrene,
xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and n-hexane, to follow
that of VOC, since all of these compounds are VOCs. Therefore, to
estimate projected inventory impacts from mobile source emission
control programs, we use VOC inventories.
We believe this is appropriate because all of these compounds are
constituents of VOCs, and we expect their inventories to decrease in
proportion to decreases in overall VOC emissions. We recognize that
some gaseous MSATs may not decrease at the same rate as VOCs overall.
Without having more detailed emission data for each of the MSATs,
however, we are unable to project how those rates may differ. We
request comment on this approach, and on how to develop inventory
projections for the other gaseous MSATs.
Our VOC and diesel PM emission estimates are derived from several
sources. The 1996 and later values for light-duty vehicles are based on
the Tier 2 rulemaking inventories, updated to reflect the Updated Tier
2 Emissions Inventory spreadsheet.\26\ The 1996 and later values for
heavy-duty engines and vehicles are based on data from a spreadsheet
model developed in support of the proposed 2007 heavy-
[[Page 48072]]
duty engine rule.\27\ The 1990 VOC emission estimate is based on the
1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study, \28\ and the 1990 diesel PM is
from EPA's Trends Report.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Details of this approach can be found in a memorandum by
Harvey Michaels to Docket A-2000-12 titled ``Adjustment to the Tier
2 Air Quality Inventory for the Mobile Source Air Toxics Proposed
Rule''.
\27\ This spreadsheet model can be found in EPA Air Docket A-99-
06, Item II-B-31.
\28\ The analysis methodology is described in a memorandum from
Meredith Weatherby, Eastern Research Group, to Rich Cook, EPA,
entitled ``Estimating of 1990 VOC and TOG Emissions'' in EPA Air
Docket A-2000-12.
\29\ EPA, 2000. National Air Pollution Emission Trends, 1900-
1998 (March 2000). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. Report No. 454/R-00-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not reporting inventory trends for the metals on our list of
MSATs (arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, mercury compounds, nickel
compounds, manganese compounds, and lead compounds) or for dioxins/
furans. Metals in mobile source exhaust can come from fuel, fuel
additives, engine oil, engine oil additives, or engine wear. Formation
of dioxin and furans requires a source of chlorine. Thus, while metal
emissions and dioxin/furan emissions are associated with particles,
there are a number of other factors that contribute to emission levels.
While it is possible that these compounds track PM emissions to some
extent, we do not have good data on these relationships.
b. Emission Reductions
Table III-4 presents the annual emission projections for on-highway
vehicles in the years 2007 and 2020 for five gaseous toxics, VOC, and
diesel PM with our current and proposed on-highway control programs.
Table III-4.--Annual Fifty-State Emissions Summary for Selected Air Pollutants With Tier 2 and Proposed Heavy-
Duty 2007 Controls On-Highway Vehicles Only From 1990 to 2020
[Thousand short tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound 1990 1996 2007 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene..................................................... 257 165 86 65
Acetaldehyde................................................ 41 27 14 8
Formaldehyde................................................ 139 80 35 17
1,3 Butadiene............................................... 36 22 11 9
MTBE \a\.................................................... 55 65 25 18
VOC......................................................... 7,585 4,819 2,662 1,838
Diesel PM................................................... 235 180 82 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These estimates do not include consideration of EPA's examination of options to phase down or otherwise
control the use of MTBE under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or legislative authority that EPA has asked
Congress to provide the Agency to address MTBE use in gasoline.
Table III-5 summarizes the percent reductions we expect in on-
highway emissions of gaseous MSATs, VOC, and diesel PM from 1990 and
1996 levels in 2007 and 2020 as a result of our current and proposed
on-highway control programs.
Table III-5.--Summary of Fifty-State Percent Emission Reductions With Tier 2 and Proposed Heavy-Duty 2007
Controls On-Highway Vehicles Only in 2007 and 2020 From 1990 or 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in 2007 Reduction in 2020
Compound ---------------------------------------------------
From 1990 From 1996 From 1990 From 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene..................................................... 67 48 75 61
Acetaldehyde................................................ 65 47 82 73
Formaldehyde................................................ 75 55 87 78
1,3 Butadiene............................................... 69 49 75 60
MTBE \a\.................................................... 54 61 67 72
VOC......................................................... 65 45 76 62
Diesel PM................................................... 65 48 94 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These estimates do not include consideration of EPA's examination of options to phase down or otherwise
control the use of MTBE under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or legislative authority that EPA has asked
Congress to provide the Agency to address MTBE use in gasoline.
The results of this analysis show that on-highway emissions of the
five gaseous MSATs examined are expected to decline by approximately 75
percent by 2020 from 1990 levels with our existing and proposed
controls. For some gaseous MSATs, the reductions are even greater. For
example, we project both formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions will
decrease by over 80 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels with our current
and proposed controls. Likewise, VOC inventories from on-highway
vehicles are projected to decrease as much as 75 percent between 1990
and 2020 and we assume that other gaseous toxics would decrease by
approximately 75 percent as well. Finally, diesel PM emissions are
expected to decline by over 90 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels.
Though these air toxics emissions reductions are substantial, we
are not certain whether or not more control in the future is warranted
for the remaining emissions from these air toxics. They have the
potential to present serious health impacts to the public under certain
circumstances that we have not been able to investigate fully. We also
believe there is merit in considering further vehicle and fuel controls
for both highway and nonroad sources for addressing the remaining
emissions given the ever-changing nature of pollution control
technology. These controls would be considered as part of our proposed
Technical Analysis Plan outlined in section VII.
C. Summary
In this section, we presented our inventory projections for MSATs.
These projections, which are limited to on-highway mobile sources, show
that with
[[Page 48073]]
our current and proposed emission control programs up to and including
Tier 2 and our recently proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine rule, on-
highway emissions of gaseous MSATs are expected to decline by
approximately 75 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, and on-highway
emissions of diesel PM are expected to decline by over 90 percent by
2020 from 1990 levels. These reductions will result from the more
stringent VOC and PM controls that we have put into place over the last
decade or have recently adopted (Tier 2) or proposed (HD2007).
IV. Evaluation of Additional Motor Vehicle-based Controls
This section discusses the relationship between EPA's vehicle-based
control programs and the control of MSATs, the impact of our most
recent efforts to control VOCs, and the need for additional control of
MSATs.
A. MSATs and Motor Vehicle-based Controls
The majority of gaseous MSATs are hydrocarbons that are primarily
the result of incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels (a small amount
of raw fuel may also pass through the engine unburned). Technologies
used to reduce exhaust hydrocarbons also reduce MSAT hydrocarbon
species. This is true whether control is achieved through engine or
component modifications, add-on devices, or the use of aftertreatment
devices such as oxidation or three-way catalysts. We are not aware of
vehicle or engine technologies that selectively reduce MSATs without
reducing other hydrocarbons to a similar degree.
The other major source of hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles
are fuel vapors. These emissions occur when components of the liquid
fuel (gasoline or diesel) evaporate when onboard the vehicle. The
emissions are normally separated into refueling emissions and
evaporative emissions (hot soak, diurnal, and running losses). The
nature and amount of potential MSATs associated with fuel vapors depend
primarily on the fuel composition and the temperatures involved.
Gasoline is volatile and evaporates at normal ambient temperatures,
while diesel fuel is relatively non-volatile. Thus evaporative
emissions are only an issue for gasoline-fueled vehicles (or vehicles
using volatile alternative fuels such as methanol). Evaporative and
refueling emissions are controlled by eliminating sources of potential
liquid and vapor leaks within the vehicle fuel system and venting any
vapors to an activated carbon canister or similar device. Activated
carbon effectively adsorbs most hydrocarbon compounds, including the
common evaporative-related MSATs.
Particulate matter emissions from motor vehicles are primarily
composed of partially burned carbon and hydrocarbons from the fuel and
engine oil, and to a lesser degree, metals and other inorganic
compounds from contaminants or additives in the fuel or engine oil, or
products of engine wear in the oil. Since our PM exhaust emission
standards apply without regard to the source of the PM, manufacturers
must account for all of these emissions. Manufacturers have
significantly reduced PM emissions associated with unburned fuel and
engine oil through combustion system and engine modifications.
B. EPA's Motor Vehicle-Based Emission Control Program
To understand the relationship between the Agency's current
emission control program for on-highway vehicles and the control of
MSATs, it is important to first understand the structure and scope of
our current emission control programs. EPA's emission control program
for on-highway vehicles has historically been divided into two broad
vehicle/engine categories that we regulate: ``light-duty'' (vehicles
8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or less) and ``heavy-
duty'' (vehicles above 8,500 pounds GVWR).\30\ Within these light-duty
and heavy-duty categories, we further distinguish vehicles and
sometimes establish different emission limits based on vehicle size or
other factors. For example, within the light-duty category, in the past
we have often had different programs for light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA recently created the new category of ``medium-duty
passenger vehicles'' (MDPVs) that includes passenger vehicles over
8,500 pounds GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Light-Duty Vehicles
Before our regulations, cars emitted more than 9 grams per mile
(gpm) HC in exhaust emissions. Our HC emission standards in the 1970s
and 1980s cut these levels by more than an order of magnitude, to a
level of 0.41 gpm in 1980. In 1991, we finalized Tier 1 controls for
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks to be phased in from 1994 to
1996 (56 FR 25724). In 1998, we developed an innovative, voluntary
nationwide program to make new cars, called National Low Emission
Vehicles (NLEV), significantly cleaner than Tier 1 cars (63 FR 926).
The NLEV program went into effect in the Northeast states in 1999 and
will go into effect in the rest of the country in 2001. Table IV-1
illustrates the declining exhaust standards through the NLEV program
that have resulted in HC reductions in the 1970s through the 1990s and
are expected to result in future reductions.\31\ In December 1999, the
Agency finalized the Tier 2/sulfur rule establishing light-duty
requirements that will be phased-in beginning with the 2004 model year.
A more detailed discussion of the Tier 2 program follows in section C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Our programs achieve VOC reductions through standards that
limit HC, NMHC, or NMOG.
Table IV-1. Hydrocarbon (HC) Exhaust Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles (gpm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1970 1972 1975 1980 1994 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC...................................................... 2.2 3.4 1.5 0.41 0.31\1\ 0.09 \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1994 standard is an nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standard.
\2\ The 2001 standard is an nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) standard.
Our existing regulations contain test procedures to measure
evaporative hydrocarbon emissions during a simulated parking event
(diurnal emissions) and immediately following a drive (hot soak
emissions). In 1993, we finalized more stringent evaporative emission
test procedures which apply to light-duty and heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles. These procedures were fully phased in by 1999 (58 FR 16002).
The 1993 rule also addressed fuel spitback during refueling with a
vehicle test to ensure that no spillage occurs when a vehicle is
refueled at a rate of up to 10 gallons (37.9 liters) per minute. The
Tier 2 rule included even more stringent requirements.
[[Page 48074]]
We have also finalized on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)
requirements for light-duty gasoline vehicles (59 FR 16262, April 6,
1994), and proposed to extend ORVR to heavy-duty gasoline vehicles
between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR (64 FR 58471, October 29, 1999). ORVR
is a nationwide program for capturing refueling emissions by collecting
vapors from the vehicle gas tank and storing them in the vehicle during
refueling. The fuel vapors are then purged into the engine air intake
to be burned while the vehicle is being driven.
2. Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Table IV-2 summarizes the hydrocarbon and PM standards for heavy-
duty engines. Also shown in the table are estimates of emission rates
from uncontrolled engines. Not shown in the table are the standards in
our recently proposed 2007 heavy-duty rulemaking.\32\ In that NPRM we
proposed exhaust emission standards of 0.14 NMHC and 0.01 PM for all
heavy-duty engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 65 FR 35429, June 2, 2000.
Table IV-2.--HC and PM Exhaust Emissions and Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline (Otto-Cycle) Diesel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust HC Exhaust HC Exhaust PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled Emissions......... 10-13 g/bhp-hr 4 g/bhp-hr 0.7 g/bhp-hr
Current Standards.............. 1.1 g/bhp-hr\a\ 1.3 g/bhp-hr 0.10 g/bhp-hr
2004/5 Standards............... 0.25 g/bhp-hr\b\ 0.4 g/bhp-hr\c\ 0.10 g/bhp-hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Current standard is 1.9 g/bhp-hr for Otto-cycle vehicles over 14,000 GVWR.
\b\ Standard has been proposed as a 2005 NMHC+NOx standard; level shown is estimated equivalent NMHC standard.
\c\ Standard is a 2004 NMHC+NOx standard; level shown is estimated equivalent NMHC standard.
C. Feasibility of More Stringent Vehicle-Based Standards To Reduce
MSATs
Section III of this proposal highlights the very significant
reduction in toxics emissions that have been achieved as a result of
EPA's on-highway emission control programs. Most recently, the Agency
has finalized the Tier 2/sulfur requirements which will require
manufacturers to incorporate the latest light-duty emission controls.
EPA has also proposed new heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and
on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements that would also
result in large emission reductions.\33\ This section summarizes these
two new technology-forcing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 65 FR 35429, June 2, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Light-Duty Vehicles
Finalized in December 1999, the Tier 2/sulfur requirements phase-in
a single set of tailpipe emission standards that will, for the first
time, apply to all passenger cars, light-duty trucks (LDTs), and larger
passenger vehicles. To enable the very clean Tier 2 vehicle emission
control technology to be introduced and to maintain its effectiveness,
nationwide gasoline sulfur requirements were also put into place. The
Tier 2 program begins in 2004 for passenger cars and light LDTs (LDTs
up to 6,000 pounds GVWR), while an interim program begins in 2004 for
heavy LDTs (LDTs over 6,000 pounds GVWR). For heavy LDTs and MDPVs
(medium-duty passenger vehicles), the Tier 2 standards will be phased
in beginning in 2008, with full compliance in 2009. Thus, when fully
implemented all vehicles designed for passenger use will have to meet
the stringent new emission standards.
The Tier 2 program is designed to focus on reducing the ozone and
particulate matter air quality impact for these vehicles. Ozone
reductions will be achieved through control of nitrogen oxides and non-
methane hydrocarbons. As discussed above, it is the control of NMHC
through the NMOG standards that results in the control of the gaseous
toxics. Control of PM emissions will occur through reductions in
sulfur. The Tier 2 rule also established stringent PM standards.
Because all Tier 2 standards are fuel neutral, the PM standards apply
to both gasoline and diesel vehicles.
The Tier 2 standards will reduce new vehicle NOX levels
to an average of 0.07 grams per mile. The NMOG standards vary depending
on which of the various ``bins'' (i.e., certification categories) the
manufacturers choose to use in complying with the average
NOX standard. However, we expect significant reductions in
NMOG emissions from these vehicles as a result of the more stringent
NMOG standards in the bins and the need to select bins to meet the
NOX average. When fully phased-in, we expect fleet average
NMOG levels below the 0.09 g/mi level. The Tier 2 rule also finalized
formaldehyde standards that harmonize federal standards with the
California's LEV II program. The standards are primarily of concern for
vehicles fueled with methanol because formaldehyde is chemically
similar to methanol and is likely to be produced when methanol is not
completely burned in the engine.
In order to meet strict Tier 2 standards on a fleet-wide average,
manufacturers will have to use a combination of sophisticated
calibration changes and emission system hardware modifications to
increase and maintain high control system efficiency. They will be
challenged to maintain tight air-fuel control and improved catalyst
performance, especially achieving better catalyst thermal management.
Minimizing the time necessary for the catalyst to reach its operating
temperature will be especially critical, since the vast majority of
emissions occur in the minute or less which passes before the catalyst
``lights off.'' Many manufacturers are going to have to depend more on
the precious metal palladium for oxidation of NMOG and CO emissions, as
well as the reduction of NOX, because palladium is more
tolerant to high temperatures to increase in-use efficiency.
The Tier 2 standards for evaporative emissions represent, for most
vehicles, more than a 50-percent reduction in diurnal plus hot soak
standards from those that will be in effect in the years immediately
preceding Tier 2 implementation. These standards should achieve similar
reductions in gaseous MSATs, especially since activated carbon
preferentially absorbs larger organic molecules. Under these
requirements, it is likely that manufacturers will also need to upgrade
materials and both increase the reliability of fuel/vapor hose
connections and fittings and reduce the number used in the system.
[[Page 48075]]
Taken as a whole, the Tier 2 program presents the manufacturers
with significant compliance challenges in the coming years. It will
require the use of hardware and emission control techniques and
strategies not used in the fleet today. Bringing essentially all
passenger vehicles under the same emission control program regardless
of their size, weight, and application is a major engineering
challenge. While there may be other prototype technologies on the
horizon which could potentially reduce cold-start emissions and
therefore air toxics, given the cost and engineering burden associated
with Tier 2, it is not appropriate to propose standards based on these
technologies. We are not convinced that these technologies would be
feasible and cost effective on a fleet-wide basis at this time. This is
discussed in more detail in the TSD.
2. Heavy-Duty Vehicles
With regard to exhaust emission standards, the 2007 heavy-duty
engine standards would reduce hydrocarbon emissions to levels
approaching 0.1 g/bhp-hr for both gasoline and diesel. This would
result in a significant reduction even when compared to the 2004
standards. Similarly, the proposed exhaust PM standard for heavy-duty
diesel engines is very stringent. The proposed value of 0.01 g/bhp-hr
is a 90-percent reduction from current standards which are currently
being achieved with significant combustion chamber and engine
modifications. Achieving a 0.01 g/bhp-hr standard will require the use
of particulate trap-oxidizers. This technology will also result in HC
emission reductions. It is further worth noting that the 2007 proposal
includes provisions for a closed crankcase for turbocharged diesel
engines. Crankcase emissions from these engines are a significant
source of MSATs (PM and hydrocarbons) which has previously remained
uncontrolled.
For chassis-certified gasoline-powered heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
proposed that beginning in 2007 they meet exhaust hydrocarbon standards
of similar stringency to those discussed above for Tier 2. These
include hydrocarbon standards of 0.195 g/mi for vehicles of 8,500-
10,000 lbs GVWR and 0.23 g/mi for vehicles of 10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR.
Fuel quality changes will enable gasoline and diesel-powered
vehicles/engines to meet the more stringent standards over their full
life. As part of the Tier 2 rule, EPA promulgated provisions limiting
gasoline sulfur levels to 30 ppm average and 80 ppm cap. This program
phases in beginning in 2004, and will enable a new generation of
vehicle emission control for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles and also
improve the emission performance of the current fleet. Sulfur is a fuel
contaminant, and controlling sulfur will also reduce sulfate PM
emissions. The 2007 heavy-duty proposal mentioned above also includes
provisions to greatly reduce the sulfur content of current on-highway
diesel fuel. Not only will this reduction enable the emission control
technology now under development, but it will also reduce sulfate PM
emissions as was the case for gasoline.
We have also proposed more stringent evaporative standards, which
would force even further refinements in fuel/vapor systems. Onboard
refueling vapor control is proposed to be effective for 2004 for all
heavy-duty gasoline-powered vehicles. This would reduce emissions from
current uncontrolled levels by 95 percent. In addition, as part of the
2007 proposal, evaporative emission standards are proposed to be
reduced by 50 percent over current standards. Both refueling controls
and further evaporative controls would reduce evaporative emissions of
air toxics from heavy-duty vehicles even further.
The proposal for 2007 heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards
contains extensive analysis and discussion of the technological
feasibility. This analysis demonstrates that the proposed heavy-duty
standards reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology that will be available
considering costs and other relevant factors. EPA expects that the
recently proposed rulemaking to establish 2007 model year standards for
heavy-duty diesel engines will satisfy the criteria in section 202(a)
as well as 202(l)(2) and therefore defers to the technical decisions
that will be made in that rulemaking. For further information on the
diesel engine proposal see 65 FR 35430 (June 2, 2000).
3. Conclusion
The Tier 2 program represents a comprehensive, integrated package
of exhaust, evaporative, and fuel quality standards. The Tier 2 program
will achieve significant reductions in NMHC, NOX, and PM
emissions from all light-duty vehicles in the program. Emission control
in the Tier 2 program will be based on the widespread implementation of
advanced catalyst and related control system technology. The standards
are so stringent that they will require the maximum level of control
technology be used. To illustrate this point, it is worth noting that
about 80 percent of all emissions from a Tier 2 vehicle will occur in
the first 60 seconds of operation, before the catalyst ``lights-off.''
Manufacturers will have to optimize their cold-start strategies and the
efficiency of warmed systems to achieve the Tier 2 levels. Compliance
with the Tier 2 standards will require the application of emission
technology not widely used in the light-duty fleet today and in some
cases the use of technological approaches still under development.
Meeting the Tier 2 requirements will significantly reduce air toxics as
a result of reductions in NMHC.
The emission control program for heavy-duty engines and vehicles
has achieved major reductions in the emissions of criteria pollutants
and their precursor emissions. New stringent emissions were established
for heavy-duty diesel engines in a final rule promulgated in the fall
of 1997 that will take effect in 2004. In October of 1999, we published
a notice proposing to reaffirm the 2004 heavy-duty diesel engine
emission standards. The notice also proposed new 2004 model year
emission standards and related requirements for heavy-duty Otto-cycle
vehicles/engines and supplemental test requirements for heavy-duty
diesel engines.
We also recently announced a further initiative in control of
heavy-duty vehicle/engine emissions in May 2000. This was done in the
proposal to establish new heavy-duty diesel and Otto-cycle engine
standards and vehicle emission standards for 2007. It also proposed new
on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements.
V. Evaluation of Additional Fuel-based Controls
In previous sections, we showed that the mobile source toxics
inventory will continue to decline through 2020 due to existing
programs. In this section we consider the role of fuels programs in
reducing toxics emissions from mobile sources. Fuels contribute to air
toxics emissions in two ways: evaporative emissions of the fuel, and
exhaust emissions due to combustion of the fuel. One means of
controlling toxics emissions from motor vehicles is to change the
benzene content of the fuel.
In this section, we discuss our investigation of additional fuel-
based controls for reducing toxics emissions. We begin with a
discussion of the current gasoline-based toxics control programs,
including a presentation of the over-compliance arising under the
federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping programs. This is
followed by a discussion of why we believe that gasoline benzene
control is
[[Page 48076]]
an appropriate initial focus for additional fuel controls to reduce
MSATs. Next, we present our proposed anti-backsliding program for fuel
benzene in both RFG and conventional gasoline (CG). As part of this
discussion we address the issue of state controls of benzene levels in
gasoline. We discuss potential future benzene controls that would be
included as part of the investigation in our proposed Technical
Analysis Plan. Finally, we discuss other fuel controls considered in
EPA's development of this proposal.
A. What Current Gasoline Programs Control Toxics Emissions?
Current federal gasoline programs that control toxics emissions
include the prohibition on leaded gasoline for highway use, the
summertime volatility requirements, and the reformulated gasoline and
anti-dumping programs. The first of these programs, the prohibition on
leaded gasoline for use in motor vehicles, is a Clean Air Act
requirement adopted in 1990 that was designed to complete the phase-out
of leaded gasoline because of its contribution to national ambient lead
levels. Lead is a probable human carcinogen with a variety of serious
non-cancer health effects at low dose levels. The transition to
unleaded gasoline began in 1974, and leaded gasoline has been banned
for highway use since 1996 (see CAA Section 211(n)).
Under the second program, the federal volatility requirements,
every area of the continental U.S. has a maximum summertime gasoline
Reid vapor pressure (RVP). RVP is a volatility measurement of gasoline.
Generally speaking, a fuel with a higher RVP evaporates more quickly
than a fuel with a lower RVP. Thus, by instituting a maximum summertime
RVP for each area, we control evaporative emissions of the volatile
components of gasoline, including benzene and other gaseous toxics.
The federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program includes, in
addition to standards on VOC and NOX emissions, several
requirements related to toxics. Specifically, the RFG program (covering
about one-third of the gasoline sold in the country) includes standards
on the benzene content of fuel as well as standards governing the
overall toxics emissions associated with evaporation and combustion of
the fuel. Toxics emissions covered under the RFG program include
exhaust and evaporative benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-
butadiene and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Under the Phase II RFG
program which began in January 2000, a refinery's or importer's annual
average total toxics emissions, as measured by the Complex Model,\34\
must be 21.5 percent less than the toxics emissions attributable to the
statutory baseline fuel. Additionally, a refinery's or importer's
annual average RFG benzene content cannot exceed 0.95 percent by
volume, and no batch may exceed 1.3 percent by volume. Alternatively,
no batch of RFG may have a benzene content exceeding 1.0 percent by
volume. Each refinery and importer must choose annually whether to
comply with the average benzene requirement (0.95 volume percent) or
the ``per-gallon'' benzene requirement (1.0 volume percent);
essentially no refinery/importer chooses the latter compliance method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The Complex Model is a regulatory tool for estimating
emissions for the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs.
The Complex Model inputs are eight specified fuel parameters:
benzene, oxygen content (by oxygenate type), sulfur, RVP, aromatics,
olefins, and the percents evaporated at 200F and 300F (E200 and
E300). Complex Model outputs are the estimated emissions (VOC,
toxics, NOX) resulting from the fuel parameters
specified. The Complex Model also calculates percent reductions of
the input slate of fuel parameters and resulting emissions compared
to a base set of fuel parameters and the resulting base emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also adopted standards to cover all fuel used outside of
the RFG areas. These ``anti-dumping'' standards \35\ include
requirements for NOx performance and exhaust toxics performance.
Exhaust toxics performance is measured using the Complex Model with all
of the toxic compounds mentioned above except for evaporative benzene
emissions. On a mass basis, exhaust benzene emissions comprise
approximately 67 percent of total exhaust toxics emissions. Regarding
exhaust toxics performance, the anti-dumping program requires that a
refinery's or importer's total exhaust toxics emissions, as predicted
by the Complex Model, not exceed that refinery's or importer's
individual exhaust toxics emissions baseline, which is their 1990
performance level. Unlike the RFG program, the anti-dumping program
does not specifically regulate the benzene content of conventional
gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The conventional gasoline standards are often referred to
as the anti-dumping requirements because they prevent refiners from
merely directing the clean gasoline to RFG areas and ``dumping'' the
dirtier fuel in all other areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on 1998 compliance reports from refineries, average national
compliance with the toxics portion of the reformulated gasoline and
anti-dumping programs, including benzene requirements, exceeds the
basic requirements. In other words, on average, refineries and
importers produced gasoline in 1998 which over-complied with the
applicable toxics and fuel benzene requirements. Table V-1 compares
required levels or baseline levels, as applicable, of toxics emissions
and fuel benzene under EPA's RFG and anti-dumping regulations with the
actual levels achieved in 1998.
Table V-1.--Over-Compliance With Existing Benzene and Toxics Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of gasoline Reformulated Conventional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual 1998 toxics performance 30.3 percent reduction \a\................. 44 mg/mile.\b\
(volume weighted).
Required or baseline Phase I toxics 16.5 percent reduction..................... 47 mg/mile.\c\
performance.
Actual 1998 benzene (volume weighted) 0.65 vol%.................................. 1.1 vol%.
Required or baseline benzene (annual 0.95 vol%.................................. 1.3 vol%.\d\
average).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For RFG, toxics performance is measured on the basis of total toxics with respect to the statutory baseline.
\b\ For CG, toxics performance is measured on the basis of exhaust toxics with respect to an individual
refinery's 1990 baseline.
\c\ Under anti-dumping for CG, exhaust toxics in mg/mi per the Complex Model can be no higher than a refiner's
1990 annual average exhaust toxics emissions. The value of 47 mg/mi is the volume-weighted average of the
standards applicable to all individual refineries.
\d\ EPA does not currently regulate the fuel benzene level of CG. The value of 1.3 vol% is the volume-weighted
average of the 1990 baseline levels for all refineries.
Thus RFG produced in 1998 exhibited an average total toxics
emissions reduction which was nearly twice that required, and had
average gasoline benzene levels which were approximately one-third less
than the
[[Page 48077]]
maximum average allowed. For CG, the over-compliance was less dramatic,
amounting to approximately six percent for exhaust toxics. Although
there is currently no standard for the benzene content of CG, in 1998
the CG benzene levels were approximately 15 percent lower than the
average of benzene levels for individual 1990 refinery anti-dumping
baselines.
Note that the information contained in Table V-1 reflects industry
averages. In fact, not all refineries and importers over-comply.
Approximately 90 percent of RFG refineries and importers over-complied
in 1998. Most refineries and importers in over-compliance for RFG
benzene are also in over-compliance for CG benzene. EPA believes that
this over-compliance, particularly with respect to benzene, is due to a
number of factors, including:
(1) Benzene extraction for the petrochemical industry. For certain
refineries geographically located near petrochemical plants, it is
profitable to remove benzene from reformate, a gasoline blending
component, and sell it for petrochemical uses.
(2) Dilution with oxygenates. The oxygenate requirement of the RFG
program, and refineries' and importers' use of oxygenates in
conventional gasoline as gasoline extenders or for octane, reduce and
dilute overall aromatics (e.g., benzene, toluene and xylene, all of
which are gaseous MSATs).
B. Why Is EPA Focusing on Benzene?
Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon that is present in gasoline as
well as in exhaust and evaporative emissions. Benzene is also emitted
from diesel engines, but at levels approximately one-fortieth that
coming from gasoline vehicles. Emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles
and engines contain several different toxic pollutants, including the
following MSATs: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde,
polycyclic organic matter (POM), and MTBE. However, on a mass basis,
benzene makes up about 70 percent of the total amount of these gaseous
toxics.\36\ Thus if toxics emissions are going to be controlled through
mobile sources, the benzene content of gasoline is an obvious area for
priority consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Per EPA's Complex Model (40 CFR 80.45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to concerns about the sheer mass of benzene emissions,
we are focusing on the benzene content of gasoline in this proposal
because benzene emissions are one of two toxic compounds that section
202(l) of the Act indicates must be evaluated for control. We believe
that individual States and environmental organizations will support
this direction since they have expressed concerns specifically about
fuel benzene content and ambient benzene concentrations.
We do not believe that it is appropriate at this time to propose
controls on MSATs other than benzene through fuel modifications. Our
reasons for this proposed determination follow.
Benzene is one of several toxic compounds that are part of vehicle
emissions as well as a component of the fuel. Because refiners are able
to directly control fuel benzene levels, benzene offers refiners the
greatest degree of control over a specific toxic fuel component that is
also present in emissions at substantial levels.
There are, however, some gaseous toxic components of vehicle
emissions which, although not components of the fuel, can be controlled
through fuel property limits. These include 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Along
with benzene, all of these compounds are currently controlled under the
RFG program via a toxic emissions performance standard, and are
prohibited from increasing above 1990 levels under the anti-dumping
program for CG. As discussed previously, we are requesting comment on a
toxics performance standard as an alternative to the proposed benzene
anti-backsliding program. Since a performance standard necessarily
allows refiners to trade off increases in one toxic compound with
decreases in another, a new toxics emissions performance standard would
not necessarily result in a reduction in benzene. In fact, an emissions
performance standard could actually allow increases in benzene
emissions. As discussed above, we believe that benzene should be the
toxic pollutant targeted for control in this rulemaking. Still, benzene
emissions do constitute up to 70 percent of total toxics emissions from
gasoline, such that costs to control the non-benzene toxic emissions
could be significant. As a result, we would expect refiners to aim for
benzene control even under a new toxics performance standard,
suggesting that the fuel benzene controls we are proposing today may be
equivalent to the emission reductions that would be produced under a
toxics performance standard. Control of these other toxics would most
likely occur collectively through an emissions performance standard,
and benzene would remain the primary means of toxics control in this
case.
Formaldehyde is specifically listed in the CAA, along with benzene,
as an MSAT that we must evaluate for control. We believe that
additional controls on formaldehyde are not appropriate for today's
proposal, though we will conduct further evaluation under our Technical
Analysis Plan before making a determination. Formaldehyde control would
require control of bulk fuel properties such as olefins or aromatics
which could significantly affect octane and cost. Formaldehyde
emissions are also expected to go down in the future. This means that
any controls on formaldehyde may not be cost-effective, and EPA does
not have enough information at this time to resolve this issue.
Formaldehyde actually constitutes a significantly larger fraction of
total hydrocarbons for diesel vehicles. Unfortunately, we do not have
the data that would allow us to correlate individual diesel fuel
properties with formaldehyde emissions. The alternative to controlling
formaldehyde through diesel reformulation would be to set diesel engine
standards for formaldehyde. As described above, our recently finalized
Tier 2 rule and our proposed rulemaking to set new standards for 2007
model year heavy-duty engines and vehicles in fact address formaldehyde
emissions from motor vehicles and heavy-duty trucks.
A number of other MSATs do not fall under the RFG or anti-dumping
programs, and we do not currently have sufficient information on how
changes in fuel properties affect emissions of these compounds. These
include acrolein, styrene, dioxin/furans, xylene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and hexane. We are not aware of any model
that would allow us to quantify how fuel controls could affect
emissions of these compounds. We request comment or information about
the effect of fuel controls on the aforementioned MSATs. We do know
that bulk fuel aromatics control would reduce emissions of some of
these compounds, but we are currently unable to quantify this effect.
The relationship between other fuel properties and emissions of these
compounds is even less clear. As a result, we cannot estimate the costs
associated with controlling these compounds via fuels.
There are a number of metals that are emitted from motor vehicles,
but these toxic compounds are being addressed in other actions. For
instance, these metals generally arise from contaminants in lube oils.
The recent rulemaking proposing new standards for heavy-duty engines
and vehicles beginning in model year 2007 also proposes controls
[[Page 48078]]
on the use of used oil as a diesel fuel additive/extender. Finally,
lead is no longer allowed to be used as an additive in motor gasoline.
We are not proposing controls to address emissions of MTBE in this
rulemaking, even though MTBE is on our proposed list of MSATs. The
primary mechanism for controlling MTBE emissions would be to limit the
use of MTBE in gasoline. The Agency is currently pursuing a separate
rulemaking under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to consider
the phase down or phase out the use of MTBE. We believe it is
reasonable to defer consideration of MTBE controls to that rulemaking,
which will address the important concerns of preserving water
resources, as well as any air pollution impacts. In addition, the EPA
and the United States Department of Agriculture jointly announced, on
March, 2000, the Administration's legislative principles for protecting
drinking water supplies, preserving clean air benefit and promoting
renewable fuels and urged Congress to take action consistent with these
principles, including providing EPA the authority to significantly
reduce or eliminate the use of MTBE in gasoline.
Finally, changes to diesel fuel could result in reductions in a
variety of toxic compounds, including aldehydes, dioxins/furans, POM,
and of course diesel PM. At this time, however, there is insufficient
data to allow us to quantify how changes in individual diesel fuel
properties would affect emissions of these compounds. As a result, we
cannot specify how refiners might change their operations or what
capital equipment they might need to install in order to reformulate
their diesel fuel, and thus we cannot estimate costs associated with
this type of control. We request comment or information regarding the
effect of diesel fuel reformulation on toxics emissions.
C. Given the Existing Over-Compliance, Why Is EPA Considering
Additional Gasoline Benzene Controls?
Absent regulatory changes affecting toxic emissions and/or
oxygenates, or reduction in the petrochemical demand for benzene, EPA
expects that this average level of over-compliance will continue.
Benzene emissions are critically dependent upon exhaust VOC control,
which should continue to improve over the next 4-5 years due to the
introduction of NLEV and Tier 2 vehicles. However, current benzene
emission reductions are not guaranteed to continue. Therefore, because
of the potential for serious health effects associated with air toxics
from gasoline, EPA is proposing a toxics control program to maintain
current benzene levels by creating an anti-backsliding program. Because
it is an anti-backsliding program, it is not designed to reduce
gasoline benzene content or benzene emissions beyond today's levels.
However, it would prevent benzene emissions from increasing during the
time period that we will be considering the need for and
appropriateness of additional fuel-based toxics control programs.
D. What Type of Gasoline Control Program Is EPA Proposing Today?
The program EPA is proposing today focuses solely on gasoline
benzene control and would require that a refinery's annual average
gasoline benzene content not exceed the refinery's average gasoline
benzene content during a baseline time period. We consider this
approach to be an ``anti-backsliding'' measure, in that it does not
allow gasoline benzene levels to increase, or ``backslide,'' relative
to the baseline. This section provides an overview of our proposed
benzene control program while section H provides a more detailed
discussion of the specific requirements of the program. We are also
taking comment on an alternative approach involving a toxics emissions
performance standard, which is described more fully in section I.
We are proposing that the benzene control program would begin in
2002. We believe this is an appropriate start date because refiners
already have all of the information needed to establish their benzene
baselines (see the baseline time period discussion below). Also, since
the standards are intended to maintain 1998-1999 levels of over-
compliance with benzene standards for RFG, and 1998-1999 benzene levels
in CG, and thus are not technology-forcing, no lead time for capital
equipment installation is necessary. As a result, gasoline benzene
levels can be controlled at the earliest practical date. While we
considered other effective dates, we believe the 2002 date is most
practical. This is because the standards will not be finalized until
December 2000, it will take several months for refiners to have their
baselines approved, and it is desirable to have the program start on
January 1. Therefore, 2002 is the earliest practicable effective date.
We request comment on a start date of 2002.
We are also proposing that these benzene requirements would apply
separately to federal RFG and CG. This is consistent with the separate
treatment of these two gasoline types under the RFG and anti-dumping
programs, and ensures that the benzene is not ``moved'' from one pool
to the other to achieve compliance. As described more fully in section
V.F.1 below, the proposed benzene anti-backsliding standards would
apply only to a volume equal to the average of volume of gasoline
produced during the baseline years (i.e., 1998-1999). The Agency is
taking comment on the appropriate standard to apply to any incremental
gasoline that a refinery may produce beyond the amount of gasoline
produced as an annual average in 1998-1999.
We are proposing a baseline time period of January 1, 1998 through
December 31, 1999 (``1998-1999''). Thus, a refinery's baseline benzene
content would be the average benzene content of all the gasoline
produced during the two-year time period from 1998-1999. As an
alternative, we could also choose a different pair of baseline years,
such as 1999-2000, or a longer time frame, such as 1997-1999. Phase II
RFG went into effect in January of this year, and the Agency is
interested in public comment on the appropriateness of using the year
2000 as part of its benzene baseline. We request comment on the
proposed baseline period (1998-1999), on alternative baseline periods,
and specifically ask commenters to address the Agency's concerns
pertaining to using the year 2000 in an alternative baseline.
Substantial emissions reductions have accrued as a result of the
RFG program, and more are expected with the introduction of Phase II
RFG. EPA has a significant interest in ensuring the continued
production of RFG by domestic and foreign refineries. The proposed
anti-backsliding standards for RFG and CG may have an impact on the
future production of RFG, particularly for those refiners that are
interested in expanding production or entering the RFG market for the
first time. The Agency as described more fully in section V.F.1 below,
is requesting comment on separate treatment of incremental volumes of
RFG above baseline volumes based on 1998-1999 production.
Despite the fact that our proposed anti-backsliding program uses a
two-year averaging period to establish baselines, we have chosen to
propose a one-year averaging period for compliance purposes. The one-
year averaging period is consistent with that used in the RFG, anti-
dumping, and upcoming gasoline sulfur programs. It therefore represents
a minimal additional reporting burden for refineries and importers. It
also ensures
[[Page 48079]]
that temporal variations in ambient benzene concentrations due to
varying fuel benzene content are kept to a minimum; a two-year
averaging period, for instance, might allow fuel benzene levels in one
year to be significantly higher than in the following year.
Nonetheless, we request comment on the two-year averaging period option
for compliance purposes, and on any other options which will maintain
the anti-backsliding benefits of the proposed program.
EPA recognizes that some fluctuations in benzene levels may occur
from one year to the next for a given refinery even if no long-term
trend upward or downward is evident for that refinery. We are proposing
that the baselines be applied to every single year after 2001 even
though year-to-year fluctuations might push some refiners' benzene
levels above their applicable standard in any given year. In response
to this possibility, we are proposing a one-year deficit carryover
provision. This provision would ensure that a refinery can meet its
benzene standard while still allowing for the year-to-year fluctuations
that may arise in the course of gasoline production. Therefore, our
proposed program would give refineries maximum flexibility to comply
with our anti-backsliding program. We request comment on this proposed
approach.
Finally, we have chosen to propose an anti-backsliding program
which controls gasoline benzene levels instead of a control which
focuses on air toxics performance for two reasons. First, total benzene
emissions constitute up to 70 percent of total toxics emissions
(exhaust benzene emissions constitute roughly 65 percent of total
exhaust toxics emissions). As a result, refineries would most likely
focus on gasoline benzene control even if we proposed an equivalent
toxics emissions performance standard. Second, gasoline benzene control
also avoids the potential for offsetting benzene emissions increases
with decreases in some other toxic pollutant such as 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, sulfur, or acetaldehyde. At the same time, there are a
number of reasons why a toxics performance standard approach may also
be desirable, and therefore, we are taking comment on it as an
alternative anti-backsliding approach. This alternative toxics
performance standard approach is described in more detail in section I.
E. Will the Proposed Benzene Standards Pre-Empt State Benzene Controls?
As EPA has explained in its federal fuel rulemakings, including in
the preambles to the Tier2/sulfur gasoline rule and 1994 RFG rules,
where EPA has adopted controls under section 211(c)(1) on the
characteristics or components of gasoline provided to a particular
area, section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act generally prohibits
States from adopting their own controls respecting those
characteristics or components unless the State controls are identical
to EPA's.\37\ Thus, EPA recognizes that by adopting specific controls
on benzene content, as is proposed today, there is little question that
States would be preempted pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(A) from
adopting their own benzene controls for gasoline subject to the federal
benzene standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Section 211(c)(4)(A) provides: Except as otherwise provided
in [211(c)(4)(B) or (C)], no state (or political subdivision
thereof) may prescribe or attempt to enforce, for purposes of motor
vehicle emissions control, any control or prohibition respecting any
characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive in a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine * * * if the Administrator has
prescribed under [211(c)(1)] a control or prohibition applicable to
such characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive, unless
the State prohibition or control is identical to the prohibition or
control prescribed by the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes the concerns associated with the potential
disruption caused by numerous ``boutique'' fuels (i.e., state- and
area-specific fuel types). In most situations, EPA believes that a
uniform national program best balances protection of public health and
protection of an efficient fuel distribution network. As the number of
boutique fuels increases the less efficient the distribution system
become. Therefore EPA's general expectation is that State fuels that
differ from federal standards should be limited to situations where
local or unique circumstances warrant control.
Today's proposal, however, is different from our previous fuel
controls in two important respects. First, today's proposal, unlike
many of our controls such as the federal sulfur regulations and the
benzene standard for RFG, would not impose a uniform national standard
that ensures significant emissions reductions in all areas of the
country. EPA expects that under the proposed refinery-by-refinery
standards, gasoline benzene levels around the country would not change
from where they are today. This is particularly significant for areas
receiving conventional gasoline where the average benzene levels are
higher. In addition, several conventional gasoline areas in the country
currently receive gasoline with benzene levels well above the national
average.
Today's proposal also differs from many of our federal fuel
controls such as the Tier 2/sulfur rule and our gasoline volatility
program, in that it addresses a toxic component of gasoline, as
compared to a fuel component that adversely affects efforts to achieve
a NAAQS. This is important because section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act
allows for a waiver of preemption of state standards only where
necessary to achieve a NAAQS. A similar mechanism is not clearly
provided for States seeking to control ambient concentrations of toxics
in their areas.
Thus, without some regulatory mechanism, this proposal could have
the effect of preventing States from addressing local toxics concerns
under all circumstances because a waiver may not be available. We
therefore believe it is appropriate to consider options that would
allow States to adopt more stringent conventional gasoline benzene
standards in areas with higher than average benzene levels. EPA seeks
comment on two alternatives.
One alternative would be to define the applicability of the rule
such that the federal conventional gasoline benzene standards proposed
today would not apply to gasoline intended for and used in States where
the State adopts more stringent benzene controls under a benzene
control program submitted to EPA for approval. Under this approach,
State benzene controls that are more stringent than the federal
standard would not be preempted by the benzene standard proposed today.
This would facilitate the ability of States to adopt more stringent
conventional gasoline benzene standards. It is important to note that
this provision for more stringent State benzene controls would apply
only to conventional gasoline areas. States in RFG areas would continue
to be subject to the current federal benzene standard for RFG, which
was issued under section 211(c)(1), as well as the benzene standard
proposed today.
Under this approach, the regulations would establish a process
analogous to the waiver process provided in section 211(c)(4)(C) of the
Act and provide criteria that must be met before a State could adopt
and enforce a more stringent standard. For example, the regulations
could require the state to establish the following: that areas within
the state are experiencing benzene air pollution problems and that
there is a reasonable basis for the State's determination that there is
a public health need for additional controls; how benzene levels in
gasoline impact air quality; and that the standards and lead time
provided in the state plan are reasonable and practicable considering
factors such as cost and supply impacts. We request comment on all of
these
[[Page 48080]]
criteria and invite suggestions for other criteria that we could use.
Under this approach, the State would also need to demonstrate that
the State control is more stringent than the applicable federal
requirement. We have considered several options for making this
demonstration, and request suggestions for other means of comparison.
One difficulty is that EPA's proposed program would control benzene at
the refinery and importer level while any State standards would apply
to a geographic area. In many cases, gasoline distributed in a given
area may not have been produced by a refinery in the area; in fact, the
refinery could be hundreds of miles from the area. One option we have
considered for determining whether a State program is more stringent is
to evaluate whether it would get more benzene control than today's
proposed program. A State could determine the gasoline benzene levels
in the area, and make predictions of any changes in those levels with
the State program. This would require estimating the range of gasoline
benzene levels in gasoline supplied to the area under the federal
program, and any differences in the gasoline benzene levels that would
result from a State program. Another option would require a State
standard to be as low (in benzene) as the cleanest refinery baseline of
the refineries most likely to supply the area.
EPA believes this first alternative would be a reasonable exercise
of EPA's discretion under section 211(c)(1), because a federal backstop
is not needed to avoid degradation in benzene levels in those areas
where a State has adopted more stringent controls. Where a State adopts
a more stringent benzene control for conventional gasoline sold in its
area, it may request the EPA to remove the proposed federal benzene
standard applicable to such gasoline. If EPA finds the State standard
is in fact more stringent than the federal requirement otherwise
applicable to gasoline intended for and used in that area and that the
regulatory criteria are satisfied, the federal control would no longer
be applicable to conventional gasoline used in that area. Because no
federal benzene standard would apply to gasoline used in the area
regulated by the State control, the State control would not be
preempted by today's proposed federal benzene standard.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ EPA believes that if a particular federal control does not
apply to gasoline used in a given area, that federal control should
have no preemptive effect in that area under section 211(c)(4)(A).
Thus, to determine the scope of federal preemption in conventional
gasoline areas, EPA would only consider the conventional gasoline
controls. The current conventional gasoline exhaust toxics
performance standards, described in more detail below, use benzene
as one of the inputs in the model used to evaluate the performance
of a particular gasoline formulation. The level of benzene is not
itself limited by any federal regulation for conventional gasoline.
EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that section 211(c)(4)(A)
does not prohibit States from controlling benzene in conventional
gasoline based on either the current conventional gasoline (CG)
standards, or under today's proposal, where EPA's benzene control
does not apply to that gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes this approach is consistent with the authority
provided in section 211(c)(1). Section 211(c)(1) authorizes EPA to
determine both the level of control that is appropriate as well as the
product to which the control should apply. EPA believes it is
appropriate that this federal program, which is designed to avoid
backsliding, should not interfere with State authority to adopt
controls that are more stringent. This approach is similar to the
scheme outlined in section 211(c)(4), which allows EPA to approve
otherwise preempted State fuel controls into the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) if the controls are needed to help achieve one or more of
the NAAQS. This alternative provides a mechanism for waiving preemption
of State benzene controls that is otherwise missing in section
211(c)(4).
A second alternative would be to avoid preempting State benzene
controls in conventional gasoline areas in the first instance. This
could be accomplished by establishing a control, on a refinery-by-
refinery basis, based on the overall exhaust toxics performance rather
than specifically on benzene levels. As with benzene, many refiners
currently produce conventional gasoline that over-complies with the
individual baselines for exhaust toxics performance assigned to each
refinery. Much of this over-compliance, as explained earlier, is the
result of lower benzene levels in gasoline. A more stringent exhaust
toxics performance standard, like the proposed benzene standard, would
ensure maintenance of this recent performance (in most cases over-
compliance) but would not specify how that level of performance is to
be achieved.\39\ Like the refinery-by-refinery benzene standard being
proposed today, a refinery-by-refinery exhaust toxics performance
standard that reflects the recent level of performance achieved by that
refinery would impose only negligible costs on refiners, if any.
Moreover, because EPA would be regulating exhaust toxics performance
and not benzene content, State benzene controls may not be
preempted.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The conventional gasoline toxics performance standard
requires that exhaust toxics performance of current fuels be no less
than the individual baseline, which was based on the performance of
the gasoline produced in 1990. The performance of gasoline is
modeled using EPA's Complex Model. The inputs used by the Complex
Model to evaluate exhaust toxics performance for conventional
gasoline include the levels of benzene, MTBE, ETBE, ethanol,
aromatics, olefins, sulfur, RVP, and oxygen, as well as distillation
values (E200 and E300). By regulating performance rather than the
individual parameters that affect performance, the regulations give
refiners flexibility in determining their fuel formulations, and
preserve overall performance even if specific fuel characteristics
vary.
\40\ A state control on benzene would not be a control
``respecting'' exhaust toxics, for purposes of section 211(c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA invites comments on the need to consider the above options for
avoiding presumption of State controls, as well as the advantages and
disadvantages of both of these approaches, including the potential
preemptive effect of the approaches, and estimates of any costs
associated with each of the approaches.
We would expect that refiners would likely segregate such State
fuel in order to comply with the State control. We invite comment on
whether EPA should require segregation to ensure that batches of
gasoline that were not intended to be State batches would not be
labeled as such simply to avoid including them in a refinery's
compliance determination for today's proposed program. By ensuring that
gasoline is correctly accounted for and ultimately correctly
distributed, the environmental goals of the federal and State programs
are met. We request comment on this issue of segregating State
gasoline, including the feasibility and practicality of such an
approach and the impacts of distribution of a separate State gasoline.
F. What Are the Expected Impacts of EPA's Proposed Program?
1. Expected Costs and Benefits
EPA believes that no refinery capital expenditures or operational
changes would be needed to comply with the proposed anti-backsliding
program since the proposal only requires that refineries continue doing
what they did during 1998-1999 in terms of gasoline benzene content.
Refineries with low 1998-1999 benzene levels may believe that the
proposed rule is penalizing them for being ``cleaner'' than required
with respect to fuel benzene content. While EPA appreciates the fact
that these refineries were indeed cleaner than necessary, EPA believes
that refineries in 1998-1999 were likely to be operating in a manner
that optimized their operations. Thus, the over-compliance during that
time period must have been the most comfortable
[[Page 48081]]
operating position for refiners. Individual refiners whose gasoline
contained very low levels of benzene must have been maximizing profits
in the same way as refiners whose gasoline contained higher levels of
benzene. Thus, there is no clear unfairness to setting standards for
all refiners according to this optimized level, which had little year-
to-year variation even over the three year period beginning in 1997.
Discussion of Incremental Volume Impact
The Agency recognizes that the demand for RFG is projected to
increase over time, approximately 2% per year based on VMT projections.
This raises an issue whether additional or different costs may be
associated with this additional production to meet an increase in
demand. EPA invites comment on this issue. The proposed benzene
standards apply only to the annual average volume of RFG produced in
the baseline years. The Agency intends to regulate the additional
incremental production of RFG, and discusses options below. However, at
this time we are not proposing a specific course of action and will
take all comments into consideration when determining the appropriate
standard to apply to the incremental RFG production in the final rule.
Specifically, EPA invites comment addressing four separate
scenarios of potential increases in production of RFG: The first
scenario would arise through increased production by refiners who
currently produce RFG. These refiners may have current excess capacity
and would expand their RFG production to meet rising demand. These
refineries have established operations. They would have a baseline for
their current production. The second scenario is refiners who might
start producing RFG in the future. Some refiners who currently are only
producing CG may decide to convert some of their production to RFG.
They would not have an established baseline for the RFG production. The
third scenario is importers, who are somewhat different since they
often have no access to refining capacity themselves. Established
importers would have a baseline. Therefore, to increase volume over the
baseline volumes importers may have to find additional sources of RFG.
That may cause them to seek additional volume from a new refining
entity with benzene levels different from the established baseline. The
last scenario consists of new refineries and importers who would not
have established baselines. For each of these situations, EPA invites
comment on costs associated with this increased production compared to
costs with current production levels, information of the relative
impacts on supply if any, and the predicted benzene levels of this
increased production.
EPA seeks comment on two basic options for establishing a benzene
standard for this increased production and requests ideas on other
options that may be appropriate. Information received in the above
request for comments will be useful to EPA in deciding the appropriate
approach to take in setting a standard for this increase in production
volume. EPA also invites comment on the relative merits of both
approaches as applied to the different situations described above.
The first option would apply the same benzene content standard to
all production. In other words, existing RFG refiners and importers
that choose to expand production/importation would include all RFG
produced in determining compliance with their 1998-1999 baseline
benzene average. New RFG producers would need to meet the average
benzene content currently found in the national RFG pool (i.e., 0.66
vol%). This first option would ensure that the average benzene content
of RFG would not degrade in the future.
The second option would set a separate standard that would apply
only to the additional volume of RFG produced by a refinery or
importer.\41\ For these new barrels of RFG, EPA could require that the
gasoline meet a less stringent standard, but no less stringent than the
current RFG benzene standard of 0.95 vol% on average. This approach
would preserve the benzene reductions that have been achieved to date
for the existing inventory of RFG, while potentially allowing some
limited increase above this level for the small amount of increased
production. EPA requests comment on how benzene levels under this
option are likely to compare to those that would be achieved under the
first option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Under this option we would need to establish not only a
refinery-by-refinery baseline benzene content standard but also a
refinery-by-refinery baseline on the volume of gasoline produced.
Presumably these baselines would be based on the same time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Interaction With Tier 2/Sulfur Gasoline Program and Possible
MTBE Action
EPA is also seeking comment on the potential interaction, if any,
of today's proposal with the promulgated Tier 2/sulfur reduction
program and possible MTBE gasoline control programs. Regarding Tier 2
interaction with this proposal EPA, seeks comment on whether the
implementation of Tier 2/sulfur there may lead to future compliance
costs associated with this proposal. In addition to comments regarding
potential costs differences, EPA requests comment on alternative
benzene content standards that commenters believe would be appropriate
under these circumstances and other alternative scenarios identified by
commenters. EPA also seeks comment as to what extent, if any, the
proposed benzene controls would affect the costs associated with future
controls of MTBE content of gasoline. This information will be used to
inform the Agency in its ongoing deliberations on the MTBE issue.
With regard to benefits, our proposed anti-backsliding program is
not expected to reduce toxics emissions beyond what is currently being
achieved. Instead, we would expect it to hold the average content of
benzene in gasoline to 1998-1999 levels (gasoline in 2002, for example,
would have the same benzene content, on average, as gasoline in 1998-
1999 ). Because compliance with the proposed requirements would be
determined at the refinery, and because fuel from a given refinery
tends, on average, to be sold in a few specific areas (excluding
fungible pipeline shipments), areas with relatively high gasoline
benzene levels would be likely to continue to have relatively high
gasoline benzene levels, unless a refiner voluntarily reduced its
gasoline benzene content below its baseline levels. Fleet turnover to
vehicles with lower standards (in other words, LEVs and Tier 2
vehicles) is expected to lower emissions of toxic compounds even as VMT
increases, so benzene emissions will in fact continue to decrease,
independent of our proposed anti-backsliding program.
2. Applicability of the Anti-Dumping Program
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) recently wrote
to us requesting that we consider repealing the gasoline anti-dumping
program which was established as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments.\42\ A copy of this letter is included in the docket for
this rule. The anti-dumping regulations require that each refiner's
conventional gasoline, starting in 1995, produce no more emissions of
NOX and exhaust toxics emissions than were produced by that
refiner's 1990
[[Page 48082]]
gasoline. The primary purpose of the program was to prevent increased
emissions from consumption of conventional gasoline due to the
production of cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See EPA Air Docket A-2000-12, document number II-D-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRA believes that the combination of the Tier 2 sulfur controls,
which begin phasing in by 2004, and the benzene standard being proposed
today would on their own ensure compliance with the anti-dumping
standards for NOX and exhaust toxics emissions. In other
words, with sulfur levels controlled to 30 ppm on average and benzene
levels capped at current levels (which on average are less than those
existing in 1990), refiners could not modify other gasoline parameters
in order to violate their 1990 baseline standards for these two
pollutants.
We request comment on the appropriateness of revising the anti-
dumping program after full implementation of the Tier 2 sulfur controls
and the benzene standards being proposed today. We also request comment
on retaining the anti-dumping program, but waiving the testing and
reporting requirements for all refiners and importers after
implementation of the sulfur and benzene programs. Finally, we also
request comment on the need to require further reductions in fuel
benzene levels beyond those being proposed today before waiving the
testing and reporting requirements associated with the anti-dumping
program, to ensure that the waiver does not relax the current anti-
dumping requirement for toxics.
G. Determination of the Need for Future Controls Deferred to Technical
Analysis Plan and Future Rulemaking
In today's action we are not proposing to reduce the benzene
content of gasoline below 1998-1999 levels. Although EPA has started to
evaluate the emission benefits, costs, and technical issues associated
with reducing fuel benzene levels below 1998-1999 average levels, a
more precise evaluation of these issues cannot be made without much of
the information that would be developed in the proposed Technical
Analysis Plan. We are deferring a determination of the need for and
appropriateness of additional controls related to benzene or other
toxics until such time as more information is available.
Since reductions in fuel benzene content can produce substantial
reductions in benzene emissions, fuel benzene control is a good
approach to fuels-based toxics control. There are many ways of reducing
gasoline benzene content. In fact, through our discussions with
refineries and licensors of benzene reduction technology, we have
identified four basic strategies that refineries could use to reduce
benzene levels in their gasoline. The first strategy routes the
precursor compounds (i.e., those compounds that tend to form benzene in
the reformer \43\) around the reformer. The second strategy separates a
benzene-rich stream from reformate, the reformer product, and saturates
\44\ the benzene. In the third strategy benzene is separated from the
reformate for sale to the petrochemical market. The fourth strategy
involves separating either the benzene precursors or the benzene-rich
product and other light compounds from the reformate, and saturating
the benzene in an isomerate unit. While the first three strategies
result in a net octane loss in the gasoline pool, the last strategy
recovers that octane loss and can even increase the gasoline pool
octane level. These and other potential benzene reduction strategies
would be investigated in our Technical Analysis Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ A reformer is a refinery operating unit which produces a
gasoline blending stream known as reformate. Reformate is very high
in aromatics, such as benzene, and reformate is the main source of
benzene and aromatics in finished gasoline.
\44\ When benzene is saturated, hydrogen is added to the
molecule to transform it from an aromatic compound to cyclohexane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating further mobile source air toxics, we will consider
the appropriateness of both potential new controls and existing
controls, considering costs and other relevant factors. Benzene
reduction technologies (and in general, toxics reduction technologies
and strategies), and how to best estimate the inventory benefits of
additional control measures, are two areas for which we believe
additional information is needed. Therefore, as mentioned above, we are
deferring any further regulatory decisions until we can conduct our
Technical Analysis Plan.
It should be noted that there are clear advantages in deferring a
decision regarding the need for and appropriateness of further mobile
source air toxics controls. As the gasoline and proposed diesel sulfur
control programs are phased-in over the next few years, we can consider
the effects of those programs, for example, the refinery impacts, as we
estimate the costs and benefits of further controls. Also, currently
there are significant data gaps in our nonroad emissions estimates and
uncertainty in our estimated toxics inventories. We will be in a better
position to address these limitations over the next few years.
Furthermore, the nationwide benzene inventory will continue to decrease
over time due to other programs, ensuring that adverse health effects
associated with exposure to benzene will continue to decline. In the
meantime, our proposed anti-backsliding provisions would prevent
increases in the benzene content of gasoline. We also believe that
within the next few years, additional data on ambient toxics levels
will provide us with important information in evaluating further mobile
source air toxics policy decisions.
H. What Are the Details of Today's Proposed Program?
This section explains the proposed benzene requirements, who must
comply with the proposed standards, what gasoline is subject to the
requirements, a possible credit banking and trading program, and
compliance provisions.
1. Standards and Dates
We are proposing that each refinery and importer be assigned an
individual baseline benzene value, separately for their reformulated
and conventional gasolines, based on the quality of the gasoline
produced or imported during the two-year period from 1998 through 1999.
We are proposing that, beginning January 1, 2002, during each annual
averaging period, the average benzene content for each type of gasoline
listed above may not exceed the baseline benzene content for that type
of gasoline for that refinery.
We are proposing a one-year deficit carryover which would permit
refiners some flexibility in meeting their 1998-1999 baseline benzene
levels. Under this flexibility, a refinery or importer would be allowed
to be out of compliance with its benzene baseline for one year, but
would have to make up the deficit and be in compliance the next year.
EPA requests comments on this proposal and on a two-year averaging
option wherein a refinery or importer's compliance would be determined
every two years. EPA specifically requests comments on the potential
environmental harms and costs or cost savings under such an option.
We request comment on whether the proposed 1998-1999 baseline is an
appropriate baseline time period, and whether there would be any
difference in requiring 1997-1998 to be the baseline period, or perhaps
even a three-year baseline time period, 1997-1999, or some other time
period. We specifically request comment on the year-to-year variability
in a refinery's gasoline benzene levels. We also request
[[Page 48083]]
comment on the option of allowing a refinery to petition for a
different baseline time period, if, during a portion of the baseline
time period, refinery operations were significantly different from
average operations, barring normal maintenance and turnarounds.
We also request comment on whether the proposed start of the
program (January 1, 2002) allows sufficient time for refiners to
prepare to meet the proposed requirements. We believe the proposed
start date is appropriate since the requirements aim to capture recent
performance as opposed to forcing further reductions. Because the
proposed standards are average standards, which inherently allow batch-
to-batch variability, we are not including compliance cushions in the
setting of the gasoline benzene standard from each refinery's RFG and
CG standard. There were no compliance cushions used in either the anti-
dumping program or the RFG annual average benzene standard.
2. Entities Subject to the Proposed Regulation
The proposed benzene control program would apply to anyone who
produces or imports gasoline for sale in the U.S., primarily petroleum
refiners and importers. This includes anyone meeting our definition of
a refiner (including blenders, in most instances) or an importer.
Foreign refiners would in some cases be treated as a refiner.
3. California Gasoline
We are proposing that the requirements of the proposed benzene
control program not apply to California gasoline. This is because
California currently has a gasoline benzene standard that is more
stringent than that required by the federal RFG program. Under
California's program, a California refinery's annual average gasoline
benzene content cannot exceed 0.8 vol%. This standard is more stringent
than the federal RFG standards, which require that a refiner's RFG
benzene not exceed 0.95 vol%, on average. California maximum benzene
levels (on any batch subject to the averaging standard) are also more
stringent than the federal RFG requirements. The current California
maximum is 1.2 vol%, which will decrease to 1.1 vol% in 2003. The
federal RFG maximum benzene level is 1.3 vol%. In 1998, California
gasoline averaged less than 0.6 vol%. This average is below the current
0.65 vol% annual average for non-California, federal RFG. Additionally,
beginning in 2003, California gasoline will become subject to a more
stringent (refinery-based) benzene requirement of 0.7 vol% annual
average. Given this upcoming reduction in the California averaging
standard to a 0.7 vol% annual average, we do not expect average
California gasoline benzene levels to increase.
While it is possible that California gasoline benzene levels could
backslide compared to the levels in the baseline period, such a
backslide is highly unlikely, or would be extremely minimal, given
current California benzene levels and the upcoming more stringent
standards. The goal of today's proposed program is to ensure that
gasoline benzene levels around the country do not increase compared to
the gasoline benzene levels during the baseline time period. We do not
believe that excluding California from today's proposed program
conflicts with this goal, and we do not expect any environmental
detriment in California or the other 49 states as a result of excluding
California gasoline from the proposed requirements.
This exclusion for California gasoline is consistent with other EPA
fuel controls. California gasoline is currently excluded from some or
all of the requirements of the RFG, anti-dumping, and gasoline sulfur
programs. In the final RFG and anti-dumping rule (59 FR 7716, February
16, 1994), EPA exempted California refineries from most of the
enforcement mechanisms, including reporting, associated with those
programs because (1) California gasoline exceeded the federal
performance standards for RFG; (2) the federal RFG areas in California
were assured of meeting the federal RFG performance and content
(benzene and oxygen) standards; and (3) the compliance and enforcement
program was sufficiently rigorous. This exemption was extended for
federal RFG Phase II (64 FR 49992, September 15, 1999). EPA has also
exempted California gasoline from the recently promulgated gasoline
sulfur requirements associated with the Tier 2 emission standards (65
FR 6698, February 10, 2000) because the current California gasoline
sulfur requirement is at least as stringent as the new federal sulfur
requirement.
Because it would not be included in the proposed program, we are
proposing that California gasoline be segregated for the proposed
benzene program as well as the other federal fuel programs. Though most
California gasoline is produced and used in California, some is
imported to or exported from California, and under the RFG and anti-
dumping rules, such gasoline must be segregated and separately
accounted. Segregation will ensure that low-benzene California gasoline
is not part of a non-California refiner's benzene compliance
determination, which would otherwise allow the refiner to use the low-
benzene California gasoline to offset higher benzene gasoline destined
for areas other than California.
We request comment on whether California should be excluded from
the requirements of this proposed rule. If California gasoline were
subject to today's proposed rule, it would be considered a separate
type of gasoline for baseline and compliance determinations, just as we
have proposed separate determinations for RFG and conventional
gasoline.
4. Proposed Baseline Development and Submittal Requirements
a. General requirements. The purpose of establishing a benzene
baseline for each refinery or importer is to determine the standards
for that refinery under today's proposed rule. Each refinery or
importer will have a reformulated gasoline benzene baseline value and a
conventional gasoline benzene baseline value to the extent they
produced or imported these fuels in the 1998-1999 baseline time period.
We propose that refiners and importers would have to establish these
benzene baselines for each individual refinery by submitting to us data
establishing their annual average gasoline benzene levels based on the
average of their 1998 and 1999 operations. No additional sampling or
testing is required to establish a benzene baseline since this
information is already required for both the reformulated gasoline and
anti-dumping programs. We would review the data, and barring any
discrepancies, approve benzene baselines for each refinery or importer.
We believe the process we have defined would minimize the burden to
the industry and the time it will take for us to review and approve the
benzene baselines. Specifically, refiners and importers must submit to
us information which establishes (separately for RFG and CG) the batch
report numbers, benzene levels and volumes of each batch, or composite,
as applicable, of gasoline produced or imported in 1998 and 1999, as
well as the annual average benzene levels calculated from this data.
Within 120 days, we will review the application and notify the refiner
of approval or of any discrepancies we find in the data submitted.
We are proposing that benzene baselines be submitted no later than
June 30, 2001. EPA believes this would provide the industry with
sufficient preparation time, and the Agency adequate review and
approval time. EPA requests comment on whether this
[[Page 48084]]
deadline for benzene baseline submittals is appropriate.
b. Proposed requirements for foreign refiners. We are proposing
that foreign refiners may follow the general requirements of our
protocol for establishing individual refinery baselines (see 40 CFR
80.91-94 and also 40 CFR 80.410) by providing sufficient data to
establish the volume of gasoline imported to the U.S. in 1998-1999 and
the annual average benzene level of that gasoline. If the test method
used to identify the benzene levels differs from the one specified in
today's proposed action, the refiner would have to provide sufficient
information about the test method to allow us to evaluate the
appropriateness of the alternative. Because this information will be
new to us, we may require more time to review and approve their 1998-
1999 benzene baseline. But, consistent with our previous handling of
foreign refiner submissions, once we have determined that the
submission is complete, and the protocol has been followed, the foreign
refiner may use the baseline while awaiting our formal approval.
However, the refiner would be held to the baseline that is ultimately
approved.
c. Proposed requirements for importers and blenders. To establish
an individual benzene baseline, importers and blenders must have
information on every batch of gasoline for at least twelve consecutive
months within the two baseline years. Absent this data, we propose that
they be assigned the industry average gasoline benzene baseline for
that pool of gasoline.
d. Proposed requirements for those with incomplete 1998-1999
benzene data. Certain regulated parties did not produce or import
gasoline into the U.S. during some or all of 1998-1999. EPA is
proposing the following methodologies of determining the benzene
baselines for these parties for the purposes of the proposed benzene
control program:
(1) Produced or imported for 12 consecutive months or more during
the time period 1998-1999. EPA is proposing to accept, at a minimum, 12
consecutive months' worth of data (which must include every batch
produced or imported during that time period); any additional data (of
acceptable quality) for the remainder of the baseline period must also
be included in the determination.
(2) Produced or imported for less than 12 consecutive months during
1998-1999. EPA is proposing that refineries and importers in this
situation use the 1998-1999 industry averages (separately for RFG and
CG) as their 1998-1999 benzene baseline. We have estimated these values
to be 0.66 vol% for RFG and 1.11 vol% for CG.
e. Aggregation of refinery benzene baselines. Consistent with the
anti-dumping program, and with our position to maintain current
performance with today's proposed action, we are proposing that multi-
refinery refiners and importers be required to comply with the
requirements of this proposal for their conventional gasoline on the
same aggregate basis as their anti-dumping compliance is determined.
Thus, each aggregate of a refiner would have a baseline conventional
gasoline benzene level, computed after determining the baseline
conventional gasoline benzene level of each refinery in the aggregate.
5. Flexibility Provisions
a. Credit program. This proposed anti-backsliding program does not
include a credit trading program. However, EPA is seeking comment on
the need for and viability of a credit trading program such as outlined
below. While the agency believes it has provided sufficient flexibility
with the proposed deficit carryover program, we are seeking comment on
this credit trading approach as an alternative, or additional, means of
providing compliance flexibility.
The current Reformulated Gasoline Rules provide a credit program
that allows the transfer of benzene credits by refiners, importers, and
blenders (see 40 CFR 80.67). In this program, benzene credits can be
generated from a baseline average of 0.95 vol% benzene. This program
will remain in place. Refiners that currently rely on this program, if
any, will continue to be able to use it in meeting the basic RFG
requirements in 40 CFR part 80, subpart D.
This credit generation and transfer approach could also be
incorporated in the proposed anti-backsliding benzene standard.
Refiners could generate credits by reducing the average benzene in
their product below the anti-backsliding baseline. Under such a trading
program, compliance could be achieved through a transfer of benzene
credits provided that (1) the credits are generated in the same
averaging period as they are used; (2) the credit transfer takes place
not later than 15 working days following the end of the averaging
period in which the benzene credits were generated; (3) the credits
were properly created; and (4) the credits are transferred directly
from the refiner, importer, or blender that created the credits to the
refiner, importer, blender that used the credits to achieve compliance
(i.e., no brokering of credits).
Based on the fact that RFG and CG would have separate baselines,
EPA believes it would be inappropriate to allow credit trading between
the RFG and conventional gasoline pools. We request comment on the need
for and appropriateness of adopting this type of credit program in the
proposed anti-backsliding standard for both the reformulated and
conventional gasoline pools. We are also seeking comment on whether any
additional constraints might be included to limit credit transactions
to ensure that the average benzene levels supplied to a given area do
not degrade.
b. Hardship provisions. EPA is proposing to allow a refinery to
temporarily produce and distribute gasoline which will cause it to
exceed its baseline benzene level at the end of the averaging period
based on the refiner's inability to produce complying gasoline because
of extreme and unusual circumstances outside of the refiner's control
that could not have been avoided through the exercise of due diligence.
EPA is proposing to follow the ``extraordinary circumstances''
provisions as presented in 40 CFR 80.73 of the reformulated gasoline
rule. EPA does not believe that the proposed benzene control program
presents significant compliance challenges or compliance costs to the
refiners. Thus, we are not proposing to include hardship provisions
such as those included in the gasoline sulfur program for extreme
economic hardship.
6. Downstream standards
Compliance with today's proposal occurs at the refinery or importer
level, since each refinery, aggregate of refineries, or importer must
comply with its average 1998-1999 baseline. As a result, there are no
downstream standards associated with today's proposed rule.
7. Sampling and Testing
Overall we believe that our proposed anti-backsliding program will
require refiners and importers to do little or no more than they are
currently doing under the existing RFG and anti-dumping programs in
terms of sampling and testing. The specific requirements are discussed
below.
a. Test method for benzene in gasoline. We are proposing that ASTM
standard method D3606-99 Standard Test Method for ``Determination of
Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas
Chromatography'' be used for the measurement of benzene in gasoline.
[[Page 48085]]
This is the most recent update of this methodology.
b. Requirement to test every batch of gasoline produced or
imported. We propose that the applicable per-batch or composite
sampling and testing, as applicable for RFG and conventional gasoline,
be continued under our proposed benzene control program. Since this
program is only concerned with the annual average benzene level, there
is no need for more batch testing than is already required.
c. Sampling methods. Sampling methods apply to all parties who
conduct sampling and testing under the rule. We propose to require the
use of sampling methods that were proposed in the July 11, 1997 Federal
Register document for the RFG/CG rule (62 FR 37338, at 37341-37342,
37375-37376). These sampling methods include ASTM D 4057-95 (manual
sampling), ASTM D 4177-95 (automatic sampling from pipelines/in-line
blending), and ASTM D 5842 (this sampling method is primarily concerned
with sampling where gasoline volatility is going to be tested, but it
would also be an appropriate sampling method to use when testing for
benzene).
d. Gasoline sample retention requirements. EPA is proposing to
retain current gasoline sample retention requirements.
8. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Under today's proposal, refiners and importers would be required to
keep, and make available to EPA, certain records that demonstrate
compliance with their benzene baseline standard. The RFG/CG regulations
currently require refiners and importers to retain records that include
much of the information required in this proposed rule. Where this is
the case, there would be no requirement for duplication of records or
information.
Since there are no downstream standards under the proposed benzene
regulations, only refiners and importers would be required to retain
Product Transfer Documents (PTDs) and records of quality assurance
programs (including, where applicable, benzene test results). Parties
would be required to keep records for a period of five years.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Five years is the applicable statute of limitations for the
RFG and other fuels programs. See 28 U.S.C. 2462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refiners and importers would be required to submit an annual report
that demonstrates compliance with the applicable benzene standards and
data on individual batches of gasoline, including batch volume and
benzene content. Based on our experience with other programs, we
believe that requiring an annual benzene report and batch information
will provide an appropriate and effective means of monitoring
compliance with the average standards under the benzene program. Annual
reports, on forms provided by the Agency, would be required to be
received by EPA by the last day of February of the next calendar year.
EPA is proposing that parties that only blend oxygenates or butane
into gasoline not be considered refiners under the proposed rule, and,
as a result, would not be subject to the proposed reporting
requirements.
We are also proposing that refiners and importers be required to
arrange for a certified public accountant or certified internal auditor
to conduct an annual review of the company's records that form the
basis of the annual benzene compliance report (called an ``attest
engagement''). The purpose of the attest engagement is to determine
whether representations by the company are supported by the company's
internal records. Attest engagements are already required under the
RFG/CG regulations. The refiner's attest engagement under the RFG/CG
rule partially encompasses benzene rule compliance since the attest
auditors are already required to verify benzene results for both CG and
RFG. Consistent with the RFG regulations, the attest reports for
benzene would be included in the presently required attest engagement
submitted by May 31 of each year.
9. Exemptions for Research, Development, and Testing
We are proposing to provide an exemption from the proposed benzene
requirements for gasoline used for research, development and testing
purposes. We recognize that there may be legitimate research programs
that require the use of gasoline with sufficiently high benzene levels
such that extra effort would be required of the refiner to offset the
benzene contribution of the research gasoline. As a result, we are
proposing provisions for obtaining an exemption from the prohibitions
for persons distributing, transporting, storing, selling or dispensing
gasoline that would cause an exceedance of the refiner's annual average
benzene standard, or cause the refiner to produce gasoline with
sufficiently lower benzene to offset the benzene content of such
gasoline if it were included, where such gasoline is necessary to
conduct a research, development or testing program. Parties would be
required to submit to EPA an application for exemption that describes
the purpose and scope of the program and the reasons why use of the
higher benzene gasoline is necessary. In approving any application, EPA
may impose reasonable conditions such as recordkeeping, reporting, and
volume limitations.
10. Liability and Penalty Provisions for Noncompliance
The liability and penalty provisions under the proposed rule are
similar to the liability and penalty provisions of the RFG and other
fuels regulations.\46\ Regulated parties would be liable for committing
certain prohibited acts, or causing others to commit prohibited acts.
In addition, parties would be liable for a failure to meet certain
affirmative requirements, such as the recordkeeping or PTD
requirements, or causing others to fail to meet such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 40 CFR Sec. 80.5 (penalties for fuels violations);
Sec. 80.23 (liability for lead violations); Sec. 80.28 (liability
for volatility violations); Sec. 80.30 (liability for diesel
violations); Sec. 80.79 (liability for violation of RFG prohibited
acts); Sec. 80.80 (penalties for RFG/CG violations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions of section 211(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act)
for the collection of penalties would apply for noncompliance with the
proposed rule. The penalty provisions would subject any person who
violates any requirement or prohibition of the rule to a civil penalty
of up to $27,500 for every day of each such violation and the amount of
economic benefit or savings resulting from the violation. A violation
of the applicable average benzene standard would constitute a separate
day of violation for each day in the averaging period. The penalty
provisions are similar to the penalty provisions for violations of the
RFG regulations.
I. Toxics Performance Standard
EPA requests comments on an alternative approach that would be
based on a toxics performance standard instead of a gasoline benzene
content standard. This alternative program would be very similar to the
gasoline benzene program described above, but would require that the
average toxics performance for gasoline produced at each refinery not
increase over the toxics performance of gasoline produced by that
refinery during the baseline period, 1998-1999. Annual toxics
performance would be determined using the Complex Model in the same way
it is determined for our RFG and anti-dumping programs. Like our
proposal for the gasoline benzene standard, toxics performance would be
determined separately for RFG and CG. Also, like
[[Page 48086]]
our existing toxics performance requirements described above, the RFG
standard would apply to total toxics emissions while the conventional
gasoline standard would apply only to exhaust toxics performance. Other
components of the program would work in the same way as for the
gasoline benzene content standard, described in section H.
We believe that both of these approaches, the benzene content
standard and the toxics performance standard, are consistent with the
toxics requirements of the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping
programs, and either one could be used as the basis of a program that
seeks to maintain current levels of fuel-based toxics control. However,
a toxics performance standard (TPS) approach has some benefits compared
to the gasoline benzene content approach. For example, a TPS may
provide a toxics control program which offers more flexibility for
refiners than the proposed benzene content program. This is because the
TPS approach gives refiners more than one fuel parameter to adjust to
achieve compliance with the requirements. At the same time, this
flexibility varies by refiner, and may not be a benefit to many
refiners given that benzene emissions, which are heavily influenced by
gasoline benzene content, are the majority of toxics emissions. In
addition, a TPS program may be preferable because it would limit
emissions of several toxics, as a group, not just benzene.
These benefits, however, must be weighed against some issues that
would be raised by adoption of a TPS. First, while a TPS gives refiners
more flexibility, it is also the case that refiners may gain a large
degree of toxics benefits, as measured by the Complex Model, simply
through the gasoline sulfur reduction already required by 2004 instead
of through toxics control. In other words, refiners may be able to
maintain their current levels of toxics performance by reducing sulfur;
this may even allow them to reduce the performance of their fuels with
respect to emissions of other toxics as long as the overall toxics
performance remains constant. EPA is concerned that codification of the
current level of TPS over-compliance would effectively amount to a loss
of the toxics benefits of the Tier 2 rule. A second issue associated
with the TPS option is that it may not yield the same degree of benzene
control as a gasoline benzene content standard, since refiners can opt
to adjust aromatics or other fuel parameters instead of holding their
benzene levels at or near their 1998-1999 average. EPA requests comment
on the importance of each of these issues as well as on ways they can
be alleviated if a toxics performance standard is finalized. EPA also
seeks comment on whether a TPS approach will offer the same degree of
benzene control as a gasoline benzene content standard.
A third alternative, which may alleviate some of the issues
associated with a TPS, is to set a benzene emissions performance
standard. Under this approach, annual average benzene emissions would
be subject to comparison to baseline benzene emissions for 1998-1999,
as measured by the Complex Model. Benzene emissions could be measured
as they are in the existing fuel control programs, total for RFG,
exhaust-only for CG, or we could measure total benzene emissions for
both RFG and CG. EPA seeks comment on both alternatives. This approach
is somewhat more stringent than the benzene fuel content standard in
that it measures benzene emissions associated with a particular fuel
formulation and not just the benzene content of the fuel. It is also
more stringent than a TPS because it targets benzene specifically.
Refiners may favor a benzene emissions performance standard because
benzene emissions are a function of several gasoline constituents, and
refiners would have greater flexibility when setting their fuel
formulations. This option also has the benefit of specifically
addressing and maintaining benzene emissions, which are not directly
addressed under either the benzene content or the toxics performance
standard approaches.
At the same time, EPA is concerned that the same issues described
above for the toxics performance standard may also apply to a benzene
toxics performance standard. In this case, sulfur controls will allow
catalysts to perform more efficiently, resulting in lower exhaust
benzene. In addition, a specific benzene emissions performance standard
would be more constraining for refiners, in that adjustments to
aromatics would impact a refiner's ability to comply with the
requirements. EPA seeks comments on whether a benzene emissions
performance standard should be applied. EPA also seeks comment on the
importance of the issues described above as well as on ways they can be
alleviated if a benzene emissions performance standard is finalized.
VI. Nonroad Sources of MSAT Emissions
In this section, we will look at MSAT emissions from nonroad mobile
sources.\47\ First, we will briefly review the nonroad MSAT emission
inventories that were presented in Section III. Next, we will discuss
how the current nonroad emission control programs will reduce these
nonroad inventories, as well as briefly touch upon the expected
benefits from our new actions targeting the control of emissions from
currently unregulated nonroad categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ ``Nonroad'' is a term that covers a diverse collection of
engines, vehicles and equipment, as described in detail later in
this section. The terms ``off-road'' and ``off-highway'' are
sometimes used interchangeably with nonroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are looking at nonroad MSAT emissions separately from motor
vehicle MSAT emissions primarily because our understanding of nonroad
MSAT emissions is much more limited. This section ends with a
discussion of the current gaps in our data that we will need to fill
before we can comprehensively assess the need for, and appropriateness
of, programs intended to further reduce nonroad MSAT emissions.
A. Nonroad MSAT Baseline Inventories
We previously presented the 1996 baseline inventories for several
key nonroad MSAT emissions in Table III-2. This nonroad MSAT data was
taken from the 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In general, the
data show that nonroad vehicles tend to be significant contributors of
those same MSAT emissions for which motor vehicles are also significant
contributors. For some MSAT emissions, the nonroad inventories are
comparable to, or even higher than, those for on-highway vehicles.
Nonroad vehicles contribute as much as 39 percent of the national
inventory of some MSAT emissions, such as acetaldehyde and MTBE, and
contribute significantly to the national inventories of several others,
including 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, benzene, formaldehyde, lead
compounds, n-hexane, toluene and xylene.
Table III-4 shows our estimates of on-highway vehicle VOC and
diesel PM emissions. Comparing the 1996 values in this table to the
nonroad VOC and diesel PM numbers presented later in this section we
see that the nonroad VOC inventory in 1996 was almost 80 percent of the
on-highway inventory, while the nonroad diesel PM inventory for the
same year was roughly twice that for on-highway diesel PM.
[[Page 48087]]
B. Impacts of Current Nonroad Mobile Source Emission Control Strategies
1. Description of the Emission Control Programs
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 directed us to study the
contribution of nonroad engines to urban air pollution, and to regulate
them if warranted. Due to the variety of nonroad engine and equipment
types and sizes, combustion processes, uses, and potential for
emissions reductions, we have placed nonroad engines into several
categories. These categories include land-based diesel engines (e.g.,
farm and construction equipment), small land-based spark-ignition (SI)
engines (e.g., lawn and garden equipment, string trimmers), large land-
based SI engines (e.g., forklifts, airport ground service equipment),
marine engines (including diesel and SI, propulsion and auxiliary,
commercial and recreational), locomotives, aircraft, and recreational
vehicles (large land-based spark ignition engines used in off-road
motorcycles, ``all terrain'' vehicles and snowmobiles). Brief summaries
of our current and anticipated programs for these nonroad categories
follow.
Land-based diesel engines. Land-based nonroad diesel
engines include engines used in agricultural and construction
equipment, as well as many other applications (excluding locomotives,
mining equipment, and marine engines). Under our Tier 1 standards
phased in beginning in 1996, NOX reductions of over 30
percent were required of new land-based nonroad diesel engines greater
than 50 horsepower (hp).\48\ Standards applicable to engines under 50
hp took effect for the first time in 1999. We have completed a second
set of standards (Tier 2) which will be phased in from 2001 through
2006 and will require further NOX reductions, as well as
reductions in diesel PM emissions. Still more stringent NOX
standards for engines over 50 hp (Tier 3) have been adopted and will be
phased in from 2006 through 2008. These Tier 2 and Tier 3 regulations
will result in 50 percent reductions in VOC and 40 percent reductions
in diesel PM beyond the Tier 1 regulations.\49\ Finally, we are
currently working on appropriate Tier 3 diesel PM standards for land-
based nonroad diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994.
\49\ 63 FR 56968, October 23, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small land-based SI engines. Small land-based spark-
ignition engines at or below 25 hp are used primarily in lawn and
garden equipment such as lawn mowers, string trimmers, chain saws, lawn
and garden tractors, and other similar equipment. Our Phase 1 emission
controls for these engines took effect beginning in 1997 and will
result in a roughly 32 percent reduction in VOC emissions.\50\ We
recently completed Phase 2 regulations for these engines which will
result in additional reductions in combined HC and NOX
beyond the Phase 1 levels of 60 percent for nonhandheld engines and 70
percent for handheld engines.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995.
\51\ 64 FR 15208, March 30, 1999 and 65 FR 24267, April 25,
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large land-based SI engines. We do not currently have
emission standards in place for SI engines above 25 hp used in
commercial applications. Such engines are used in a variety of
industrial equipment such as forklifts, airport ground service
equipment, generators and compressors. We are currently developing an
emission control program for these engines.
Marine engines. Due to the wide variety of marine engine
types and applications we have broken them down into three general
categories for regulatory purposes. The first category consists of
gasoline outboard and personal watercraft engines. Our standards for
these engines took effect in 1998 and become increasingly stringent
over a nine year phase-in period, ultimately resulting in a 75 percent
reduction in VOC.\52\ The second category consists of commercial diesel
marine engines. Our emission standards for these engines take effect in
2004 and are similar to our standards for land-based nonroad diesel
engines.\53\ These regulations will ultimately result in VOC reductions
of 13 percent and diesel PM reductions of 26 percent for engines
subject to the standards. The last category consists of both gasoline
and diesel recreational sterndrive and inboard engines. We do not
currently have emission regulations in place for this category of
marine engine, but have begun developing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 61 FR 52088, October 4, 1996.
\53\ 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives. Our regulations for locomotives and
locomotive engines consist of three tiers, applicable depending on the
date a locomotive is originally manufactured.\54\ The first set of
standards (Tier 0) applies to locomotives and locomotive engines
originally manufactured from 1973 through 2001, any time they are
manufactured or remanufactured. The second set of standards (Tier 1)
applies to locomotives and locomotive engines manufactured from 2002
through 2004. The third set of standards (Tier 2) applies to
locomotives manufactured in 2005 and later. While the Tier 0 and Tier 1
regulations are primarily intended to reduce NOX emissions,
the Tier 2 regulations will result in 50 percent reductions in VOC and
diesel PM, as well as additional NOX reductions beyond the
Tier 0 and Tier 1 regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 63 FR 18978, April 16, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft. A variety of emission regulations have been
applied to commercial gas turbine aircraft engines, beginning with
limits on smoke and fuel venting in 1974. In 1984, limits were placed
on the amount of unburned HC that gas turbine engines can emit per
landing and takeoff cycle. Most recently (1997), we adopted the
existing International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
NOX and CO emission regulations for gas turbine engines.
None of these actions has resulted in significant emissions reductions,
but rather have largely served to prevent increases in aircraft
emissions. We continue to explore ways to reduce emissions from
aircraft throughout the nation.
Recreational Vehicles. Large land-based spark ignition
engines used in recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-road
motorcycles and ``all terrain'' vehicles, and are presently
unregulated. We are currently developing emission regulations for
recreational vehicles.
In addition to the above engine-based emission control programs,
fuel controls will also reduce emissions of air toxics from nonroad
engines. For example, gasoline formulation (the removal of lead, limits
on gasoline volatility and reformulated gasoline) will reduce nonroad
MSAT emissions, because most gasoline-fueled nonroad vehicles are
fueled with the same gasoline used in on-highway vehicles. An exception
to this is lead in aviation gasoline. Aviation gasoline is a high
octane fuel used in a relatively small number of aircraft (those with
piston engines). Such aircraft are generally used for personal
transportation, sightseeing, crop dusting, and similar activities.
As just discussed, most of our fuel controls aimed at gasoline
cover both on-highway and nonroad vehicle fuel. The same is not true
for diesel fuel. We have regulations in place that have dramatically
reduced the sulfur levels in on-highway diesel fuel, and we have
proposed further reductions in on-highway diesel fuel sulfur levels.
These controls, however, do not apply to nonroad diesel fuel. Prior to
the sulfur controls for on-highway diesel fuel, there was no
distinction between nonroad and on-highway diesel fuel. We
[[Page 48088]]
are considering the control of sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel, which
would allow more effective diesel PM control technologies such as
catalysts to be applied to nonroad engines and vehicles.
2. Emission Reductions From Current Programs
The programs just summarized are expected to result in reductions
of national inventories of the MSAT emissions. This section summarizes
our estimates of nonroad MSAT inventories into the future, based on the
nonroad emission control programs we currently have in place.
Interested readers are encouraged to refer to our Technical Support
Document for a more detailed discussion of these projections. The
discussion in this section consists of three parts. First, we discuss
the inventories of four gaseous MSAT emissions: benzene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene. Second, we discuss nonroad VOC
emissions inventories as a surrogate for the other nonroad gaseous MSAT
emissions. Finally, we discuss the trend of nonroad diesel PM
emissions.
We are not reporting inventory trends for the metals on our list of
MSATs (arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, mercury compounds, nickel
compounds, manganese compounds, and lead compounds) or for dioxin/
furans. Metals in mobile source exhaust can come from fuel, fuel
additives, engine oil, engine oil additives, or engine wear. Formation
of dioxin and furans requires a source of chlorine. Thus, while metal
emissions and dioxins/furans emissions are associated with particles,
there are a number of other factors that contribute to emission levels.
While it is possible that these compounds track PM emissions to some
extent, we do not have good data on these relationships.
a. MSAT emissions. Table VI-1 shows our estimates of four nonroad
MSAT emissions. These estimates were based on the 1996 inventories
contained in the 1996 NTI study.\55\ The 1990 estimates were derived by
applying toxic fractions to the nationwide VOC totals from the draft
NONROAD model to the 1996 NTI numbers.\56\ Toxic fractions represent
the fraction of total VOC that a given MSAT makes up. By knowing the
total VOC inventory and the toxic fraction for a given MSAT, we can
estimate the inventory of that specific MSAT indirectly. The 2007 and
2020 estimates were derived from the draft NONROAD model, with the
toxic fractions applied to the nationwide NONROAD VOC results. Toxic
fractions were applied separately to the various sources of nonroad
emissions (e.g., diesel, gasoline, two-stroke, four-stroke, exhaust,
evaporative) in the NONROAD model. Because the toxic fractions for the
four MSATs shown vary from one another among the different nonroad
emission sources, the percentage reductions of the four MSATs shown
differ from each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ It should be noted that these estimates do not include
locomotives, aircraft or commercial marine diesel engines. Thus, the
1996 estimates shown here differ slightly from those shown in Table
III-2.
\56\ The draft NONROAD model is a model we are developing to
project emissions inventories from nonroad mobile sources. Because
this is a draft model and subject to future revisions, the
inventories derived from the draft NONROAD model and presented here
are subject to change. The version of the NONROAD model that was
used in this analysis is the one we also used in support of our
recently proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine rule (65 FR 35429, June 2,
2000).
Table VI-1.--Annual Toxics Emissions Summary for Selected Air Pollutants for the Total U.S. Nonroad Mobile
Sources From 1990 to 2020
[Thousand short tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound 1990 emissions 1996 emissions 2007 emissions 2020 emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................................ 100.2 98.7 75.4 69
Acetaldehyde........................... 37.7 40.8 26.3 20
Formaldehyde........................... 79.2 86.4 53.8 40.7
1,3-Butadiene.......................... 9.4 9.9 8.8 7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI-2 summarizes the percent reductions from 1990 and 1996
levels represented by the inventories in Table VI-1. This table shows
that the reductions expected from our existing nonroad control programs
are significant, although not as substantial as the reductions of these
pollutants for on-highway vehicles presented in section III.
Table VI-2.--Summary of Percent Emission Reductions in 2007 and 2020 for Selected Air Pollutants for the Total
U.S. From 1990 or 1996 Nonroad Mobile Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in 2007 Reduction in 2020
Compound -----------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1990 From 1996 From 1990 From 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................................. 25 24 31 30
Acetaldehyde............................ 30 36 47 51
Formaldehyde............................ 32 38 49 53
1,3-Butadiene........................... 7 11 18 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. VOCs. With the exception of the four MSATs shown in Table VI-1,
we do not have detailed emissions data from nonroad mobile sources for
the other gaseous MSAT emissions. Therefore, to estimate projected
inventory impacts from our current nonroad mobile source emission
control programs, we use VOC inventories. We believe this is
appropriate because the gaseous MSAT emissions are constituents of
total VOC emissions. By using VOC emissions as a surrogate, we are
assuming that MSAT emissions track VOC reductions. In reality, however,
some gaseous MSAT emissions may not decrease at the same rate as VOCs
overall. Without having more detailed emission data for each of the
MSAT emissions, however, we are unable to offer any insights on how
those rates may differ. We request comment on how to develop inventory
projections for the other gaseous MSAT emissions.
Our VOC emission inventories were developed using the draft NONROAD
[[Page 48089]]
model. Because the draft NONROAD model does not include locomotives,
commercial marine diesel engines, or aircraft we supplemented the draft
NONROAD model inventories with the locomotive and diesel marine
inventories developed in support of our regulations for those
categories, and with aircraft emission inventories from the National
Air Pollutant Emissions Trends, 1900-1996 report. The results of this
analysis, presented in Table VI-3, show that VOC inventories are
projected to decrease approximately 44 percent between 1996 and 2020
due to existing nonroad mobile source emission control programs.
Comparing the results of this analysis with Table III-4, we see that
expected nonroad VOC reductions are not as dramatic as those projected
for on-highway vehicles, with nonroad and on-highway VOC inventories
expected to be very similar by 2020. This analysis shows that our
existing nonroad emission control programs will also result in
significant gaseous MSAT reductions (assuming, as previously discussed,
that gaseous MSAT emissions track VOC reductions).
Table VI-3.--Annual VOC Emissions Summary for the Total U.S. Nonroad
Mobile Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1996 2007 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million short tons per year..................... 3.6 2.2 2.0
Cumulative Percent Reduction from 1996.......... ...... 39 44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Diesel PM. We estimated the nonroad diesel PM inventories using
the draft NONROAD model. As explained earlier, because the draft
NONROAD model does not include locomotives, commercial marine diesel
engines, or aircraft we supplemented the draft NONROAD model
inventories using other sources of information to cover these
emissions. Table VI-4 shows our estimates of nonroad diesel PM
emissions inventories. As can be seen, we expect nonroad diesel PM
emissions to begin to drop with the implementation of some of our
nonroad regulations. However, in the absence of additional controls, we
expect that nonroad diesel PM emission inventories will begin to
increase due to expected growth in the populations of nonroad vehicles
and equipment. Comparing Table VI-4 to Table III-4 we see that, while
the nonroad diesel PM inventory is roughly twice that for on-highway
vehicles in 1996, nonroad emissions of diesel PM are expected to be
three to four times as great as on-highway diesel PM emissions by 2020.
As was previously mentioned, we are considering appropriate Tier 3
diesel PM standards for land-based nonroad diesel engines. We believe
that any specific new requirements for nonroad diesel PM we might
propose would need to be carefully considered in the context of a
proposal for nonroad diesel fuel standards. This is because of the
close interrelationship between fuels and engines--the best emission
control solutions may not come through either fuel changes or engine
improvements alone, but perhaps through an appropriate balance between
the two. Thus, we are working to formulate thoughtful proposals
covering both nonroad diesel fuel and engines.
Table VI-4.--Annual Diesel PM Emissions Summary for the Total U.S.
Nonroad Mobile Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1996 2007 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousand short tons per year.. 345.8 282.8 310.8
Cumulative Percent Reduction ............ 18 10
from 1996....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Gaps in Nonroad Mobile Source Data
There are significant gaps in our data on MSAT emissions from
nonroad engines. As a result of these data gaps our understanding of
nonroad MSAT inventories is less developed than our understanding of
on-highway vehicle MSAT emissions. The largest single data gap is in
the area of emission factors. While we have basic emission factors for
VOC and PM for most of the nonroad categories, we have very little VOC
speciation data for the given categories which would allow us to use
VOC as a surrogate to estimate emissions of specific MSAT emissions.
Given the large variety of nonroad engine sizes, types and uses, as
well as the likelihood that this variety will result in some
differences in VOC composition, it is important that we obtain or
develop speciated VOC data specific to each nonroad category in order
to more accurately project nonroad MSAT inventories. These gaps, too,
must be filled in order to accurately assess the need for, and the most
appropriate direction of, any future MSAT control program targeted
specifically at nonroad mobile sources.
D. Summary
In this section we presented our inventory projections of MSAT
emissions from nonroad mobile sources. We also briefly discussed the
data gaps that need to be filled in order to better understand nonroad
MSAT emissions. Our analysis shows that, without further emission
control programs, some nonroad gaseous MSAT emissions are expected to
decline by almost 50 percent by 2020. However, our analysis also shows
that, absent additional controls, nonroad diesel PM emissions are
expected to increase in the future.
VII. Technical Analysis Plan To Address Data Gaps and Reopening of
Rulemaking
A. Technical Analysis Plan To Address Data Gaps
Because of the continuing potential future health impacts of
exposure to the public of air toxics from mobile sources, we propose to
continue our toxics-related research activities. Therefore, in addition
to proposing today's controls, we believe we must continue to evaluate
and re-assess the need for, and level of, controls for both on-highway
and nonroad sources of air toxics in the future. Among the 21 compounds
that EPA is proposing for inclusion on the list of MSATs, we believe
that the Agency should focus its research in the next two years on
benzene, diesel exhaust, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
acrolein for on-highway and nonroad mobile sources.\57\ Agency
screening analysis and consultation with the States indicate that these
chemicals are likely to present the greatest risks to public health and
welfare. This MSATs research will be coordinated with and extend the
work that now is underway in the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
program that is part of the Urban Air Toxics Strategy. \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ EPA may also focus on other MSATs in the next two years, if
new information shows that is appropriate.
\58\ EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, which is
responsible for the MSATs program, will be working in coordination
with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAPQS), which
manages NATA, and the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, which is
examining issues related to a wide range of indoor air pollutants.
OTAQ will also rely on the health effects information and exposure
and risk assessment guidelines of EPA's Office of Research and
Development in conducting its program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48090]]
In conducting future research, EPA plans to address four critical
areas where there are data gaps, or the need for additional research
and analysis on the exposure of the public to air toxics, and the fuel
and vehicle pollution controls that are available to reduce air toxic
emissions. They are:
Developing better air toxics emission factors for nonroad
sources;
Improving estimation of air toxics exposures in
microenvironments;
Improving consideration of the range of total public
exposures to air toxics; and
Increasing understanding of the effectiveness and costs of
vehicle, fuel, and nonroad controls for air toxics.
Developing emission factors for nonroad sources. EPA wants to
analyze the emissions of several types of commonly used nonroad engines
to increase the engine test data it has on the air toxics from nonroad
mobile sources. The Agency will then pool the data on air toxics
emissions to develop better air toxics emissions factors for these
sources.
Improving estimation of exposures in microenvironments. In the
past, the Agency has used carbon monoxide (CO) measurements outdoors
and indoors as a surrogate for estimating air toxics levels in
different microenvironments (e.g., inside vehicles, homes, shopping
malls, office buildings, etc.). This approach has limitations. EPA is
currently using the Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure Model--Version 4
(HAPEM4), for estimating microenvironmental exposures in the National
Scaling Assessment of NATA. HAPEM4 uses recent, direct technical
assessments of the microenvironmental factors for individual chemicals
to model the exposures in microenvironments. These microenvironmental
factors and the results of their application are currently being peer
reviewed. After that review, EPA will incorporate applicable comments
into HAPEM4 microenvironmental factors that are needed to provide
improved exposure estimates. In the future, it may prove necessary to
have new field research undertaken to fill gaps in current data sets
such as microenvironmental settings (e.g., ``houses with attached
garages''). EPA will conduct field work in areas that the Agency judges
are critical to provide reasonable exposure results for any major group
of the U.S. population.
Another important aspect of considering microenvironmental
exposures is the amount of time people spend in each microenvironment.
HAPEM4 uses the recently developed Comprehensive Human Activity
Database (CHAD) of information describing activities of various
subgroups in the U.S. population in different microenvironmental
settings. CHAD is a more expansive human activity diary data set than
others EPA has used in exposure assessments to date, but the Agency
recognizes that additional field research may be needed to expand human
activity information for under-represented demographic groups,
particularly in urban areas. EPA will update CHAD to take advantage of
new data that becomes available through peer-reviewed studies. As CHAD
is updated in the future, EPA will make necessary adjustments to ensure
that HAPEM4 is providing the best reflection of each subgroup's
activities and enable a reasonable subgroup analysis where EPA would be
likely to gain additional insights about the health effects occurring
for particular groups. In addition, the Agency will review the data to
see where special analysis is warranted to isolate the subgroups facing
greater risks.
Improving consideration of the range of public exposures. EPA's
analysis to date has primarily examined average levels of exposure.
However, as the Agency has stated in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA
also wants to consider the disproportionate impacts of air toxics in
``hotspot'' areas. Hotspots are generally thought of as areas with
elevated pollutant levels that could be associated with potentially
serious health risks. The HAPEM3 modeling framework that EPA used for
conducting the 1999 EPA Air Toxics Study described in Section I.E.
above could not address this issue.\59\ States and local air pollution
control agencies have raised the hotspots issue as a major concern that
needs to be addressed in a proper air toxics risk characterization.\60\
Initially, EPA needs to develop and evaluate approaches that allow a
reasonable examination of the concern over hotspots. Upon finding a
reasonable way to address this issue, the Agency plans to assess the
impacts of elevated air toxics in certain areas over the next two
years. EPA will work with the State and local air pollution control
agencies to ensure that the results of air toxics monitoring data
analyses and urban monitoring pilot projects scheduled to be completed
in the next year are considered in EPA's development of mobile source
air toxics exposure and risk analyses.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor
Vehicles Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide
(Volumes 1 and 2), November 1999. EPA420-R-99-029/030. This report
can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm.
\60\ STAPPA/ALAPCO and NESCAUM raised this concern at an
conference on mobile source air toxics that the Health Effects
Institute managed for EPA in February 2000.
\61\ EPA will characterize the exposure risks of air toxics in
future analysis in the manner prescribed in the Agency's Guidance
for Risk Characterization, February 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, EPA will evaluate the feasibility of improving the
local-scale accuracy of the ASPEN model. More accurate and reliable
local scale-modeling of ambient air toxics concentrations will better
inform the Agency and the public about potential ``hot spots.'' This
information will also improve HAPEM exposure estimates.
Increasing understanding of the effectiveness and costs of vehicle,
fuel, and nonroad air toxics controls. The Agency intends to conduct
additional analysis on the types of controls that it could have for
vehicles, fuels, and nonroad engines to lower emissions cost-
effectively in a reliable and predictable manner. For the seven air
toxics mentioned above, the Agency will analyze a variety of control
options, including a reevaluation of previously considered control
options, for both on-highway and nonroad sources. Based on the results
of this work, EPA plans a more detailed engineering feasibility,
performance, and cost analysis for the most promising technical
approaches and a re-assessment of the level of air toxics controls for
these sources.
In all of these research areas, EPA wants to work collaboratively
with industry representatives, manufacturers of emissions control
technology, State and local agencies, environmental groups, and other
stakeholders. In keeping with this approach, the Agency plans to hold
at least three technical workshops with all interested stakeholders to
consider:
Improvements EPA should make to ASPEN and HAPEM4 to enable
the Agency to better assess the risks from air toxics;
Ways to address the significance of the hotspots
issue;\62\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ This workshop would include ways to qualify and quantify
the geographic and exposure/risk impacts of mobile source emissions,
considering both the ubiquitous ambient impact as well as potential
hotspots. It would further assess how to examine for hotspots the
geographic and exposure variability that exists for air toxics.
Geographic variability includes the observed elevated urban area
ambient concentrations of mobile source air toxics, peak ambient
concentrations adjacent to roadways in urban and rural areas, and
the elevated, mobile source-dependent emissions impacts (for
example, waste transfer station operations and bus, marine,
aircraft, and locomotive terminal operations). Exposure variability
includes recognition of factors that lead to different levels of
human exposure, such as commuting, or living in a residence with an
attached garage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48091]]
Available vehicle, fuel, and nonroad control technologies
for reducing air toxics.
The results of this research will provide the basis for any future
rulemaking, as discussed below.
EPA solicits comments on this plan to support the Agency's future
decisions on MSAT controls. The Agency also solicits submission of any
documents with relevant technical research of which commenters believe
the EPA may be unaware, or descriptions of research activities
commenters believe the Agency should pursue.
B. Commitment for Further Rulemaking
EPA is also proposing a regulatory provision providing for a future
rulemaking that will determine, based on the information available at
that time, what additional motor vehicle or fuel controls would be
appropriate to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants from motor
vehicles and their fuels. This rulemaking would reassess the
appropriateness of the then current standards under the Clean Air Act
including the need for and technical and economical feasibility of
further controls. The standards that have been promulgated by EPA or
that are promulgated pursuant to today's proposal would stay in effect
unless revised by this subsequent rulemaking procedure. EPA commits to
issue a proposed rule by the end of 2003, and to take final action by
the end of December of 2004.
As part of this rulemaking, EPA will reexamine the controls
available for reducing emissions of benzene as well as the other
hazardous air pollutants emitted from on-highway and nonroad vehicles
and equipment and their fuels. EPA will reassess the reductions in
toxics emissions expected to be achieved by the current suite of motor
vehicle and fuel controls that will be implemented over the next
several years as well as the potential for innovative control
technologies to provide further reductions. In 2004, EPA will also be
able to better determine the appropriateness of additional fuel
controls in light of potential developments being considered by
Congress, EPA and States with respect to MTBE and the oxygen content of
gasoline. Finally, the review will consider the contribution of nonroad
engines to emissions of air toxics and whether controls that reduce
these emissions along with motor vehicle emissions are appropriate
under the Act.
VIII. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
Publication of this document opens a public comment period on this
proposal. You may submit comments during the period indicated under
DATES above. The Agency encourages all parties that have an interest in
the program described in this document to offer comment on all aspects
of the action. Throughout this proposal you will find requests for
specific comment on various topics.
The most useful comments are those supported by appropriate and
detailed rationales, data, and analyses. We also encourage commenters
who disagree with the proposed program to suggest and analyze alternate
approaches to meeting the air quality goals of this proposed program.
You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary
information, to the EPA's Air Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the date
specified above for the end of the comment period.
Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly separate such information from other
comments. Such submissions should be labeled as ``Confidential Business
Information'' and be sent directly to the person listed (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), not to the public docket. This will help
ensure that proprietary information is not placed in the public docket.
If a commenter wants EPA to use a submission of confidential
information as part of the basis for the final rule, then a non-
confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or
information must be sent to the docket.
We will disclose information covered by a claim of confidentiality
only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when we
receive it, we will make it available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.
B. Public Hearings
We will hold a public hearing as noted under DATES above. If you
would like to present testimony at the public hearing, we ask that you
notify the contact person listed above two weeks before the date of the
hearing. You should include in this notification an estimate of the
time required for the presentation, and any need for audio/visual
equipment. We also suggest that sufficient copies of the statement or
material to be presented be made available to the audience. In
addition, it is helpful if the contact person receives a copy of the
testimony or material before the hearing.
The hearing will be conducted informally, and technical rules of
evidence will not apply. A sign-up sheet will be available at the
hearing for scheduling the order of testimony. Written transcripts of
the hearing will be prepared. The official record of the hearing will
be kept open for 30 days after the hearing date to allow submittal of
supplementary information.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines a
``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.
EPA has determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 because it raises
novel legal or policy issues and is therefore subject to OMB review.
The Agency believes that this regulation would result in none of the
economic effects set forth in Section 1 of the Order.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally
requires federal agencies to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis
of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements
unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include businesses, small not-for-profit
[[Page 48092]]
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities because the standards as proposed seek to hold gasoline
benzene fuel content to levels previously achieved by refiners in 1998
and 1999. The proposed standards would not require refiners to purchase
equipment or to change their refining practices in new and unique ways.
Today's proposed program also does not create requirements that would
affect the ways in which fuels are transported or stored.
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements (ICR) in this proposed rule
will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We will
announce in a separate Federal Register document that the ICR has been
submitted to OMB.
The Agency may not conduct or sponsor an information collection,
and a person is not required to respond to a request for information,
unless the information collection request displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
D. Intergovernmental Relations
1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory action on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgation an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
our regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental
mandates. The plan must also provide for informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA believes this proposed rule contains no federal mandates for
state, local, or tribal governments or for the private sector as
defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. Nothing in the
proposed rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
2. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule may have federalism implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, by preempting state and fuel benzene
controls. The proposed standards will impose no direct compliance costs
on states. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
EPA consulted with state and local officials in the process of
developing the proposed regulation to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. In the spirit of Executive Order
13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between
EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment
on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
3. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13094
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.''
The proposed rule does not create any mandates or impose any
obligations, and thus does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rule references technical standards adopted by the
Agency through previous rulemakings. No new technical standards are
[[Page 48093]]
proposed in today's document. The standards referenced in today's
proposed rule involve the measurement of gasoline fuel parameters. The
measurement standards for gasoline fuel parameters referenced in
today's proposal are government-unique standards that were developed by
the Agency through previous rulemakings. These standards have served
the Agency's emissions control goals well since their implementation
and have been well accepted by industry.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
F. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA believes this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive
Order because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 12866.
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
The statutory authority for the fuels controls proposed in today's
document can be found in sections 202 and 211(c) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), as amended. Additional support for the procedural and
enforcement-related aspects of the fuel controls in today's proposal,
including the proposed recordkeeping requirements, come from sections
114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 14, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 80 and 86 of title
40, of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(l), 7545 and 7601(a).
2. Section 80.2 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(d) Previously certified gasoline, or PCG, means gasoline or RBOB
that previously has been included in a batch for purposes of complying
with the standards in subparts D, E, H, and I of this part, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
3. Section 80.46 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 80.46 Measurement of reformulated gasoline fuel parameters.
* * * * *
(e) Benzene. (1) Benzene content shall be determined using ASTM
standard method D-3606-99, entitled ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation
Gasoline by Gas Chromatography''; except that
(2) Instrument parameters must be adjusted to ensure complete
resolution of the benzene, ethanol and methanol peaks because ethanol
and methanol may cause interference with ASTM standard method D-3606-99
when present.
* * * * *
(h) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard methods D 2622-98, D
3246-96, D 3606-99, D 1319-93, D 4815-93, and D 86-90 with the
exception of the degrees Fahrenheit figures in Table 9 of D 86-90, are
incorporated by reference. These incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West
Conshohocken, PA 19428. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket
Section (LE-131), room M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Docket No. A-97-03, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite
700, Washington, DC.
4. Subpart I is added to read as follows:
Subpart I--Gasoline Benzene
General Information
Sec.
80.580-80.585 [Reserved]
80.590 Who must register with EPA under the benzene program?
Gasoline Benzene Standards
80.595 What are the gasoline benzene standards for refiners and
importers?
80.600 What gasoline is subject to the benzene standards and
requirements?
80.605 How is the annual refinery or importer average benzene
level determined?
80.610 What requirements apply to oxygenate blenders?
80.615 What requirements apply to butane blenders?
80.620 [Reserved]
80.625 What requirements apply to California gasoline?
80.635-80.685 [Reserved]
Baseline Determination
80.690 How does a refiner or importer apply for a benzene
baseline?
80.695 How is a benzene baseline determined?
80.700 [Reserved]
80.705 What is the benzene baseline for refineries or importers
with incomplete 1998-1999 data?
80.710-80.725 [Reserved]
Sampling, Testing and Retention Requirements for Refiners and Importers
80.730 What are the sampling and testing requirements for refiners
and importers?
80.735 What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to
refiners and importers?
80.740 What requirements apply to refiners producing gasoline by
blending blendstocks into previously certified gasoline (PCG)?
80.745 [Reserved]
80.750 What alternative benzene requirements apply to importers
who transport gasoline by truck?
80.755-80.760 [Reserved]
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
80.765 What records must be kept?
80.770 What are the benzene reporting requirements?
Exemptions
80.775 What if a refiner or importer is unable to produce gasoline
conforming to the requirements of this subpart?
80.780 What are the requirements for obtaining an exemption for
gasoline used
[[Page 48094]]
for research, development or testing purposes?
Violation Provisions
80.785 What acts are prohibited under the gasoline benzene
program?
80.790 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the
prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for
violations of this subpart?
80.795 Who is liable for violations under the gasoline benzene
program?
80.800 [Reserved]
80.805 What penalties apply under this subpart?
Provisions for Foreign Refiners With Individual Benzene Baselines
80.810 What are the additional requirements for gasoline produced
at foreign refineries having individual refiner benzene baselines?
Attest Engagements
80.815 What are the attest engagement requirements for gasoline
benzene compliance applicable to refiners and importers?
80.820 [Reserved]
Additional Rulemaking
80.825 What additional rulemaking will EPA conduct?
Subpart I--Gasoline Benzene
General Information
Secs. 80.580-80.585 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.590 Who must register with EPA under the benzene program?
(a) Refiners and importers who are registered by EPA under
Sec. 80.76 are deemed to be registered for purposes of this subpart.
(b) Refiners and importers subject to the standards in Sec. 80.595
who are not registered by EPA under Sec. 80.76 must provide to EPA the
information required by Sec. 80.76 by October 1, 2001, or not later
than three months in advance of the first date that such person
produces or imports gasoline, whichever is later.
Gasoline Benzene Standards
Sec. 80.595 What are the gasoline benzene standards for refiners and
importers?
(a)(1) The refinery or importer annual average gasoline benzene
standard is the baseline benzene level for that refinery or importer as
determined at Sec. 80.695.
(2) A refinery or importer has a separate annual average gasoline
benzene standard for each of the following types of gasoline produced
at that refinery or imported:
(i) Reformulated gasoline;
(ii) Conventional gasoline.
(b)(1) The annual average gasoline benzene standard is the maximum
average benzene level allowed for gasoline produced at a refinery or
imported by an importer during each calendar year starting January 1,
2002. Refiners who have chosen, under subpart E of this part, to comply
with the requirements of subpart E of this part on an aggregate basis,
must comply with the requirements of this subpart on the same aggregate
basis.
(2) The benzene standard and all compliance calculations for
benzene under this subpart are in percent by volume (vol%) and volumes
are in gallons.
(3) The averaging period is January 1 through December 31 of each
year.
(4) The standards under paragraph (a) of this section shall be met
by the importer for all imported gasoline, except gasoline imported as
Certified Benzene-FRGAS under Sec. 80.810.
(5) The annual average benzene level is calculated in accordance
with Sec. 80.605.
Sec. 80.600 What gasoline is subject to the benzene standards and
requirements?
For the purpose of this subpart, all reformulated gasoline,
conventional gasoline and RBOB, collectively called ``gasoline'' unless
otherwise specified, is subject to the standards and requirements under
this subpart, as applicable, with the following exceptions:
(a) Gasoline that is used to fuel aircraft, racing vehicles or
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events, provided
that:
(1) Product transfer documents associated with such gasoline, and
any pump stand from which such gasoline is dispensed, identify the
gasoline either as gasoline that is restricted for use in aircraft, or
as gasoline that is restricted for use in racing motor vehicles or
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events;
(2) The gasoline is completely segregated from all other gasoline
throughout production, distribution and sale to the ultimate consumer;
and
(3) The gasoline is not made available for use as motor vehicle
gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor vehicles, except for motor
vehicles used only in sanctioned racing events.
(b) Gasoline that is exported for sale outside the U.S.
(c) Gasoline designated as California gasoline under Sec. 80.625,
and used in California.
(4) For RFG, the volume of RFG that exceeds the annual average
volume of RFG produced during the 1998-1999 baseline years.
Sec. 80.605 How is the annual refinery or importer average benzene
level determined?
(a) The annual refinery or importer average gasoline benzene level
is calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AU00.000
Where:
Ba = The refinery or importer annual average benzene value,
as applicable.
Vi = The volume of applicable gasoline produced or imported
in batch i.
Bi = The benzene content of batch i determined under
Sec. 80.730.
n = The number of batches of gasoline produced or imported during the
averaging period.
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during the
averaging period.
(b) The annual average calculation specified in paragraph (a) of
this section shall be completed separately for each type of gasoline
specified at Sec. 80.595(a)(2).
(c) All annual refinery or importer average calculations shall be
conducted to two decimal places.
(d) A refiner or importer may include oxygenate added downstream
from the refinery or import facility when calculating the benzene
content, provided the following requirements are met:
(1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline, the refiner or
importer must comply with the requirements of Sec. 80.101(d)(4)(ii).
(2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the refiner or importer must
comply with the requirements of Sec. 80.69(a).
(e) Refiners and importers must exclude from compliance
calculations all of the following:
(1) Gasoline that was not produced at the refinery;
(2) In the case of an importer, gasoline that was imported as
Certified Benzene-FRGAS under Sec. 80.810;
(3) Blending stocks transferred to others;
(4) Gasoline that has been included in the compliance calculations
for another refinery or importer; and
(5) Gasoline exempted from standards under Sec. 80.600.
(f) A refiner or importer may exceed its refinery or importer
annual average benzene standard specified in Sec. 80.595, separately
for RFG and CG, for a given averaging period, creating a compliance
[[Page 48095]]
deficit, provided that in the calendar year following the year the
standard is not met, the refinery or importer shall:
(1) Achieve compliance with the refinery or importer annual average
benzene standard specified in Sec. 80.595; and
(2) Use additional benzene credits sufficient to offset the
compliance deficit of the previous year.
Sec. 80.610 What requirements apply to oxygenate blenders?
Oxygenate blenders who blend oxygenate into gasoline downstream of
the refinery that produced the gasoline or the import facility where
the gasoline was imported, are not subject to the requirements of this
subpart applicable to refiners for this gasoline.
Sec. 80.615 What requirements apply to butane blenders?
Butane blenders who blend butane into gasoline downstream of the
refinery that produced the gasoline or the import facility where the
gasoline was imported, are not subject to the requirements of this
subpart applicable to refiners for this gasoline.
Sec. 80.620 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.625 What requirements apply to California gasoline?
(a) Definition. For purposes of this subpart California gasoline
means any gasoline designated by the refiner or importer as for use in
California.
(b) California gasoline exemption. California gasoline that
complies with all the requirements of this section is exempt from all
other provisions of this subpart.
(c) Requirements for California gasoline. The requirements are as
follows:
(1) Each batch of California gasoline must be designated as such by
its refiner or importer;
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Designated California gasoline must ultimately be used in the
State of California and not used elsewhere;
(4) In the case of California gasoline produced outside the State
of California, the transferors and transferees must meet the product
transfer document requirements under Sec. 80.81(g); and
(5) Gasoline that is ultimately used in any part of the United
States outside of the State of California must comply with the
standards and requirements of this subpart, regardless of any
designation as California gasoline.
(d) Use of California test methods and off site sampling
procedures. In the case of any gasoline that is not California gasoline
and that is either produced at a refinery located in the State of
California or is imported from outside the United States into the State
of California, the refiner or importer may, with regard to such
gasoline:
(1) Use the sampling and testing methods approved in Title 13 of
the California Code of Regulations instead of the sampling and testing
methods required under Sec. 80.730; and
(2) Determine the benzene content of gasoline at off site tankage
as permitted in Sec. 80.81(h)(2).
Secs. 80.635-80.685 [Reserved]
Baseline Determination
Sec. 80.690 How does a refiner or importer apply for a benzene
baseline?
(a)(1) A refiner or importer must submit an application to EPA
which includes the information required under paragraph (c) of this
section no later than June 30, 2001.
(2) Any refinery which was not in operation during 2001, or any
importer which was not in business during 2001, must submit an
application to EPA which includes the applicable information required
under paragraph (c) of this section no later than 6 months prior to the
introduction of gasoline into commerce.
(b) The benzene baseline request must be sent to: U.S. EPA, Attn:
Benzene Program (6406J), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. For
commercial (non-postal) delivery: U.S. EPA, Attn: Benzene Program, 501
3rd Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.
(c) The benzene baseline application must include the following
information:
(1) A listing of the names and addresses of all refineries owned by
the company for which the refiner is applying for a benzene baseline,
or the name and address of the importer applying for a benzene
baseline.
(2)(i) The annual average benzene level for each type of gasoline,
per Sec. 80.595(a)(2), produced in 1998-1999 for each refinery for
which the refiner is applying for a benzene baseline, or the annual
average gasoline benzene baseline for gasoline imported in 1998-1999.
(ii) Calculation of the average benzene levels under this paragraph
shall be in accordance with Sec. 80.695.
(iii) For those with insufficient data pursuant to Sec. 80.705, a
statement that the refinery's or importer's baseline will be the
default baseline specified at Sec. 80.705(b).
(3) A letter signed by the president, chief operating or chief
executive officer, of the company, or his/her delegate, stating that
the information contained in the benzene baseline determination is true
to the best of his/her knowledge.
(4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number and E-mail
address of a company contact person.
(5) The following information for each batch of gasoline produced
or imported in 1998-1999, separated by type of gasoline as listed at
Sec. 80.585(a)(2):
(i) Batch number assigned to the batch under Sec. 80.65(d) or
Sec. 80.101(i);
(ii) Volume; and
(iii) Benzene content.
(d) Foreign refiners must follow the procedures specified in
Sec. 80.810(b) to establish individual benzene baseline values for a
foreign refinery.
(e) Within 120 days of receipt of an application under this
section, EPA will notify the refiner of approval of the refinery's
baseline or of any deficiencies in the application.
(f) If at any time the baseline submitted in accordance with the
requirements of this section is determined to be incorrect, the
corrected baseline applies ab initio and the annual average standards
are deemed to be those applicable under the corrected information.
Sec. 80.695 How is a benzene baseline determined?
(a) A refinery's or importer's benzene baseline is calculated using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AU00.001
Where:
BBase = Benzene baseline value.
Vi = Volume of gasoline batch i produced or imported.
Bi = Benzene content of gasoline batch i produced or
imported.
n = Total number of batches of gasoline produced or imported during
January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999.
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during January 1,
1998 through December 31, 1999.
(b) The calculation at Sec. 80.695(a) shall be made separately for
each type of gasoline listed at Sec. 80.595(a)(2).
(c) Any refinery for which oxygenate blended downstream was
included in compliance calculations for 1998-1999, pursuant to
Sec. 80.65 or Sec. 80.101(d)(4), must include this oxygenate in the
baseline calculations for benzene content under paragraph (a) of this
section.
[[Page 48096]]
Sec. 80.700 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.705 What is the benzene baseline for refineries or importers
with incomplete 1998-1999 data?
(a)(1) A refinery or importer must use the methodology specified at
Sec. 80.695 for determining a benzene baseline if it has benzene
measurements on every batch of gasoline produced or imported for 12 or
more consecutive months during January 1, 1998 through December 31,
1999.
(2) The determination in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is made
separately for each type of gasoline listed at Sec. 80.595(a)(2)
produced or imported during January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999.
(3) All consecutive and non-consecutive batch benzene measurements
during January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999 are to be included in
the baseline determination, unless the refinery or importer petitions
EPA to exclude such data on the basis of data quality, per
Sec. 80.91(d)(6) and receives permission from EPA to exclude such data.
(b) A refinery or importer that has benzene measurements on every
batch of gasoline produced or imported for less than 12 consecutive
months during January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999 shall have the
following benzene values as its benzene baseline for the purposes of
this subpart:
(1) [Reserved]
(2) For conventional gasoline, 1.11 vol% benzene.
Secs. 80.710-80.725 [Reserved]
Sampling, Testing and Retention Requirements for Refiners and Importers
Sec. 80.730 What are the sampling and testing requirements for
refiners and importers?
(a) Sample and test each batch of gasoline. (1) Beginning January
1, 2002, refiners and importers shall collect a representative sample
from each batch of gasoline produced or imported and test each sample
to determine its benzene content for compliance with requirements under
this subpart prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import
facility, using the sampling and testing methods provided in this
section.
(2) For purposes of meeting the sampling and testing requirements
of this section for conventional gasoline, any refiner may, prior to
analysis, combine samples of gasoline from more than one batch of
gasoline or blendstock and treat such composite sample as one batch of
gasoline or blendstock pursuant to the requirements of
Sec. 80.101(i)(2).
(3) Any refiner who produces reformulated gasoline or conventional
gasoline using computer-controlled in-line blending equipment may meet
the testing requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section under the
terms of an exemption granted under Sec. 80.65(f)(4).
(b) Sampling methods. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this
section, refiners and importers shall sample each batch of gasoline by
using one of the following methods:
(1) Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall be performed
according to the applicable procedures specified in one of the two
following methods:
(i) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method D
4057-95, entitled ``Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum
and Petroleum Products.''
(ii) Samples collected under the applicable procedures in ASTM
method D 5842-95, entitled ``Standard Practice for Sampling and
Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement,'' may be used for
measuring benzene content if there is no contamination present that
could affect the benzene test result.
(2) Automatic sampling of petroleum products in pipelines shall be
performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM
method D 4177-95, entitled ``Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling
of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
(c) Test method for measuring the benzene content of gasoline. (1)
For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers
shall use the method provided in Sec. 80.46(e) to measure the benzene
content of gasoline they produce or import.
(2) Except as provided in Sec. 80.750 and in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, any ASTM benzene test method for liquefied fuels may be
used for quality assurance testing under Sec. 80.800, if the protocols
of the ASTM method are followed and the alternative method is
correlated to the method provided in Sec. 80.46(e).
(d) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard practices D 4057-95,
D 4177-95 and D 5842-95 are incorporated by reference. These
incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Copies may
be inspected at the Air Docket Section (LE-131), room M-1500, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-97-03, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
Sec. 80.735 What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to
refiners and importers?
(a) Sample retention requirements. Beginning January 1, 2002, any
refiner or importer shall:
(1) Collect a representative portion of each sample of a batch or
composite batch analyzed under Sec. 80.730(a), of at least 330 ml in
volume;
(2) Retain sample portions for the most recent 20 samples
collected, or for each sample collected during the most recent 21 day
period, whichever is greater;
(3) Comply with the gasoline sample handling and storage procedures
under Sec. 80.730(b) for each sample portion retained; and
(4) Comply with any request by EPA to:
(i) Provide a retained sample portion to the Administrator's
authorized representative; and
(ii) Ship a retained sample portion to EPA, within 2 working days
of the date of the request, by an overnight shipping service or
comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified by
EPA, and accompanied with the benzene test result for the sample
determined under Sec. 80.730(a).
(b) Sample retention requirement for samples subject to independent
analysis requirements. (1) Any refiner or importer who meets the
independent analysis requirements under Sec. 80.65(f) for any batch of
reformulated gasoline or RBOB will have met the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, provided the independent laboratory
meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for the
gasoline batch.
(2) For samples retained by an independent laboratory under
paragraph (b) of this section, the test results required to be
submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall be the test results
determined under Sec. 80.65(e).
(c) Sampling compliance certification. Any refiner or importer
shall include with each annual report filed under Sec. 80.770, the
following statement, which must accurately reflect the facts and must
be signed and dated by the same person who signs the annual report:
I certify that I have made inquiries that are sufficient to give
me knowledge of the procedures to collect and store gasoline
samples, and I further certify that the procedures meet the
requirements of the ASTM procedures required under 40 CFR 80.730.
[[Page 48097]]
Sec. 80.740 What requirements apply to refiners producing gasoline by
blending blendstocks into previously certified gasoline (PCG)?
(a) Any refiner who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into
PCG must meet the requirements of Sec. 80.730 to sample and test every
batch of gasoline as follows:
(1) Sample and test to determine the volume and benzene content of
the PCG prior to blendstock blending.
(2) Sample and test to determine the volume and benzene content of
the gasoline subsequent to blendstock blending.
(3) Calculate the volume and benzene content of the blendstock, by
subtracting the volume and benzene content of the PCG from the volume
and benzene content of the gasoline subsequent to blendstock blending.
The blendstock is a batch for purposes of compliance calculations and
reporting.
(b) In the alternative, a refiner may sample and test each batch of
blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and
benzene content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch
for purposes of compliance calculations for the annual average benzene
standard and for reporting.
Sec. 80.745 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.750 What alternative benzene requirements apply to importers
who transport gasoline by truck?
Importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck may
comply with the following requirements instead of the requirements to
sample and test every batch of gasoline under Sec. 80.730:
(a) Standards. The imported gasoline must comply with the
applicable average standards under Sec. 80.595(a).
(b) Terminal testing. The importer may use test results for benzene
content testing conducted by the terminal operator, for gasoline
contained in the storage tank from which trucks used to transport
gasoline into the United States are loaded, for purposes of
demonstrating compliance with the standards in paragraph (a) of this
section, provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The sampling and testing shall be performed after each receipt
of gasoline into the storage tank, or immediately before each transfer
of gasoline to the importer's truck.
(2) The sampling and testing shall be performed using the methods
specified in Secs. 80.730(b) and 80.46(e), respectively.
(3) At the time of each transfer of gasoline to the importer's
truck for import to the U.S., the importer must obtain a copy of the
terminal test result that indicates the benzene content of the truck
load.
(c) Quality assurance program. The importer must conduct a quality
assurance program, as specified in this paragraph, for each truck
loading terminal.
(1) Quality assurance samples must be obtained from the truck-
loading terminal and tested by the importer, or by an independent
laboratory, and the terminal operator must not know in advance when
samples are to be collected.
(2) The sampling and testing must be performed using the methods
specified in Secs. 80.730(b) and 80.46(e), respectively.
(3)(i) The quality assurance test results for benzene must differ
from the terminal test result by no more than the ASTM reproducibility
of the terminal's test results, as determined by the following
equation:
R = 0.13 (B) + 0.05, for 0.1 B1.5 vol%
R = 0.28 (B), for B>1.5 vol%
Where:
R = ASTM reproducibility.
B = Benzene content based on the terminal's test result.
(ii) For measured benzene levels less than 0.1 vol%, use 0.1 vol%
in the equation in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) The frequency of the quality assurance sampling and testing
must be at least one sample for each fifty of an importer's trucks that
are loaded at a terminal, or one sample per month, whichever is more
frequent.
(d) Party required to conduct quality assurance testing. The
quality assurance program under paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted by the importer. In the alternative, this testing may be
conducted by an independent laboratory that meets the criteria under
Sec. 80.65(f)(2)(iii), provided the importer receives, no later than 21
days after the sample was taken, copies of all results of tests
conducted.
(e) Assignment of batch numbers. The importer must treat each truck
load of imported gasoline as a separate batch for purposes of assigning
batch numbers and maintaining records under Sec. 80.765, and reporting
under Sec. 80.770.
(f) EPA inspections of terminals. EPA inspectors or auditors, and
auditors conducting attest engagements under Sec. 80.815, must be given
full and immediate access to the truck-loading terminal and any
laboratory at which samples of gasoline collected at the terminal are
analyzed, and must be allowed to conduct inspections, review records,
collect gasoline samples, and perform audits. These inspections or
audits may be either announced or unannounced.
(g) Certified Benzene-FRGAS. This section does not apply to
Certified Benzene-FRGAS.
(h) Effect of noncompliance. If any of the requirements of this
section are not met, all gasoline imported by the truck importer during
the time any requirements are not met is deemed in violation of the
gasoline benzene average standards in Sec. 80.595, as applicable.
Additionally, if any requirement is not met, EPA may notify the
importer of the violation and, if the requirement is not fulfilled
within 10 days of notification, the truck importer may not in the
future use the sampling and testing provisions in this section in lieu
of the provisions in Sec. 80.730.
Secs. 80.755-80.760 [Reserved]
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Sec. 80.765 What records must be kept?
(a) Records that must be kept. Beginning January 1, 2002, any
person who produces, imports, sells, offers for sale, dispenses,
distributes, supplies, offers for supply, stores, or transports
gasoline, shall keep records that contain the following information:
(1) The product transfer document information required under
Secs. 80.77 and 80.106;
(2) For any sampling and testing for benzene content required under
this subpart:
(i) The location, date, time and storage tank or truck
identification for each sample collected;
(ii) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and
the person who performed the test;
(iii) The results of the test as originally printed by the testing
apparatus, or where no printed result is produced, the results as
originally recorded by the person who performed the test; and
(iv) Any record that contains a test result for the sample that is
not identical to the result recorded under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of
this section.
(b) Additional records that refiners and importers must keep.
Beginning January 1, 2002, any refiner for each of its refineries, and
any importer for the gasoline it imports, shall keep records that
include the following information:
(1) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported:
(i) The batch volume;
(ii) The batch number assigned under Sec. 80.65(d)(3) and the
appropriate designation under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of
[[Page 48098]]
this section; except that if composite samples of conventional gasoline
representing multiple batches are tested under Sec. 80.101(i)(2) for
anti-dumping compliance purposes, for purposes of this subpart a
separate batch number must be assigned to each batch using the batch
numbering procedures under Sec. 80.65(d)(3);
(iii) The date of production or importation; and
(iv) If appropriate, the designation of the batch as California
gasoline under Sec. 80.625, exempt gasoline for research and
development under Sec. 80.780, or for export outside the United States.
(2) The calculations used to determine the applicable baseline
under Sec. 80.695.
(3) The calculations used to determine compliance with the
applicable benzene average standards of Sec. 80.595.
(4) A copy of all reports submitted to EPA under Sec. 80.770.
(c) Additional records importers must keep. Any importer shall keep
records that identify and verify the source of each batch of Certified
Benzene-FRGAS and Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS imported and demonstrate
compliance with the requirements for importers under Sec. 80.810(o).
(d) Length of time records must be kept. The records required in
this section shall be kept for five years from the date they were
created.
(e) Make records available to EPA. On request by EPA the records
required in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section shall be
provided to the Administrator's authorized representative. For records
that are electronically generated or maintained the equipment and
software necessary to read the records shall be made available, or upon
approval by EPA, electronic records shall be converted to paper
documents which shall be provided to the Administrator's authorized
representative.
Sec. 80.770 What are the benzene reporting requirements?
Beginning with the 2002 averaging period, and continuing for each
averaging period thereafter, any refiner or importer shall submit to
EPA annual reports that contain the information required in this
section, and such other information as EPA may require.
(a) Refiner and importer annual reports. Any refiner, for each of
its refineries and/or aggregate(s) of refineries, and any importer for
the gasoline it imports, shall submit a report for each calendar year
averaging period that includes the following information for each type
of gasoline specified at Sec. 80.595(a)(2), as applicable:
(1) The EPA importer, or refiner and refinery facility registration
numbers;
(2) The applicable standard under Sec. 80.595;
(3) The total volume of gasoline produced or imported;
(4) The annual average benzene content of the gasoline produced or
imported;
(5) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported during the
averaging period:
(i) The batch number assigned under Sec. 80.65(d)(3) and the
appropriate designation under Sec. 80.75; except that if composite
samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple batches produced
are tested under Sec. 80.101(i)(2) for anti-dumping compliance
purposes, for purposes of this subpart a separate batch number must be
assigned to each batch using the batch numbering procedures under
Sec. 80.65(d)(3);
(ii) The date the batch was produced;
(iii) The volume of the batch; and
(iv) The benzene content of the batch as determined under
Sec. 80.730; and
(6) When submitting reports under this paragraph (a) of this
section, any importer shall exclude Certified Benzene-FRGAS under
Sec. 80.810.
(b) Additional reporting requirements for importers. Any importer
shall report the following information for Benzene-FRGAS imported
during the averaging period:
(1) The EPA refiner and refinery registration numbers of each
foreign refiner and refinery where the Certified Benzene-FRGAS was
produced; and
(2) The total gallons of Certified Benzene-FRGAS and Non-Certified
Benzene-FRGAS imported from each foreign refiner and refinery.
(c) Report submission. Any annual report required under this
section shall be:
(1) Signed and certified as meeting all of the applicable
requirements of this subpart by the owner or a responsible corporate
officer of the refiner or importer; and
(2) Submitted to EPA no later than the last day of February for the
prior calendar year averaging period.
(d) Attest reports. Attest reports for refiner and importer attest
engagements required under Sec. 80.85 shall be submitted to the
Administrator by May 31 of each year for the prior calendar year
averaging period.
Exemptions
Sec. 80.775 What if a refiner or importer is unable to produce
gasoline conforming to the requirements of this subpart?
In appropriate extreme and unusual circumstances (e.g., natural
disaster or Act of God) which are clearly outside the control of the
refiner or importer and which could not have been avoided by the
exercise of prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA may permit a refiner
or importer, for a brief period, to distribute gasoline which does not
meet the requirements of this subpart provided the refiner or importer
meets all the criteria, requirements and conditions contained in
Sec. 80.73 (a) through (e).
Sec. 80.780 What are the requirements for obtaining an exemption for
gasoline used for research, development or testing purposes?
Any person may request an exemption from the provisions of this
subpart for gasoline used for research, development or testing
(``R&D'') purposes by submitting to EPA an application that includes
all the information listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) Criteria for an R&D exemption. For an R&D exemption to be
granted, the proposed test program must:
(1) Have a purpose that constitutes an appropriate basis for
exemption;
(2) Necessitate the granting of an exemption;
(3) Be reasonable in scope; and
(4) Have a degree of control consistent with the purpose of the
program and EPA's monitoring requirements.
(b) Information required to be submitted. To demonstrate each of
the four elements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section, the
application required under this section must include the following
information:
(1) A statement of the purpose of the program demonstrating that
the program has an appropriate R&D purpose.
(2) An explanation of why the stated purpose of the program cannot
be achieved in a practicable manner without performing one or more of
the prohibited acts under Sec. 80.785.
(3) To demonstrate the reasonableness of the scope of the program:
(i) An estimate of the program's beginning and ending dates;
(ii) An estimate of the maximum number of vehicles and engines
involved in the program, and the number of miles and engine hours that
will be accumulated on each;
(iii) The benzene content of the gasoline expected to be used in
the program; and
(iv) The quantity of gasoline that exceeds the applicable benzene
standard that is expected to be used in the program.
(4) With regard to control, a demonstration that the program
affords EPA a monitoring capability, including at a minimum:
(i) A description of the technical and operational aspects of the
program;
[[Page 48099]]
(ii) The site(s) of the program (including street address, city,
county, state, and zip code);
(iii) The manner in which information on vehicles and engines used
in the program will be recorded and made available to EPA;
(iv) The manner in which results of the program will be recorded
and made available to EPA;
(v) The manner in which information on the gasoline used in the
program (including quantity, benzene content, name, address, telephone
number and contact person of the supplier, and the date received from
the supplier), will be recorded and made available to EPA;
(vi) The manner in which distribution pumps will be labeled to
insure proper use of the gasoline where appropriate;
(vii) The name, address, telephone number and title of the
person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption from whom further
information on the application may be obtained; and
(viii) The name, address, telephone number and title of the
person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption who is
responsible for recording and making available the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v) of this section, and
the location in which such information will be maintained.
(c) Additional requirements. (1) The product transfer documents
associated with R&D gasoline must identify the gasoline as such, and
must state that the gasoline is to be used only for research,
development, or testing purposes.
(2) The R&D gasoline must be designated by the refiner or importer
as exempt R&D gasoline.
(3) The R&D gasoline must be kept segregated from non-exempt
gasoline at all points in the distribution system of the gasoline.
(4) The R&D gasoline must not be sold, distributed, offered for
sale or distribution, dispensed, supplied, offered for supply,
transported to or from, or stored by a gasoline retail outlet, or by a
wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, unless the wholesale purchaser-
consumer facility is associated with the R&D program that uses the
gasoline.
(d) Memorandum of exemption. The Administrator will grant an R&D
exemption upon a demonstration that the requirements of this section
have been met. The R&D exemption will be granted in the form of a
memorandum of exemption signed by the applicant and the Administrator
(or delegate), which may include such terms and conditions as the
Administrator determines necessary to monitor the exemption and to
carry out the purposes of this section, including restoration of motor
vehicle emissions control systems. Any violation of such a term or
condition of the exemption or any requirement under this section will
cause the exemption to be void ab initio.
(e) Effects of exemption. Gasoline that is subject to an R&D
exemption under this section is exempt from other provisions of this
subpart provided that the gasoline is used in a manner that complies
with the memorandum of exemption granted under paragraph (d) of this
section.
Violation Provisions
Sec. 80.785 What acts are prohibited under the gasoline benzene
program?
No person shall:
(a) Averaging violation. Produce or import gasoline that does not
comply with the applicable benzene average standard under Sec. 80.595.
(b) Causing an averaging use violation. Cause another person to
commit an act in violation of paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 80.790 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the
prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for
violations of this subpart?
(a) Compliance with the benzene standards of this subpart shall be
determined based on the benzene level of the gasoline, measured using
the methodologies specified in Secs. 80.730(b) and 80.46(e). Any
evidence or information, including the exclusive use of such evidence
or information, may be used to establish the benzene level of gasoline
if the evidence or information is relevant to whether the benzene level
of gasoline would have been in compliance with the standards if the
appropriate sampling and testing methodology had been correctly
performed. Such evidence may be obtained from any source or location
and may include, but is not limited to, test results using methods
other than those specified in Secs. 80.46(e) and 80.730(b), business
records, and commercial documents.
(b) Determinations of compliance with the requirements of this
subpart other than the benzene standards, and determinations of
liability for any violation of this subpart, may be based on
information obtained from any source or location. Such information may
include, but is not limited to, business records and commercial
documents.
Sec. 80.795 Who is liable for violations under the gasoline benzene
program?
(a) Persons liable for violations of prohibited acts.--(1)
Averaging violation. Any refiner or importer who violates
Sec. 80.785(a) is liable for the violation.
(2) Causing an averaging violation. Any refiner or importer who
causes another party to violate Sec. 80.785(a), is liable for a
violation of Sec. 80.785(b).
(3) Parent corporation liability. Any parent corporation is liable
for any violations of this subpart that are committed by any of its
wholly-owned subsidiaries.
(4) Joint venture liability. Each partner to a joint venture is
jointly and severally liable for any violation of this subpart that
occurs at the joint venture facility or is committed by the joint
venture operation.
(b) Persons liable for failure to meet other provisions of this
subpart. (1) Any refiner or importer who fails to meet a provision of
this subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section is liable
for a violation of that provision.
(2) Any refiner or importer who caused another person to fail to
meet a requirement of this subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of
this section, is liable for causing a violation of that provision.
Sec. 80.800 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.805 What penalties apply under this subpart?
(a) Any person liable for a violation under Sec. 80.795 is subject
to civil penalties as specified in section 205 of the Clean Air Act for
every day of each such violation and the amount of economic benefit or
savings resulting from each violation.
(b) Any person liable under Sec. 80.795(a)(1) or (2) for a
violation of the applicable benzene averaging standard or causing
another party to violate that standard during any averaging period, is
subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the
averaging period.
(c) Any person liable under Sec. 80.795(b) for failure to meet, or
causing a failure to meet, a provision of this subpart is liable for a
separate day of violation for each and every day such provision remains
unfulfilled.
Provisions for Foreign Refiners With Individual Benzene Baselines
Sec. 80.810 What are the additional requirements for gasoline produced
at foreign refineries having individual refiner benzene baselines?
(a) Definitions. (1) A foreign refinery is a refinery that is
located outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana
[[Page 48100]]
Islands (collectively referred to in this section as ``the United
States'').
(2) A foreign refiner is a person who meets the definition of
refiner under Sec. 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.
(3) Benzene-FRGAS means gasoline produced at a foreign refinery
that has been assigned an individual refinery benzene baseline under
Sec. 80.695 and that is imported into the U.S.
(4) Non-Benzene-FRGAS means gasoline that is produced at a foreign
refinery that has not been assigned an individual refinery benzene
baseline, gasoline produced at a foreign refinery with an individual
refinery benzene baseline that is not imported into the United States,
and gasoline produced at a foreign refinery with an individual benzene
baseline during a year when the foreign refiner has opted to not
participate in the Benzene-FRGAS program under paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(5) Certified Benzene-FRGAS means Benzene-FRGAS the foreign refiner
intends to include in the foreign refinery's benzene compliance
calculations under Sec. 80.605, and does include in these compliance
calculations when reported to EPA.
(6) Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS means Benzene-FRGAS that is not
Certified Benzene-FRGAS.
(b) Baseline establishment. Any foreign refiner may submit a
petition to the Administrator for an individual refinery benzene
baseline pursuant to Sec. 80.695.
(1) The refiner shall follow the procedures specified in
Secs. 80.91 through 80.93 to establish the volume and benzene content
of gasoline that was produced at the foreign refinery and imported into
the United States during 1998 and 1999 for purposes of establishing a
benzene baseline under Sec. 80.695.
(2) In making determinations for foreign refinery baselines, EPA
will consider all information supplied by a foreign refiner, and in
addition may rely on any and all appropriate assumptions necessary to
make such determinations.
(3) Where a foreign refiner submits a petition that is incomplete
or inadequate to establish an accurate baseline, and the refiner fails
to cure this defect after a request for more information, EPA will not
assign an individual refinery benzene baseline.
(c) General requirements for foreign refiners with individual
refinery benzene baselines. A foreign refiner of a refinery that has
been assigned an individual benzene baseline according to Sec. 80.695
must designate all gasoline produced at the foreign refinery that is
exported to the United States as either Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as
Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section.
(1) In the case of Certified Benzene-FRGAS, the foreign refiner
must meet all provisions that apply to refiners under this subpart.
(2) In the case of Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, the foreign refiner
shall meet all the following provisions, except the foreign refiner
shall substitute the name Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS for the names
``reformulated gasoline'' or ``RBOB'' wherever they appear in the
following provisions:
(i) The designation requirements in this section.
(ii) The recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 80.765.
(iii) The reporting requirements in Sec. 80.770 and this section.
(iv) The product transfer document requirements in this section.
(vi) The prohibitions in this section and Sec. 80.785.
(vii) The independent audit requirements under Sec. 80.815,
paragraph (h) of this section, Secs. 80.125 through 80.127, 80.128(a),
(b), (c), (g) through (i), and 80.130.
(3)(i) Any foreign refiner that has been assigned an individual
benzene baseline for a foreign refinery under Sec. 80.695 may elect to
classify no gasoline imported into the United States as Benzene-FRGAS,
provided the foreign refiner notifies EPA of the election no later than
November 1 of the prior calendar year.
(ii) An election under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section shall:
(A) Apply to an entire calendar year averaging period, and apply to
all gasoline produced during the calendar year at the foreign refinery
that is used in the United States; and
(B) Remain in effect for each succeeding calendar year averaging
period, unless and until the foreign refiner notifies EPA of a
termination of the election. The change in election shall take effect
at the beginning of the next calendar year.
(d) Designation, product transfer documents, and foreign refiner
certification. (1) Any foreign refiner of a foreign refinery that has
been assigned an individual benzene baseline must designate each batch
of Benzene-FRGAS as such at the time the gasoline is produced, unless
the refiner has elected to classify no gasoline exported to the United
States as Benzene-FRGAS under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
(2) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to
any Benzene-FRGAS prior to its being imported into the United States,
it must include the following information as part of the product
transfer document information in this section:
(i) Identification of the gasoline as Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as
Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS; and
(ii) The name and EPA refinery registration number of the refinery
where the Benzene-FRGAS was produced.
(3) On each occasion when Benzene-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or
other transportation mode for transport to the United States, the
foreign refiner shall prepare a certification for each batch of the
Benzene-FRGAS that meets the following requirements:
(i) The certification shall include the report of the independent
third party under paragraph (f) of this section, and the following
additional information:
(A) The name and EPA registration number of the refinery that
produced the Benzene-FRGAS;
(B) The identification of the gasoline as Certified Benzene-FRGAS
or Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS;
(C) The volume of Benzene-FRGAS being transported, in gallons;
(D) In the case of Certified Benzene-FRGAS:
(1) The benzene content as determined under paragraph (f) of this
section; and
(2) A declaration that the Benzene-FRGAS is being included in the
compliance calculations under Sec. 80.605 for the refinery that
produced the Benzene-FRGAS.
(ii) The certification shall be made part of the product transfer
documents for the Benzene-FRGAS.
(e) Transfers of Benzene-FRGAS to non-United States markets. The
foreign refiner is responsible to ensure that all gasoline classified
as Benzene-FRGAS is imported into the United States. A foreign refiner
may remove the Benzene-FRGAS classification, and the gasoline need not
be imported into the United States, but only if:
(1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes:
(A) The volume of gasoline from the refinery's compliance
calculations under Sec. 80.605; and
(B) In the case of Certified Benzene-FRGAS, the volume and benzene
content of the gasoline from the compliance calculations under
Sec. 80.605.
(ii) The exclusions under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall
be on the basis of the benzene content and volumes determined under
paragraph (f) of this section; and
(2) The foreign refiner obtains sufficient evidence in the form of
documentation that the gasoline was not imported into the United
States.
[[Page 48101]]
(f) Load port independent sampling, testing and refinery
identification. (1) On each occasion Benzene-FRGAS is loaded onto a
vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have
an independent third party:
(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading and determine the volume of
any tank bottoms;
(ii) Determine the volume of Benzene-FRGAS loaded onto the vessel
(exclusive of any tank bottoms present before vessel loading);
(iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign
refinery;
(iv) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel
used to transport the Benzene-FRGAS to the United States; and
(v) Determine the date and time the vessel departs the port serving
the foreign refinery.
(2) On each occasion Certified Benzene-FRGAS is loaded onto a
vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have
an independent third party:
(i) Collect a representative sample of the Certified Benzene-FRGAS
from each vessel compartment subsequent to loading on the vessel and
prior to departure of the vessel from the port serving the foreign
refinery;
(ii) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the
compartment samples, and determine the value for benzene using the
methodology specified in Sec. 80.730 by:
(A) The third party analyzing the sample; or
(B) The third party observing the foreign refiner analyze the
sample; and
(iii) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage
of the Certified Benzene-FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, and
from this review determine:
(A) The refinery at which the Benzene-FRGAS was produced; and
(B) That the Benzene-FRGAS remained segregated from:
(1) Non-Benzene-FRGAS and Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS; and
(2) Other Certified Benzene-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
(3) The independent third party shall submit a report:
(i) To the foreign refiner containing the information required
under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, to accompany the
product transfer documents for the vessel; and
(ii) To the Administrator containing the information required under
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, within thirty days following
the date of the independent third party's inspection. This report shall
include a description of the method used to determine the identity of
the refinery at which the gasoline was produced, assurance that the
gasoline remained segregated as specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this
section, and a description of the gasoline's movement and storage
between production at the source refinery and vessel loading.
(4) The independent third party must:
(i) Be approved in advance by EPA, based on a demonstration of
ability to perform the procedures required in this paragraph (f);
(ii) Be independent under the criteria specified in
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(iii); and
(iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in
paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities, facilities and
documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph (f).
(g) Comparison of load port and port of entry testing. (1)(i)
Except as described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, any
foreign refiner and any United States importer of Certified Benzene-
FRGAS shall compare the results from the load port testing under
paragraph (f) of this section, with the port of entry testing as
reported under paragraph (o) of this section, for the volume of
gasoline and the benzene value.
(ii) Where a vessel transporting Certified Benzene-FRGAS off loads
this gasoline at more than one United States port of entry, and the
conditions of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met at the first
United States port of entry, the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of
this section do not apply at subsequent ports of entry if the United
States importer obtains a certification from the vessel owner, that
meets the requirements of paragraph (s) of this section, that the
vessel has not loaded any gasoline or blendstock between the first
United States port of entry and the subsequent port of entry.
(2)(i) The requirements of this paragraph (g)(2) apply if:
(A) The temperature-corrected volumes determined at the port of
entry and at the load port differ by more than one percent; or
(B) The benzene value determined at the port of entry is higher
than the benzene value determined at the load port, and the amount of
this difference is greater than the reproducibility amount specified
for the port of entry test result by the American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM).
(ii) The United States importer and the foreign refiner shall treat
the gasoline as Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, and the foreign refiner
shall exclude the gasoline volume and properties from its gasoline
benzene compliance calculations under Sec. 80.605.
(h) Attest requirements. The following additional procedures shall
be carried out by any foreign refiner of Benzene-FRGAS as part of the
applicable attest engagement for each foreign refinery under
Sec. 80.815:
(1) The inventory reconciliation analysis under Sec. 80.128(b) and
the tender analysis under Sec. 80.128(c) shall include Non-Benzene-
FRGAS in addition to the gasoline types listed in Sec. 80.128(b) and
(c).
(2) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Certified Benzene-
FRGAS, and of Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS. Agree the total volume of
tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory reconciliation
analysis in Sec. 80.128(b), and to the volumes determined by the third
party under paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(3) For each tender under paragraph (h)(2) of this section where
the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as a finding the
name and country of registration of each vessel, and the volumes of
Benzene-FRGAS loaded onto each vessel.
(4) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified Benzene-
FRGAS, in accordance with the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, and for each
vessel selected perform the following:
(i) Obtain the report of the independent third party, under
paragraph (f) of this section, and of the United States importer under
paragraph (o) of this section.
(A) Agree the information in these reports with regard to vessel
identification, gasoline volumes and test results.
(B) Identify, and report as a finding, each occasion the load port
and port of entry parameter and volume results differ by more than the
amounts allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, and determine whether
the foreign refiner adjusted its refinery calculations as required in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(ii) Obtain the documents used by the independent third party to
determine transportation and storage of the Certified Benzene-FRGAS
from the refinery to the load port, under paragraph (f) of this
section. Obtain tank activity records for any storage tank where the
Certified Benzene-FRGAS is stored, and pipeline activity records for
any pipeline used to transport the Certified Benzene-FRGAS, prior to
being loaded onto the vessel. Use these records to determine whether
the Certified Benzene-FRGAS was produced at the refinery that is the
subject of the
[[Page 48102]]
attest engagement, and whether the Certified Benzene-FRGAS was mixed
with any Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, Non-Benzene-FRGAS, or any
Certified Benzene-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
(5)(i) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified and Non-
Certified Benzene-FRGAS, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, and for each vessel selected perform the following:
(ii) Obtain a commercial document of general circulation that lists
vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port and date of
departure of the vessel, and the port of entry and date of arrival of
the vessel. Agree the vessel's departure and arrival locations and
dates from the independent third party and United States importer
reports to the information contained in the commercial document.
(6) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Non-Benzene-FRGAS,
and perform the following:
(i) Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the
gasoline inventory reconciliation analysis in Sec. 80.128(b).
(ii) Obtain a separate listing of the tenders under this paragraph
(h)(6) where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel. Select a
sample from this listing in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, and obtain a commercial document of general circulation
that lists vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port
and date of departure and the ports and dates where the gasoline was
off loaded for the selected vessels. Determine and report as a finding
the country where the gasoline was off loaded for each vessel selected.
(7) In order to complete the requirements of this paragraph (h) an
auditor shall:
(i) Be independent of the foreign refiner;
(ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the United
States and a citizen of the United States, or be approved in advance by
EPA based on a demonstration of ability to perform the procedures
required in Secs. 80.125 through 130 and this paragraph (h); and
(iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in
paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities and documents
relevant to compliance with the requirements of Secs. 80.125 through
80.130, Sec. 80.815 and this paragraph (h).
(i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any foreign refiner shall commit
to and comply with the provisions contained in this paragraph (i) as a
condition to being assigned an individual refinery benzene baseline.
(1) Any United States Environmental Protection Agency inspector or
auditor will be given full, complete and immediate access to conduct
inspections and audits of the foreign refinery.
(i) Inspections and audits may be either announced in advance by
EPA, or unannounced.
(ii) Access will be provided to any location where:
(A) Gasoline is produced;
(B) Documents related to refinery operations are kept;
(C) Gasoline or blendstock samples are tested or stored; and
(D) Benzene-FRGAS is stored or transported between the foreign
refinery and the United States, including storage tanks, vessels and
pipelines.
(iii) Inspections and audits may be by EPA employees or contractors
to EPA.
(iv) Any documents requested that are related to matters covered by
inspections and audits will be provided to an EPA inspector or auditor
on request.
(v) Inspections and audits by EPA may include review and copying of
any documents related to:
(A) Refinery baseline establishment, including the volume and
benzene content, and transfers of title or custody, of any gasoline or
blendstocks, whether Benzene-FRGAS or Non-benzene-FRGAS, produced at
the foreign refinery during the period January 1, 1998 through the date
of the refinery baseline petition or through the date of the inspection
or audit if a baseline petition has not been approved, and any work
papers related to refinery baseline establishment;
(B) The volume and benzene content of Benzene-FRGAS;
(C) The proper classification of gasoline as being Benzene-FRGAS or
as not being Benzene-FRGAS, or as Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-
Certified Benzene-FRGAS;
(D) Transfers of title or custody to Benzene-FRGAS;
(E) Sampling and testing of Benzene-FRGAS;
(F) Work performed and reports prepared by independent third
parties and by independent auditors under the requirements of this
section and Sec. 80.815 including work papers; and
(G) Reports prepared for submission to EPA, and any work papers
related to such reports.
(vi) Inspections and audits by EPA may include taking samples of
gasoline or blendstock, and interviewing employees.
(vii) Any employee of the foreign refiner will be made available
for interview by the EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within a
reasonable time period.
(viii) English language translations of any documents will be
provided to an EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within 10 working
days.
(ix) English language interpreters will be provided to accompany
EPA inspectors and auditors, on request.
(2) An agent for service of process located in the District of
Columbia will be named, and service on this agent constitutes service
on the foreign refiner or any employee of the foreign refiner for any
action by EPA or otherwise by the United States related to the
requirements of this subpart.
(3) The forum for any civil or criminal enforcement action related
to the provisions of this section for violations of the Clean Air Act
or regulations promulgated thereunder shall be governed by the Clean
Air Act, including the EPA administrative forum where allowed under the
Clean Air Act.
(4) United States substantive and procedural laws shall apply to
any civil or criminal enforcement action against the foreign refiner or
any employee of the foreign refiner related to the provisions of this
section.
(5) Submitting a petition for an individual refinery benzene
baseline, producing and exporting gasoline under an individual refinery
benzene baseline, and all other actions to comply with the requirements
of this subpart relating to the establishment and use of an individual
refinery benzene baseline constitute actions or activities that satisfy
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2), but solely with respect to
actions instituted against the foreign refiner, its agents and
employees in any court or other tribunal in the United States for
conduct that violates the requirements applicable to the foreign
refiner under this subpart, including conduct that violates Title 18
U.S.C. 1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2).
(6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or employees, will not seek
to detain or to impose civil or criminal remedies against EPA
inspectors or auditors, whether EPA employees or EPA contractors, for
actions performed within the scope of EPA employment related to the
provisions of this section.
(7) The commitment required by this paragraph (i) shall be signed
by the owner or president of the foreign refiner business.
(8) In any case where Benzene-FRGAS produced at a foreign refinery
is stored or transported by another company between the refinery and
the vessel that transports the Benzene-FRGAS to the
[[Page 48103]]
United States, the foreign refiner shall obtain from each such other
company a commitment that meets the requirements specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section, and these commitments
shall be included in the foreign refiner's baseline petition.
(j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting a petition for an individual
foreign refinery baseline under this section, or by producing and
exporting gasoline to the United States under an individual refinery
benzene baseline under this section, the foreign refiner, its agents
and employees, without exception, become subject to the full operation
of the administrative and judicial enforcement powers and provisions of
the United States without limitation based on sovereign immunity, with
respect to actions instituted against the foreign refiner, its agents
and employees in any court or other tribunal in the United States for
conduct that violates the requirements applicable to the foreign
refiner under this subpart, including conduct that violates Title 18
U.S.C. 1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2).
(k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner shall meet the requirements
of this paragraph (k) as a condition to being assigned an individual
refinery benzene baseline.
(1) The foreign refiner shall annually post a bond of the amount
calculated using the following equation:
Bond = G x $ 0.01
Where:
Bond = Amount of the bond in U.S. dollars.
G = The largest volume of gasoline produced at the foreign refinery and
exported to the United States, in gallons, during a single calendar
year among the five preceding calendar years.
(2) Bonds shall be posted by:
(i) Paying the amount of the bond to the Treasurer of the United
States;
(ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper amount from a third party
surety agent that is payable to satisfy United States administrative or
judicial judgments against the foreign refiner, provided EPA agrees in
advance as to the third party and the nature of the surety agreement;
or
(iii) An alternative commitment that results in assets of an
appropriate liquidity and value being readily available to the United
States, provided EPA agrees in advance as to the alternative
commitment.
(3) If the bond amount for a foreign refinery increases, the
foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the shortfall within
90 days of the date the bond amount changes. If the bond amount
decreases, the foreign refiner may reduce the amount of the bond
beginning 90 days after the date the bond amount changes.
(4) Bonds posted under this paragraph (k) shall:
(i) Be used to satisfy any judicial judgment that results from an
administrative or judicial enforcement action for conduct in violation
of this subpart, including where such conduct violates Title 18 U.S.C.
1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2);
(ii) Be provided by a corporate surety that is listed in the United
States Department of Treasury Circular 570 ``Companies Holding
Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds''
(Available from the Government Printing Office or the Internet at
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html); and
(iii) Include a commitment that the bond will remain in effect for
at least five (5) years following the end of latest averaging period
that the foreign refiner produces gasoline pursuant to the requirements
of this subpart.
(5) On any occasion a foreign refiner bond is used to satisfy any
judgment, the foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the
amount used within 90 days of the date the bond is used.
(l) [Reserved]
(m) English language reports. Any report or other document
submitted to EPA by a foreign refiner shall be in English language, or
shall include an English language translation.
(n) Prohibitions. (1) No person may combine Certified Benzene-FRGAS
with any Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS or Non-Benzene-FRGAS, and no
person may combine Certified Benzene-FRGAS with any Certified Benzene-
FRGAS produced at a different refinery, until the importer has met all
the requirements of paragraph (o) of this section, except as provided
in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) No foreign refiner or other person may cause another person to
commit an action prohibited in paragraph (n)(1) of this section, or
that otherwise violates the requirements of this section.
(o) United States importer requirements. Any United States importer
shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Each batch of imported gasoline shall be classified by the
importer as being Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-Benzene-FRGAS, and each batch
classified as Benzene-FRGAS shall be further classified as Certified
Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS.
(2) Gasoline shall be classified as Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as
Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS according to the designation by the foreign
refiner if this designation is supported by product transfer documents
prepared by the foreign refiner as required in paragraph (d) of this
section, unless the gasoline is classified as Non-Certified Benzene-
FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) For each gasoline batch classified as Benzene-FRGAS, any United
States importer shall perform the following procedures:
(i) In the case of both Certified and Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS,
have an independent third party:
(A) Determine the volume of gasoline in the vessel;
(B) Use the foreign refiner's Benzene-FRGAS certification to
determine the name and EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign
refinery that produced the Benzene-FRGAS;
(C) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel
used to transport the Benzene-FRGAS to the United States; and
(D) Determine the date and time the vessel arrives at the United
States port of entry.
(ii) In the case of Certified Benzene-FRGAS, have an independent
third party:
(A) Collect a representative sample from each vessel compartment
subsequent to the vessel's arrival at the United States port of entry
and prior to off loading any gasoline from the vessel;
(B) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the
compartment samples; and
(C) Determine the benzene value using the methodologies specified
in Sec. 80.730, by:
(1) The third party analyzing the sample; or
(2) The third party observing the importer analyze the sample.
(4) Any importer shall submit reports within thirty days following
the date any vessel transporting Benzene-FRGAS arrives at the United
States port of entry:
(i) To the Administrator containing the information determined
under paragraph (o)(3) of this section; and
(ii) To the foreign refiner containing the information determined
under paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section.
(5) Any United States importer shall meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 80.595 for any imported gasoline that is not
classified as Certified Benzene-FRGAS under paragraph (o)(2) of this
section.
(p) Truck imports of Certified Benzene-FRGAS produced at a
refinery. (1) Any refiner whose Certified
[[Page 48104]]
Benzene-FRGAS is transported into the United States by truck may
petition EPA to use alternative procedures to meet the following
requirements:
(i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5) of this section;
(ii) Load port and port of entry sampling and testing under
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section;
(iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this section; and
(iv) Importer testing under paragraph (o)(3) of this section.
(2) These alternative procedures must ensure Certified Benzene-
FRGAS remains segregated from Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS and from Non-
Benzene-FRGAS until it is imported into the United States. The petition
will be evaluated based on whether it adequately addresses the
following:
(i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline shipments, if applicable,
from the refinery, that ensure segregation of Certified Benzene-FRGAS
from that refinery from all other gasoline;
(ii) Contracts with any terminals and/or pipelines that receive
and/or transport Certified Benzene-FRGAS, that prohibit the commingling
of Certified Benzene-FRGAS with any of the following:
(A) Other Certified Benzene-FRGAS from other refineries.
(B) All Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS.
(C) All Non-Benzene-FRGAS;
(iii) Procedures for obtaining and reviewing truck loading records
and United States import documents for Certified Benzene-FRGAS to
ensure that such gasoline is only loaded into trucks making deliveries
to the United States;
(iv) Attest procedures to be conducted annually by an independent
third party that review loading records and import documents based on
volume reconciliation, or other criteria, to confirm that all Certified
Benzene-FRGAS remains segregated throughout the distribution system and
is only loaded into trucks for import into the United States.
(3) The petition required by this section must be submitted to EPA
along with the application for small refiner status and individual
refinery benzene baseline and standards under Sec. 80.240 and this
section.
(q) Withdrawal or suspension of a foreign refinery's baseline. EPA
may withdraw or suspend a baseline that has been assigned to a foreign
refinery where:
(1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any requirement of this
section;
(2) A foreign government fails to allow EPA inspections as provided
in paragraph (i)(1) of this section;
(3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, or a right to claim,
sovereign immunity in an action to enforce the requirements in this
subpart; or
(4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil or criminal penalty that
is not satisfied using the foreign refiner bond specified in paragraph
(k) of this section.
(r) Early use of a foreign refinery baseline. (1) A foreign refiner
may begin using an individual refinery baseline before EPA has approved
the baseline, provided that:
(i) A baseline petition has been submitted as required in paragraph
(b) of this section;
(ii) EPA has made a provisional finding that the baseline petition
is complete;
(iii) The foreign refiner has made the commitments required in
paragraph (i) of this section;
(iv) The persons who will meet the independent third party and
independent attest requirements for the foreign refinery have made the
commitments required in paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (h)(7)(iii) of this
section; and
(v) The foreign refiner has met the bond requirements of paragraph
(k) of this section.
(2) In any case where a foreign refiner uses an individual refinery
baseline before final approval under paragraph (r)(1) of this section,
and the foreign refinery baseline values that ultimately are approved
by EPA are more stringent than the early baseline values used by the
foreign refiner, the foreign refiner shall recalculate its compliance,
ab initio, using the baseline values approved by EPA, and the foreign
refiner shall be liable for any resulting violation of the gasoline
benzene requirements.
(s) Additional requirements for petitions, reports and
certificates. Any petition for a refinery baseline under Sec. 80.695,
any alternative procedures under paragraph (r) of this section, any
report or other submission required by paragraphs (c), (f)(2), or (i)
of this section, and any certification under paragraph (d)(3) of this
section shall be:
(1) Submitted in accordance with procedures specified by the
Administrator, including use of any forms that may be specified by the
Administrator.
(2) Be signed by the president or owner of the foreign refiner
company, or by that person's immediate designee, and shall contain the
following declaration:
I hereby certify: (1) that I have actual authority to sign on
behalf of and to bind [insert name of foreign refiner] with regard
to all statements contained herein; (2) that I am aware that the
information contained herein is being certified, or submitted to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the
requirements of 40 CFR part 80, subpart I, and that the information
is material for determining compliance under these regulations; and
(3) that I have read and understand the information being certified
or submitted, and this information is true, complete and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief after I have taken reasonable
and appropriate steps to verify the accuracy thereof.
I affirm that I have read and understand the provisions of 40
CFR part 80, subpart I, including 40 CFR 80.810 [insert name of
foreign refiner]. Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and Title
18, United States Code, section 1001, the penalty for furnishing
false, incomplete or misleading information in this certification or
submission is a fine of up to $10,000, and/or imprisonment for up to
five years.
Attest Engagements
Sec. 80.815 What are the attest engagement requirements for gasoline
benzene compliance applicable to refiners and importers?
In addition to the requirements for attest engagements that apply
to refiners and importers under Secs. 80.125 through 80.130, and
Sec. 80.810, the attest engagements for refiners and importers must
include the following procedures and requirements each year.
(a) Baseline. (1) Obtain the EPA benzene baseline approval letter
for the refinery to determine the refinery's applicable benzene
baseline and baseline volume under Sec. 80.695.
(2) Obtain a written representation from the company representative
stating the benzene value that the company used as its baseline and
agree that number to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and to the
reports to EPA.
(b) EPA reports.(1) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or
importer's annual benzene reports filed with EPA for the year.
(2) Agree the yearly volume of gasoline reported to EPA in the
benzene reports with the inventory reconciliation analysis under
Sec. 80.128.
(3) Calculate the annual average benzene level for all gasoline and
agree that value with the value reported to EPA.
Sec. 80.820 [Reserved]
Additional Rulemaking
Sec. 80.825 What additional rulemaking will EPA conduct?
No later than December 31, 2003, the Administrator shall propose
any requirements to control hazardous air pollutants from motor
vehicles and motor vehicle fuels that the Administrator determines are
[[Page 48105]]
appropriate pursuant to section 202(l)(2) of the Act. The Administrator
shall take final action on the proposal no later than December 30,
2004.
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 86 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7521(l) and 7521(m)-7671q.
[FR Doc. 00-18640 Filed 8-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090509214030im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}