Proposed Rule: Air Pollution Control: Benzene and Other Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduction Gasoline, Passenger Vehicles, and Portable Gasoline Containers Controls

Wednesday,
March 29, 2006
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 59, 80, 85 and 86
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Mobile Sources; Proposed Rule
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:05 Mar 28, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\29MRP2.SGM 29MRP2
15804 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 2006 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION less than $2 per can. The reduced e-mail comment directly to EPA without
AGENCY evaporation from gas cans would result going through www.regulations.gov your
in significant fuel savings, which would e-mail address will be automatically
40 CFR Parts 59, 80, 85 and 86 more than offset the increased cost for captured and included as part of the
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036; FRL–8041–2] the gas can. comment that is placed in the public
DATES: Comments must be received on docket and made available on the
RIN 2060–AK70 or before May 30, 2006. Under the Internet. If you submit an electronic
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on comment, EPA recommends that you
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants include your name and other contact
the information collection provisions
From Mobile Sources information in the body of your
must be received by OMB on or before
AGENCY: Environmental Protection April 28, 2006. comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
Agency (EPA). Hearing: We will hold a public you submit. If EPA cannot read your
ACTION: Proposed rule. hearing on April 12, 2006. The hearing comment due to technical difficulties
will start at 10 a.m. local time and and cannot contact you for clarification,
SUMMARY: Today EPA is proposing continue until everyone has had a EPA may not be able to consider your
controls on gasoline, passenger vehicles, chance to speak. If you want to testify comment. Electronic files should avoid
and portable gasoline containers (gas at the hearing, notify the contact person the use of special characters, any form
cans) that would significantly reduce listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION of encryption, and be free of any defects
emissions of benzene and other CONTACT by April 3, 2006. or viruses. For additional information
hazardous air pollutants (‘‘mobile ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
source air toxics’’). Benzene is a known identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– Docket Center homepage at http://
human carcinogen, and mobile sources OAR–2005–0036, by one of the www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
are responsible for the majority of following methods: For additional instructions on
benzene emissions. The other mobile • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow submitting comments, go to section XI,
source air toxics are known or suspected the on-line instructions for submitting Public Participation, of the
to cause cancer or other serious health comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
effects. • Fax your comments to: (202) 566– this document.
We are proposing to limit the benzene 1741. Docket: All documents in the docket
content of gasoline to an annual average • Mail: Air Docket, Environmental are listed in the www.regulations.gov
of 0.62% by volume, beginning in 2011. Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, index. Although listed in the index,
We are also proposing to limit exhaust 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., some information is not publicly
emissions of hydrocarbons from Washington, DC 20460. In addition, available, e.g., CBI or other information
passenger vehicles when they are please mail a copy of your comments on whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
operated at cold temperatures. This the information collection provisions to Certain other material, such as
standard would be phased in from 2010 the Office of Information and Regulatory copyrighted material, will be publicly
to 2015. For passenger vehicles we also Affairs, Office of Management and available only in hard copy. Publicly
propose evaporative emissions Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for available docket materials are available
standards that are equivalent to those in EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC either electronically in
California. Finally, we are proposing a 20503. www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
hydrocarbon emissions standard for gas • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
cans beginning in 2009, which would (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
reduce evaporation and spillage of Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, NW., Washington, DC. The Public
gasoline from these containers. DC 20004. Such deliveries are only Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
These controls would significantly accepted during the Docket’s normal 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
reduce emissions of benzene and other hours of operation, and special excluding legal holidays. The telephone
mobile source air toxics such as 1,3- arrangements should be made for number for the Public Reading Room is
butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, deliveries of boxed information. (202) 566–1744, and the telephone
acrolein, and naphthalene. This Instructions: Direct your comments to number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
proposal would result in additional Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– 1742.
substantial benefits to public health and 0036. EPA’s policy is that all comments
Hearing: The public hearing will be
welfare by significantly reducing received will be included in the public
held at Sheraton Crystal City Hotel,
emissions of particulate matter from docket without change and may be
1800 Jefferson Davis Highway,
passenger vehicles. made available online at
Arlington, Virginia 22202, Telephone:
We project annual nationwide www.regulations.gov, including any
(703) 486–1111. See section XI, Public
benzene reductions of 35,000 tons in personal information provided, unless
Participation, for more information
2015, increasing to 65,000 tons by 2030. the comment includes information
about public hearings.
Total reductions in mobile source air claimed to be Confidential Business
toxics would be 147,000 tons in 2015 Information (CBI) or other information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
and over 350,000 tons in 2030. whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Chris Lieske, U.S. EPA, Office of
Passenger vehicles in 2030 would emit Do not submit information that you Transportation and Air Quality,
45% less benzene. Gas cans meeting the consider to be CBI or otherwise Assessment and Standards Division
new standards would emit almost 80% protected through www.regulations.gov (ASD), Environmental Protection
less benzene. Gasoline would have 37% or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
less benzene overall. We estimate that website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
these reductions would have an average system, which means EPA will not (734) 214–4584; fax number: (734) 214–
cost of less than 1 cent per gallon of know your identity or contact 4816; email address:
gasoline and less than $1 per vehicle. information unless you provide it in the lieske.christopher@epa.gov, or
The average cost for gas cans would be body of your comment. If you send an Assessment and Standards Division
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15805
Hotline; telephone number: (734) 214– General Information regulation, or convert motor vehicles to
4636; e-mail address: asdinfo@epa.gov. A. Does this Action Apply to Me? use alternative fuels. It would also affect
you if you produce gasoline motor fuel
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Entities potentially affected by this or manufacture portable gasoline
action are those that produce new motor containers. Regulated categories
vehicles, alter individual imported include:
motor vehicles to address U.S.
NAICS SIC
Category Examples of potentially affected entities
codes a codes b
Industry ................................................................................................ 336111 3711 Motor vehicle manufacturers.

Industry ................................................................................................ 335312 3621 Alternative fuel vehicle converters.
424720 5172
811198 7539
7549
Industry ................................................................................................ 811111 7538 Independent commercial importers.
811112 7533
811198 7549
Industry ................................................................................................ 324110 2911 Gasoline fuel refiners.
Industry ................................................................................................ 326199 3089 Portable fuel container manufacturers.
332431 3411
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
This table is not intended to be 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 2. Noncancer Health Effects
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 3. Exposure Near Roads and From
When submitting comments, Attached Garages
for readers regarding entities likely to be remember to: 4. Ozone and Particulate Matter
regulated by this action. This table lists • Explain your views as clearly as B. What Is EPA Proposing?
the types of entities that EPA is now possible. 1. Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards
aware could potentially be regulated by • Describe any assumptions that you 2. Gasoline Fuel Standards
this action. Other types of entities not used. 3. Portable Gasoline Container (Gas Can)
listed in the table could also be • Provide any technical information Controls
regulated. To determine whether your and/or data you used that support your III. What Are Mobile Source Air Toxics
activities are regulated by this action, views. (MSATs) and Their Health Effects?
you should carefully examine the • If you estimate potential burden or A. What Are MSATs?
costs, explain how you arrived at your B. Compounds Emitted by Mobile Sources
applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 59, and Identified in IRIS
80, 85, and 86. If you have any estimate.
• Provide specific examples to C. Which Mobile Source Emissions Pose
questions regarding the applicability of the Greatest Health Risk at Current
this action to a particular entity, consult illustrate your concerns.
Levels?
• Offer alternatives.
the person listed in the preceding FOR 1. National and Regional Risk Drivers in
• Make sure to submit your 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
comments by the comment period Assessment
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare deadline identified. 2. 1999 NATA Risk Drivers with
My Comments for EPA? • To ensure proper receipt by EPA, Significant Mobile Source Contribution
identify the appropriate docket D. What Are the Health Effects of Air
1. Submitting CBI identification number in the subject line Toxics?
on the first page of your response. It 1. Overview of Potential Cancer and
Do not submit this information to EPA Noncancer Health Effects
would also be helpful if you provided
through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 2. Health Effects of Key MSATs
the name, date, and Federal Register
Clearly mark the part or all of the citation related to your comments. a. Benzene
information that you claim to be b. 1,3-Butadiene
confidential business information (CBI). Outline of This Preamble c. Formaldehyde
For CBI information in a disk or CD I. Introduction d. Acetaldehyde
A. Summary e. Acrolein
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
B. What Background Information is Helpful f. Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI g. Naphthalene
to Understand this Proposal?
and then identify electronically within 1. What Are Air Toxics and Related Health h. Diesel Particulate Matter and Diesel
the disk or CD ROM the specific Effects? Exhaust Organic Gases
information that is claimed as CBI. In 2. What is the Statutory Authority for E. Gasoline PM
addition to one complete version of the Today’s Proposal? F. Near-Roadway Health Effects
comment that includes information a. Clean Air Act Section 202(l) G. How Would This Proposal Reduce
b. Clean Air Act Section 183(e) Emissions of MSATs?
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
c. Energy Policy Act IV. What Are the Air Quality and Health
that does not contain the information
3. What Other Actions Has EPA Taken Impacts of Air Toxics, and How do
claimed as CBI must be submitted for Under Clean Air Act Section 202(l)? Mobile Sources Contribute?
inclusion in the public docket. a. 2001 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule A. What Is the Health Risk to the U.S.
Information so marked will not be b. Technical Analysis Plan Population from Inhalation Exposure to
disclosed except in accordance with II. Overview of Proposal Ambient Sources of Air Toxics, and How
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A. Why Is EPA Making This Proposal? Would It be Reduced by the Proposed
1. National Cancer Risk from Air Toxics Controls?
B. What is the Distribution of Exposure and G. Additional Programs Under C. Development of the Proposed Gasoline
Risk? Development That Will Reduce MSATs Benzene Standard
1. Distribution of National-Scale Estimates 1. On-Board Diagnostics for Heavy-Duty 1. Why Are We Focusing on Controlling
of Risk from Air Toxics Vehicles Over 14,000 Pounds Benzene Emissions?
2. Elevated Concentrations and Exposure 2. Standards for Small SI Engines a. Other MSAT Emissions
in Mobile Source-Impacted Areas 3. Standards for Locomotive and Marine b. MSAT Emission Reductions Through
a. Concentrations Near Major Roadways Engines Lowering Gasoline Volatility or Sulfur
b. Exposures Near Major Roadways VI. Proposed New Light-duty Vehicle Content
i. Vehicles Standards i. Gasoline Sulfur Content
ii. Homes and Schools A. Why are We Proposing New Standards? ii. Gasoline Vapor Pressure
iii. Pedestrians and Bicyclists 1. The Clean Air Act and Air Quality c. Toxics Performance Standard
c. Exposure and Concentrations in Homes 2. Technology Opportunities for Light-Duty d. Diesel Fuel Changes
with Attached Garages Vehicles 2. Why Are We Proposing To Control
d. Occupational Exposure 3. Cold Temperature Effects on Emission Benzene Emissions By Controlling
3. What Are the Size and Characteristics of Levels Gasoline Benzene Content?
Highly Exposed Populations? a. How Does Temperature Affect a. Benzene Content Standard
4. What Are the Implications for Emissions? b. Gasoline Aromatics Content Standard
Distribution of Individual Risk? b. What Are the Current Emissions Control
C. Ozone c. Benzene Emission Standard
Requirements? 3. How Did We Select the Level of the
1. Background c. Opportunities for Additional Control
2. Health Effects of Ozone Proposed Gasoline Benzene Content
B. What Cold Temperature Requirements
3. Current and Projected 8-hour Ozone Standard?
Are We Proposing?
Levels a. Current Gasoline Benzene Levels
1. NMHC Exhaust Emissions Standards
D. Particulate Matter b. The Need for an Average Benzene
2. Feasibility of the Proposed Standards
1. Background Standard
a. Currently Available Emission Control
2. Health Effects of PM c. Potential Levels for the Average Benzene
Technologies
3. Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels Standard
b. Feasibility Considering Current
4. Current PM10 Levels d. Comparison of Other Benzene
Certification Levels, Deterioration and
E. Other Environmental Effects Regulatory Programs
Compliance Margin
1. Visibility 4. How Do We Address Variations in
c. Feasibility and Test Programs for Higher
a. Background Refinery Benzene Levels?
Weight Vehicles
b. Current Visibility Impairment a. Overall Reduction in Benzene Level and
3. Standards Timing and Phase-in
c. Future Visibility Impairment Variation
a. Phase-In Schedule
2. Plant Damage from Ozone b. Consideration of an Upper Limit
b. Alternative Phase-In Schedules
3. Atmospheric Deposition Standard
4. Certification Levels
4. Materials Damage and Soiling i. Per-Gallon Cap Standard
V. What Are Mobile Source Emissions Over 5. Credit Program
a. How Credits Are Calculated ii. Maximum Average Standard
Time and How Would This Proposal 5. How Would the Proposed Program Meet
Reduce Emissions, Exposure and b. Credits Earned Prior to Primary Phase-
In Schedule or Exceed Related Statutory and
Associated Health Effects? Regulatory Requirements?
A. Mobile Source Contribution to Air c. How Credits Can Be Used
d. Discounting and Unlimited Life D. Description of the Proposed Averaging,
Toxics Emissions Banking, and Trading (ABT) Program
B. VOC Emissions from Mobile Sources e. Deficits Could Be Carried Forward
f. Voluntary Heavy-Duty Vehicle Credit 1. Overview
C. PM Emissions from Mobile Sources 2. Standard Credit Generation (2011 and
D. Description of Current Mobile Source Program
6. Additional Vehicle Cold Temperature Beyond)
Emissions Control Programs that Reduce 3. Credit Use
MSATs Standard Provisions
a. Applicability a. Credit Trading Area
1. Fuels Programs b. Credit Life
a. RFG b. Useful Life
c. High Altitude 4. Early Credit Generation (2007–2010)
b. Anti-dumping
d. In-Use Standards for Vehicles Produced a. Establishing Early Credit Baselines
c. 2001 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule
During Phase-in b. Early Credit Reduction Criteria (Trigger
(MSAT1)
7. Monitoring and Enforcement Points)
d. Gasoline Sulfur
C. What Evaporative Emissions Standards c. Calculating Early Credits
e. Gasoline Volatility
f. Diesel Fuel Are We Proposing? 5. Additional Credit Provisions
g. Phase-Out of Lead in Gasoline 1. Current Controls and Feasibility of the a. Credit Trading
2. Highway Vehicle and Engine Programs Proposed Standards b. Pre-Compliance Reporting Requirements
3. Nonroad Engine Programs 2. Evaporative Standards Timing 6. Special ABT Provisions for Small
4. Voluntary Programs 3. Timing for Multi-Fueled Vehicles Refiners
E. Emission Reductions from Proposed 4. In-Use Evaporative Emission Standards E. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions for
Controls 5. Existing Differences Between California Qualifying Refiners
1. Proposed Vehicle Controls and Federal Evaporative Emission Test 1. Hardship Provisions for Qualifying
a. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Procedures Small Refiners
b. Toxics D. Opportunities for Additional Exhaust a. Qualifying Small Refiners
c. PM2.5 Control Under Normal Conditions i. Regulatory Flexibility for Small Refiners
2. Proposed Fuel Benzene Controls E. Vehicle Provisions for Small Volume ii. Rationale for Small Refiner Provisions
3. Proposed Gas Can Standards Manufacturers b. How Do We Propose to Define Small
a. VOC 1. Lead Time Transition Provisions Refiners for the Purpose of the Hardship
b. Toxics 2. Hardship Provisions Provisions?
4. Total Emission Reductions from 3. Special Provisions for Independent c. What Options Would Be Available For
Proposed Controls Commercial Importers (ICIs) Small Refiners?

a. Toxics VII. Proposed Gasoline Benzene Control i. Delay in Standards
b. VOC Program ii. ABT Credit Generation Opportunities
c. PM2.5 A. Overview of Today’s Proposed Fuel iii. Extended Credit Life
F. How Would This Proposal Reduce Control Program iv. ABT Program Review
Exposure to Mobile Source Air Toxics B. Description of the Proposed Fuel d. How Would Refiners Apply for Small
and Associated Health Effects? Control Program Refiner Status?
e. The Effect of Financial and Other 2. Technological Opportunities to Reduce 5. What Are the Key Model Inputs?
Transactions on Small Refiner Status and Emissions from Gas Cans 6. What Are the Results of the Economic
Small Refiner Relief Provisions 3. State Experiences Regulating Gas Cans Impact Modeling?
2. General Hardship Provisions B. What Emissions Standard is EPA X. Alternative Program Options
a. Temporary Waivers Based on Proposing, and Why? A. Fuels
Unforeseen Circumstances 1. Description of Emissions Standard B. Vehicles
b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme 2. Determination of Best Available Control C. Gas cans
Hardship Circumstances 3. Emissions Performance vs. Design XI. Public Participation
c. Early Compliance with the Proposed Standard A. How Do I Submit Comments?
Benzene Standard 4. Automatic Shut-Off B. How Should I Submit CBI to the
F. Technological Feasibility of Gasoline 5. Consideration of Retrofits of Existing Gas Agency?
Benzene Reduction Cans C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
1. Benzene Levels in Gasoline 6. Consideration of Diesel, Kerosene and D. Comment Period
2. Technologies for Reducing Gasoline Utility Containers E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Benzene Levels C. Timing of Standard Comments for EPA?
a. Why is Benzene Found in Gasoline? D. What Test Procedures Would Be Used? XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
b. Benzene Control Technologies Related to 1. Diurnal Test A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
the Reformer 2. Preconditioning to Ensure Durable In- Planning and Review
i. Routing Around the Reformer Use Control B. Paperwork Reduction Act
ii. Routing to the Isomerization Unit a. Durability cycles C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
iii. Benzene Saturation b. Preconditioning Fuel Soak amended by the Small Business
iv. Benzene Extraction c. Spout Actuation Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
c. Other Benzene Reduction Technologies E. What Certification and In-Use 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq
d. Impacts on Octane and Strategies for Compliance Provisions Is EPA 1. Overview
Recovering Octane Loss Proposing? 2. Background
e. Experience Using Benzene Control 1. Certification 3. Summary of Regulated Small Entities
Technologies 2. Emissions Warranty and In-Use a. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles
f. What Are the Potential Impacts of Compliance b. Gasoline Refiners
Benzene Control on Other Fuel 3. Labeling c. Portable Gasoline Container
Properties? F. How Would State Programs Be Affected Manufacturers
3. Feasible Level of Benzene Control By EPA Standards? 4. Potential Reporting, Record Keeping,
4. Lead time G. Provisions for Small Gas Can and Compliance
5. Issues Manufacturers 5. Relevant Federal Rules
a. Small Refiners 1. First Type of Hardship Provision 6. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and
b. Imported Gasoline 2. Second Type of Hardship Provision Panel Outreach
G. How Does the Proposed Fuel Control IX. What are the Estimated Impacts of the a. Significant Panel Findings
Program Satisfy the Statutory Proposal? b. Panel Process
Requirements? A. Refinery Costs of Gasoline Benzene c. Small Business Flexibilities
H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, Reduction i. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles
or Use 1. Tools and Methodology (a) Highway Light-Duty Vehicle
I. How Would the Proposed Gasoline a. Linear Programming Cost Model Flexibilities
Benzene Standard Be Implemented? b. Refiner-by-Refinery Cost Model (b) Highway Light-Duty Vehicle Hardships
1. General provisions c. Price of Chemical Grade Benzene ii. Gasoline Refiners
a. What Are the Implementation Dates for d. Applying the Cost Model to Special (a) Gasoline Refiner Flexibilities
the Proposed Program? Cases (b) Gasoline Refiner Hardships
b. Which Regulated Parties Would Be 2. Summary of Costs iii. Portable Gasoline Containers
Subject to the Proposed Benzene a. Nationwide Costs of the Proposed (a) Portable Gasoline Container
Standards? Program Flexibilities
c. What Gasoline Would Be Subject to the b. Regional Distribution of Costs (b) Portable Gasoline Container Hardships
Proposed Benzene Standards? c. Cost Effects of Different Standards D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
d. How Would Compliance With the d. Effect on Cost Estimates of Higher E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Benzene Standard Be Determined? Benzene Prices F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
2. Averaging, Banking and Trading 3. Economic Impacts of MSAT Control and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Program Through Gasoline Sulfur and RVP Governments
a. Early Credit Generation Control and a Total Toxics Standard G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
b. How Would Refinery Benzene Baselines B. What Are the Vehicle Cost Impacts? Children from Environmental Health and
Be Determined? C. What Are The Gas Can Cost Impacts? Safety Risks
c. Credit Generation Beginning in 2011 D. Cost Per Ton of Emissions Reduced H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that
d. How Would Credits Be Used? E. Benefits Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
3. Hardship and Small Refiner Provisions 1. Unquantified Health and Environmental Distribution, or Use
a. Hardship Benefits I. National Technology Transfer
b. Small Refiners 2. Quantified Human Health and Advancement Act
4. Administrative and Enforcement Related Environmental Effects of the Proposed J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
Provisions Cold Temperature Vehicle Standard To Address Environmental Justice in
a. Sampling/Testing 3. Monetized Benefits Minority Populations and Low-Income
b. Recordkeeping/Reporting 4. What Are the Significant Limitations of Populations
c. Attest Engagements, Violations, the Benefit Analysis? XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Penalties 5. How Do the Benefits Compare to the Authority
5. How Would Compliance With the Costs of The Proposed Standards?
I. Introduction
Provisions of the Proposed Benzene F. Economic Impact Analysis

Program Affect Compliance With Other 1. What Is an Economic Impact Analysis? A. Summary
Gasoline Toxics Programs? 2. What Is the Economic Impact Model?
VIII. Gas Cans 3. What Economic Sectors Are Included in Mobile sources emit air toxics that
A. Why Are We Proposing an Emissions this Economic Impact Analysis? can cause cancer and other serious
Control Program for Gas Cans? 4. What Are the Key Features of the health effects. Section III of this
1. VOC Emissions Economic Impact Model? preamble and Chapter 1 of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for 1999 and 2020. We have adopted savings from the proposed gas can
this rule describe these compounds and stringent standards for diesel trucks and standards, which would be worth $82
their health effects. Mobile sources buses, and nonroad diesel engines million in 2030.
contribute significantly to the (engines used, for example, in The proposed reductions would have
nationwide risk from breathing outdoor construction, agricultural, and an average cost of 0.13 cents per gallon
sources of air toxics. Mobile sources industrial applications). We also have of gasoline, less than $1 per vehicle, and
were responsible for about 44% of additional programs underway to less than $2 per gas can. The reduced
outdoor toxic emissions, almost 50% of reduce diesel emissions, including evaporation from gas cans would result
the cancer risk, and 74% of the voluntary programs and a proposal that in fuel savings that would more than
noncancer risk according to EPA’s is being developed to reduce emissions offset the increased cost for the gas can.
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment from diesel locomotives and marine In 2030, the long-term cost per ton of
(NATA) for 1999. In addition, people engines. the proposed standards (in combination,
who live or work near major roads or The proposed reductions in mobile and including fuel savings) would be
live in homes with attached garages are source air toxics emissions would $450 per ton of total mobile source air
likely to have higher exposures and risk, reduce exposure and predicted risk of toxics reduced; $2,400 per ton of
which are not reflected in NATA. cancer and noncancer health effects, benzene reduced; and no cost for the
Sections II.A and IV of this preamble including in environments where hydrocarbon and PM reductions
and Chapter 3 of the RIA provide more exposure and risk may be highest, such (because the vehicle standards would
detail about NATA, as well as our as near roads, in vehicles, and in homes have no cost in 2020 and beyond).
analysis of exposures near roadways. with attached garages. In addition, the Section IX of the preamble and Chapters
According to NATA for 1999, there hydrocarbon reductions from the 8–13 of the RIA provide more details on
are a few mobile source air toxics that vehicle and gas can standards would the costs, benefits, and economic
pose the greatest risk based on current reduce VOC emissions (which are a impacts of the proposed standards. The
information about ambient levels and precursor to ozone and PM2.5) by over 1 impacts on small entities and the
exposure. These include benzene, 1,3- million tons in 2030. The proposed flexibilities we are proposing are
butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, vehicle standards would reduce direct discussed in section XII.C of this
naphthalene, and polycyclic organic PM2.5 emissions by 20,000 tons in 2030 preamble and Chapter 14 of the RIA.
matter (POM). All of these compounds and would also reduce secondary
are hydrocarbons except POM. Benzene formation of PM2.5. Although ozone and B. What Background Information is
is the most significant contributor to PM2.5 are considered criteria pollutants Helpful to Understand this Proposal?
cancer risk from all outdoor air toxics, rather than ‘‘air toxics,’’ reductions in 1. What Are Air Toxics and Related
according to NATA for 1999. NATA ozone and PM2.5 are important co- Health Effects?
does not include a quantitative estimate benefits of this proposal. More details
of cancer risk for diesel exhaust, but it on emissions, cancer risks, and adverse Air toxics, which are also known in
concludes that diesel exhaust health and welfare effects associated the Clean Air Act as ‘‘hazardous air
(specifically, diesel particulate matter with ozone and PM are found in pollutants,’’ are those pollutants known
and diesel exhaust organic gases) is one sections II.A, IV and V of this preamble or suspected to cause cancer or other
of the pollutants that pose the greatest and Chapters 2 and 3 of the RIA. serious health or environmental effects.
relative cancer risk. Although we expect Section II.B of this preamble provides For example, some of these pollutants
significant reductions in mobile source an overview of the regulatory program are known to have negative effects on
air toxics in the future, cancer and that EPA is proposing for passenger people’s respiratory, cardiovascular,
noncancer health risks will remain a vehicles, gasoline, and gas cans. We are neurological, immune, reproductive, or
public health concern, and exposure to proposing standards to limit the exhaust other organ systems, and they may also
benzene will remain the largest hydrocarbons from passenger vehicles have developmental effects. They may
contributor to this risk. during cold temperature operation. We pose particular hazards to more
As discussed in detail in Section V of are also proposing evaporative susceptible and sensitive populations,
this preamble and Chapter 2 of the RIA, hydrocarbon emissions standards for such as children, the elderly, or people
this proposal would significantly reduce passenger vehicles. We are proposing to with pre-existing illnesses.
emissions of the many air toxics that are limit the average annual benzene Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are
hydrocarbons, including benzene, 1,3- content of gasoline. Finally, we are those toxics emitted by motor vehicles,
butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, proposing hydrocarbon emissions nonroad engines (such as lawn and
acrolein, and naphthalene. The standards for gas cans that would garden equipment, farming and
proposed fuel benzene standard and reduce evaporation, permeation, and construction equipment, aircraft,
hydrocarbon standards for vehicles and spillage from these containers. Detailed locomotives, and ships), and their fuels.
gas cans would together reduce total discussion of each of these programs is Toxics are also emitted by stationary
emissions of mobile source air toxics by in sections VI, VII, and VIII of the sources such as power plants, factories,
350,000 tons in 2030, including 65,000 preamble and Chapters 5, 6, and 7 of the oil refineries, dry cleaners, gas stations,
tons of benzene. Mobile sources were RIA. and small manufacturers. They can also
responsible for 68% of benzene We estimate that the benefits of this be produced by combustion of wood
emissions in 1999. As a result of this proposal would be about $6 billion in and other organic materials. There are
proposal, in 2030 passenger vehicles 2030, based on the direct PM2.5 also indoor sources of air toxics, such as
would emit 45% less benzene, gas cans reductions from the vehicle standards, solvent evaporation and outgassing from
would emit 78% less benzene, and the plus unquantified benefits from furniture and building materials.
gasoline would have 37% less benzene reductions in mobile source air toxics Some MSATs of particular concern
overall. and VOC. We estimate that the annual include benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
In addition, EPA has already taken net social costs of this proposal would formaldehyde, acrolein, naphthalene,
significant steps to reduce diesel be about $200 million in 2030 and diesel particulate matter and diesel
emissions from mobile sources, which (expressed in 2003 dollars). These net exhaust organic gases. Benzene and 1,3-
will result in a 70% reduction between social costs include the value of fuel butadiene are both known human
carcinogens. Section III of this preamble implement section 202(l). This proposal provisions of the Energy Policy Act, this
provides more detail on the health fulfills that commitment. proposed action would obviate the need
effects of each of these pollutants. for readjusting emissions baselines for
b. Clean Air Act Section 183(e)
MSATs are emitted as a result of reformulated gasoline.
various processes. Some MSATs are Clean Air Act section 183(e)(3)
requires EPA to list categories of 3. What Other Actions Has EPA Taken
present in fuel or fuel additives and are Under Clean Air Act Section 202(l)?
emitted to the air when the fuel consumer or commercial products that
evaporates or passes through the engine. the Administrator determines, based on a. 2001 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule
Some MSATs are formed through an EPA study of VOC emissions from EPA published a final rule under
engine combustion processes. Some such products, contribute at least 80 Clean Air Act section 202(l) on March
compounds, like formaldehyde and percent of the VOC emissions from such 29, 2001, entitled, ‘‘Control of Emissions
acetaldehyde, are also formed through a products in areas violating the national of Hazardous Air Pollutants from
secondary process when other mobile ambient air quality standard for ozone. Mobile Sources’’ (66 FR 17230). This
source pollutants undergo chemical EPA promulgated this list at 60 FR rule established toxics emissions
reactions in the atmosphere. Finally, 15264 (March 23, 1995). EPA plans to performance standards for gasoline
some air toxics, such as metals, result publish a Federal Register notice refiners. These standards were designed
from engine wear or from impurities in announcing that EPA has added to ensure that the over compliance to
oil or fuel. portable gasoline containers to the list of the standard seen in the in-use fuels
consumer products to be regulated. This produced in the years of 1998–2000
2. What is the Statutory Authority for action must be taken by EPA prior to would continue in the future.
Today’s Proposal? issuing a final rule for gas cans. EPA is EPA adopted this anti-backsliding
a. Clean Air Act Section 202(l) required to develop rules reflecting requirement as a near-term control that
‘‘best available controls’’ to reduce VOC could be implemented and take effect
Section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act emissions from the listed products. within a year or two. We did not adopt
requires EPA to set standards to control ‘‘Best available controls’’ are defined in long-term controls, those controls that
hazardous air pollutants from motor section 183(e)(1)(A) as follows: require a longer lead time to implement,
vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, or both. because we lacked information to
The term ‘‘best available controls’’ means
These standards must reflect the greatest the degree of emissions reduction that the address the costs and benefits of
degree of emission reduction achievable Administrator determines, on the basis of potential fuel controls in the context of
through the application of technology technological and economic feasibility, the fuel sulfur controls that we had
which will be available, taking into health, environmental, and energy impacts, is finalized in February 2000. However,
consideration the motor vehicle achievable through the application of the the March 2001 rule did commit to
standards established under section most effective equipment, measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
additional rulemaking that would
202(a) of the Act, the availability and evaluate the need for and feasibility of
cost of the technology, and noise, energy including chemical reformulation, product or
feedstock substitution, repackaging, and additional controls.1 Today’s proposal
and safety factors, and lead time. The fulfills that commitment, and represents
directions for use, consumption, storage, or
standards are to be set under Clean Air disposal.’’ the second step of the two-step
Act sections 202(a)(1) or 211(c)(1), and approach originally envisioned in the
they are to apply, at a minimum, to Section 183(e)(4) also allows these
standards to be implemented by means 2001 rule.
benzene and formaldehyde emissions. The 2001 rule did not set additional
of ‘‘any system or systems of regulation
Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act air toxics controls for motor vehicles,
as the Administrator may deem
directs EPA to set standards for new because the technology-forcing Tier 2
appropriate, including requirements for
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle light-duty vehicle standards and 2007
registration and labeling, self-
engines which EPA judges to cause or heavy-duty engine and vehicle
monitoring and reporting * * *
contribute to air pollution which may standards had just been promulgated.
concerning the manufacture, processing,
reasonably be anticipated to endanger We found that those standards
distribution, use, consumption, or
public health or welfare. We are represented the greatest degree of toxics
disposal of the product.’’ We are
proposing a cold-temperature control achievable at that time under
proposing a hydrocarbon standard for
hydrocarbon emission standard for section 202(l).2
gas cans under the authority of section
passenger vehicles under this authority.
183(e). b. Technical Analysis Plan
Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Clean Air
Act authorizes EPA (among other c. Energy Policy Act The 2001 rulemaking also included a
things) to control the manufacture of Technical Analysis Plan that described
Section 1504(b) of the Energy Policy
fuel if any emission product of such fuel toxics-related research and activities
Act of 2005 requires EPA to adjust the
causes or contributes to air pollution that would inform our future
toxics emissions baselines for
which may reasonably be anticipated to rulemaking to evaluate the need for and
reformulated gasoline to reflect 2001–
endanger public health or welfare. We appropriateness of additional mobile
2002 fuel qualities. However, the Act
are proposing a benzene standard for source air toxic controls. Specifically,
provides that this action becomes
gasoline under this authority. we identified four critical areas where
unnecessary if EPA takes action which
there were data gaps requiring long-term
Clean Air Act section 202(l)(2) results in greater overall reductions of
efforts:
requires EPA to ‘‘from time to time toxics emissions from vehicles in areas • Developing better air toxics
revise’’ its regulations controlling with reformulated gasoline. As
emission factors for nonroad sources;

hazardous air pollutants from motor described in section VII of this • Improving estimation of air toxics
vehicles and fuels. As described in more preamble, we believe today’s proposed exposures in microenvironments;
detail in section I.F. below, EPA has action would in fact result in greater
previously set standards under section reductions than would be achieved by 1 See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 380 (D.C.
202(l), and we committed in that rule to adjusting the baselines under the Energy Cir. 2003), which upholds this approach.
engage in further rulemaking to Policy Act. Accordingly, under the 2 66 FR 17241–17245 (March 29, 2001).
• Improving consideration of the work under the auspices of the Health a census tract, and therefore does not
range of total public exposures to air Effects Institute and the Mickey Leland reflect elevated concentrations and
toxics; and National Urban Air Toxics Research exposures near roadways within a
• Increasing our understanding of the Center. census tract. Nevertheless, its findings
effectiveness and costs of vehicle, fuel Costs and effectiveness of vehicle, are useful in providing a perspective on
and nonroad controls for air toxics. fuel, and nonroad controls for air toxics. the magnitude of risks posed by outdoor
EPA and other outside researchers EPA’s analysis of the costs and sources of air toxics generally, and in
have conducted significant research in effectiveness of vehicle and fuel identifying what pollutants and sources
these areas since 2001. The findings of controls is described in section IX of are important contributors to these
this research are described in more this preamble and in the regulatory health risks.
detail in other sections of this preamble impact analysis. In addition, as EPA also performed a national-scale
and in the regulatory impact analysis for described in section V, EPA is currently assessment for future years, using the
this proposal. Following are some developing rules that will examine same modeling tools and approach as
highlights of our activities. controls of small gasoline engines and the 1999 NATA. Finally, we also
Nonroad emissions testing. EPA has diesel locomotive and marine engines. performed national-scale exposure
tested emissions of nonroad diesel modeling that accounts for the higher
engines for a comprehensive suite of II. Overview of Proposal
toxics concentrations near roads. This
hydrocarbons and inorganic A. Why Is EPA Making This Proposal? latter modeling provides a perspective
compounds. These emissions tests on the mobile source contribution to
People experience elevated risk of
employed steady-state as well as risk from air toxics that is not reflected
cancer and other noncancer health
transient test cycles, using typical in our other national-scale assessments.
effects from exposure to air toxics.
nonroad diesel fuel and low-sulfur
Mobile sources are responsible for a 1. National Cancer Risk from Air Toxics
nonroad diesel fuel. In addition, EPA
significant portion of this risk. For
tested small gasoline-powered engines According to NATA, the average
example, benzene is the most significant
such as lawnmowers, leaf blowers, national cancer risk in 1999 from all
contributor to cancer risk from all
chainsaws and string trimmers. outdoor sources of air toxics was 42 in
outdoor air toxics,3 and most of the
Improved estimation of exposures in a million. That is, 42 out of one million
nation’s benzene emissions come from
microenvironments and consideration people would be expected to contract
mobile sources. These risks vary
of the range of public exposures. EPA cancer from a lifetime of breathing air
depending on where people live and
and other researchers have conducted a toxics at 1999 levels. Mobile sources
work and the kinds of activities in
substantial amount of research and were responsible for 44% of outdoor
which they engage. People who live or
analysis in these areas, which is toxic emissions and almost 50% of the
work near major roads, or people that
discussed in section IV of this preamble cancer risk. Considering only the subset
spend a large amount of time in
and in the regulatory impact analysis. of compounds emitted by mobile
This research has involved monitoring vehicles, are likely to have higher
sources (see Table IV.C–2), the national
as well as the development and exposures and higher risks. Although
average cancer risk in 1999, including
application of enhanced modeling tools. we expect significant reductions in
the stationary source contribution to
For example, personal exposure mobile source air toxics in the future,
these pollutants, was 23 in a million.
monitoring and ambient monitoring has predicted cancer and noncancer health Benzene is the largest contributor to
been conducted at homes and schools risks will remain a public health cancer risk of all 133 pollutants
near roadways; in vehicles; in homes concern. Benzene will remain the quantitatively assessed in the 1999
with attached garages; and in largest contributor to this risk. In NATA. The national average cancer risk
occupational settings involving both addition, some mobile source air toxics from benzene alone was 11 in a million.
diesel and gasoline nonroad equipment. contribute to the formation of ozone and Over 120 million people in 1999 were
We have also applied dispersion PM2.5, which contribute to serious exposed to a risk level above 10 in a
modeling techniques with greater public health problems, which are million due to chronic inhalation
spatial refinement to estimate gradients discussed further in section II.A.4. exposure to benzene. Mobile sources
of toxic pollutants near roadways. A Sections II.A.1–3 discuss the risks were responsible for 68% of benzene
variety of improvements to our posed by outdoor toxics now and in the emissions in 1999.
emissions, dispersion, and exposure future, based on national-scale estimates Although air toxics emissions are
modeling tools are improving our ability such as EPA’s National-Scale Air Toxics projected to decline in the future as a
to consider the range of exposure people Assessment (NATA). EPA’s NATA for result of standards EPA has previously
experience. These include the MOBILE6 1999 provides some perspective on the adopted, cancer risk will continue to be
emissions model, improved spatial and average risk of cancer and noncancer a public health concern. The predicted
temporal allocation of emissions, health effects resulting from breathing national average cancer risk from
development of the Community air toxics from outdoor sources, and the MSATs in 2030 will be 18 in a million,
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, contribution of mobile sources to these according to EPA analysis (described in
and updates to the HAPEM exposure risks.4 5 This assessment did not include more detail in section IV of this
model. Many of these improvements indoor sources of air toxics. Also, it preamble and Chapter 3 of the
were applied in EPA’s National-Scale estimates average concentrations within Regulatory Impact Analysis). In fact, in
Air Toxics Assessment for 1999 and 3 Based on quantitative estimates of risk, which
2030 there will be more people exposed
other analyses EPA performed to do not include diesel particular matter and diesel
to the highest levels of risk. The number
support this proposal. In fact, EPA of Americans above the 10 in a million
exhaust organic gases.

developed a modification of the HAPEM 4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata 1999. cancer risk level from exposure to
exposure model to account for higher 5 NATA does not include a quantitative estimate MSATs is projected to increase from 214
pollutant concentrations near major of cancer risk for diesel particulate matter and million in 1999 to 240 million in 2030.
diesel exhaust organic gases. EPA has concluded
roads. that while diesel exhaust is likely to be a human
Mobile sources will continue to be a
Research in these areas is continuing carcinogen, available data are not sufficient to significant contributor to risk in the
both inside and outside EPA, including develop a confidential estimate of cancer unit risk. future, accounting for 22% of total air
toxic emissions in 2020, and 44% of therefore large. In addition, our analysis B. What Is EPA Proposing?
benzene emissions. indicates that benzene exposure
1. Light-Duty Vehicle Emission
2. Noncancer Health Effects experienced by people living in homes Standards
with attached garages may be twice the
According to the NATA for 1999, national average benzene exposure As described in more detail in section
nearly the entire U.S. population was estimated by NATA for 1999. More VI, we are proposing new standards for
exposed to an average level of air toxics details on exposure near roads and from both exhaust and evaporative emissions
that has the potential for adverse attached garages can be found in section from passenger vehicles. The new
respiratory health effects (noncancer).6 IV of this preamble. exhaust emissions standards would
This will continue to be the case in significantly reduce non-methane
2030, even though toxics levels will be 4. Ozone and Particulate Matter hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions from
lower. passenger vehicles at cold temperatures.
Mobile sources were responsible for Many MSATs are part of a larger These hydrocarbons include many
74% of the noncancer (respiratory) risk category of mobile source emissions mobile source air toxics (including
from outdoor air toxics in 1999. The known as volatile organic compounds benzene), as well as VOC.
majority of this risk was from acrolein, (VOC), which contribute to the Current vehicle emission standards
and formaldehyde also contributed to formation of ozone and particulate require that the certification testing of
the risk of respiratory health effects. matter (PM). In addition, some MSATs NMHC is performed at 75 °F. Recent
Mobile sources will continue to be are emitted directly as PM rather than research and analysis indicates that
responsible for the majority of being formed through secondary these standards are not resulting in
noncancer risk from outdoor air toxics processes. Thus, MSATs contribute to robust control of NMHC at lower
in 2030. adverse health effects both as individual temperatures. We believe that cold
Although not included in NATA’s pollutants, and as precursors to ozone temperature NMHC control can be
estimates of noncancer risk, PM from and PM. Mobile sources contribute substantially improved using the same
gasoline and diesel mobile sources significantly to national emissions of technological approaches that are
contribute significantly to the health VOC and PM. In addition, gas cans are generally already being used in the Tier
effects associated with ambient PM, for a source of both VOC and benzene 2 vehicle fleet to meet the stringent
which EPA has established a National emissions. standards at 75 °F. These cold-
Ambient Air Quality Standard. There is temperature NMHC controls would also
Both ozone and PM contribute to result in lower direct PM emissions at
extensive human data showing a wide
serious public health problems, cold temperatures.
spectrum of adverse health effects
associated with exposure to ambient including premature mortality, Accordingly, we are proposing that
PM. aggravation of respiratory and light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks,
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by and medium-duty passenger vehicles
3. Exposure Near Roads and From increased hospital admissions and would be subject to a new non-methane
Attached Garages emergency room visits, school absences, hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust emissions
The national-scale risks described work loss days, and restricted activity standard at 20 °F. Vehicles at or below
above do not account for higher days), changes in lung function and 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight
exposures experienced by people who increased respiratory symptoms, rating (GVWR) would be subject to a
live near major roadways, or people changes to lung tissues and structures, sales-weighted fleet average NMHC
who live in homes with attached altered respiratory defense mechanisms, level of 0.3 grams/mile. Vehicles
garages. A substantial number of studies chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds GVWR
show elevated concentrations of function. and medium-duty passenger vehicles
multiple MSATs in close proximity to In addition, ozone and PM cause would be subject to a sales-weighted
major roads. We also conducted an significant harm to public welfare. fleet average NMHC level of 0.5 grams/
exposure modeling study for three Specifically, ozone causes damage to mile. For lighter vehicles, the standard
geographically distinct states (Colorado, vegetation, which leads to crop and would phase in between 2010 and 2013.
New York, and Georgia) and found that forestry economic losses, as well as For heavier vehicles, the new standards
when the elevated concentrations near harm to national parks, wilderness would phase in between 2012 and 2015.
roadways are accounted for, the areas, and other natural systems. PM We are also proposing a credit program
distribution of benzene exposure is contributes to the substantial and other provisions designed to
broader, with a larger fraction of the provide flexibility to manufacturers,
impairment of visibility in many parts
population exposed to higher especially during the phase-in periods.
of the U.S., including national parks and
concentrations. The largest effect on These provisions are designed to allow
wilderness areas. The deposition of
personal exposure occurs for the the earliest possible phase-in of
airborne particles can also reduce the
population living near major roads. A standards and help minimize costs and
aesthetic appeal of buildings and
U.S. Census survey of housing found ease the transition to new standards.
culturally important articles through We are also proposing a set of
that in 2003 12.6% of U.S. housing units soiling, and can contribute directly (or
were within 300 feet of a major nominally more stringent evaporative
in conjunction with other pollutants) to emission standards for all light-duty
transportation source.7 The potential
structural damage by means of corrosion vehicles, light-duty trucks, and
population exposed to elevated
or erosion. medium-duty passenger vehicles. The
concentrations near major roadways is
Finally, atmospheric deposition and proposed standards are equivalent to
6 That is, the respiratory hazard index exceeded runoff of polycyclic organic matter California’s Low Emission Vehicle II
1. See section III.D of this preamble for more (POM), metals, and other mobile-source- (LEV II) standards, and they reflect the
information. related compounds contribute to the evaporative emissions levels that are
7 United States Census Bureau. (2004) American
Housing Survey web page. [Online at http://

contamination of water bodies such as already being achieved nationwide. The
www.cenus.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs03/ the Great Lakes and coastal waters (e.g., standards we are proposing today would
ahs03.html] Table IA–6. the Chesapeake Bay). codify the approach that most
manufacturers are already taking for 50- credits to achieve compliance with the revised California program is very
state evaporative systems, and the benzene content standard. similar to the program we are proposing.
standards would thus prevent This proposed ABT program would Although a few aspects of the program
backsliding in the future. We are allow us to set a more stringent benzene we are proposing are different, we
proposing to implement the evaporative standard than would otherwise be believe manufacturers would be able to
emission standards in 2009 for lighter possible, and it would allow meet both EPA and California
vehicles and in 2010 for the heavier implementation to occur earlier. Under requirements with the same gas can
vehicles. this proposed benzene content standard designs.
Section VI provides details on the and ABT program, gasoline in all areas
proposed exhaust and evaporative of the country would have lower III. What Are Mobile Source Air Toxics
standards and their implementation, benzene levels than they have today. (MSATs) and Their Health Effects?
and our rationale for proposing them. Overall benzene levels would be 37% A. What Are MSATs?
lower. This would reduce benzene
2. Gasoline Fuel Standards Section 202(l) refers to ‘‘hazardous air
emissions and exposure nationwide.
As described in more detail in section Finally, we propose hardship pollutants from motor vehicles and
VII, we are proposing to limit the provisions. Refiners approved as ‘‘small motor vehicle fuels.’’ We use the term
benzene content of all gasoline, both refiners’’ would be eligible for certain ‘‘mobile source air toxics (MSATs)’’ to
reformulated and conventional. We temporary relief provisions. In addition, refer to compounds that are emitted by
propose that beginning January 1, 2011, any refiner facing extreme unforeseen mobile sources and have the potential
refiners would meet an average gasoline circumstances or extreme hardship for serious adverse health effects. There
benzene content standard of 0.62% by circumstances could apply for similar are a variety of ways in which to
volume on all their gasoline. We are not temporary relief. identify compounds that have the
proposing a standard for California, Section VII of this preamble provides potential for serious adverse health
however, because it is already covered a detailed explanation and rationale for effects. For example, EPA’s Integrated
by a similar state program. the proposed fuel program and its Risk Information System (IRIS) is EPA’s
This proposed fuel standard would implementation. It also discusses and database containing information on
result in air toxics emissions reductions seeks comment on a variety of human health effects that may result
that are greater than required under all alternatives that we considered. from exposure to various chemicals in
existing gasoline toxics programs. As a the environment. In addition, Clean Air
result, EPA is proposing that upon full 3. Portable Gasoline Container (Gas Can) Act section 112(b) contains a list of
implementation in 2011, the regulatory Controls hazardous air pollutants that EPA is
provisions for the benzene control Portable gasoline containers, or gas required to control through regulatory
program would become the single cans, are consumer products used to standards; other agencies or programs
regulatory mechanism used to refuel a wide variety of gasoline- such as the Agency for Toxic Substances
implement the RFG and Anti-dumping powered equipment, including lawn and Disease Registry and the California
annual average toxics requirements. The and garden equipment, recreational EPA have developed health benchmark
current RFG and Anti-dumping annual equipment, and passenger vehicles that values for various compounds; and the
average provisions thus would be have run out of gas. As described in International Agency for Research on
replaced by the proposed benzene section VIII, we are proposing standards Cancer and the National Toxicology
control program. The MSAT2 benzene that would reduce hydrocarbon Program have assembled evidence of
control program would also replace the emissions from evaporation, substances that cause cancer in humans
MSAT1 requirements. In addition, the permeation, and spillage. These and issue judgments on the strength of
program would satisfy certain fuel standards would significantly reduce the evidence. Each source of
MSAT conditions of the Energy Policy benzene and other toxics, as well as information has its own strengths and
Act of 2005 and obviate the need to VOC more generally. VOC is an ozone limitations. For example, there are
revise toxics baselines for reformulated precursor. inherent limitations on the number of
gasoline otherwise required by the We propose a performance-based compounds that have been investigated
Energy Policy Act. In all of these ways, standard of 0.3 grams per gallon per day sufficiently for EPA to conduct an IRIS
we would significantly consolidate and of hydrocarbons, based on the emissions assessment. There are some compounds
simplify the existing national fuel- from the can over a diurnal test cycle. that are not listed in IRIS but are
related MSAT regulatory program. The standard would apply to gas cans considered to be hazardous air
We also propose that refiners could manufactured on or after January 1, pollutants under Clean Air Act section
generate benzene credits and use or 2009. We also propose test procedures 112(b) and are regulated by the Agency
transfer them as a part of a nationwide and a certification and compliance (e.g., propionaldehyde, 2,2,4-
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program, in order to ensure that gas cans trimethylpentane).
program. From 2007–2010 refiners would meet the emission standard over
could generate benzene credits by taking a range of in-use conditions. The B. Compounds Emitted by Mobile
early steps to reduce gasoline benzene proposed standards would result in the Sources and Identified in IRIS
levels. Beginning in 2011 and use of best available control In its 2001 MSAT rule, EPA identified
continuing indefinitely, refiners could technologies, such as durable a list of 21 MSATs. We listed a
generate credits by producing gasoline permeation barriers, automatically compound as an MSAT if it was emitted
with benzene levels below the 0.62% closing spouts, and cans that are well- from mobile sources, and if the Agency
average standard. Refiners could apply sealed. had concluded in IRIS that the
the credits towards company California implemented an emissions compound posed a potential cancer
compliance, ‘‘bank’’ the credits for later control program for gas cans in 2001, hazard and/or if IRIS contained an
use, or transfer (‘‘trade’’) them to other and since then, several other states have inhalation reference concentration or
refiners nationwide (outside of adopted the program. Last year, ingestion reference dose for the
California) under the proposed program. California adopted a revised program, compound. Since 2001, EPA has
Under this program, refiners could use which will take effect July 1, 2007. The conducted an extensive review of the
literature to produce a list of the identification of known, probable, or are not included in Table III.B–1. These
compounds identified in the exhaust or possible human carcinogens (under the compounds are: Cerium, copper,
evaporative emissions from onroad and 1986 EPA cancer guidelines) or ethanol, ethyl tertiary butyl ether
nonroad equipment, using baseline as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be (ETBE), platinum, propionaldehyde,
well as alternative fuels (e.g., biodiesel, carcinogenic to humans, or suggestive and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane.
compressed natural gas). This list, the evidence of carcinogenic potential The fact that a compound is listed in
Master List of Compounds Emitted by (under the 2005 EPA cancer guidelines); Table III.B–1 does not imply a risk to
Mobile Sources (‘‘Master List’’), and/or (b) an inhalation reference public health or welfare at current
currently includes approximately 1,000 concentration or an ingestion reference levels, or that it is appropriate to adopt
compounds. It is available in the public dose. Although all these compounds controls to limit the emissions of such
docket for this rule and on the web have been detected in emissions from a compound from motor vehicles or
(www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm). Table mobile sources, many are emitted in their fuels. In conducting any such
III.B–1 lists those compounds from the trace amounts and data are not adequate further evaluation, pursuant to sections
Master List that currently meet those to develop an inventory. Those 202(a) or 211(c) of the Act, EPA would
2001 MSAT criteria, based on the compounds for which we have consider whether emissions of the
current IRIS. developed an emissions inventory are compound from motor vehicles cause or
Table III.B–1 identifies all of the summarized in Table IV.C–2. There are contribute to air pollution which may
compounds from the Master List that are several compounds for which IRIS reasonably be anticipated to endanger
present in IRIS with (a) a cancer hazard assessments are underway and therefore public health or welfare.
TABLE III.B–1.—COMPOUNDS EMITTED BY MOBILE SOURCES THAT ARE LISTED IN IRIS*

1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane ................................... Cadmium .......................................................... Manganese.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ......................................... Carbon disulfide ............................................... Mercury, elemental.
1,1-Biphenyl ........................................................ Carbon tetrachloride ........................................ Methanol.
1,2-Dibromoethane ............................................. Chlorine ............................................................ Methyl chloride.
1,2-Dichlorobenzene .......................................... Chlorobenzene ................................................. Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK).
1,3-Butadiene ..................................................... Chloroform ....................................................... Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK).
2,4-Dinitrophenol ................................................ Chromium III .................................................... Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).
2-Methylnaphthalene .......................................... Chromium VI .................................................... Molybdenum.
2-Methylphenol ................................................... Chrysene .......................................................... Naphthalene.
4-Methylphenol ................................................... Crotonaldehyde ................................................ Nickel.
Acenaphthene .................................................... Cumene (isopropyl benzene) ........................... Nitrate.
Acetaldehyde ...................................................... Cyclohexane .................................................... N-Nitrosodiethylamine.
Acetone .............................................................. Cyclohexanone ................................................ N-Nitrosodimethylamine.
Acetophenone .................................................... Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ................................. N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine.
Acrolein (2-propenal) .......................................... Dibenz[a,h]anthracene ..................................... N-Nitrosodi-N-propylamine.
Ammonia ............................................................ Dibutyl phthalate .............................................. N-Nitrosopyrrolidine.
Anthracene ......................................................... Dichloromethane .............................................. Pentachlorophenol.
Antimony ............................................................. Diesel PM and Diesel exhaust organic gases Phenol.
Arsenic, inorganic ............................................... Diethyl phthalate .............................................. Phosphorus.
Barium and compounds ..................................... Ethylbenzene ................................................... Phthalic anhydride.
Benz[a]anthracene ............................................. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether ...................... Pyrene.
Benzaldehyde ..................................................... Fluoranthene .................................................... Selenium and compounds.
Benzene ............................................................. Fluorene ........................................................... Silver.
Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) ........................................ Formaldehyde .................................................. Strontium.
Benzo[b]fluoranthene ......................................... Furfural ............................................................. Styrene.
Benzo[k]fluoranthene .......................................... Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, mixture (dioxin/ Tetrachloroethylene.
furans).
Benzoic acid ....................................................... n-Hexane .......................................................... Toluene.
Beryllium and compounds .................................. Hydrogen cyanide ............................................ Trichlorofluoromethane.
Boron (Boron and Borates only) ........................ Hydrogen sulfide .............................................. Vanadium.
Bromomethane ................................................... Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene .................................... Xylenes.
Butyl benzyl phthalate ........................................ Lead and compounds (inorganic) .................... Zinc and compounds.
* Compounds listed in IRIS as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens and/or pollutants for which the Agency has calculated a ref-
erence concentration or reference dose.
C. Which Mobile Source Emissions Pose also conducted a national-scale health effects associated with the
the Greatest Health Risk at Current assessment for future years, which is compounds.9
Levels? discussed more fully in section IV of
1. National and Regional Risk Drivers in
The 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics this preamble and Chapters 2 and 3 of
1999 National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) provides some the RIA. Our understanding of what
emissions pose the greatest risk will Assessment
perspective on which mobile source
emissions pose the greatest risk at evolve over time, based on our The 1999 NATA evaluates 177
current estimated ambient levels.8 We understanding of the ambient levels and hazardous air pollutants currently listed
under CAA section 112(b), as well as
8 It is, of course, not necessary for EPA to show vehicles contribute some non-trivial percentage of
that a compound is a national or regional risk driver the inventory of a compound known to be
9 The discussion here considers risks other than
to show that its emission from motor vehicles may associated with adverse health effects would
reasonably cause or contribute to endangerment of normally be sufficient. Cf. Bluewater Network v. those attributed to ambient levels of criteria
public health or welfare. A showing that motor EPA, 370 F. 3d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2004). pollutants.
diesel PM.10 NATA is described in order of magnitude) of a daily exposure TABLE III.C–1.—NATIONAL AND RE-
greater detail in Chapters 2 and 3 of the to the human population (including GIONAL CANCER AND NONCANCER
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be RISK DRIVERS IN 1999 NATA—
proposed rule. Additional information without appreciable risk of deleterious Continued
can also be obtained from the NATA effects during a lifetime. Acrolein is the
website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ only compound identified in the 1999 Cancer 1 Noncancer
nata1999). Based on the assessment of NATA as a national noncancer risk
inhalation exposures associated with driver. A noncancer risk driver on a Nickel compounds
outdoor sources of these hazardous air regional scale is defined as a hazardous 2,4-Toluene
pollutants, NATA has identified cancer air pollutant for which at least 10,000 diisocyanate
and noncancer risk drivers on a national people are exposed to an ambient Triethylamine
and regional scale (Table III.C–1). A concentration greater than the 1 The list of cancer risk drivers does not in-
cancer risk driver on a national scale is inhalation reference concentration. clude diesel particulate matter. However, the
a hazardous air pollutant for which at Sixteen regional-scale noncancer risk 1999 NATA concluded that it was one of the
least 25 million people are exposed to drivers were identified in the 1999 pollutants that posed the greatest relative can-
cer risk.
risk greater than ten in one million. NATA (see Table III.C–1.). 2 At least 25 million people exposed to risk
Benzene is the only compound >10 in 1 million.
identified in the 1999 NATA as a TABLE III.C–1.—NATIONAL AND RE- 3 At least 1 million people exposed to risk
national cancer risk driver. A cancer >10 in 1 million or at least 10,000 people ex-
GIONAL CANCER AND NONCANCER posed to risk >100 in 1 million.
risk driver on a regional scale is a RISK DRIVERS IN 1999 NATA 4 At least 25 million people exposed to a
hazardous air pollutant for which at hazard quotient > 1.0.
least one million people are exposed to Cancer 1 Noncancer
5 At least 10,000 people exposed to a haz-
risk greater than ten in one million or ard quotient > 1.

at least 10,000 people are exposed to National drivers 2 ....... National drivers 4 2. 1999 NATA Risk Drivers with
risk greater than 100 in one million. Benzene .................... Acrolein
Regional drivers 3 ...... Regional drivers 5
Significant Mobile Source Contribution
Twelve compounds (or groups of
Arsenic compounds .. Antimony Among the national and regional-
compounds in the case of POM) were
Benzidine .................. Arsenic compounds
identified as regional cancer risk scale cancer and noncancer risk drivers
1,3-Butadiene ............ 1,3-Butadiene
drivers. The 1999 NATA concludes that Cadmium compounds Cadmium compounds identified in the 1999 NATA, seven
diesel particulate matter is among the Carbon tetrachloride Chlorine compounds have significant
substances that pose the greatest relative Chromium VI ............. Chromium VI contributions from mobile sources:
risk, although the cancer risk cannot be Coke oven ................. Diesel PM benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
quantified. Ethylene oxide .......... Formaldehyde acrolein, polycyclic organic matter
A noncancer risk driver at the Hydrazine .................. Hexamethylene 1–6- (POM), naphthalene, and diesel
national scale is a hazardous air diisocyanate particulate matter and diesel exhaust
Naphthalene .............. Hydrazine
pollutant for which at least 25 million Perchloroethylene ..... Hydrochloric acid
organic gases (Table III.C–2.). For
people are exposed at a concentration Polycyclic organic Maleic anhydride example, mobile sources contribute
greater than the inhalation reference matter. 68% of the national benzene inventory,
concentration. The RfC is an estimate Manganese com- with 49% from on-road sources and
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an pounds 19% from nonroad sources.
TABLE III.C–2.—MOBILE SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO 1999 NATA RISK DRIVERS

Percent con- Percent con-
tribution from tribution from
1999 NATA risk drivers all mobile on-road mobile
sources sources
(percent) (percent)
Benzene ................................................................................................................................................................... 68 49
1,3–Butadiene .......................................................................................................................................................... 58 41
Formaldehyde .......................................................................................................................................................... 47 27
Acrolein .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 14
Polycyclic organic matter * ....................................................................................................................................... 6 3
Naphthalene ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 21
Diesel PM and Diesel exhaust organic gases ........................................................................................................ 100 38
* This POM inventory includes the 15 POM compounds: benzo[b]fluoranthene, benz[a]anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene,
benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, benzo[a]pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, anthracene, pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, fluoranthene, acenaphthylene,
phenanthrene, fluorene, and acenaphthene.
10 NATA does not include a quantitative estimate
of cancer risk for diesel particulate matter and

diesel exhaust organic gases.
D. What Are the Health Effects of Air overestimate than underestimate risk. respiratory irritants were also combined
Toxics? Where there are strong epidemiological into a hazard index (HI). A hazard index
data, a maximum likelihood (MLE) is the sum of hazard quotients for
1. Overview of Potential Cancer and
estimate may be developed. An MLE is substances that affect the same target
Noncancer Health Effects
a best scientific estimate of risk. The organ or organ system. Because different
Air toxics can cause a variety of benzene unit risk is an MLE. A pollutants may cause similar adverse
cancer and noncancer health effects. A discussion of the confidence in a health effects, it is often appropriate to
number of the mobile source air toxic quantitative cancer risk estimate is combine hazard quotients associated
pollutants described in section III are provided in the IRIS file for each with different substances. However, the
known or likely to pose a cancer hazard compound. The discussion of the HI is only an approximation of a
in humans. Many of these compounds confidence in the cancer risk estimate combined effect because substances may
also cause adverse noncancer health includes an assessment of the source of affect a target organ in different ways.
effects resulting from chronic,11 the data (human or animal),
subchronic,12 or acute 13 inhalation 2. Health Effects of Key MSATs
uncertainties in dose estimates, choice
exposures. These include neurological, of the model used to fit the exposure a. Benzene
cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and and response data and how The EPA’s IRIS database lists
respiratory effects as well as effects on uncertainties and potential confounders benzene, an aromatic hydrocarbon, as a
the immune and reproductive systems. are handled. known human carcinogen (causing
Section III.D.2 discusses the health Potential noncancer chronic leukemia) by all routes of exposure.15 A
effects of air toxic compounds listed in inhalation health risks are quantified number of adverse noncancer health
Table III.C–2, as well as acetaldehyde. using reference concentrations (RfCs) effects including blood disorders and
The compounds in Table III.C–2 were and noncancer chronic ingestion health immunotoxicity have also been
all identified as national and regional- risks are quantified using reference associated with long-term occupational
scale cancer and noncancer risk drivers doses (RfDs). The RfC is an estimate exposure to benzene.
in the 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an Inhalation is the major source of
Assessment (NATA), and have order of magnitude) of a daily exposure human exposure to benzene in the
significant inventory contributions from to the human population (including occupational and non-occupational
mobile sources. Acetaldehyde is sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be setting. Long-term inhalation
included because it is a likely human without appreciable risk of deleterious occupational exposure to benzene has
carcinogen, has a significant inventory effects during a lifetime. Sources of been shown to cause cancer of the
contribution from mobile sources, and uncertainty in the development of the hematopoetic (blood cell) system in
was identified as a risk driver in the RfCs and RfDs include intraspecies adults. Among these are acute
1996 NATA. We are also including extrapolation (animal to human) and nonlymphocytic leukemia 16 and
diesel particulate matter and diesel interspecies extrapolation (average chronic lymphocytic leukemia.17 18
exhaust organic gases in this discussion. human to sensitive human). Additional
Although 1999 NATA did not quantify sources of uncertainty can be using a 15 U.S. EPA (2000). Integrated Risk Information
cancer risks associated with exposure to lowest observed adverse effect level in System File for Benzene. This material is available
this pollutant, EPA has concluded that place of a no observed adverse effect electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
diesel exhaust ranks with the other level, and other data deficiencies. A 0276.htm.
16 Leukemia is a blood disease in which the white
substances that the national-scale statement regarding the confidence in
blood cells are abnormal in type or number.
assessment suggests pose the greatest the RfC and/or RfD is developed to Leukemia may be divided into nonlymphocytic
relative risk.14 reflect the confidence in the principal (granulocytic) leukemias and lymphocytic
Inhalation cancer risks are usually study or studies on which the RfC or leukemias. Nonlymphocytic leukemia generally
RfD are based and the confidence in the involves the types of white blood cells (leukocytes)
estimated by EPA as ‘‘unit risks,’’ which that are involved in engulfing, killing, and digesting
represent the excess lifetime cancer risk underlying database. Factors that affect bacteria and other parasites (phagocytosis) as well
estimated to result from continuous the confidence in the principal study as releasing chemicals involved in allergic and
exposure to an agent at a concentration include how well the study was immune responses. This type of leukemia may also
involve erythroblastic cell types (immature red
of 1 µg/m3 in air. Some air toxics are designed, conducted and reported.
blood cells). Lymphocytic leukemia involves the
known to be carcinogenic in animals but Factors that affect the confidence in the lymphocyte type of white blood cells that are
lack data in humans. These have been database include an assessment of the responsible for the immune responses. Both
assumed to be human carcinogens. Also, availability of information regarding nonlymphocytic and lymphocytic leukemia may, in
identification of the critical effect, turn, be separated into acute (rapid and fatal) and
relationships between exposure and chronic (lingering, lasting) forms. For example; in
probability of cancer are assumed to be potentially susceptible populations and acute myeloid leukemia there is diminished
linear. In addition, these unit risks are exposure scenarios relevant to production of normal red blood cells (erythrocytes),
typically upper bound estimates. Upper assessment of risk. granulocytes, and platelets (control clotting), which
bound estimates are more likely to The RfC may be used to estimate a leads to death by anemia, infection, or hemorrhage.
hazard quotient, which is the These events can be rapid. In chronic myeloid
leukemia (CML) the leukemic cells retain the ability
11 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of environmental exposure to a substance to differentiate (i.e., be responsive to stimulatory
the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database divided by its RfC. A hazard quotient factors) and perform function; later there is a loss
(www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, greater than one indicates adverse of the ability to respond.
dermal, or inhalation route for more than 17 U.S. EPA (1985) Environmental Protection
approximately 10 of the life span in humans (more
health effects are possible. The hazard
Agency, Interim quantitative cancer unit risk
than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically quotient cannot be translated to a estimates due to inhalation of benzene, prepared by
used laboratory animal species). probability that adverse health effects
the Office of Health and Environmental

12 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure to a will occur, and is unlikely to be Assessment, Carcinogen Assessment Group,
substance spanning approximately 10 of the proportional to risk. It is especially Washington, DC, for the Office of Air Quality
lifetime of an organism. Planning and Standards, Washington, DC, 1985.
13 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the
important to note that a hazard quotient 18 U.S. EPA. (1993). Motor Vehicle-Related Air
oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or exceeding one does not necessarily Toxics Study. Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor,
less. mean that adverse effects will occur. In MI. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/
14 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999. NATA, hazard quotients for different tox_archive.htm.
Leukemias, lymphomas, and other slope of the dose-response curve at data are from the largest cohort study
tumor types have been observed in environmental levels of exposure and to done to date with individual worker
experimental animals exposed to provide a sound scientific basis to exposure estimates. However, these data
benzene by inhalation or oral choose any particular extrapolation/ have not yet been formally evaluated by
administration. Exposure to benzene exposure model to estimate human EPA as part of the IRIS review process,
and/or its metabolites has also been cancer risk at low doses. EPA risk and it is not clear whether these data
linked with chromosomal changes in assessment guidelines suggest using an provide sufficient evidence to reject a
humans and animals 19 20 and increased assumption of linearity of dose response linear dose-response curve. A better
proliferation of mouse bone marrow when (1) there is an absence of understanding of the biological
cells.21 22 sufficient information on modes of mechanism of benzene-induced
The latest assessment by EPA places action or (2) the mode of action leukemia is needed.
the excess risk of developing acute information indicates that the dose- Children may represent a
nonlymphocytic leukemia from response curve at low dose is or is subpopulation at increased risk from
inhalation exposure to benzene at 2.2 × expected to be linear.24 Since the mode benzene exposure, due to factors that
10¥6 to 7.8 × 10¥6 per µg/m3. In other of action for benzene carcinogenicity is could increase their susceptibility.
words, there is a risk of about two to unknown, the current cancer unit risk Children may have a higher unit body
eight excess leukemia cases in one estimate assumes linearity of the low- weight exposure because of their
million people exposed to 1 µg/m3 of dose response. Data that were heightened activity patterns which can
benzene over a lifetime.23 This range of considered by EPA in its carcinogenic increase their exposures, as well as
unit risks are the MLEs calculated from update suggested that the dose-response different ventilation tidal volumes and
different exposure assumptions and relationship at doses below those frequencies, factors that influence
dose-response models that are linear at examined in the studies reviewed in uptake. This could entail a greater risk
low doses. At present, the true cancer EPA’s most recent benzene assessment of leukemia and other toxic effects to
risk from exposure to benzene cannot be may be supralinear. They support the children if they are exposed to benzene
ascertained, even though dose-response inference that cancer risks are as high or at similar levels as adults. There is
data are used in the quantitative cancer are higher than the estimates provided limited information from two studies
risk analysis, because of uncertainties in in the existing EPA assessment.25 Data regarding an increased risk to children
the low-dose exposure scenarios and discussed in the EPA IRIS assessment whose parents have been occupationally
lack of clear understanding of the mode suggest that genetic abnormalities occur exposed to benzene.30 31 Data from
of action. A range of estimates of risk is at low exposure in humans, and the animal studies have shown benzene
recommended, each having equal formation of toxic metabolites plateaus exposures result in damage to the
scientific plausibility. There are above 25 ppm (80,000 µg/m3).26 More hematopoietic (blood cell formation)
confidence intervals associated with the recent data on benzene adducts in system during development.32 33 34 Also,
MLE range that reflect random variation humans, published after the most recent key changes related to the development
of the observed data. For the upper end IRIS assessment, suggest that the of childhood leukemia occur in the
of the MLE range, the 5th and 95th enzymes involved in benzene developing fetus.35 Several studies have
percentile values are about a factor of 5 metabolism start to saturate at exposure reported that genetic changes related to
lower and higher than the best fit value. levels as low as 1 ppm.27 Because there eventual leukemia development occur
The upper end of the MLE range was is a transition from linear to saturable before birth. For example, there is one
used in NATA. metabolism below 1 ppm, the study of genetic changes in twins who
It should be noted that not enough assumption of low-dose linearity developed T cell leukemia at 9 years of
information is known to determine the extrapolated from much higher
exposures could lead to substantial the dose-related incidence of hematologic
19 International Agency for Research on Cancer underestimation of leukemia risks. This neoplasms in China. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 89:1065–
1071.
(IARC) (1982) IARC monographs on the evaluation is consistent with recent 29 Hayes, R.B.; Songnian, Y.; Dosemeci, M.; and
of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, epidemiological data which also suggest
Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and Linet, M. (2001) Benzene and lymphohematopoietic
dyestuffs, International Agency for Research on a supralinear exposure-response malignancies in humans. Am. J. Indust. Med.
Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France, relationship and which ‘‘[extend] 40:117–126.
30 Shu, X.O,; Gao, Y.T.; Brinton, L.A.; et al. (1988)
p. 345–389. evidence for hematopoietic cancer risks
20 U.S. EPA (1998) Environmental Protection A population-based case-control study of childhood
to levels substantially lower than had leukemia in Shanghai. Cancer 62:635–644.
Agency, Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An
Update, National Center for Environmental
previously been established.’’ 28 29 These 31 McKinney, P.A.; Alexander, F.E.; Cartwright,
Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA600–P–97–001F. R.A.; et al. (1991) Parental occupations of children
24 U.S. EPA (2005) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk with leukemia in west Cumbria, north Humberside,
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/
EPA600P97001F.html. Assessment. Report No. EPA/630/P–03/001F. and Gateshead, Br. Med. J. 302:681–686.
21 Irons, R.D., W.S. Stillman, D.B. Colagiovanni, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/ 32 Keller, KA; Snyder, CA. (1986) Mice exposed
and V.A. Henry (1992) Synergistic action of the recordisplay.cfm?deid=116283. in utero to low concentrations of benzene exhibit
25 U.S. EPA (1998) Carcinogenic Effects of enduring changes in their colony forming
benzene metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic
stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage Benzene: An Update. EPA/600/P–97/001F. hematopoietic cells. Toxicology 42:171–181.
colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad. 26 Rothman, N; Li, GL; Dosemeci, M; et al. (1996) 33 Keller, KA; Snyder, CA. (1988) Mice exposed
Sci. 89:3691–3695. Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily in utero to 20 ppm benzene exhibit altered numbers
22 U.S. EPA (1998) Environmental Protection exposed to benzene. Am. J. Indust. Med. 29:236– of recognizable hematopoietic cells up to seven
Agency, Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An 246. weeks after exposure. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.
Update, National Center for Environmental 27 Rappaport, S.M.; Waidyanatha, S.; Qu, Q.; 10:224–232.
Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA600–P–97–001F. Shore, R.; Jin, X.; Cohen, B.; Chen, L.; Melikian, A.; 34 Corti, M; Snyder, CA. (1996) Influences of
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/ Li, G.; Yin, S.; Yan, H.; Xu, B.; Mu, R.; Li, Y.; Zhang, gender, development, pregnancy and ethanol
EPA600P97001F.html. X.; and Li, K. (2002) Albumin adducts of benzene consumption on the hematotoxicity of inhaled 10
23 U.S. EPA (1998). Environmental Protection oxide and 1,4-benzoquinone as measures of human ppm benzene. Arch. Toxicol. 70:209–217.
Agency, Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An benzene metabolism. Cancer Research 62:1330– 35 U.S. EPA. (2002). Toxicological Review of
Update, National Center for Environmental 1337. Benzene (Noncancer Effects). National Center for
Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA600–P–97–001F. 28 Hayes, R.B.; Yin, S.; Dosemeci, M.; Li, G.; Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/ Wacholder, S.; Travis, L.B.; Li, C.; Rothman, N.; Report No. EPA/635/R–02/001F. http://
EPA600P97001F.html. Hoover, R.N.; and Linet, M.S. (1997) Benzene and www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0276-tr[1].pdf.
age.36 An association between traffic preleukemic state.42 43 The most carcinogenic to humans by
volume, residential proximity to busy sensitive noncancer effect observed in inhalation.49 50 The specific mechanisms
roads and occurrence of childhood humans, based on current data, is the of 1,3-butadiene-induced carcinogenesis
leukemia has also been identified in depression of the absolute lymphocyte are unknown; however, it is virtually
some studies, although some studies count in blood.44 45 certain that the carcinogenic effects are
show no association. EPA’s inhalation reference mediated by genotoxic metabolites of
concentration (RfC) for benzene is 30 1,3-butadiene. Animal data suggest that
A number of adverse noncancer µg/m3, based on suppressed absolute females may be more sensitive than
health effects, including blood disorders lymphocyte counts as seen in humans males for cancer effects; nevertheless,
such as preleukemia and aplastic under occupational exposure there are insufficient data from which to
anemia, have also been associated with conditions. The overall confidence in draw any conclusions on potentially
long-term exposure to benzene.37 38 this RfC is medium. Since development sensitive subpopulations. The upper
People with long-term occupational of this RfC, there have appeared human bound cancer unit risk estimate is 0.08
exposure to benzene have experienced reports of benzene’s hematotoxic effects per ppm or 3×10¥5 per µg/m3 (based
harmful effects on the blood-forming in the literature that provides data primarily on linear modeling and
tissues, especially in bone marrow. suggesting a wide range of extrapolation of human data). In other
These effects can disrupt normal blood hematological endpoints that are words, it is estimated that
production and suppress the production affected at occupational exposures of approximately 30 persons in one
of important blood components, such as less than 5 ppm (about 16 mg/m3) 46 and million exposed to 1 µg/m3 of 1,3-
red and white blood cells and blood even at air levels of 1 ppm (about 3 mg/ butadiene continuously for their
platelets, leading to anemia (a reduction m3) or less among genetically lifetime would develop cancer as a
in the number of red blood cells), susceptible populations.47 One recent result of this exposure. The human
leukopenia (a reduction in the number study found benzene metabolites in incremental lifetime unit cancer risk
of white blood cells), or mouse liver and bone marrow at estimate is based on extrapolation from
thrombocytopenia (a reduction in the environmental doses, indicating that leukemias observed in an occupational
number of blood platelets, thus reducing even concentrations in urban air can epidemiologic study.51 This estimate
the ability of blood to clot). Chronic elicit a biochemical response in rodents includes a two-fold adjustment to the
inhalation exposure to benzene in that indicates toxicity.48 EPA has not epidemiologic-based unit cancer risk
humans and animals results in formally evaluated these recent studies applied to reflect evidence from the
pancytopenia,39 a condition as part of the IRIS review process to rodent bioassays suggesting that the
characterized by decreased numbers of determine whether or not they will lead epidemiologic-based estimate (from
circulating erythrocytes (red blood to a change in the current RfC. EPA does males) may underestimate total cancer
cells), leukocytes (white blood cells), not currently have an acute reference risk from 1,3-butadiene exposure in the
and thrombocytes (blood platelets).40 41 concentration for benzene. The Agency general population, particularly for
Individuals that develop pancytopenia for Toxic Substances and Disease breast cancer in females. Confidence in
and have continued exposure to Registry Minimal Risk Level for acute the excess cancer risk estimate of 0.08
benzene may develop aplastic anemia, exposure to benzene is 160 µg/m3 for 1– per ppm is moderate.
whereas others exhibit both 14 days exposure. 1,3-Butadiene also causes a variety of
pancytopenia and bone marrow reproductive and developmental effects
b. 1,3-Butadiene
hyperplasia (excessive cell formation), a in mice; no human data on these effects
condition that may indicate a EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene, are available. The most sensitive effect
a hydrocarbon, as a leukemogen, was ovarian atrophy observed in a
36 Ford, AM; Pombo-de-Oliveira, MS; McCarthy, lifetime bioassay of female mice.52
42 Aksoy, M., S. Erdem, and G. Dincol. (1974)
KP; MacLean, JM; Carrico, KC; Vincent, RF; Based on this critical effect and the
Leukemia in shoe-workers exposed chronically to
Greaves, M. (1997) Monoclonal origin of concordant
benzene. Blood 44:837. benchmark concentration methodology,
T-cell malignancy in identical twins. Blood 89:281– 43 Aksoy, M. and K. Erdem. (1978) A follow-up an RfC was calculated. This RfC for
285.
37 Aksoy, M. (1989) Hematotoxicity and
study on the mortality and the development of chronic health effects is 0.9 ppb, or
carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health
leukemia in 44 pancytopenic patients associated about 2 µg/m3. Confidence in the
with long-term exposure to benzene. Blood 52: 285–
Perspect. 82:193–197. 292. inhalation RfC is medium.
38 Goldstein, B.D. (1988) Benzene toxicity.
44 Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E.
Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews 3: c. Formaldehyde
Bechtold, G.E. Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi,
541–554. W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-Holland, L.P. Zhang, Since 1987, EPA has classified
39 Pancytopenia is the reduction in the number of
W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes (1996) formaldehyde, a hydrocarbon, as a
all three major types of blood cells (erythrocytes, or Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily
red blood cells, thrombocytes, or platelets, and exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29: 236–246.
49 U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3-
leukocytes, or white blood cells). In adults, all three 45 EPA 2005 ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for Benzene
major types of blood cells are produced in the bone (CASRN 71–43–2)’’ Environmental Protection Butadiene. Office of Research and Development,
marrow of the vertebra, sternum, ribs, and pelvis. Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), National Center for Environmental Assessment,
The bone marrow contains immature cells, known Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No.
as multipotent myeloid stem cells, that later Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, EPA600–P–98–001F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/
differentiate into the various mature blood cells. Cincinnati, OH http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54499.
Pancytopenia results from a reduction in the ability 0276.htm. 50 U.S. EPA (1998). A Science Advisory Board
of the red bone marrow to produce adequate 46 Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. Report: Review of the Health Risk Assessment of
numbers of these mature blood cells. Cohen, et al. (2002). Hematological changes among 1,3-Butadiene. EPA–SAB–EHC–98.
40 Aksoy, M. (1991) Hematotoxicity, Chinese workers with a broad range of benzene 51 Delzell, E, N. Sathiakumar, M. Macaluso, et al.
leukemogenicity and carcinogenicity of chronic exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275–285. (1995). A follow-up study of synthetic rubber
exposure to benzene. In: Arinc, E.; Schenkman, J.B.; 47 Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et workers. Submitted to the International Institute of
Hodgson, E., Eds. Molecular Aspects of al. (2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Synthetic Rubber Producers. University of Alabama
Monooxygenases and Bioactivation of Toxic Low Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774–1776. at Birmingham. October 2, 1995.
Compounds. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 415–434. 48 Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene 52 Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996)
41 Goldstein, B.D. (1988) Benzene toxicity. metabolism in rodents at doses relevant to human Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in rats
Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews 3: exposure from Urban Air. Res Rep Health Effect Inst and mice by inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.
541–554. 113. 32:1–10.
probable human carcinogen based on formaldehyde using approaches that are Data from these studies showing
evidence in humans and in rats, mice, consistent with EPA’s draft guidelines degeneration of the olfactory epithelium
hamsters, and monkeys.53 Recently for carcinogenic risk assessment. In were found to be sufficient for EPA to
released research conducted by the 2001, Environment Canada relied on develop an RfC for acetaldehyde of 9 µg/
National Cancer Institute (NCI) found an this cancer dose-response assessment in m3. Confidence in the principal study is
increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer their assessment of formaldehyde.60 In medium and confidence in the database
among workers exposed to 2004, EPA also relied on this cancer is low, due to the lack of chronic data
formaldehyde.54 55 A recent National unit risk estimate during the establishing a no observed adverse effect
Institute of Occupational Safety and development of the plywood and level and due to the lack of reproductive
Health (NIOSH) study of garment composite wood products national and developmental toxicity data.
workers also found increased risk of emissions standards for hazardous air Therefore, there is low confidence in the
death due to leukemia among workers pollutants (NESHAPs).61 In these rules, RfC. The agency is currently conducting
exposed to formaldehyde.56 In 2004, the EPA concluded that the CIIT work a reassessment of risk from inhalation
working group of the International represented the best available exposure to acetaldehyde.
Agency for Research on Cancer application of the available mechanistic The primary acute effect of exposure
concluded that formaldehyde is and dosimetric science on the dose- to acetaldehyde vapors is irritation of
carcinogenic to humans (Group 1 response for portal of entry cancers due the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.65
classification), on the basis of sufficient to formaldehyde exposures. EPA is Some asthmatics have been shown to be
evidence in humans and sufficient reviewing the recent work cited above a sensitive subpopulation to decrements
evidence in experimental animals—a from the NCI and NIOSH, as well as the in functional expiratory volume (FEV1
higher classification than previous IARC analysis by the CIIT Centers for Health test) and bronchoconstriction upon
evaluations. In addition, the National Research and other studies, as part of a acetaldehyde inhalation.66
Institute of Environmental Health reassessment of the human hazard and e. Acrolein
Sciences recently nominated dose-response associated with
formaldehyde for reconsideration as a formaldehyde. Acrolein, a hydrocarbon, is intensely
known human carcinogen under the Noncancer effects of formaldehyde irritating to humans when inhaled, with
National Toxicology Program. Since have been observed in humans and acute exposure resulting in upper
1981 it has been listed as a ‘‘reasonably several animal species and include respiratory tract irritation and
anticipated human carcinogen.’’ irritation to eye, nose and throat tissues congestion. The Agency has developed
In the past 15 years there has been in conjunction with increased mucous an RfC for acrolein of 0.02 µg/m3.67 The
substantial research on the inhalation secretions. overall confidence in the RfC
dosimetry for formaldehyde in rodents assessment is judged to be medium. The
d. Acetaldehyde Agency is also currently in the process
and primates by the CIIT Centers for
Health Research, with a focus on use of Acetaldehyde, a hydrocarbon, is of conducting an assessment of acute
rodent data for refinement of the classified in EPA’s IRIS database as a health effects for acrolein. EPA
quantitative cancer dose-response probable human carcinogen and is determined in 2003 using the 1999 draft
assessment.57 58 59 CIIT’s risk assessment considered moderately toxic by cancer guidelines that the human
of formaldehyde incorporated inhalation.62 Based on nasal tumors in carcinogenic potential of acrolein could
mechanistic and dosimetric information rodents, the upper confidence limit not be determined because the available
on formaldehyde. The risk assessment estimate of a lifetime extra cancer risk data were inadequate. No information
analyzed carcinogenic risk from inhaled from continuous acetaldehyde exposure was available on the carcinogenic effects
is about 2.2×10¥6 per µg/m3. In other of acrolein in humans and the animal
53 U.S. EPA (1987). Assessment of Health Risks to words, it is estimated that about 2 data provided inadequate evidence of
Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents from persons in one million exposed to 1 µg/ carcinogenicity.
Exposure to Formaldehyde, Office of Pesticides and m3 acetaldehyde continuously for their
Toxic Substances, April 1987. f. Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)
54 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; lifetime (70 years) would develop
Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from cancer as a result of their exposure, POM is generally defined as a large
lymphohematopoetic malignancies among workers although the risk could be as low as class of organic compounds which have
in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National zero. In short-term (4 week) rat studies, multiple benzene rings and a boiling
Cancer Institute 95: 1615–1623. point greater than 100 degrees Celsius.
55 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; compound-related histopathological
Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid changes were observed only in the Many of the compounds included in the
cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. respiratory system at various class of compounds known as POM are
American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117–1130. concentration levels of exposure.63 64 classified by EPA as probable human
56 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort
carcinogens based on animal data. One
of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an 60 Health Canada. 2001. Priority Substances List
update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 193–200.
57 Conolly, RB, JS Kimbell, D Janszen, PM Assessment Report. Formaldehyde. Environment rats. I. Acute and subacute studies. Toxicology. 23:
Schlosser, D Kalisak, J Preston, and FJ Miller. 2003. Canada, Health Canada, February 2001. 293–297.
61 U.S. EPA. 2004. National Emission Standards 65 U.S. EPA (1988). Integrated Risk Information
Biologically motivated computational modeling of
formaldehyde carcinogenicity in the F344 rat. Tox. for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plywood and System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is
Sci. 75: 432–447. Composite Wood Products Manufacture: Final Rule. available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
58 Conolly, RB, JS Kimbell, D Janszen, PM (69 FR 45943, 7/30/04). subst/0290.htm.
62 U.S. EPA. 1988. Integrated Risk Information 66 Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and
Schlosser, D Kalisak, J Preston, and FJ Miller. 2004.
Human respiratory tract cancer risks of inhaled System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is Matsuda, T. (1993) Aerosolized acetaldehyde
formaldehyde: Dose-response predictions derived available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/ induces histamine-mediated bronchoconstriction in
from biologically-motivated computational subst/0290.htm. asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis.148(4 Pt 1): 940–3.
63 Appleman, L. M., R. A. Woutersen, V. J. Feron,
modeling of a combined rodent and human dataset. 67 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003)
Tox. Sci. 82: 279–296. R. N. Hooftman, and W. R. F. Notten. (1986). Effects Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on
59 Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology of the variable versus fixed exposure levels on the Acrolein. National Center for Environmental
(CIIT). 1999. Formaldehyde: Hazard toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. J. Appl. Toxicol. 6: Assessment, Office of Research and Development,
characterization and dose-response assessment for 331–336. Washington, D.C. 2003. This material is available
carcinogenicity by the route of inhalation. CIIT, 64 Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
September 28, 1999. Research Triangle Park, NC. Feron. (1982). Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in 0364.htm.
of these compounds, naphthalene, is certainty that this RfC will be protective chronic rat inhalation studies showing
discussed separately below. for hemolytic anemia and cataracts, the adverse pulmonary effects.75 76 77 78 The
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons more well-known human effects from RfC is 5 µg/m3 for diesel exhaust as
(PAHs) are a chemical subset of POM. naphthalene exposure. measured by diesel PM. This RfC does
In particular, EPA frequently obtains not consider allergenic effects such as
data on 16 of these POM compounds. h. Diesel Particulate Matter and Diesel
those associated with asthma or
Recent studies have found that maternal Exhaust Organic Gases
immunologic effects. There is growing
exposures to PAHs in a population of In EPA’s Diesel Health Assessment evidence, discussed in the Diesel HAD,
pregnant women were associated with Document (HAD),74 diesel exhaust was that diesel exhaust can exacerbate these
several adverse birth outcomes, classified as likely to be carcinogenic to effects, but the exposure-response data
including low birth weight and reduced humans by inhalation at environmental are presently lacking to derive an RfC.
length at birth.68 These studies are exposures, in accordance with the The Diesel HAD also briefly
discussed in the Regulatory Impact revised draft 1996/1999 EPA cancer summarizes health effects associated
Analysis. guidelines. A number of other agencies with ambient PM and the EPA’s annual
(National Institute for Occupational National Ambient Air Quality Standard
g. Naphthalene Safety and Health, the International (NAAQS) of 15 µg/m3. There is a much
Naphthalene is a PAH compound Agency for Research on Cancer, the more extensive body of human data
consisting of two benzene rings fused World Health Organization, California showing a wide spectrum of adverse
together with two adjacent carbon atoms EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health health effects associated with exposure
common to both rings. In 2004, EPA and Human Services) have made similar to ambient PM, of which diesel exhaust
released an external review draft classifications. EPA concluded in the is an important component. The RfC is
(External Review Draft, IRIS Diesel HAD that it is not possible not meant to say that 5 µg/m3 provides
Reassessment of the Inhalation currently to calculate a cancer unit risk adequate public health protection for
Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene, U.S. for diesel exhaust due to a variety of ambient PM2.5. In fact, there may be
EPA. http://www.epa.gov/iris) of a factors that limit the current studies, benefits to reducing diesel PM below 5
reassessment of the inhalation such as limited quantitative exposure µg/m3 since diesel PM is a major
carcinogenicity of naphthalene.69 The histories in occupational groups contributor to ambient PM2.5.
draft reassessment completed external investigated for lung cancer.
peer review in 2004 by Oak Ridge However, in the absence of a cancer E. Gasoline PM
Institute for Science and Education.70 unit risk, the EPA Diesel HAD sought to Beyond the specific areas of
Based on external comments, additional provide additional insight into the quantifiable risk discussed above in
analyses are being considered. significance of the cancer hazard by section III.C, EPA is also currently
California EPA has also released a new estimating possible ranges of risk that investigating gasoline PM. Gasoline
risk assessment for naphthalene with a might be present in the population. The exhaust is a complex mixture that has
cancer unit risk estimate of 3×10¥5 per possible risk range analysis was not been evaluated in EPA’s IRIS, in
µg/m3.71 The California EPA value was developed by comparing a typical contrast to diesel exhaust, which has
used in the 1999 NATA and in the environmental exposure level for been evaluated in IRIS. However, there
analyses done for this rule. In addition, highway diesel sources to a selected is evidence for the mutagenicity and
IARC has reevaluated naphthalene and range of occupational exposure levels. cytotoxicity of gasoline exhaust and
re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly The occupationally observed risks were gasoline PM. Seagrave et al. investigated
carcinogenic to humans.72 The cancer then proportionally scaled according to the combined particulate and
data form the basis of an inhalation RfC the exposure ratios to obtain an estimate semivolatile organic fractions of
of 3 µg/m3.73 A low to medium of the possible environmental risk. A gasoline engine emissions.79 Their
confidence rating was given to this RfC, number of calculations are needed to results demonstrate that emissions from
in part because it cannot be said with accomplish this, and these can be seen gasoline engines are mutagenic and can
in the EPA Diesel HAD. The outcome induce inflammation and have cytotoxic
68 Perara, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W–Y.; et al. (2002)
was that environmental risks from effects. Gasoline exhaust is a ubiquitous
Effect of transplacental exposure to environmental diesel exhaust exposure could range
pollutants on birth outcomes in a multiethnic
population. Environ Health Perspect. 111: 201–205. from a low of 10¥4 to 10¥5 to as high 75 Ishinishi, N; Kuwabara, N; Takaki, Y; et al.
69 U.S. EPA. (2004) External Review Draft, IRIS as 10¥3, reflecting the range of (1988) Long-term inhalation experiments on diesel
Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of occupational exposures that could be exhaust. In: Diesel exhaust and health risks. Results
Naphthalene. http://www.epa.gov/iris associated with the relative and absolute of the HERP studies. Ibaraki, Japan: Research
70 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Committee for HERP Studies; pp. 11–84.
risk levels observed in the occupational 76 Heinrich, U; Fuhst, R; Rittinghausen, S; et al.
(2004) External Peer Review for the IRIS
Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of studies. Because of uncertainties, the (1995) Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats
Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ analysis acknowledged that the risks and two different strains of mice to diesel engine
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=86019 could be lower than 10¥4 or 10¥5, and exhaust, carbon black, and titanium dioxide. Inhal.
71 California EPA. (2004) Long Term Health Toxicol. 7:553–556.
a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure 77 Mauderly, JL; Jones, RK; Griffith, WC; et al.
Effects of Exposure to Naphthalene. Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. http:// was not ruled out. (1987) Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in
www.oehha.ca.gov/air/toxic_contaminants/ The acute and chronic exposure- rats exposed chronically by inhalation. Fundam.
draftnaphth.html related effects of diesel exhaust Appl. Toxicol. 9:208–221.
72 International Agency for Research on Cancer 78 Nikula, KJ; Snipes, MB; Barr, EB; et al. (1995)
emissions are also of concern to the
(IARC). (2002) Monographs on the Evaluation of the Comparative pulmonary toxicities and
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol.
Agency. EPA derived an RfC from carcinogenicities of chronically inhaled diesel
consideration of four well-conducted
82. Lyon, France. exhaust and carbon black in F344 rats. Fundam.
73 EPA 2005 ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for Naphthalene Appl. Toxicol. 25:80–94.
(CASRN 91–20–3)’’ Environmental Protection 74 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document 79 Seagrave, J.; McDonald, J.D.; Gigliotti, A.P.;
Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–90/057F Nikula, K.J.; Seilkop, S.K.; Gurevich, M. and
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington Mauderly, J.L. (2002) Mutagenicity and in Vivo
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, DC. This document is available electronically at Toxicity of Combined Particulate and Semivolatile
Cincinnati, OH http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ Organic Fractions of Gasoline and Diesel Engine
0436.htm. recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. Emissions. Toxicological Sciences 70:212–226.
source of particulate matter, F. Near-Roadway Health Effects concern, the importance of chronic
contributing to the health effects Over the years there have been a large versus acute exposures, the role of fuel
observed for ambient PM which is number of studies that have examined type (e.g. diesel or gasoline) and
discussed extensively in the EPA associations between living near major composition (e.g., % aromatics),
Particulate Matter Criteria Document.80 roads and different adverse health relevant traffic patterns, the role of co-
The PM Criteria Document notes that endpoints. These studies generally stressors including noise and
the PM components of gasoline and examine people living near heavily- socioeconomic status, and the role of
diesel engine exhaust are hypothesized, trafficked roadways, typically within differential susceptibility within the
important contributors to the observed several hundred meters, where fresh ‘‘exposed’’ populations. For a more
increases in lung cancer incidence and emissions from motor vehicles are not detailed discussion, see Chapter 3 of the
mortality associated with ambient Regulatory Impact Analysis.
yet fully diluted with background air.
These studies provide qualitative
PM2.5.81 Gasoline PM is also a Several studies have measured
evidence that reducing emissions from
component of near-roadway emissions elevated concentrations of pollutants
on-road mobile sources will provide
that may be contributing to the health emitted directly by motor vehicles near
public health benefits beyond those that
effects observed in people who live near road as compared to overall urban
can be quantified using currently
roadways (see section III.F). background levels. These elevated
available information.
concentrations generally occur within
EPA is working to improve the
approximately 200 meters of the road, G. How Would This Proposal Reduce
understanding of PM emissions from Emissions of MSATs?
although the distance may vary
gasoline engines, including the potential
depending on traffic and environmental The benzene and hydrocarbon
range of emissions and factors that conditions. Pollutants measured with
influence emissions. EPA led a standards proposed in this action would
elevated concentrations include reduce benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
cooperative test program that recently benzene, polycyclic aromatic
completed testing approximately 500 formaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, organic matter, and naphthalene, as well
randomly procured vehicles in the nitrogen dioxide, black carbon, and as many other hydrocarbon compounds
Kansas City metropolitan area. The coarse, fine, and ultrafine particulate that are emitted by motor vehicles,
purpose of this study was to determine matter. In addition, concentrations of including those that are listed in Table
the distribution of gasoline PM road dust, and wear particles from tire III.B–1 and discussed in more detail in
emissions from the in-use light-duty and brake use also show concentration Chapter 1 of the RIA. The emission
fleet. Results from this study are increases in proximity of major reductions expected from today’s
expected to be available in 2006. Some roadways. controls are reported in section V.E of
source apportionment studies show The near-roadway health studies this preamble and Chapter 2 of the RIA.
gasoline and diesel PM can result in provide stronger evidence for some EPA believes that the emission
larger contributions to ambient PM than health endpoints than others. Evidence reductions from the standards proposed
predicted by EPA emission of adverse responses to traffic-related today for motor vehicles and their fuels,
inventories.82 83 These source pollution is strongest for non-allergic combined with the standards currently
apportionment studies were one respiratory symptoms, cardiovascular in place, represent the maximum
impetus behind the Kansas City study. effects, premature adult mortality, and achievable reductions of emissions from
Another issue related to gasoline PM adverse birth outcomes, including low motor vehicles through the application
birth weight and size. Some evidence of technology that will be available,
is the effect of gasoline vehicles and
for new onset asthma is available, but considering costs and the other factors
engines on ambient PM, especially
not all studies have significant listed in section 202(l)(2). This
secondary PM. Ambient PM is
orrelations. Lastly, among studies of conclusion applies whether you
composed of primary PM emitted childhood cancer, in particular consider just the compounds listed in
directly into the atmosphere and childhood leukemia, evidence is Table III.B–1, or consider all of the
secondary PM that is formed from inconsistent. Several small studies compounds on the Master List of
chemical reactions in the atmosphere. report positive associations, though emissions, given the breadth of EPA’s
The issue of secondary organic aerosol such effects have not been observed in current and proposed control programs
formation from aromatic precursors is two larger studies. As described above, and the broad groups of emissions that
an important one to which EPA and benzene and 1,3-butadiene are both many of the control technologies
others are paying significant attention. known human leukemogens in adults. reduce.
This is discussed in more detail in As previously mentioned, there is EPA has already taken significant
Section 1.4.1 of the RIA. evidence of increased risk of leukemia steps to reduce diesel emissions from
among children whose parents have mobile sources. We have adopted
80 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004)
been occupationally exposed to stringent standards for on-highway
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Research
Triangle Park, NC: National Center for
benzene. Though the near-roadway diesel trucks and buses, and nonroad
Environmental Assessment—RTP Office; Report No. studies are equivocal, taken together diesel engines (engines used, for
EPA/600/P–99/002aF (PM Criteria Document). with the laboratory studies and other example, in construction, agricultural,
81 PM Criteria Document, p. 8–318.
exposure environments, the data suggest and industrial applications). We also
82 Fujita, E.; Watson, M.J.; Chow, M.C.; et al.
a potentially serious children’s health have additional programs underway to
(1998) Northern Front Range Air Quality Study,
Volume C: Source apportionment and simulation
concern could exist. Additional research reduce diesel emissions, including
is needed to determine the significance voluntary programs and a proposal that
methods and evaluation. Prepared for Colorado

State University, Cooperative Institute for Research of this potential concern. is being developed to reduce emissions
in the Atmosphere, by Desert Research Institute, Significant scientific uncertainties from diesel locomotives and marine
Reno, NV. remain in our understanding of the
83 Schauer, J.J.; Rogge, W.F.; Hildemann, L.M.; et
engines.
al. (1996) Source apportionment of airborne
relationship between adverse health Emissions from motor vehicles can be
particulate matter using organic compounds as effects and near-road exposure, chemically categorized as hydrocarbons,
tracers. Atmos. Environ. 30(22):3837–3855. including the exposures of greatest trace elements (including metals) and a
few additional compounds containing are designed to reduce the emission of health impacts from chronic inhalation
carbon, nitrogen and/or halogens (e.g., regulated pollutants either in exposures to outdoor sources of air
chlorine). For the hydrocarbons, which combination with or without an toxics. It assesses lifetime risks
are the vast majority of these emission control device (e.g., a passive assuming continuous exposure to levels
compounds, we believe that with the particulate matter trap). Clean Air Act of air toxics estimated for a particular
controls proposed today, we would section 211 provides EPA with various point in time. The most recent NATA
control the emissions of these authorities to regulate fuel additives in was done for the year 1999.87
compounds from motor vehicles to the order to reduce the risk to public health The NATA modeling framework has a
maximum amount currently feasible or from exposure to their emissions. It is number of limitations, but it remains
currently identifiable with available under this section that EPA requires very useful in identifying air toxic
information. Section VI of this preamble manufacturers to register additives pollutants and sources of greatest
provides more details about why the before their introduction into concern. Among the significant
proposed and existing standards commerce. Registration involves certain limitations of the framework, which are
represent maximum achievable data requirements that enable EPA to discussed in more detail in the
reduction of hydrocarbons from motor identify products whose emissions may regulatory impact analysis, is that it
vehicles. There are not motor vehicle pose an unreasonable risk to public cannot be used to reliably identify ‘‘hot
controls to reduce individual health. In addition, section 211 provides spots,’’ such as areas in immediate
hydrocarbons selectively; instead, the EPA with authority to require health proximity to major roads, where the air
maximum emission reductions are effects testing to fill any gaps in the data concentration, exposure and/or risk
achieved by controls on hydrocarbons that would prevent a determination might be significantly higher within a
as a group. There are fuel controls that regarding the potential for risk to the census tract 88 or county. These ‘‘hot
could selectively reduce individual air public. Clean Air Act section 211(c) spots’’ are discussed in more detail in
toxics (e.g., formaldehyde, provides the primary mechanism by section IV.B.2. The framework also does
acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene), as well as which EPA would take actions not account for risk from sources of air
controls that reduce hydrocarbons more necessary to minimize exposure to toxics originating indoors, such as
generally. Section VII of this preamble metals or other additives to diesel and stoves, out-gassing from building
describes why the standards we are gasoline. It is under section 211 that materials, or evaporative benzene
proposing today represent the maximum EPA is currently generating the emissions from cars in attached garages.
emission reductions achievable through information needed to update an There are also limitations associated
fuel controls, considering the factors assessment of the potential human with the dose-response values used to
required by Clean Air Act section 202(l). health risks related to having manganese quantify risk; these are discussed in
Motor vehicle emissions also contain in the national fuel supply. Section I of the preamble. Importantly,
trace elements, including metals, which Existing regulations limit sulfur in it should be noted that the 1999 NATA
originate primarily from engine wear gasoline and diesel fuel to the maximum does not include default adjustments for
and impurities in engine oil and amount feasible and will reduce early life exposures recently
gasoline or diesel fuel. EPA does not emissions of all sulfur-containing recommended in the Supplemental
have authority to regulate engine oil, compounds (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility
and there are no feasible motor vehicle carbon disulfide) to the greatest degree from Early-Life Exposure to
controls to directly prevent engine wear. achievable.84 85 86 For the remaining Carcinogens.89 These adjustments
Nevertheless, oil consumption and would be applied to compounds which
compounds (e.g., chlorinated
engine wear have decreased over the act through a mutagenic mode of action.
compounds), we currently have very
years, decreasing emission of metals EPA will determine as part of the IRIS
little information regarding emission
from these sources. Metals associated assessment process which substances
rates and conditions that impact
with particulate matter will be captured meet the criteria for making
emissions. This information would be
in emission control systems employing adjustments, and future assessments
necessary in order to evaluate potential
a particulate matter trap, such as heavy- will reflect them. If warranted,
controls under section 202(l). Emissions
duty vehicles meeting the 2007 incorporation of such adjustments
of hydrocarbons containing chlorine
standards. We believe that currently, would lead to higher estimates of risk
(e.g., dioxins/furans) would likely be
particulate matter traps, in combination assuming constant lifetime exposure.
with engine-out control, represent the reduced with control measures that Because of its limitations, EPA notes
maximum feasible reduction of both reduce total hydrocarbons, just as these that the NATA assessment should not
motor vehicle particulate matter and emissions were reduced with the use of be used as the basis for developing risk
toxic metals present as a component of catalytic controls that lowered exhaust reduction plans or regulations to control
the particulate matter. hydrocarbons. specific sources or pollutants.
The mobile source contribution to the IV. What Are the Air Quality and Additionally, this assessment should
national inventory for metal compounds Health Impacts of Air Toxics, and How not be used for estimating risk at the
is generally small. In fact, the emission Do Mobile Sources Contribute? local level, for quantifying benefits of
rate for most metals from motor vehicles reduced air toxic emissions, or for
is small enough that quantitative A. What Is the Health Risk to the U.S. identifying localized hotspots. In this
measurement requires state-of-the art Population from Inhalation Exposure to
analytical techniques that are only Ambient Sources of Air Toxics, and 87 www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999.
recently being applied to this source How Would It be Reduced by the 88 A census tract is a subdivision of a county that
category. We have efforts underway to Proposed Controls? typically contains roughly 4000 people. In urban
areas, these tracts can be very small, on the order

gather information regarding trace metal EPA’s National-Scale Air Toxics of a city block, whereas in rural areas, they can be
emissions, including mercury Assessment (NATA) assesses human large.
89 U. S. EPA. (2005) Supplemental Guidance for
emissions, from motor vehicles (see
Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure
Chapter 1 of the RIA for more details). 84 65 FR 6697, February 10, 2000. to Carcinogens. Report No. EPA/630/R–03/003F.
A few metals and other elements are 85 66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001. Available electronically at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
used as fuel additives. These additives 86 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004. ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=116283.
rule, we have evaluated air quality, 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics U.S. Bureau of Census), the number of
exposure, and risk impacts of mobile Assessment was due to benzene. In Americans above the 1 in 100,000
source air toxics using the 1999 NATA, 1999, 68% of nationwide benzene cancer risk level from exposure to these
as well as projections of risk to future emissions were attributable to mobile mobile source air toxics is projected to
years using the same tools as 1999 sources. 1,3-Butadiene and naphthalene increase from about 214 million in 1999
NATA. In addition, we also evaluate are regional cancer risk drivers that have to 240 million in 2030. Benzene
more refined local scale modeling, a large mobile source contribution. As continues to account for a large fraction
measured ambient concentrations, presented in Table III.C–2, 58% of of the total inhalation cancer risk from
personal exposure measurements, and nationwide 1,3-butadiene emissions in mobile source air toxics, decreasing
other data. This information is 1999 came from mobile sources. slightly from 45% of the risk in 1999 to
discussed below, as well as in Chapter Twenty-seven percent of nationwide 37% in 2030. Similarly, although the
3 of the RIA. It serves as a perspective naphthalene emissions in 1999 came average noncancer respiratory hazard
on the possible risk-related implications from mobile sources. index for MSATs decreases from over 6
of the rule. One compound, acrolein, was in 1999 to 3.2 in 2030, the population
Overall, the average nationwide identified as a national risk driver for with a hazard index above one increases
lifetime population cancer risk in 1999 noncancer health effects, and 25% of from 250 million in 1999 to 273 million
NATA was 42 in a million, assuming primary acrolein emissions were in 2030. That is, in 2030 nearly the
continuous exposure to 1999 levels. The attributable to mobile sources. Over entire U.S. population will still be
average noncancer respiratory hazard 70% of the average ambient exposed to levels of these pollutants
index was 6.4.90 Highway vehicles and concentration of acrolein is attributable that have the potential to cause adverse
nonroad equipment account for almost to mobile sources. This is due to the respiratory health effects (other than
50% of the average population cancer large contribution from mobile source cancer).
risk, and 74% of the noncancer risk 1,3-butadiene, which is transformed to
acrolein in the atmosphere. These projected risks were estimated
These estimates are based on the
Table III.C–2 provides additional using the same tools and methods as the
contribution of sources within 50
information on the mobile source 1999 NATA, but with future-year
kilometers of a given emission point and
contribution to emissions of national projected inventories. More detailed
do not include the contribution to
and regional risk drivers. The standards information on the methods used to do
ambient concentrations from transport
proposed in this rule will reduce these projections, and associated
beyond 50 kilometers. Ambient
emissions of all these pollutants. limitations and uncertainties, can be
concentrations from transport beyond
In addition to the 1999 NATA, we found in Chapter 3 of the RIA for this
50 kilometers, referred to as
have estimated future-year risks for rule. Projected risks assumed 1999
‘‘background’’ in NATA, are responsible
those pollutants included in the 1999 ‘‘background’’ levels. For MSATs,
for almost 50% of the average cancer
NATA whose emissions inventories ‘‘background’’ accounts for slightly less
risk in NATA.
include a mobile source contribution than 20% of the average cancer risk in
Section III.C.1 discusses the
(see Table IV.B–1). This analysis 1999, increasing to 24% in 2030.
pollutants that the 1999 National-Scale
indicates that cancer and noncancer risk However, background levels should
Air Toxics Assessment identifies as
will continue to be a public health decrease along with emissions. A
national and regional risk drivers. As
concern due to exposure to mobile- sensitivity analysis of this assumption is
summarized in Table III.C–1, benzene is
source-related pollutants. presented in Chapter 3 of the RIA. It
the only pollutant described as a
Figure IV.A–1 summarizes changes in should also be noted that the projected
national cancer risk driver. Twenty-four
average population inhalation cancer inventories used for this modeling do
percent of the total cancer risk in the
risk for the MSATs in Table IV.A–1. not include some more recent revisions,
90 A hazard index above 1 indicates the potential Despite significant reductions in risk such as higher emissions of
for adverse health effects. It cannot be translated from these pollutants, average hydrocarbons, including gaseous air
into a probability that an adverse effect will occur, inhalation cancer risks are expected to toxics, at cold temperatures. These
and is not likely to be proportional to risk. A hazard revisions are discussed in section V and
index greater than one can be best described as only
remain well above 1 in 100,000. In
indicating that a potential may exist for adverse addition, because of population growth increase the overall magnitude of the
health effects. (using projected populations from the inventory.
TABLE IV.A–1.—POLLUTANTS IN- TABLE IV.A–1.—POLLUTANTS IN- from 1999 to 2030. Table IV.B–1 gives
CLUDED IN RISK MODELING FOR CLUDED IN RISK MODELING FOR the median and 5th and 95th percentile
PROJECTION YEARS * PROJECTION YEARS *—Continued cancer risk distributions for mobile
source air toxics. As previously
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ** Xylenes mentioned, the tools used in this
1,3-Butadiene ................... Ethyl Benzene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane .... Fluoranthene ** * This list includes compounds from the assessment are inadequate for
Acenaphthene ** ............... Fluorene ** 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment identifying ‘‘hot spots’’ and do not
Acenaphthylene ** ............ Formaldehyde with a mobile source emissions contribution, account for significant sources of
for which data were sufficient to develop an inhalation exposure, such as benzene
Acetaldehyde .................... Hexane emissions inventory.
Acrolein ............................ Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)- ** POM compound as discussed in Section emissions within attached garages from
pyrene ** III. vehicles, equipment, and portable fuel
Anthracene ** .................... Manganese
B. What Is the Distribution of Exposure containers. If these hot spots and
Benzene ........................... Methyl tert-butyl additional sources of exposure were
ether (MTBE)
and Risk?
accounted for, a larger percentage of the
Benz(a)anthracene ** ....... Naphthalene 1. Distribution of National-Scale population would be exposed to higher
Benzo(a)pyrene ** ............ Nickel Estimates of Risk From Air Toxics risk levels. (Sections IV.B.2–4 provides
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ** ... Phenanthrene ** more details on ‘‘hot spots’’ and the
National-scale modeling indicates that
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ** ..... Propionaldehyde implications for distribution of risk.) In
95th percentile average cancer risk from
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ** .... Pyrene **
exposure to mobile source air toxics is addition, the modeling underestimates
Chromium (includes Chro- Styrene
mium III, Chromium VI,
more than three times higher than the contribution of hydrocarbon and
and non-speciated median risk. In addition, the 95th particulate matter emissions at cold
Chromium). percentile cancer risk is more than 10 temperatures. These modeling results
Chrysene ** ....................... Toluene times higher than the 5th percentile are discussed in more detail in Chapter
risk. This is true for all years modeled, 3 of the RIA.
EP29MR06.000</GPH>
TABLE IV.B—1.—MEDIAN AND 5TH AND 95TH PERCENTILE LIFETIME INHALATION CANCER RISK DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
INHALATION EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR SOURCES OF MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS
[Based on modeled average census tract risks]
1999 2020
Pollutant
5th Median 95th 5th Median 95th
All MSATs .................................................................................... 4.0×10¥6 1.9×10¥5 5.9×10¥5 3.6×10¥6 1.3×10¥5 4.4×10¥5

Benzene ....................................................................................... 2.4×10¥6 8.9×10¥6 2.5×10¥5 2.1×10¥6 5.6×10¥6 1.4×10¥5
1,3-Butadiene ............................................................................... 1.6×10¥7 3.1×10¥6 1.2×10¥5 7.5×10¥8 2.0×10¥6 7.5×10¥6
Acetaldehyde ............................................................................... 1.0×10¥6 2.5×10¥6 6.9×10¥6 9.3×10¥7 1.6×10¥6 3.6×10¥6
Naphthalene ................................................................................. 1.1×10¥7 1.4×10¥6 7.6×10¥6 1.0×10¥7 1.4×10¥6 8.5×10¥6
2. Elevated Concentrations and predicts that pollutants emitted along inversely associated with distances to
Exposure in Mobile Source-Impacted roadways will show highest interstate highways and major urban
Areas concentrations nearest a road, and roads, and with distance to gasoline
Air quality measurements near roads concentrations exponentially decrease stations. The data indicate that BTEX
often identify elevated concentrations of with increasing distance downwind. concentrations around homes within
air toxic pollutants at these locations. These near-road pollutant gradients 200 meters of roadways and gas stations
have been confirmed by measurements are 1.5 to 4 times higher than urban
The concentrations of air toxic
of both criteria pollutants and air toxics, background levels.
pollutants near heavily trafficked roads,
and they are discussed in detail in
as well as the pollutant composition and b. Exposures Near Major Roadways
Chapter 3 of the RIA.
characteristics, differ from those Air quality monitoring is another The modeling assessments and air
measured distant from heavily trafficked means of evaluating pollutant quality monitoring studies discussed
roads. Exposures for populations concentrations at locations near sources above have increased our understanding
residing, working, or going to school such as roadways. It is also used to of ambient concentrations of mobile
near major roads are likely higher than evaluate model performance at a given source air toxics and potential
for other populations. The vehicle and point and, given adequate data quality, population exposures. Results from the
fuel standards proposed in this rule will can be statistically analyzed to following exposure studies reveal that
reduce those elevated exposures. determine associations with different populations spending time near major
Following is an overview of source types. EPA has been deploying roadways likely experience elevated
concentrations of air toxics and fixed-site ambient monitors that monitor personal exposures to motor vehicle
exposure to air toxics in areas heavily concentrations of multiple air toxics, related pollutants. In addition, these
impacted by mobile source emissions. including benzene, over time. Several populations may experience exposures
a. Concentrations Near Major Roadways studies have found that concentrations to differing physical and chemical
of benzene and other mobile source air compositions of certain air toxic
The 1999 NATA estimates average toxics are significantly elevated near pollutants depending on the amount of
concentrations within a census tract, but busy roads compared to ‘‘urban time spent in close proximity to motor
it does not differentiate between background’’ concentrations measured vehicle emissions. Following is a
locations near roadways and those at a fixed site. These studies are detailed discussion on exposed
further away (within the same tract). discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the populations near major roadways.
Local-scale modeling can better RIA.
characterize distributions of i. Vehicles
Ambient VOC concentrations were
concentrations, using more refined measured around residences in Several studies suggest that
allocation of highway vehicle emissions. Elizabeth, NJ, as part of the Relationship significant exposures may be
Urban-scale assessments done in among Indoor, Outdoor, and Personal experienced while driving in vehicles.
Houston, TX and Portland, OR Air (RIOPA) study. Data from that study A recent in-vehicle monitoring study
illustrated steep gradients of air toxic was analyzed to assess how was conducted by EPA and consisted of
concentrations along major roadways, as concentrations are influenced by in-vehicle air sampling throughout work
well as better agreement with monitor proximity to known ambient emission shifts within ten police patrol cars used
data.91–92 93 Results of the Portland study sources.94 95 The ambient concentrations by the North Carolina State Highway
show average concentrations of motor of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and Patrol (smoking not permitted inside the
vehicle-related pollutants are ten times xylene isomers (BTEX) were found to be vehicles).96 Troopers operated their
higher at 50 meters from a road than vehicles in typical patterns, including
they are at greater than 400 meters a 94 Kwon, J. (2005) Development of a RIOPA highway and city driving and refueling.
road. These findings are consistent with database and evaluation of the effect of proximity In-vehicle benzene concentrations
pollutant dispersion theory, which on the potential residential exposure to VOCs from averaged 12.8 µg/m3, while
ambient sources. Rutgers, the State University of
New Jersey and University of Medicine and concentrations measured at an
91–92 Kinnee, E.J.; Touma, J.S.; Mason, R.; Dentistry of New Jersey. PhD dissertation. This ‘‘ambient’’ site located outside a nearby
Thurman, J.; Beidler, A., Bailey, C.; Cook, R. (2004) document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– state environmental office averaged 0.32
Allocation of onroad mobile emissions to road 2005–0036.

segments for air toxics modeling in an urban area. 95 Weisel, C.P. (2004) Assessment of the
µg/m3. The study also found that the
Transport. Res. Part D 9: 139–150. contribution to personal exposures of air toxics benzene concentrations were closely
93 Cohen, J.; Cook, R.; Bailey, C.R.; Carr, E. (2005) from mobile sources. Final report. Submitted to
Relationship between motor vehicle emissions of EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 96 Riediker, M.; Williams, R.; Devlin, R.; et al.
hazardous pollutants, roadway proximity, and Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences (2003) Exposure to particulate matter, volatile
ambient concentrations in Portland, Oregon. Institute, Piscataway, NJ. This document is organic compounds, and other air pollutants inside
Environ. Modelling & Software 20: 7–12. available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. patrol cars. Environ Sci. Technol. 37: 2084–2093.
associated with other fuel-related VOCs commuters and other roadway users are A study to assess children’s exposure
measured. substantially higher than those to traffic-related air pollution while
In Boston, the exposure of commuters measured in typical urban air. As a attending schools near motorways was
to VOCs during various commuting result, the time a person spends in a performed in the Netherlands.105
modes was examined.97 For commuters vehicle will significantly affect their Investigators measured PM2.5, NO2 and
driving a car, the mean time-weighted overall exposure. benzene inside and outside of 24
concentrations of benzene, toluene, and schools located within 400 m of
xylenes in-vehicle were measured at ii. Homes and Schools
motorways. The indoor average benzene
17.0, 33.1, and 28.2 µg/m3, respectively. The proximity of schools to major
The American Petroleum Institute concentration was 3.2 µg/m3 with a
roads may result in elevated exposures range of 0.6–8.1 µg/m3. The outdoor
funded a screening study of high-end for children due to potentially increased
exposure microenvironments as average benzene concentration was 2.2
concentrations indoors and increased µg/m3 with a range of 0.3–5.0 µg/m3.
required by section 211(b) of the Clean exposures during outdoor activities.
Air Act.98 The study included vehicle Overall results indicate that indoor
Here we discuss international studies in
chase measurements and measurements pollutant concentrations are
addition to the limited number of U.S.
in several vehicle-related studies, because while fleets and fuels significantly correlated with traffic
microenvironments in several cities for outside the U.S. can differ significantly, density and composition, percentage of
benzene and other air toxics. In-vehicle the spatial distribution of time downwind, and distance from
microenvironments (average benzene concentrations is relevant. major roadways.
concentrations in parentheses) included In the Fresno Asthmatic Children’s The Toxic Exposure Assessment—
the vehicle cabin tested on congested Environment Study (FACES), traffic- Columbia/Harvard (TEACH) study
freeways (17.5 µg/m3), in parking related pollutants were measured on measured the concentrations of VOCs,
garages above-ground (155 µg/m3) and
selected days from July 2002 to PM2.5, black carbon, and metals outside
below-ground (61.7 µg/m3), in urban
February 2003 at a central site, and the homes of high school students in
street canyons (7.54 µg/m3), and during
inside and outside of homes and New York City.106 The study was
refueling (46.0 µg/m3).
In 1998, the California Air Resources outdoors at schools of asthmatic conducted during winter and summer of
Board published an extensive study of children.103 Preliminary data indicate 1999 on 46 students and their homes.
concentrations of in-vehicle air toxics in that PAH concentrations are higher at Average winter (and summer) indoor
Los Angeles and Sacramento, CA.99 The elementary schools located near primary concentrations exceeded outdoor
data set is large and included a variety roads than at elementary schools distant concentrations by a factor of 2.3 (1.3). In
of sampling conditions. On urban from primary roads (or located near addition, analyses of spatial and
freeways, benzene in-vehicle primary roads with limited access). PAH temporal patterns of MTBE
concentrations ranged from 3 to 15 µg/ concentrations also appear to increase concentrations were consistent with
m3 in Sacramento and 10 to 22 µg/m3 with increase in annual average daily
traffic patterns. MTBE is a tracer for
in Los Angeles. In comparison, ambient traffic on nearest major collector.
motor vehicle pollution.
benzene concentrations ranged from 1 to Remaining results regarding the
variance in traffic pollutant Children are exposed to elevated
3 µg/m3 in Sacramento and 3 to 7 µg/
m3 in Los Angeles. concentrations at schools in relation to levels of air toxics not only in their
Similar findings of elevated proximity to roadways and traffic homes, classrooms, and outside on
concentrations of pollutants have also density will be available in 2006. school grounds, but also during their
been found in studies done in diesel The East Bay Children’s Respiratory commute to school. See the discussion
buses.100 101 102 Health Study studied traffic-related air of in-vehicle concentrations of air toxics
Overall, these studies show that pollution outside of schools near busy above and in Chapter 3 of the RIA.
concentrations experienced by roads in the San Francisco Bay Area in
iii. Pedestrians and Bicyclists
2001.104 Concentrations of the traffic
97 Chan C.-C., Spengler J. D., Ozkaynak H., and pollutants PM10, PM2.5, black carbon, Researchers have noted that
Lefkopoulou M. (1991) Commuter Exposures to total NOX, and NO2 were measured at 10
VOCs in Boston, Massachusetts. J. Air Waste pedestrians and cyclists along major
Manage. Assoc. 41: 1594–1600. school sites in neighborhoods that roads experience elevated exposures to
98 Zielinska, B.; Fujita, E.M.; Sagebiel, J.C.; et al. spanned a busy traffic corridor during motor vehicle related pollutants.
(2002) Interim data report for Section 211(B) Tier the spring and fall seasons. The school Although commuting near roadways
2 high end exposure screening study of baseline sites were selected to represent a range
and oxygenated gasoline. Prepared for American leads to higher levels of exposure to
of locations upwind and downwind of
Petroleum Institute. November 19, 2002. This traffic pollutants, the general consensus
document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– major roads. Differences were observed
is that exposure levels of those
2005–0036. in concentrations between schools
99 Rodes, C.; Sheldon, L.; Whitaker, D.; et al.
nearby (< 300 m) versus those more commuting by walking or biking is
(1998) Measuring concentrations of selected air distant (or upwind) from major roads. lower than for those who travel by car
pollutants inside California vehicles. Final report to or bus, (see discussion on in-vehicle
California Air Resources Board. Contract No. 95– Investigators found spatial variability in
339. exposure to black carbon, NOX, NO, and exposure in previous section above).
100 Fitz, D.R.; Winer, A.M.; Colome, S.; et al. (to a lesser extent) NO2, due specifically These studies are discussed in Chapter
(2003) Characterizing the Range of Children’s to roads with heavy traffic within a 3 of the RIA for this rule.
Pollutant Exposure During School Bus Commutes.
Prepared for the California Resources Board.
relatively small geographic area.
105 Janssen, N.A.H.; van Vliet, P.H.N.; Aarts, F.; et
101 Sabin, L.D.; Behrentz, E.; Winer, A.M.; et al.

al. (2001) Assessment of exposure to traffic related
(2005) Characterizing the range of children’s air 103 Personal communication with FACES
pollutant exposure during school bus commutes. J. Investigators Fred Lurmann, Paul Roberts, and air pollution of children attending schools near
Expos. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 15: 377–387. Katharine Hammond. Data is currently being motorways. Atmos. Environ. 35: 3875–3884.
106 Kinney, P.L.; Chillrud, S.N.; Ramstrom, S.; et
102 Batterman, S.A.; Peng, C.Y.; and Braun, J. prepared for publication.
(2002) Levels and composition of volatile organic 104 Kim J.J.; Smorodinsky S.; Lipsett M.; et al. al. (2002) Exposures to multiple air toxics in New
compounds on commuting routes in Detroit, (2004) Traffic-related air pollution near busy roads. York City. Environ Health Perspect. 110 (Suppl 4):
Michigan. Atmos. Environ. 36: 6015–6030. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 170: 520–526. 539–546.
c. Exposure and Concentrations in hydrocarbons (NMHC), while hot soak 3. What Are the Size and Characteristics
Homes with Attached Garages emissions accounted for 9–71% of of Highly Exposed Populations?
People living in homes with attached indoor NMHC. Numerous other studies A study of the populations in three
garages are potentially exposed to have shown associations between VOCs states (Colorado, Georgia, and New
substantially higher concentrations of in indoor air and the presence of York) indicated that more than half of
benzene, toluene, and other VOCs attached garages. These studies are the population lives within 200 meters
indoors. Homes with attached garages discussed in Chapter 3 of the RIA. of a major road.113 In addition, analysis
present a special concern related to EPA has conducted a modeling of data from the Census Bureau’s
infiltration of components of fuel, analysis to examine the influence of American Housing Survey suggests that
exhaust, and other materials stored in attached garages on personal exposure approximately 37 million people live
garages (including gasoline in gas cans). to benzene.112 The analysis modeled the within 300 feet of a 4- or more lane
A study from the early 1980’s found that air flow between the outdoor highway, railroad, or airport. American
approximately 30% of an average environment, indoor environment, and Housing Survey statistics, as well as
nonsmoker’s benzene exposure the garage, and accounted for the epidemiology studies, indicate that
originated from sources in attached fraction of home air intake from the those houses sited near major
garages.107 garage. Compared to national average transportation sources are more likely to
Concentrations within garages are exposure concentrations of 1.36 µg/m3 be lower in income or have minority
often substantially higher than those modeled for 1999 in the National-Scale residents than houses not located near
found outdoors or indoors. A recently- Air Toxics Assessment, which do not major transportation sources. These data
completed study in Michigan found that account for emissions originating in are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of
average concentrations in residential attached garages, average exposure the RIA.
garages were 36.6 µg/m3, compared to concentrations for people with attached Other population studies also indicate
0.4 µg/m3 outdoors.108 A recent study in garages could more than double. For that a significant fraction of the
Alaska, where fuel benzene additional details, see Chapter 3 of the population resides in locations near
concentrations are higher, cold start RIA. major roads. At present, the available
emissions are higher, and homes are studies use different indicators of
more tightly sealed than in most of the Overall, emissions of VOCs within ‘‘major road’’ and of ‘‘proximity,’’ but
U.S., found average garage attached garages result in substantially the estimates range from 12.4% of
concentrations of 101 µg/m3.109 Air higher concentrations of benzene and student enrollment in California
passing from these high-benzene other pollutants indoors. Proposed attending schools within 150 meters of
locations can cause increased reductions in fuel benzene content, new roads with 25,000 vehicles per day or
concentrations indoors. standards for cold temperature exhaust more, to 13% of Massachusetts veterans
Measurement studies have found that emissions during vehicle starts, and living within 50 meters of a road with
homes with attached garages can have reduced emissions from gas cans are all at least 10,000 vehicles per day.114 115
significantly higher concentrations of expected to significantly reduce this Using a more general definition of a
benzene and other VOCs. One study major source of exposure. ‘‘major road,’’ between 22% and 51% of
from Alaska found that in homes different study populations live near
d. Occupational Exposure
without attached garages, average such roads.
benzene concentrations were 8.6 µg/m3, Occupational settings can be
while homes with attached garages had 4. What Are the Implications for
considered a microenvironment in
average concentrations of 70.8 µg/m3.110 Distribution of Individual Risk?
which exposure to benzene and other
Another showed that indoor CO and air toxics can occur. Occupational We have made revisions to HAPEM5,
total hydrocarbon (THC) concentrations exposures to benzene from mobile which is the exposure model used in
rose sharply following a cold vehicle sources or fuels can be several orders of our national-scale modeling, in order to
starting and pulling out of the attached magnitude greater than typical account for near-road impacts. The
garage, persisting for an hour or exposures in the non-occupationally effect of the updated model is best
more.111 The study also showed that exposed population. Several key understood as widening the distribution
cold start emissions accounted for 13– occupational groups include workers in of exposure, with a larger fraction of the
85% of indoor non-methane fuel distribution, storage, and tank population being exposed to higher
remediation; handheld and non- benzene concentrations. Including the
107 Wallace, L. (1996) Environmental exposure to
handheld equipment operators; and effects of residence locations near roads
benzene: an update. Environ Health Perspect. 104 can result in exposures to some
(Suppl 6): 1129–1136. workers who operate gasoline-powered
108 Batterman, S.; Hatzivasilis, G.; Jia, C. (2006) engines such as snowmobiles and individuals that are up to 50% higher
Concentrations and emissions of gasoline and other ATV’s. Exposures in these occupational than those predicted by HAPEM5.
vapors from residential vehicle garages. Atmos. settings are discussed in Chapter 3 of The revised model, HAPEM6, was run
Environ. 30: 1828–1844. for three states representing different
109 George, M.; Kaluza, P.; Maxwell, B.; Moore, G.;
the RIA.
parts of the country. These areas are
Wisdom, S. (2002) Indoor air quality & ventilation In addition, some occupations require intended to represent different
strategies in new homes in Alaska. Alaska Building that workers spend considerable time in
Science Network. www.cchrc.org. This document is
available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. vehicles, which increases the time they 113 Major roads are defined as those roads defined
110 Schlapia, A.; Morris, S. (1998) Architectural, spend in a higher-concentration by the U.S. Census as one of the following: ‘‘limited
behavioral, and environmental factors associated microenvironment. In-vehicle access highway,’’ ‘‘highway,’’ ‘‘major road,’’ or
with VOCs in Anchorage homes. Proceedings of the concentrations are discussed in a ‘‘ramp.’’
Air & Waste Management Associations 94th Annual 114 Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.;
Conference. Paper 98–A504.

previous section above. McLaughlin, R.; Ostro, B. (2004) Proximity of
111 Graham, L.A.; Noseworthy, L.; Fugler, D.; California public schools to busy roads. Environ.
O’Leary, K.; Karman, D.; Grande, C. (2004) 112 Bailey, C. (2005) Additional contribution to Health Perspect. 112: 61–66.
Contribution of vehicle emissions from an attached benzene exposure from attached garages. 115 Garshick, E.; Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Caron, A.
garage to residential indoor air pollution levels. J. Memorandum to the Docket. This document is (2003) Residence near a major road and respiratory
Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 54: 563–584. available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. symptoms in U.S. veterans. Epidemiol. 14: 728–736.
geographies, development patterns, and controls will also reduce VOC released the second external review
housing densities. The states modeled emissions; however, because these draft of a new ozone CD which is
include Georgia, Colorado, and New reductions will occur at cold scheduled to be released in final form in
York. Overall, these study results temperatures the ozone benefits will be February 2006.121 This document
indicate that proximity to major roads limited. summarizes the findings of the 1996
can significantly increase personal The science of ozone formation, ozone criteria document and critically
exposure for populations living near transport, and accumulation is assesses relevant new scientific
major roads. These modeling tools will complex.118 Ground-level ozone is information which has emerged in the
be extended to a national scale for the produced and destroyed in a cyclical set past decade. Additional information on
final rulemaking. of chemical reactions, many of which health and welfare effects of ozone can
For details on the modeling study are sensitive to temperature and also be found in the draft RIA for this
with HAPEM6, refer to Chapter 3.2 of sunlight. When ambient temperatures proposal.
the RIA. We used geographic and sunlight levels remain high for Ozone can irritate the respiratory
information systems to estimate the several days and the air is relatively system, causing coughing, throat
population within each U.S. census stagnant, ozone and its precursors can irritation, and/or uncomfortable
tract living at various distances from a build up and result in more ozone than sensation in the chest. Ozone can
major road (within 75 meters; between typically would occur on a single high- reduce lung function and make it more
75 and 200 meters; or beyond 200 temperature day. Further complicating difficult to breathe deeply, and
meters). An exposure gradient was matters, ozone also can be transported breathing may become more rapid and
determined for people living in each into an area from pollution sources shallow than normal, thereby limiting a
zone, based on dispersion modeling.116 found hundreds of miles upwind, person’s normal activity. Ozone can also
These gradients were confirmed with resulting in elevated ozone levels even aggravate asthma, leading to more
monitoring studies funded by EPA.117 in areas with low VOC or NOX asthma attacks that require a doctor’s
The HAPEM5 model was updated to emissions. As a result, differences in attention and/or the use of additional
account for elevated concentrations VOC and NOX emissions contribute to medication. In addition, ozone can
within these defined distances from daily, seasonal, and yearly differences inflame and damage the lining of the
roadways and the population living in in ozone concentrations across different lungs, which may lead to permanent
these areas. locations. changes in lung tissue, irreversible
The current ozone National Ambient reductions in lung function, and a lower
C. Ozone quality of life if the inflammation occurs
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has an
While the focus of this rule is on air 8-hour averaging time. The 8-hour repeatedly over a long time period.
toxics, the proposed vehicle and gas can ozone NAAQS, established by EPA in People who are of particular concern
standards will also help reduce volatile 1997, is based on well-documented with respect to ozone exposures include
organic compounds (VOCs), which are science demonstrating that more people children and adults who are active
precursors to ozone. were experiencing adverse health effects outdoors. Those people particularly
at lower levels of exertion, over longer susceptible to ozone effects are people
1. Background with respiratory disease (e.g., asthma),
periods, and at lower ozone
Ground-level ozone, the main concentrations than addressed by the people with unusual sensitivity to
ingredient in smog, is formed by the previous one-hour ozone NAAQS. It ozone, and children.
reaction of VOCs and nitrogen oxides There has been new research that
addresses ozone exposures of concern
(NOX) in the atmosphere in the presence suggests additional serious health
for the general population and
of heat and sunlight. These pollutants, effects beyond those that had been
populations most at risk, including
often referred to as ozone precursors, are known when the 1996 ozone CD was
children active outdoors, outdoor
emitted by many types of pollution published. Since then, over 1,700 new
workers, and individuals with pre-
sources, such as highway and nonroad ozone-related health and welfare studies
existing respiratory disease, such as
motor vehicles and engines, power have been published in peer-reviewed
asthma. The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
plants, chemical plants, refineries, journals.122 Many of these studies have
met at an ambient air quality monitoring
makers of consumer and commercial investigated the impact of ozone
site when the average of the annual
products, industrial facilities, and exposure on such health effects as
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
smaller ‘‘area’’ sources. VOCs can also changes in lung structure and
average ozone concentration over three
be emitted by natural sources such as biochemistry, inflammation of the
years is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm.
vegetation. The gas can controls lungs, exacerbation and causation of
proposed in this action would help 2. Health Effects of Ozone asthma, respiratory illness-related
reduce VOC emissions by reducing The health and welfare effects of school absence, hospital and emergency
evaporation, permeation and spillage ozone are well documented and are room visits for asthma and other
from gas cans. The proposed vehicle critically assessed in the EPA ozone respiratory causes, and premature
criteria document (CD) and EPA staff
116 Cohen, J.; Cook, R.; Bailey, C.R.; Carr, E. (2005) Paper, EPA–452/R–96–007. This document is
Relationship between motor vehicle emissions of
paper.119 120 In August 2005, the EPA available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
hazardous pollutants, roadway proximity, and 121 U.S. EPA (2005) Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
118 U.S. EPA (1996). Air Quality Criteria for
ambient concentrations in Portland, Oregon. and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Second
Environ Modelling & Software 20: 7–12. Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, External Review Draft). This document is available
117 Kwon, J. (2005) Development of a RIOPA EPA600–P–93–004aF. This document is available in in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
database and evaluation of the effect of proximity Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. 122 New Ozone Health and Environmental Effects
119 U.S. EPA (1996). Air Quality Criteria for
on the potential residential exposure to VOCs from References, Published Since Completion of the
ambient sources. PhD Dissertation. Rutgers, The Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, Previous Ozone AQCD, National Center for
State University of New Jersey and University of EPA600–P–93–004aF. This document is available in Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Written Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
under direction of Dr. Clifford Weisel. This 120 U.S. EPA (1996) Review of National Ambient Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (7/2002).
document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Assessment of This document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–
2005–0036. Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff OAR–2005–0036.
mortality. EPA is currently in the and 8-hour average ozone between ozone and mortality.134 135
process of evaluating these and other concentrations in studies conducted in Specifically, Toulomi et al. (1997) found
studies as part of the ongoing review of Nevada 128 in kindergarten to 6th grade that 1-hour maximum ozone levels were
the air quality criteria document and and in Southern California in grades associated with daily numbers of deaths
NAAQS for ozone. Key new health four through six.129 These studies in four cities (London, Athens,
information falls into four general areas: suggest that higher ambient ozone levels Barcelona, and Paris), and a
development of new-onset asthma, may result in increased school quantitatively similar effect was found
hospital admissions for young children, absenteeism. in a group of four additional cities
school absence rate, and premature (Amsterdam, Basel, Geneva, and
mortality. The air pollutant most clearly Zurich).
Aggravation of existing asthma associated with premature mortality is In all, the new studies that have
resulting from short-term ambient ozone PM, with many studies reporting such become available since the 8-hour ozone
exposure was reported prior to the 1997 an association. However, recent standard was adopted in 1997 continue
NAAQS standard and has been observed analyses provide evidence that short to demonstrate the harmful effects of
in studies published subsequently.123 124 term ozone exposure is associated with ozone on public health, and the need to
In addition, a relationship between increased premature mortality. Bell et attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS.
long-term ambient ozone concentrations al. (2004) published new analyses of the
3. Current and Projected 8-Hour Ozone
and the incidence of new-onset asthma 95 cities in the National Morbidity,
Levels
in adult males (but not in females) was Mortality, and Air Pollution Study
reported by McDonnell et al. (1999).125 (NMMAPS) data sets, showing Currently, ozone concentrations
Subsequently, an additional study associations between daily mortality exceeding the level of the 8-hour ozone
suggests that incidence of new and the previous week’s ozone NAAQS occur over wide geographic
diagnoses of asthma in children is concentrations which were robust to areas, including most of the nation’s
associated with heavy exercise in adjustment for particulate matter, major population centers.136 As of
communities with high concentrations September 2005 there are approximately
weather, seasonality, and long-term
(i.e., mean 8-hour concentration of 59.6 159 million people living in 126 areas
trends.130 Although earlier analyses
parts per billion (ppb) or greater) of designated as not in attainment with the
undertaken as part of the NMMAPS did 8-hour ozone NAAQS. There are 474
ozone.126 This relationship was not report an effect of ozone on total
documented in children who played 3 full or partial counties that make up the
mortality across the full year, in those 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
or more sports and thus spent more time earlier studies the NMMAPS
outdoors. It was not documented in EPA has already adopted many
investigators did observe an effect after emission control programs that are
those children who played one or two limiting the analysis to summer, when
sports. expected to reduce ambient ozone
ozone levels are highest.131 132 Another levels. These control programs include
Previous studies have shown
relationships between ozone and recent study from 23 cities throughout the Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR
hospital admissions in the general Europe (APHEA2) also found an 25162, May 12, 2005), as well as many
population. A study in Toronto reported association between ambient ozone and mobile source rules (many of which are
a significant relationship between daily mortality.133 Similarly, other described in section V.D). As a result of
1-hour maximum ozone concentrations studies have shown associations these programs, the number of areas that
and respiratory hospital admissions in fail to achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
children under the age of two.127 Given 128 Chen, L.; Jennison, B.L.; Yang, W.; Omaye, is expected to decrease.
S.T. (2000) Elementary school absenteeism and air Based on the recent ozone modeling
the relative vulnerability of children in pollution. Inhalation Toxicol. 12: 997–1016. performed for the CAIR analysis 137,
this age category, there is particular 129 Gilliland, F.D.; Berhane, K.; Rappaport, E.B.;
barring additional local ozone precursor
concern about these findings. Thomas, D.C.; Avol, E.; Gauderman, W.J.; London,
controls, we estimate 37 Eastern
Increased rates of illness-related S.J.; Margolis, H.G.; McConnell, R.; Islam, K.T.;
Peters, J.M. (2001) The effects of ambient air counties (where 24 million people are
school absenteeism have been
pollution on school absenteeism due to respiratory projected to live) will exceed the 8-hour
associated with 1-hour daily maximum illnesses. Epidemiology 12:43–54. ozone NAAQS in 2010. An additional
130 Bell, M.L.; McDermott, A.; Zeger, S.L.; Samet,
123 Thurston, G.D.; Lippman, M.L.; Scott, M.B.;
148 Eastern counties (where 61 million
J.M.; Dominici, F. Ozone and short-term mortality
Fine, J.M. (1997) Summertime Haze Air Pollution in 95 U.S. urban communities, 1987–2000. JAMA
people are projected to live) are
and Children with Asthma. American Journal of 292(19): 2372–2378. expected to be within 10 percent of
Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 155: 654–660. 131 Samet, J.M.; Zeger, S.L.; Dominici, F.; violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
124 Ostro, B.; Lipsett, M.; Mann, J.; Braxton-
Curriero, F.; Coursac, I.; Dockery, D.W.; Schwartz, 2010.
Owens, H.; White, M. (2001) Air pollution and J.; Zanobetti, A. (2000) The National Morbidity, States with 8-hour ozone
exacerbation of asthma in African-American Mortality and Air Pollution Study: Part II:
children in Los Angeles. Epidemiology 12(2): 200– Morbidity, Mortality and Air Pollution in the
nonattainment areas will be required to
208. United States. Research Report No. 94, Part II.
125 McDonnell, W.F.; Abbey, D.E.; Nishino, N.; Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA, June 2000. 134 Thurston, G.D.; Ito, K. (2001) Epidemiological
Lebowitz, M.D. (1999) ‘‘Long-term ambient ozone This document is available in Docket EPA–HQ– studies of acute ozone exposures and mortality. J.
concentration and the incidence of asthma in OAR–2005–0036. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 11: 286–294.
nonsmoking adults: the AHSMOG study.’’ 132 Samet, J.M.; Zeger, S.L.; Dominici, F.; 135 Touloumi, G.; Katsouyanni, K.; Zmirou, D.;
Environmental Research 80(2 Pt 1): 110–121. Curriero, F.; Coursac, I.; Zeger, S. (2000) Fine Schwartz, J.; Spix, C.; Ponce de Leon, A.; Tobias,
126 McConnell, R.; Berhane, K.; Gilliland, F.; Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 U.S. A.; Quennel, P.; Rabczenko, D.; Bacharova, L.;
London, S.J.; Islam, T.; Gauderman, W.J.; Avol, E.; Cities, 1987–1994. The New England Journal of Bisanti, L.; Vonk, J.M.; Ponka, A. (1997) Short-term
Margolis, H.G.; Peters, J.M. (2002) Asthma in Medicine 343(24): 1742–1749. effects of ambient oxidant exposure on mortality: A
exercising children exposed to ozone: a cohort 133 Gryparis, A.; Forsberg, B.; Katsouyanni, K.; combined analysis within the APHEA project. Am.
study. Lancet 359: 386–391. Analitis, A.; Touloumi, G.; Schwartz, J.; Samoli, E.; J. Epidemiol. 146: 177–185.
127 Burnett, R.T.; Smith-Doiron, M.; Stieb, D.; 136 A map of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment
Medina, S.; Anderson, H.R.; Niciu, E.M.;
Raizenne, M.E.; Brook, J.R.; Dales, R.E.; Leech, J.A.; Wichmann, H.E.; Kriz, B.; Kosnik, M.; Skorkovsky, areas is included in the RIA for this proposed rule.
Cakmak, S.; Krewski, D. (2001) Association between J.; Vonk, J.M.; Dortbudak, Z. (2004) Acute effects of 137 Technical Support Document for the Final
ozone and hospitalization for acute respiratory ozone on mortality from the ‘‘Air Pollution and Clean Air Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling.
diseases in children less than 2 years of age. Am. Health: A European Approach’’ project. Am. J. This document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–
J. Epidemiol. 153: 444–452. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 170: 1080–1087. OAR–2005–0036.
take action to bring those areas into vehicles. In addition, both the proposed includes lowering the level of the
compliance in the future. Based on the vehicle controls and the proposed gas primary 24-hour fine particle standard
final rule designating and classifying 8- can controls will reduce VOCs that react from the current level of 65 micrograms
hour ozone nonattainment areas (69 FR in the atmosphere to form secondary per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3,
23951, April 30, 2004), most 8-hour PM2.5, namely organic carbonaceous retaining the level of the annual fine
ozone nonattainment areas will be PM2.5. standard at 15 µg/m3, and setting a new
required to attain the 8-hour ozone 1. Background primary 24-hour standard for certain
NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame inhalable coarse particles (the indicator
and then be required to maintain the 8- Particulate matter (PM) represents a is qualified so as to include any ambient
hour ozone NAAQS thereafter.138 We broad class of chemically and physically mix of PM10–2.5 that is dominated by
also expect many of the 8-hour ozone diverse substances. It can be principally resuspended dust from high-density
nonattainment areas to adopt additional characterized as discrete particles that traffic on paved roads and PM generated
emission reduction programs, but we exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) by industrial and construction sources,
are unable to quantify or rely upon phase spanning several orders of and excludes any ambient mix of
future reductions from additional state magnitude in size. PM is further PM10–2.5 dominated by rural windblown
and local programs that have not yet described by breaking it down into size dust and soils and PM generated by
been adopted. The expected ozone fractions. PM10 refers to particles with agricultural and mining sources) at 70
inventory reductions from the standards an aerodynamic diameter less than or µg/m3. The Agency is also requesting
proposed in this action may be useful to equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (µm). comment on various other standards for
states in attaining or maintaining the 8- PM2.5 refers to fine particles, those fine and inhalable coarse PM (71 FR
hour ozone NAAQS. particles with an aerodynamic diameter 2620, Jan. 17, 2006).
A metamodeling tool developed at less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 µm.
EPA, the ozone response surface Coarse fraction particles refer to those 2. Health Effects of PM
metamodel, was used to estimate the particles with an aerodynamic diameter Scientific studies show ambient PM is
effects of the proposed emission less than or equal to a nominal 10 µm. associated with a series of adverse
reductions. The ozone response surface Inhalable (or ‘‘thoracic’’) coarse particles health effects. These health effects are
metamodel was created using multiple refer to those particles with an discussed in detail in the 1997 PM
runs of the Comprehensive Air Quality aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 criteria document, the recent 2004 EPA
Model with Extensions (CAMx). Base µm but less than or equal to 10 µm. Criteria Document for PM as well as the
and proposed control CAMx Ultrafine PM refers to particles with 2005 PM Staff Paper.140 141 142 Further
metamodeling was completed for two diameters of less than 100 nanometers discussion of health effects associated
future years (2020, 2030) over a (0.1 µm). Larger particles (>10 µm) tend with PM can also be found in the draft
modeling domain that includes all or to be removed by the respiratory RIA for this proposal.
part of 37 Eastern U.S. states. For more clearance mechanisms, whereas smaller
As described in the documents listed
information on the response surface particles are deposited deeper in the
above, health effects associated with
metamodel, please see the RIA for this lungs. Ambient fine particles are a
short-term variation (e.g. hours to days)
proposal or the Air Quality Modeling complex mixture including sulfates,
in ambient PM2.5 include premature
Technical Support Document (TSD). nitrates, chlorides, organic
mortality, hospital admissions, heart
We have made estimates using the carbonaceous material, elemental
and lung diseases, increased cough,
ozone response surface metamodel to carbon, geological material, and metals.
lower-respiratory symptoms,
illustrate the types of change in future Fine particles can remain in the
decrements in lung function and
ozone levels that we would expect to atmosphere for days to weeks and travel
changes in heart rate rhythm and other
result from this proposed rule, as through the atmosphere hundreds to
cardiac effects. Studies examining
described in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA. thousands of kilometers, while coarse
populations exposed to different levels
The proposed gas can controls are particles generally tend to deposit to the
of air pollution over a number of years,
projected to result in a very small net earth within minutes to hours and
including the Harvard Six Cities Study
improvement in future ozone, after within tens of kilometers from the
and the American Cancer Society Study,
weighting for population. Although the emission source.
EPA has NAAQS for both PM2.5 and show associations between long-term
net future ozone improvement is small, exposure to ambient PM2.5 and
some VOC-limited areas in the Eastern PM10. Both the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS
consist of a short-term (24-hour) and a premature mortality, including deaths
U.S. are projected to have non-negligible attributed to cardiovascular changes and
improvements in projected 8-hour long-term (annual) standard. The 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS is set at a level of lung cancer.
ozone design values due to the proposed
gas can controls. As stated in Section 65 µg/m3 based on the 98th percentile
concentration averaged over three years. 17, 2006). This document is also available on the
VII.E.3, we view these improvements as web at: http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/
useful in meeting the 8-hour ozone The annual PM2.5 NAAQS specifies an actions.html
NAAQS. These net ozone improvements expected annual arithmetic mean not to 140 U.S.EPA (1996) Air Quality Criteria for
are in addition to reductions in levels of exceed 15 µg/m3 averaged over three Particulate Matter, EPA 600–P–95–001aF, EPA 600–
years. The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is set P–95–001bF. This document is available in Docket
benzene due to the proposed gas can EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
controls. at a level of 150 µg/m3 not to be 141 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for
exceeded more than once per year. The Particulate Matter (Oct 2004), Volume I Document
D. Particulate Matter annual PM10 NAAQS specifies an No. EPA600/P–99/002aF and Volume II Document
The cold temperature vehicle controls expected annual arithmetic mean not to No. EPA600/P–99/002bF. This document is
proposed here will result in reductions exceed 50 µg/m3. available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
142 U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National
of primary PM being emitted by EPA has recently proposed to amend
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate
the PM NAAQS.139 The proposal Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
138 The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–
ozone nonattainment area will have to attain before 139 U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality 452/R–05–005. This document is available in
June 15, 2021. Standards for Particulate Matter (71 FR 2620, Jan. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
Recently, several studies have projected to live) will exceed the PM2.5 because it has direct significance to
highlighted the adverse effects of PM standard in 2010.148 In addition, 56 people’s enjoyment of daily activities in
specifically from mobile sources.143 144 Eastern counties (where 24 million all parts of the country. Individuals
Studies have also focused on health people are projected to live) are value good visibility for the well-being
effects due to PM exposures on or near expected to be within 10 percent of it provides them directly, where they
roadways.145 Although these studies violating the PM2.5 in 2010. live and work, and in places where they
include all air pollution sources, While the final implementation enjoy recreational opportunities.
including both spark-ignition (gasoline) process for bringing the nation’s air into Visibility is also highly valued in
and diesel powered vehicles, they attainment with the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS significant natural areas such as
indicate that exposure to PM emissions is still being completed in a separate national parks and wilderness areas,
near roadways, thus dominated by rulemaking action, we expect that most because of the special emphasis given to
mobile sources, are associated with areas will need to attain the 1997 PM2.5 protecting these lands now and for
health effects. The proposed vehicle NAAQS in the 2009 to 2014 time frame, future generations. For more
controls may help to reduce exposures and then be required to maintain the information on visibility see the recent
to mobile source related PM2.5. NAAQS thereafter. The expected PM 2004 EPA Criteria Document for PM as
Additional information on near roadway and VOC inventory reductions from the well as the 2005 PM Staff Paper.151 152
health effects can be found in Section III standards proposed in this action will To address the welfare effects of PM
of this preamble. be useful to states in attaining or on visibility, EPA set secondary PM2.5
maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS. standards in 1997 which would act in
3. Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels conjunction with the establishment of a
EPA has recently finalized PM2.5 4. Current PM10 Levels regional haze program. EPA concluded
nonattainment designations (70 FR 943, Air quality monitoring data indicates that PM2.5 causes adverse effects on
Jan 5. 2005).146 As can be seen from the that as of September 2005 visibility in various locations,
designations, ambient PM2.5 levels approximately 29 million people live in depending on PM concentrations and
exceeding the level of the PM2.5 NAAQS 55 designated PM10 nonattainment factors such as chemical composition
are widespread throughout the country. areas, which include all or part of 54 and average relative humidity and the
There are approximately 88 million counties. The RIA for this proposed rule secondary (welfare-based) PM2.5
people living in 39 areas (which include lists the PM10 nonattainment areas and NAAQS was established as equal to the
all or part of 208 counties) designated as their populations. suite of primary (health-based) NAAQS
not in attainment with the PM2.5 Based on section 188 of the Act, we (62 FR 38669, July 18, 1997).
NAAQS. expect that most areas will attain the Furthermore, Section 169 of the Act
EPA has already adopted many PM10 NAAQS no later than December provides additional authorities to
emission control programs that are remedy existing visibility impairment
31, 2006, depending on an area’s
expected to reduce ambient PM levels. and prevent future visibility impairment
classification and other factors, and then
These rules include the Clean Air in the 156 national parks, forests and
be required to maintain the PM10
Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162, May 12, wilderness areas categorized as
NAAQS thereafter. The expected PM
2005), as well as many mobile source mandatory Federal class I areas (62 FR
and VOC inventory reductions from the
rules. Section V.D details many of these 38680–81, July 18, 1997).153 In July
standards proposed in this action could
mobile source rules.147 As a result of 1999 the regional haze rule (64 FR
be useful to states in maintaining the
these programs, the number of areas that 35714) was put in place to protect the
PM10 NAAQS.149
fail to achieve the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS visibility in mandatory Federal class I
is expected to decrease. Based on E. Other Environmental Effects areas. Visibility can be said to be
modeling performed for the CAIR impaired in both PM2.5 nonattainment
analysis, we estimate that 28 Eastern 1. Visibility
areas and mandatory Federal class I
counties (where 19 million people are a. Background areas.154
143 Laden, F.; Neas, L.M.; Dockery, D.W.;
Visibility can be defined as the degree
to which the atmosphere is transparent available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
Schwartz, J. (2000) Association of Fine Particulate This book can be viewed on the National Academy
Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality to visible light.150 Visibility is important Press Website at http://www.nap.edu/books/
in Six U.S. Cities. Environmental Health 0309048443/html/.
Perspectives 108: 941–947. 148 Technical Support Document for the Final 151 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for
144 Janssen, N.A.H.; Schwartz, J.; Zanobetti, A.;
Clean Air Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling. Particulate Matter (Oct 2004), Volume I Document
Suh, H.H. (2002) Air Conditioning and Source- This document is available in Docket EPA–HQ– No. EPA600/P–99/002aF and Volume II Document
Specific Particles as Modifiers of the Effect of PM10 OAR–2005–0036. No. EPA600/P–99/002bF. This document is
on Hospital Admissions for Heart and Lung Disease. 149 As mentioned above, the EPA has recently available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
Environmental Health Perspectives 110: 43–49. proposed to amend the PM NAAQS, by establishing 152 U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National
145 Riekider, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R.;
a new indicator for certain inhalable coarse Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate
Herbst, M.C.; Bromberg, P.A.; Neas, L.; Williams, particles, and a new primary 24-hour standard for Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
R.W.; Devlin, R.B. (2003) Particulate Matter coarse particles described by that indicator. EPA Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–
Exposures in Cars is Associated with also proposed to revoke the current 24-hour PM10 452/R–05–005. This document is available in
Cardiovascular Effects in Healthy Young Men. Am. standard in all areas of the country except in those Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 169: 934–940. areas with a population of at least 100,000 people 153 These areas are defined in section 162 of the
146 US EPA, Air Quality Designations and and which contain at least one monitor violating Act as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres,
Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) the 24-hour PM10 standard, based on the most wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December recent 3 years of air quality data. In addition, EPA 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were
17, 2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5, 2005) This document proposed to revoke upon promulgation of this rule in existence on August 7, 1977.
is also available on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/ the current annual PM10 standard if EPA finalizes 154 As mentioned above, the EPA has recently
pmdesignations/. the proposed primary standard for PM10¥2.5 (71 FR proposed to amend the PM NAAQS (71 FR 2620,
147 The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) will 2620, Jan. 17, 2006). Jan. 17, 2006). The proposal would set the
reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from power 150 National Research Council, 1993. Protecting secondary NAAQS equal to the primary standards
plants in the Eastern 37 states, reducing interstate Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. for both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5. EPA also is taking
transport of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide and National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze comment on whether to set a separate PM2.5
helping cities and states in the East meet the ozone in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National standard, designed to address visibility (principally
and PM NAAQS. (70 FR 25162) (May 12, 2005). Academy Press, Washington, DC. This document is in urban areas), on potential levels for that standard
b. Current Visibility Impairment 2. Plant Damage From Ozone from mobile sources have been found to
Data showing PM2.5 nonattainment Ozone contributes to many account for a percentage of the
areas, and visibility levels above environmental effects, with damage to atmospheric deposition of PAHs. For
background at the Mandatory Class I plants and ecosystems being of most instance, recent studies have identified
Federal Areas demonstrate that concern. Plant damage affects crop gasoline and diesel vehicles as the major
unacceptable visibility impairment is yields, forestry production, and contributors in the atmospheric
ornamentals. The adverse effect of deposition of PAHs to Chesapeake Bay,
experienced throughout the U.S., in
ozone on forests and other natural Massachusetts Bay and Casco Bay.162 163
multi-state regions, urban areas, and
vegetation can in turn cause damage to The vehicle controls being proposed
remote mandatory Federal class I
may help to reduce deposition of heavy
areas.155 156 The mandatory federal class associated ecosystems, with additional
metals and POM.
I areas are listed in Chapter 3 of the draft resulting economic losses. Prolonged
RIA for this action. The areas that have ozone concentrations of 100 ppb can be 4. Materials Damage and Soiling
design values above the PM2.5 NAAQS phytotoxic to a large number of plant
The deposition of airborne particles
are also listed in Chapter 3 of the draft species, and can produce acute injury
can also reduce the aesthetic appeal of
RIA for this action. and reduced crop yield and biomass
buildings and culturally important
production. Ozone concentrations
c. Future Visibility Impairment articles through soiling, and can
within the range of 50 to 100 ppb have
contribute directly (or in conjunction
Recent modeling for the Clean Air the potential over a longer duration to
with other pollutants) to structural
Interstate Rule (CAIR) was used to create chronic stress on vegetation that
damage by means of corrosion or
project visibility conditions in can result in reduced plant growth and
erosion.164 Particles affect materials
mandatory Federal class I areas across yield, shifts in competitive advantages
in mixed populations, decreased vigor, principally by promoting and
the country in 2015. The results for the accelerating the corrosion of metals, by
mandatory Federal Class I areas suggest and injury. Ozone effects on vegetation
are presented in more detail in the 1996 degrading paints, and by deteriorating
that these areas are predicted to building materials such as concrete and
continue to have annual average Criteria Document and the 2005 draft
limestone. Particles contribute to these
deciview levels above background in the Criteria Document. effects because of their electrolytic,
future.157 Modeling done for the CAIR 3. Atmospheric Deposition hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and
also projected PM2.5 levels in the their ability to sorb corrosive gases
Eastern U.S. in 2010. These projections Wet and dry deposition of ambient
particulate matter delivers a complex (principally sulfur dioxide). The rate of
include all sources of PM2.5, including metal corrosion depends on a number of
the engines covered in this proposal, mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc,
lead, nickel, aluminum, cadmium), factors, including the deposition rate
and suggest that PM2.5 levels above the and nature of the pollutant; the
organic compounds (e.g., POM, dioxins,
1997 NAAQS will persist into the influence of the metal protective
furans) and inorganic compounds (e.g.,
future.158 corrosion film; the amount of moisture
nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic
The vehicles that would be subject to present; variability in the
ecosystems. EPA’s Great Waters
the proposed standards contribute to electrochemical reactions; the presence
Program has identified 15 pollutants
visibility concerns in these areas and concentration of other surface
whose deposition to water bodies has
through both their primary PM electrolytes; and the orientation of the
contributed to the overall contamination
emissions and their VOC emissions, metal surface.
loadings to these Great Waters. These 15
which contribute to the formation of
compounds include several heavy V. What Are Mobile Source Emissions
secondary PM2.5. The gas cans that
metals and a group known as polycyclic Over Time and How Would This
would be subject to the proposed organic matter (POM). Within POM are
standards also contribute to visibility Proposal Reduce Emissions, Exposure
the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and Associated Health Effects?
concerns through their VOC emissions. (PAHs). PAHs in the environment may
Reductions in these direct PM and VOC be present in the gas or particle phase, A. Mobile Source Contribution to Air
emissions will help to improve visibility although the bulk will be adsorbed onto Toxics Emissions
across the nation, including mandatory airborne particulate matter. In most
Federal class I areas. In 1999, based on the National
cases, human-made sources of PAHs Emissions Inventory (NEI), mobile
account for the majority of PAHs sources accounted for 44% of total
within a range of 20 to 30 µg/m3, and on averaging
times for the standard within a range of four to eight released to the environment. The PAHs
daylight hours. are usually the POMs of concern as Relationships of PAHs in the Coastal Atmosphere
155 US EPA, Air Quality Designations and many PAHs are probable human of Chicago and Lake Michigan. Atmospheric
Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) carcinogens.159 For some watersheds, Environment 33: 5071–5079.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December atmospheric deposition represents a 162 Dickhut, R.M.; Canuel, E.A.; Gustafson, K.E.;
17, 2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5. 2005) This document Liu, K.; Arzayus, K.M.; Walker, S.E.; Edgecombe, G.;
is also available on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/ significant input to the total surface Gaylor, M.O.; and McDonald, E.H. (2000)
pmdesignations/. water PAH burden.160 161 Emissions Automotive Sources of Carcinogenic Polycyclic
156 US EPA. Regional Haze Regulations, July 1, Aromatic Hydrocarbons Associated with Particulate
1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). 159 Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Matter in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Environ. Sci.
157 The deciview metric describes perceived Waters-Third Report to Congress, Office of Air Technol. 34: 4635–4640.
visual changes in a linear fashion over its entire Quality Planning and Standards, June 2000, 163 Golomb, D.; Barry, E.; Fisher, G.;
range, analogous to the decibel scale for sound. A EPA453–R–00–005. This document is available in Varanusupakul, P.; Koleda, M.; amd Rooney, T.
deciview of 0 represents pristine conditions. The Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. (2001) Atmospheric Deposition of Polycyclic
higher the deciview value, the worse the visibility, 160 Simcik, M.F.; Eisenrich, S.J.; Golden, K.A.; Aromatic Hydrocarbons near New England Coastal
and an improvement in visibility is a decrease in Liu, S.; Lipiatou, E.; Swackhamer, D.L.; and Long, Waters. Atmospheric Environment 35: 6245–6258.
deciview value. D.T. (1996) Atmospheric Loading of Polycyclic 164 U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National
158 EPA recently proposed to revise the current Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan as Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
secondary PM NAAQS standards by making them Recorded in the Sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
identical to the suite of proposed primary standards 30:3039–3046. Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. This
for fine and coarse particles (71 FR 2620, Jan. 17, 161 Simcik, M.F.; Eisenrich, S.J.; and Lioy, P.J. document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2006). (1999) Source Apportionment and Source/Sink 2005–0036.
emissions of 188 hazardous air absence of Clean Air Act emission 2030. This is because, after 2020,
pollutants (on the Clean Air Act section controls currently in place, EPA reductions from control programs will
112(b) list of hazardous air pollutants). estimates air toxic emissions would be outpaced by increases in activity.
Diesel particulate matter (PM) is not total 11,590,000 tons in 2020. In 1999, 29% of air toxic emissions
included in this list of 188 pollutants. Figure V.A–1 depicts the were from highway vehicles and 15%
Sixty-five percent of the mobile source contributions of source categories to air from nonroad equipment. Moreover,
tons in this inventory were attributable toxic emissions between 1990 and 54% of air toxic emissions from
to highway mobile sources, and the 2020.166 As indicated in Figure V.A–1, highway vehicles were emitted by light-
remainder to nonroad sources. mobile source air toxic emissions will duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and
Furthermore, over 90% of mobile source be reduced 60% between 1999 and 37% by light-duty trucks (LDGTs) (see
emissions of air toxics (not including 2020, from 2.2 million to 880,000 tons. Table V.A–1). EPA projects that in 2020,
diesel PM) are attributable to gasoline This reduction will occur despite a only 27% of highway vehicle toxic
vehicles and equipment. projected 57% increase in vehicle miles emissions will be from LDGVs and 63%
Recently, EPA projected trends in air traveled, and a projected 63% increase will be from LDGTs. Air toxic emissions
toxic emissions (not including diesel in nonroad activity, based on units of from nonroad equipment are dominated
PM) to 2020, using the 1999 National work called horsepower-hours. It should by lawn and garden equipment,
Emissions Inventory (NEI) as a be noted, however, that EPA anticipates recreational equipment, and pleasure
baseline.165 Overall, air toxic emissions mobile source air toxic emissions will craft, which collectively accounted for
are projected to decrease from 5,030,000 begin to increase after 2020, from about almost 80% of nonroad toxic emissions
tons in 1999 to 4,010,000 tons in 2020, 880,000 tons in 2020 to 920,000 tons in in 1999 and 2020 (see Table V.A–2).
as a result of emission controls on
major, area, and mobile sources. In the 166 It should be noted that after 2010, stationary Figure V.A–1Contribution of Source
source emissions are based only on economic Categories to Air Toxic Emissions, 1990
165 Strum, M., R. Cook, J. Thurman, D. Ensley, A. growth, and do not account for reductions from to 2020 (not including diesel particulate
Pope, T. Palma, R. Mason, H. Michaels, and S. ongoing toxics programs such as the urban air matter). Note: Dashed line represents
Shedd. 2005. Projection of Hazardous Air Pollutant toxics program, residual risk standards and area
Emissions to Future Years. Science of the Total source program, which are expected to further
projected emissions without Clean Air
Environment, in press. reduce toxics. Act controls.
If diesel PM emissions were added to and nonroad diesel engines phase in, emission factor model is under
the mobile source total, mobile sources diesel-powered locomotives and predicting hydrocarbon emissions
would account for 48% of a total commercial marine vessels increase (including air toxics) and PM emissions
5,398,000 tons in 1999. Figure V.A.–2 from 11% of the inventory in 1999 to at lower temperatures, from light-duty
summarizes the trend in diesel PM 27% in 2020. vehicles meeting National Low
between 1999 and 2020, by source Subsequent to the development of Emission Vehicle (NLEV) and Tier 2
category. Diesel PM emissions will be these projected inventories for mobile tailpipe standards. The inventories
reduced from 368,000 tons in 1999 to source air toxics, a number of inventory presented in sections V.B, V.C., and V.E.
114,000 tons in 2020, a decrease of 70%. revisions have occurred. Data EPA has reflect these enhancements.
As controls on highway diesel engines collected indicate that the MOBILE6.2
TABLE V.A–1.—PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF VEHICLE CLASSES TO HIGHWAY VEHICLE AIR TOXIC EMISSIONS, 1999 TO
2020
[Not including diesel particulate matter]
1999 2007 2010 2015 2020

Vehicle (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles ................................................................... 54 41 37 31 27

Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks ..................................................................... 37 49 53 59 63
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles ................................................................ 6 5 4 4 3
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles .................................................................... 3 4 4 4 5
Other (motorcycles and light-duty diesel vehicles and trucks) ................ 1 1 1 2 2
EP29MR06.001</GPH>
TABLE V.A–2.—CONTRIBUTION OF EQUIPMENT TYPES TO NONROAD AIR TOXIC EMISSIONS, 1999 TO 2020
1999 2007 2010 2015 2020
Equipment type (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Lawn and Garden .................................................................................... 26 18 17 21 25

Pleasure Craft .......................................................................................... 34 27 25 25 25
Recreational ............................................................................................. 19 38 40 35 29
All Others ................................................................................................. 21 17 18 19 21
B. VOC Emissions From Mobile Sources obtained from the National Emissions garden equipment, recreational vehicles
Inventory, and the 2010 and later year and boats, industrial equipment, and
Table V.B–1 presents 48-State VOC estimates were obtained from the construction equipment. The estimates
emissions from key mobile source inventories developed for the Clean Air for highway vehicle classes were
sectors in 1999, 2010, 2015, and 2020, Interstate Air Quality Rule (CAIR). The developed for this rule. The estimates
not including the effects of this table provides emissions for nonroad for light-duty gasoline vehicles reflect
proposed rule. The 1999 inventory equipment such as commercial marine revised estimates of hydrocarbon
estimates for nonroad equipment were vessels, locomotives, aircraft, lawn and emissions at low temperatures.
TABLE V.B–1.—48-STATE VOC EMISSIONS (TONS) FROM KEY MOBILE SOURCE SECTORS IN 1999, 2010, 2015, AND
2020
[Without this proposed rule]
Category 1999 2010 2015 2020

EP29MR06.002</GPH>
Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles and Trucks ....................................................... 4,873,000 2,896,000 2,566,000 2,486,000
TABLE V.B–1.—48-STATE VOC EMISSIONS (TONS) FROM KEY MOBILE SOURCE SECTORS IN 1999, 2010, 2015, AND
2020—Continued
Category 1999 2010 2015 2020
Heavy Duty and Other Highway Vehicles ....................................................... 672,000 255,000 212,000 200,000
Nonroad Equipment ......................................................................................... 2,785,000 1,739,000 1,500,000 1,387,000
VOC emissions from highway C. PM Emissions From Mobile Sources vehicles. Recent data suggest PM
vehicles are about twice those from emissions are significantly higher than
nonroad equipment in 1999. Emissions Table V.C–1 presents 48-State currently estimated in the MOBILE6
from both highway vehicles and PM2.5 167 emissions from key mobile emissions model. In addition, testing
nonroad equipment decline source sectors in 1999, 2010, 2015, and done for this rule demonstrates that PM
substantially between 1999 and 2020 as 2020, not including the effects of this emissions are elevated at cold
a result of EPA control programs that are proposed rule. The estimates in Table temperatures. The estimates in Table
already adopted. The VOC emission V.C–1 come from the same sources as V.C–1 do not account for the effects of
reductions associated with this the VOC estimates in section V.B. EPA cold temperature.
proposed rule are presented in section is considering revisions to estimates of
V.E, below. the PM emissions inventory for motor
TABLE V.C–1—48-STATE PM2.5 EMISSIONS (TONS) FROM KEY MOBILE SOURCE SECTORS IN 1999, 2010, 2015, AND
2020
Category 1999 2010 2015 2020
Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles and Trucks ....................................................... 48,000 33,000 36,000 39,000
Heavy-Duty and Other Highway Vehicles ....................................................... 136,000 51,000 28,000 20,000
Nonroad Equipment ......................................................................................... 332,000 232,000 201,000 178,000
Section V.E, below, presents estimates 1. Fuels Programs regulations, chemical product prices
of PM emission reductions associated and refining efficiencies, most refiners
Several federal fuel programs reduce and importers have achieved
with the proposed cold-temperature
MSAT emissions. Some of these significantly greater reductions in
vehicle standards.
programs directly control air toxics, benzene than required by the program.
D. Description of Current Mobile Source such as the reformulated gasoline (RFG) In 2003, RFG benzene content averaged
Emissions Control Programs That program’s benzene content limit and 0.62 percent. The RFG benzene
Reduce MSATs required reduction in total toxics requirement includes a per-gallon cap
emissions, and the anti-backsliding on fuel benzene level of 1.3 volume
As described in section V.A, existing requirements of the anti-dumping and percent.
mobile source control programs will current MSAT programs, which require The second RFG toxics control
reduce MSAT emissions (not including that gasoline cannot get dirtier with requires that RFG achieve a specific
diesel PM) by 60% between 1999 and respect to toxics emissions. Others, such level of toxics emissions reduction. The
2020. Diesel PM from mobile sources as the gasoline sulfur program, control requirement has increased in stringency
will be reduced by 70% between 1999 toxics indirectly by reducing since the RFG program began in 1995,
and 2020. The mobile source programs hydrocarbon and related toxics when the requirement was that RFG
include controls on fuels, highway emissions. annually achieve a 16.5% reduction in
vehicles, and nonroad equipment. These a. RFG total (exhaust plus evaporative) air
programs are also reducing toxics emissions. Currently, a 21.5%
hydrocarbons and PM more generally, The RFG program contains two direct reduction is required. These reductions
as well as oxides of nitrogen. The toxics control requirements. The first is are determined using the Complex
sections immediately below provide a fuel benzene standard, requiring RFG Model. As mentioned above, for a
general descriptions of these programs, to average no greater than 0.95 volume variety of reasons most regulated parties
as well as voluntary programs to reduce percent benzene annually (on a refinery have overcomplied with the required
mobile source emissions, such as the or importer basis). The RFG benzene toxics emissions reductions. During
National Clean Diesel Campaign and requirement includes a per-gallon cap 1998–2000, RFG achieved, on average, a
on fuel benzene level of 1.3 volume 27.5% reduction in toxics emissions.
Best Workplaces for Commuters. A more
percent. In 1990, when the Clean Air
detailed description of mobile source b. Anti-Dumping
Act was amended to require
programs is provided in Chapter 2 of the
reformulated gasoline, fuel benzene The anti-dumping regulations were

RIA. averaged 1.60 volume percent. For a intended to prevent the dumping of
variety of reasons, including other ‘‘dirty’’ gasoline components, which
167 PM
2.5 is particulate matter under 2.5 microns
in diameter. Over 85% of the mass of PM from
mobile sources is PM2.5.
were removed to produce RFG, into individual MSAT1 baseline, EPA ozone precursor control, which also
conventional gasoline (CG). Since the requires each refiner and importer to results in some toxics pollutant
dumping of ‘‘dirty’’ gasoline submit documentation supporting the reductions.
components, for example, benzene or determination of the baseline. Most
f. Diesel Fuel
benzene-containing blending streams, refiners and many importers in business
would show up as increases in toxics during the baseline period had In early 2001, EPA issued rules
emissions, the anti-dumping regulations sufficient data to establish an individual requiring that diesel fuel for use in
require that a refiner’s or importer’s CG baseline. An MSAT1 baseline volume is highway vehicles contain no more than
be no more polluting with respect to associated with each unique individual 15 ppm sulfur beginning June 1,
toxics emissions than the refiner’s or baseline value. The MSAT1 baseline 2006.173 This program contains
importer’s 1990 gasoline. The anti- volume reflects the average annual averaging, banking and trading
dumping program considers only volume of such gasoline produced or provisions, as well as other compliance
exhaust toxics emissions and does not imported during the baseline period. flexibilities. In June 2004, EPA issued
include evaporative emissions.168 Refiners and importers who did not rules governing the sulfur content of
Refiners and importers have either a have sufficient refinery production or diesel fuel used in nonroad diesel
unique individual anti-dumping imports during 1998–2000 to establish a engines.174 In the nonroad rule, sulfur
baseline or they have the statutory anti- unique individual MSAT1 baseline levels are limited to a maximum of 500
dumping baseline if they did not fulfill must use the default baseline provided ppm sulfur beginning in 2007 (current
the minimum requirements for in the rule. levels are approximately 3000 ppm). In
developing a unique individual The MSAT1 program began with the 2010, nonroad diesel sulfur levels must
baseline. In 1990, average exhaust toxics annual averaging period beginning not exceed 15 ppm.
emissions (as estimated by the Complex January 1, 2002. Since then, the toxics EPA’s diesel fuel requirements are
Model) were 104.5 mg/mile; 169 in 2004, performance for RFG has improved from part of a comprehensive program to
CG exhaust toxics emissions averaged a baseline period average of 27.5% combine engine and fuel controls to
90.7 mg/mile. Although CG has no reduction to 29.5% reduction in 2003. achieve the greatest emission
benzene limit, benzene levels have Likewise, CG toxics emissions have reductions. The diesel fuel provisions
declined significantly from the 1990 decreased from an average of 95 mg/ enable the use of advanced emission-
level of 1.6 volume percent to 1.1 mile during 1998–2000 to 90.7 mg/mile control technologies on diesel vehicles
volume percent for CG in 2004. in 2003. and engines. The diesel fuel
c. 2001 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule requirements will also provide
d. Gasoline Sulfur immediate public health benefits by
(MSAT1)
EPA’s gasoline sulfur program 172 reducing PM emissions from current
As discussed above, both RFG and CG requires, beginning in 2006, that sulfur diesel vehicles and engines.
have, on average, exceeded their levels in gasoline can be no higher in
respective toxics control requirements. g. Phase-Out of Lead in Gasoline
any one batch than 80 ppm, and must
In 2001, EPA issued a mobile source air average 30 ppm annually. When fully One of the first programs to control
toxics rule (MSAT1, for the purposes of effective, gasoline will have 90 percent toxic emissions from motor vehicles was
this second proposal), as discussed in less sulfur than before the program. the removal of lead from gasoline.
section I.D. The intent of MSAT1 is to Reduced sulfur levels are necessary to Beginning in the mid-1970s, unleaded
prevent refiners and importers from ensure that vehicle emission control gasoline was phased in to replace
backsliding from the toxics performance systems are not impaired. These systems leaded gasoline. The phase-out of
that was being achieved by RFG and CG. effectively reduce non-methane organic leaded gasoline was completed January
In order to lock in superior levels of gas (NMOG) emissions, of which some 1, 1996, when lead was banned from
control, the rule requires that the annual are air toxics. With lower sulfur levels, motor vehicle gasoline. The removal of
average toxics performance of gasoline emission control technologies can work lead from gasoline has essentially
must be at least as clean as the average longer and more efficiently. Both new eliminated on-highway mobile source
performance of the gasoline produced or and older vehicles benefit from reduced emissions of this highly toxic substance.
imported during the three-year period gasoline sulfur levels.
1998–2000. The period 1998–2000 is 2. Highway Vehicle and Engine
called the baseline period. Toxics e. Gasoline Volatility Programs
performance is determined separately A fuel’s volatility defines its The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
for RFG and CG, in the same manner as evaporation characteristics. A gasoline’s set specific emission standards for
the toxics determinations required by volatility is commonly referred to as its hydrocarbons and for PM. Air toxics are
the RFG 170 and anti-dumping rules. Reid vapor pressure, or RVP. Gasoline present in both of these pollutant
Like the anti-dumping provisions, summertime RVP ranges from about 6– categories. As vehicle manufacturers
MSAT1 utilizes an individual baseline 9 psi, and wintertime RVP ranges from develop technologies to comply with
against which compliance is about 9–14 psi, when additional vapor the hydrocarbon (HC) and particulate
determined. The average 1998–2000 is required for starting in cold standards (e.g., more efficient catalytic
toxics performance level, or baseline, is temperatures. Gasoline vapors contain a converters), air toxics are reduced as
determined separately for each refinery subset of the liquid gasoline well. Since 1990, we have developed a
and importer.171 To establish a unique components, and thus can contain number of programs to address exhaust
toxics compounds such as benzene. EPA and evaporative hydrocarbon emissions
168 See RFG rule for why evaporative emissions
has controlled summertime gasoline and PM emissions.

are not included in the anti-dumping toxics
determination. RVP since 1989 primarily as a VOC and Two of our recent initiatives to
169 Phase II. control emissions from motor vehicles
170 40 CFR Part 80, Subpart D. requirements for conventional gasoline must be met
171 Except for those who comply with the anti- on the same aggregate basis (40 CFR Part 80, 173 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001) http://
dumping requirements for conventional gasoline on Subpart E). www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.html.

an aggregate basis, in which case the MSAT1 172 65 FR 6822 (February 10, 2000). 174 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
and their fuels are the Tier 2 control engines. For example, restrictions on reduction technologies and take
program for light-duty vehicles and the gasoline formulation (the removal of advantage of proven systems that
2007 heavy-duty engine rule. Together lead, limits on gasoline volatility and provide drivers with basic necessities
these two initiatives define a set of RFG) are projected to reduce nonroad without using the engine. To date, there
comprehensive standards for light-duty MSAT emissions because most gasoline- are 50 stationary anti-idling projects,
and heavy-duty motor vehicles and their fueled nonroad vehicles are fueled with and mobile technology has been
fuels. In both of these initiatives, we the same gasoline used in on-highway installed on nearly 20,000 trucks. The
treat vehicles and fuels as a system. The vehicles. An exception to this is lead in SmartWay Transport Partnership also
Tier 2 control program establishes aviation gasoline. Aviation gasoline, works with the freight industry to
stringent tailpipe and evaporative used in general (as opposed to reduce fuel use (with a concomitant
emission standards for light-duty commercial) aviation, is a high octane reduction in emissions) by promoting a
vehicles and a reduction in sulfur levels fuel used in a relatively small number wide range of new technologies such as
in gasoline fuel beginning in 2004.175 of aircraft (those with piston engines). advanced aerodynamics, single-wide
The 2007 heavy-duty engine rule Such aircraft are generally used for tires, weight reduction speed control
establishes stringent exhaust emission personal transportation, sightseeing, and intermodal shipping.
standards for new heavy-duty engines crop dusting, and similar activities. Daily commuting represents another
and vehicles for the 2007 model year as significant source of emissions from
4. Voluntary Programs
well as reductions in diesel fuel sulfur motor vehicles. EPA’s Best Workplaces
levels starting in 2006.176 Both of these In addition to the fuel and engine for CommutersSM program is working
programs will provide substantial control programs described above, we with employers across the country to
emissions reductions through the are actively promoting several voluntary reverse the trend of longer, single-
application of advanced technologies. programs to reduce emissions from occupancy vehicle commuting. OTAQ
We expect 90% reductions in PM from mobile sources, such as the National has created a national list of the Best
new diesel engines compared to engines Clean Diesel Campaign, anti-idling Workplaces for Commuters to formally
under current standards. measures, and Best Workplaces for recognize employers that offer superior
Some of the key earlier programs Commuters. While the stringent commuter benefits such as free transit
controlling highway vehicle and engine emissions standards described above passes, subsidized vanpools/carpools,
emissions are the Tier 1 and NLEV apply to new highway and nonroad and flexi-place, or work-from-home,
standards for light-duty vehicles and diesel engines, it is also important to programs. More than 1,300 employers
trucks; enhanced evaporative emissions reduce emissions from the existing fleet representing 2.8 million U.S. workers
standards; the supplemental federal test of about 11 million diesel engines. EPA have been designated Best Workplaces
procedures (SFTP); urban bus standards; has launched a comprehensive initiative for Commuters.
and heavy-duty diesel and gasoline called the National Clean Diesel Much of the growth in the Best
standards for the 2004/2005 time frame. Campaign, one component of which is Workplaces for Commuters program has
to promote the reduction of emissions in been through metro area-wide
3. Nonroad Engine Programs the existing fleet of engines through a campaigns. Since 2002, EPA has worked
There are various categories of variety of cost-effective and innovative with coalitions in 14 major metropolitan
nonroad engines, including land-based strategies. The goal of the Campaign is areas to increase the penetration of
diesel engines (e.g., farm and to reduce emissions from the 11 million commuter benefits in the marketplace
construction equipment), small land- existing engines by 2014. Emission and the visibility of the companies that
based spark-ignition (SI) engines (e.g., reduction strategies include switching have received the BWC designation.
lawn and garden equipment, string to cleaner fuels, retrofitting engines Another significant path by which the
trimmers), large land-based SI engines through the addition of emission control
program has grown is through
(e.g., forklifts, airport ground service devices, and engine replacement. For
Commuter Districts including corporate
equipment), marine engines (including example, installing a diesel particulate
and industrial business parks, shopping
diesel and SI, propulsion and auxiliary, filter achieves diesel particulate matter
malls, business improvement districts
commercial and recreational), reductions of approximately 90 percent
and downtown commercial areas. To
locomotives, aircraft, and recreational (when combined with the use of ultra
date EPA has granted the Best
vehicles (off-road motorcycles, ‘‘all low sulfur diesel fuel). The Energy
Workplaces for Commuters ‘‘District’’
terrain’’ vehicles and snowmobiles). Policy Act of 2005 includes grant
designation to twenty locations across
Chapter 2 of the RIA provides more authorizations and other incentives to
the country including downtown
information about these programs. As help facilitate voluntary clean diesel
Denver, Houston, Minneapolis and
with highway vehicles, the VOC actions nationwide.
The National Clean Diesel Campaign Tampa.
standards we have established for
nonroad engines will also significantly is focused on leveraging local, state, and E. Emission Reductions From Proposed
reduce VOC-based toxics from nonroad federal resources to retrofit or replace Controls
engines. In addition, the standards for diesel engines, adopt best practices, and
track and report results. The Campaign 1. Proposed Vehicle Controls
diesel engines (in combination with the
stringent sulfur controls on nonroad targets five key sectors: School buses, We are proposing a hydrocarbon
diesel fuel) will significantly reduce ports, construction, freight, and standard for gasoline passenger vehicles
diesel PM and exhaust organic gases, agriculture. at cold temperatures. This standard will
which are mobile source air toxics. Reducing vehicle idling provides reduce VOC at temperatures below 75
In addition to the engine-based important environmental benefits. As a °F, including air toxics such as benzene,
emission control programs described part of their daily routine, truck drivers 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
below, fuel controls will also reduce often keep their vehicles at idle during acetaldehyde, acrolein and naphthalene,
emissions of air toxics from nonroad stops to provide power, heat and air and will also reduce emissions of direct
conditioning. EPA’s SmartWay and secondary PM. We are also
175 65 FR 6697, February 10, 2000. Transport Partnership is helping the proposing new evaporative emissions
176 66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001. freight industry to adopt innovative idle standards for Tier 2 vehicles starting in
2009. These new evaporative standards a. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions in 2030 by 32%. Overall VOC
reflect the emissions levels already Table V.E–1 shows the VOC exhaust exhaust emissions from these vehicles
being achieved by manufacturers. emission reductions from light-duty would be reduced by 81% between 1999
gasoline vehicles and trucks that would and 2030 (including the effects of the
result from our proposed standards. The proposed standards as well as standards
proposed standards would reduce VOC already in place, such as Tier 2).
TABLE V.E–1.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN EXHAUST VOC EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE VEHICLES
AND TRUCKS, 1999 TO 2030
1999 2015 2020 2030
VOC Without Rule (tons) ................................................................................. 4,899,891 2,625,076 2,556,751 2,899,269

VOC With Proposed Vehicle Standards (tons) ............................................... N.A 2,305,202 2,020,267 1,985,830
VOC Reductions from Proposed Vehicle Standards (tons) ............................ N.A 319,874 536,484 913,439
Percentage Reduction ..................................................................................... N.A 12 21 32
result in a 38% reduction in benzene duty vehicles and trucks (see Tables
b. Toxics
emissions and 37% reduction in total V.E–2 and V.E–3).
In 2030, we estimate that the emissions of the MSATs 177 from light-
proposed vehicle standards would
TABLE V.E–2.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN BENZENE EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE
VEHICLES AND TRUCKS, 1999 TO 2030
1999 2015 2020 2030
Benzene Without Rule (tons) .......................................................................... 171,154 101,355 106,071 124,897

Benzene With Proposed Vehicle Standards (tons) ......................................... N.A. 84,496 77,966 77,208
Benzene Reductions from Proposed Vehicle Standards (tons) ...................... N.A. 16,859 28,105 47,689
Percentage Reduction ..................................................................................... N.A. 17 26 38
TABLE V.E–3.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN EXHAUST MSAT EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE
1999 2015 2020 2030
MSATs Without Rule (tons) ............................................................................. 1,341,572 707,877 724,840 844,366

MSATs With Proposed Vehicle Standards (tons) ........................................... N.A. 599,492 543,332 535,479
MSAT Reductions from Proposed Vehicle Standards (tons) .......................... N.A. 108,385 181,509 308,887
Percentage Reduction ..................................................................................... N.A. 15 25 37
c. PM2.5 relationship with temperature, with these findings, direct PM emissions at

lower temperatures corresponding to cold temperatures were estimated using
EPA expects that the proposed cold- higher vehicle emissions. Additionally, a constant PM to NMHC ratio. PM
temperature vehicle standards would the analysis shows the ratio of PM to emission reductions were estimated by
reduce exhaust emissions of direct PM2.5 total non-methane hydrocarbons assuming that NMHC reductions will
by over 20,000 tons in 2030 nationwide (NMHC) to be independent of result in proportional reductions in PM.
(see Table V.E–4 below). Our analysis of temperature.178 Our testing indicates This assumption is supported by test
the data from vehicles meeting Tier 2 that strategies which reduce NMHC start data. For more detail, see Chapter 2.1 of
emission standards indicate that PM emissions at cold temperatures also the RIA.
emissions follow a monotonic reduce direct PM emissions. Based on
TABLE V.E–4.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN DIRECT PM2.5 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE
2015 2020 2030
PM2.5 Reductions from Proposed Vehicle Standards (tons) ....................................................... 7,037 11,803 20,096
2. Proposed Fuel Benzene Controls evaporative emissions from both on- proposed fuel benzene standard would
road and nonroad mobile sources that reduce evaporative emissions from
The proposed fuel benzene controls
are fueled by gasoline. In addition, the gasoline distribution and gas cans.
would reduce benzene exhaust and
177 Table IV.A–1 lists the MSATs included in this

178 U.S. EPA. 2005. Cold-temperature exhaust
analysis.
particulate matter emissions. Memorandum from
Chad Bailey to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
Impacts on 1,3-butadiene, Table V.E–5 shows national estimates effects of the controls). The proposed
formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde of total benzene emissions from these fuel benzene standard would reduce
emissions are not significant, but are source sectors with and without the total benzene emissions from on-road
presented in Chapter 2 of the RIA. We proposed fuel benzene standard. These and nonroad gasoline mobile sources,
do not expect the fuel benzene standard estimates do not include effects of the gas cans, and gasoline distribution by
to have quantifiable impacts on any proposed vehicle or gas can standards 12% in 2015.
other air toxics, total VOCs, or PM. (see section V.E.4 for the combined
TABLE V.E–5.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM PROPOSED GASOLINE STANDARD BY SECTOR IN
2015
Gasoline on- Gasoline Gasoline
road mobile nonroad mo- Gas cans Total
distribution
sources bile sources
Benzene Without Rule (tons) ............................................... 103,797 37,747 2,262 5,999 149,805
Benzene With Proposed Gasoline Standard (tons) ............ 92,513 33,247 1,359 4,054 131,173
Benzene Reductions from Proposed Gasoline Standard
(tons) ................................................................................ 11,284 4,500 903 1,945 18,632
Percentage Reduction ......................................................... 11 12 40 32 12
3. Proposed Gas Can Standards proposed gas can standard. In 2015, losses. These estimates do not include
a. VOC VOC emissions from gas cans would be the effects of a fuel benzene standard
reduced by 60% because of reduced (see section V.E.4 for the combined
Table V.E–6 shows the reductions in permeation, spillage, and evaporative effects of the proposed controls).
VOC emissions that we expect from the
TABLE V.E–6.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN VOC EMISSIONS FROM GAS CANS, 2010 TO 2030
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
VOC Without Rule (tons) ..................................................... 318,596 279,374 296,927 318,384 362,715
VOC With Proposed Gas Can Standard (tons) ................... N.A. 250,990 116,431 125,702 144,634
VOC Reductions from Proposed Gas Can Standard (tons) N.A. 28,384 180,496 192,683 218,080
Percentage Reduction ......................................................... N.A. 10 61 61 60
b. Toxics trimethylpentane, and MTBE. We include effects of the proposed fuel

estimate that benzene emissions from benzene standard (see section V.E.4 for
The proposed gas can standard would gas cans would be reduced by 65% (see the combined effects of the proposed
reduce emissions of benzene, Table V.E–7) and, more broadly, air controls). Chapter 2 of the RIA provides
naphthalene, toluene, xylenes, toxic emissions by 61% (see Table V.E– details on the emission reductions of the
ethylbenzene, n-hexane, 2,2,4- 8) in year 2015. These reductions do not other toxics.
TABLE V.E–7.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM GAS CANS, 2010 TO 2030
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
Benzene Without Rule (tons) ............................................... 2,229 2,118 2,262 2,423 2,757
Benzene With Proposed Gas Can Standard (tons) ............ N.A. 1,885 794 856 985
Benzene Reductions from Proposed Gas Can Standard
(tons) ................................................................................ N.A. 233 1,468 1,567 1,772
TABLE V.E–8.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN TOTAL MSAT EMISSIONS FROM GAS CANS, 2010 TO 2030
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
MSATs Without Rule (tons) ................................................. 39,581 34,873 37,076 39,751 45,284
MSATs With Proposed Gas Can Standard (tons) ............... N.A. 31,312 14,445 15,593 17,942
MSAT Reductions from Proposed Gas Can Standard
(tons) ................................................................................ N.A. 3,561 22,631 24,158 27,342
Chapter 2 of the RIA describes how comments on the emissions inventory 4. Total Emission Reductions From
we estimated emissions from gas cans, methodology used by EPA and we Proposed Controls
including the key assumptions used and encourage commenters to provide
uncertainties in the analysis. We request relevant data where possible. Sections V.E.1 through V.E.3 present
the emissions impacts of each of the
proposed controls individually. This on both fuel benzene content and the Annual benzene emissions from
section presents the combined gas can emission controls. Tables V.E– gasoline light-duty vehicles would be
emissions impacts of the proposed 9 and V.E–10 below summarize the 45% lower in 2030 as a result of this
controls. expected reductions in benzene and proposal. Likewise, this proposal would
a. Toxics MSAT emissions, respectively, from our reduce annual emissions of benzene
proposed vehicle, fuel, and gas can from gas cans by 78% in 2030 (see
Air toxic emissions from light-duty
controls. In 2030, annual benzene Figure V.E–2). For MSATs from on-road
vehicles depend on both fuel benzene
emissions from gasoline on-road mobile mobile sources, Figure V.E–3 below
content and vehicle hydrocarbon
emission controls. Similarly, the air sources would be 44% lower as a result shows a 33% reduction in MSAT
toxic emissions from gas cans depend of this proposal (see Figure V.E–1). emissions in 2030.
TABLE V.E–9.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES BY SECTOR,
2015 TO 2030
2015 2020 2030
Benzene 1999 Without With rule Reductions Without With rule Reductions Without With rule Reductions
rule (tons) (tons) (tons) rule (tons) (tons) (tons) rule (tons) (tons) (tons)
Gasoline On-road Mobile

Sources .............................. 178,465 103,798 77,155 26,643 108,256 71,326 36,930 127,058 70,682 56,376
Gasoline Nonroad Mobile
Sources .............................. 58,710 37,747 33,247 4,500 36,440 32,018 4,422 39,162 34,400 4,762
Gas Cans .............................. 2,229 2,262 492 1,770 2,423 531 1,892 2,757 610 2,147
Gasoline Distribution ............. 5,502 5,999 4,054 1,945 6,207 4,210 1,997 6,207 4,210 1,997
Total ............................... 244,905 149,806 114,948 34,858 153,326 108,085 45,241 175,184 109,902 65,282
TABLE V.E–10.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN MSAT EMISSIONS FROM PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES BY SECTOR,
2015 TO 2030
2015 2020 2030
MSAT 1999 Without With rule Reductions Without With rule Reductions Without With rule Reductions
rule (tons) (tons) (tons) rule (tons) (tons) (tons) rule (tons) (tons) (tons)
Gasoline On-road Mobile

Sources .............................. 1,415,502 731,283 613,227 118,056 745,769 555,541 190,228 865,767 548,298 317,469
Gasoline Nonroad Mobile
Sources .............................. 673,922 432,953 428,506 4,447 390,468 386,095 4,373 405,119 400,408 4,711
Gas Cans .............................. 39,581 37,076 14,143 22,933 39,751 15,268 24,483 45,284 17,567 27,717
Gasoline Distribution ............. 50,625 62,804 60,859 1,945 64,933 62,936 1,997 64,933 62,936 1,997
Total ............................... 2,179,630 1,264,116 1,116,735 147,381 1,240,921 1,019,840 221,081 1,381,103 1,029,209 351,894
EP29MR06.003</GPH>
b. VOC both light-duty vehicles and gas cans. reductions from both of these sources
VOC emissions would be reduced by As seen in the table and accompanying would be 35% lower in 2030 because of
the hydrocarbon emission standards for figure below, annual VOC emission proposed control measures.
TABLE V.E–11.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN VOC EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE VEHICLES AND GAS CANS,
2015 TO 2030
2015 2020 2030
VOC Without Rule (tons) ............................................................................................................. 2,922,003 2,875,135 3,261,984

VOC With Proposed Vehicle and Gas Can Standards (tons) .................................................... 2,421,633 2,145,969 2,130,464
VOC Reduction (tons) ................................................................................................................. 500,370 729,168 1,131,520
c. PM2.5 and gas can standards would also and exhaust emissions from motor
We expect that only the proposed reduce secondary formation of PM2.5. vehicles and nonroad equipment. It
vehicle control would reduce emissions would also reduce emissions from gas
EP29MR06.005</GPH>
F. How Would This Proposal Reduce

of direct PM2.5. As shown in Table V.E– Exposure to Mobile Source Air Toxics cans and stationary source emissions
4, we expect this control to reduce and Associated Health Effects? associated with gasoline distribution.
direct PM2.5 emissions by about 20,000 Therefore, it would reduce exposure to
tons in 2030. In addition, the VOC The proposed benzene standard for benzene for the general population, and
EP29MR06.004</GPH>
reductions from the proposed vehicle gasoline would reduce both evaporative also for people near roadways, in
vehicles, in homes with attached 100,000 increased cancer risk level, and source benzene would be reduced by
garages, operating nonroad equipment, the average population cancer risk, by over 8%. Reductions in areas not subject
and living or working near sources of reducing exposures to benzene from to reformulated gasoline controls are
gasoline distribution emissions (such as mobile sources. The number of people almost 13 percent relative to risks
bulk terminals, bulk plants, tankers, above the 1 in 100,000 cancer risk level without the proposed control; and in
marine vessels, and service stations). due to exposure to all mobile source air some states with high fuel benzene
Section IV.B.2 of this preamble provides toxics from all sources would decrease levels, such as Minnesota and
more details on these types of by over 3 million in 2020 and by about Washington, the risk reduction would
exposures. 3.5 million in 2030, based on average exceed 17 percent. In Alaska, which has
We performed national-scale air census tract risks. The number of people the highest fuel benzene levels in the
quality, exposure, and risk modeling in above the 1 in 100,000 increased cancer country, reductions would exceed 30%.
order to quantitatively assess the risk level from exposure to benzene Reductions for other modeled years are
impacts of the proposed fuel benzene from all sources would decrease by over similar. The methods and assumptions
standard. However, in addition to the 4 million in 2020 and 5 million in 2030. used to model the impact of the
limitations of the national-scale It should be noted that if it were proposed control are described in more
modeling tools (discussed in section possible to estimate impacts of the detail in the Regulatory Impact
IV.A), this modeling did not account for proposed standard on ‘‘background’’
the elevated hydrocarbon emissions Analysis. Although not quantified in the
concentrations, the estimated overall risk analyses for this rule, controls
from motor vehicles at cold risk reductions would be even larger.
temperatures, which we recently proposed for portable fuel containers
The proposed standard would have will also reduce exposures and risk from
discovered and are further described in
little impact on the number of people benzene, and cold temperature
section VI and the RIA. The modeling
above various respiratory hazard index hydrocarbon standards for exhaust
also examined the gasoline benzene
levels, since this potential non-cancer emissions will reduce cancer and
standard alone, without the proposed
risk is dominated by exposure to noncancer risks for all gaseous mobile
vehicle or gas can standards.
Nevertheless, the modeling is useful as acrolein. source air toxics. These reductions will
a preliminary assessment of the impacts Table V.F–1 depicts the impact on the vary geographically since reductions
of the fuel standard. mobile source contribution to from vehicle control are higher at colder
The fuel benzene standard being nationwide average population cancer temperatures, and reductions from gas
proposed in this rule would reduce both risk from benzene in 2020. Nationwide, can controls are higher at higher
the number of people above the 1 in the cancer risk attributable to mobile temperatures.
TABLE V.F–1.—IMPACT OF PROPOSED FUEL BENZENE CONTROL ON THE MOBILE SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONWIDE
AVERAGE POPULATION CANCER RISK IN 2020
Non-RFG
U.S. RFG areas areas
Without Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 2.57×10¥6 3.64×10¥6 1.96×10¥6

0.62% Benzene Standard ............................................................................................................ 2.35×10¥6 3.51×10¥6 1.72×10¥6
% Reduction ................................................................................................................................ 8.6 3.6 12.2
Table V.F–2 summarizes the change this rule. The reductions in risk would vehicles, equipment, and gas cans in
in median and 95th percentile benzene be larger if the modeling fully accounted attached garages; near-road exposures;
inhalation cancer risk from all outdoor for a number of factors, including: and the impacts of the control program
sources in 2015, 2020, and 2030, with benzene emissions at cold temperature; on ‘‘background’’ levels attributable to
the fuel benzene controls proposed in exposure to benzene emissions from transport.
TABLE V.F–2.—CHANGE IN MEDIAN AND 95TH PERCENTILE BENZENE INHALATION CANCER RISK FROM OUTDOOR
SOURCES IN 2015, 2020, AND 2030 WITH THE FUEL BENZENE CONTROLS PROPOSED IN THIS RULE
2015 2020 2030
median 95th median 95th median 95th
Current Controls ....................................... 5.73×10¥6 1.38×10¥5 5.61×10¥6 1.35×10¥5 5.75×10¥6 1.41×10¥5

Proposed Benzene Standard ................... 5.49×10¥6 1.32×10¥5 5.39×10¥6 1.29×10¥5 5.51×10¥6 1.35×10¥5
Percent Change ....................................... 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.4 4.2 4.3
We did not model the air quality, well as people near roadways and in that these standards would significantly
exposure, and risk impacts of the vehicles. Since motor vehicle emissions reduce concentrations of benzene and
proposed vehicle and gas can standards. are ubiquitous across the U.S. and other MSATs in attached garages and
However, the proposed vehicle widely dispersed, reductions in inside homes with attached garages.
standards would reduce exposure to exposure and risk will be approximately Accordingly, exposure to benzene and
several MSATs, including benzene. Like proportional to reductions in emissions. other MSATs would be significantly
the proposed fuel standard, the vehicle The gas can standard will reduce reduced. As discussed in section IV.B.2,
standards would reduce the general evaporative emissions of several exposures to emissions occurring in
population’s exposure to MSATs, as MSATs, including benzene. We expect attached garages can be quite high.
The proposed vehicle and gas can a recent Advance Notice of Proposed emissions standards and gasoline sulfur
standards would also reduce precursors Rulemaking.179 New standards for control requirements (described in more
to ozone and PM. We have modeled the marine diesel engines would apply to detail below in section V.D). As
ozone impacts of the proposed gas can engines less than 30 liters per cylinder explained earlier, we concluded then
standard and the PM health benefits that in displacement (all engine except for under section 202(l) that the Tier 2
would be associated with the direct PM Category 3). We are considering standards represented the greatest
reductions from the proposed vehicle standards modeled after our Tier 4 degree of emissions control achievable
standards. These results are discussed nonroad diesel engine program, which for those vehicles. However, we also
in sections IV.D and IX, respectively. achieve substantial reductions in PM, committed to continue to consider the
HC, and NOX emissions. These feasibility of additional vehicle-based
G. Additional Programs Under standards would be based on the use of MSAT controls in the future.
Development That Will Reduce MSATs high efficiency catalyst aftertreatment
and would also require fuel sulfur 2. Technology Opportunities for Light-
1. On-Board Diagnostics for Heavy-Duty
control. As discussed in our recent Duty Vehicles
Vehicles Over 14,000 Pounds
ANPRM, we are considering Since the 2001 MSAT rule, we have
We are planning to propose on-board
implementation as early as 2011. identified potential situations where
diagnostics (OBD) requirements for
further reductions of light-duty vehicle
heavy-duty vehicles over 14,000 VI. Proposed New Light-Duty Vehicle
hydrocarbon emissions—and, therefore,
pounds. In general, OBD systems Standards
mobile source air toxics—are
monitor the operation of key emissions A. Why Are We Proposing New technically feasible, cost-effective, and
controls to detect major failures that Standards? do not have adverse energy or safety
would lead to emissions well above the
1. The Clean Air Act and Air Quality implications. First, recent research and
standards during the life of the vehicle.
analytical work shows that the Tier 2
Given the nature of the heavy-duty As described in section V of this exhaust emission standards for
trucking industry, 50-state preamble, the U.S. has made significant hydrocarbons (which are typically
harmonization of emissions requirement progress in reducing emissions from tested at 75° F) do not, in the case of
is an important consideration. In order passenger cars and light trucks since the many vehicles, result in robust control
to work towards this goal, the Agency passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act of hydrocarbon emissions at lower
signed a Memorandum of Agreement in Amendments. Many emission control temperatures. We believe that cold
2004 with the California Air Resources programs adopted to implement the temperature hydrocarbon control can be
Board which expresses both agencies’ 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are substantially improved using the same
interest in working towards a single, reducing and will continue to reduce air technological approaches generally
nationwide program for heavy-duty toxics from light-duty vehicles. These already in use in the Tier 2 vehicle fleet
OBD. Since that time, California has include our reformulated gasoline (RFG) to meet the stringent standards at 75° F.
established their heavy-duty OBD program, our Supplemental Federal Test Second, we believe that harmonization
program, which will begin Procedure (SFTP) standards, our of evaporative emission standards with
implementation in 2010. We expect the national low emission vehicle program California would prevent backsliding by
Agency’s program will also begin in the (NLEV), and, most recently, our Tier 2 codifying current industry practices.
2010 time frame. These requirements motor vehicle emissions standards and Sections VI.B.1 and VI.B.2, below,
would help ensure that the emission gasoline sulfur control requirements.180 provide our rationale for proposing new
reductions we projected in the 2007 While these vehicle programs were put cold temperature and evaporative
rulemaking for heavy-duty engines in place primarily to reduce ambient controls and describe the detailed
occur in-use. concentrations of criteria pollutants and provisions of our proposal. We request
2. Standards for Small SI Engines their precursors (NOX, VOC, CO, and comment on all aspects of these
PM), they have reduced and will proposals and encourage commenters to
We are developing a proposal for continue to significantly reduce light-
Small SI engines (those typically used provide detailed rationales and
duty vehicle emissions of air toxics. For supporting data where possible.
in lawn and garden equipment) and example, there are numerous chemicals
recreational marine engines. This Aside from these proposed standards,
that make up total VOC emissions, we continue to believe that the
proposal is being developed in response including several gaseous toxics (e.g.,
to Section 428 of the Omnibus remaining Tier 2 exhaust emission
benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, standards (i.e., those that apply over the
Appropriations Bill for 2004, which and acetaldehyde). These toxics are all
requires EPA to propose regulations standard Federal Test Procedure at
reduced by VOC emissions standards. It temperatures between 68° F and 86° F)
under Clean Air Act section 213 for new is the stringent control of hydrocarbons
nonroad spark-ignition engines under represent the greatest emissions
in particular that results in stringent reductions achievable as required under
50 horsepower. We plan to propose control of gaseous toxics. There are no
standards that would further reduce the Clean Air Act section 202(l). We
vehicle-based technologies of which we therefore are not proposing further
emissions for these nonroad categories, are aware that reduce these air toxics
and we anticipate that the new emission reductions from these
individually. vehicles. (Please see section VI.D for
standards would provide significant At the time of our 2001 MSAT rule,
further reductions in HC (and VOC- further discussion.)
we had recently finalized the Tier 2
based toxics) emissions. 3. Cold Temperature Effects on
Emission Levels
179 69 FR 39276, June 29, 2004.

3. Standards for Locomotive and Marine 180 Unless otherwise noted, we use ‘‘light-duty
Engines vehicles’’ or ‘‘vehicles’’ to generally refer to
a. How Does Temperature Affect
In addition, we are planning to passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks such as sport Emissions?
utility vehicles (SUVs) and pick-ups, and medium-
propose more stringent standards for duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) which includes
With the possible exception of high-
large diesel engines used in locomotive larger SUVs and passenger vans up to 10,000 load operation, Tier 2 gasoline-powered
and marine applications, as discussed in pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. vehicles emit the overwhelming
majority of hydrocarbon emissions in compared to emissions at the 68–86° F recent Tier 2 program is primarily
the first few minutes of operation testing temperatures used in the FTP. designed to reduce ozone, the cold CO
following a cold start (i.e., starting the Data also indicate that HC and direct requirement was enacted to address
vehicles after the engine has stabilized PM emissions correlate fairly well as exceedances of the national ambient air
to the ambient temperatures, such as temperature changes and that some quality standards (NAAQS) for CO,
overnight). This is true at all cold start direct PM emissions reductions can be which were mostly occurring during the
temperatures, and the general trend is expected when VOCs are reduced. Also, cold weather months. While the cold
that hydrocarbon emissions from a technological standpoint, we can CO standard was considered
progressively increase as engine start expect reductions in PM as challenging at its introduction,
temperatures decrease. The level of manufacturers reduce over-fueling at manufacturers quickly developed
hydrocarbon emissions produced by the cold temperatures for NMHC control. emission control strategies and today
engine will vary with start temperature, Although section 202(l) deals with comply with the standard with
engine hardware design and most control of air toxics, and not criteria generally large compliance margins.
importantly, engine management pollutants like PM, this co-benefit of This indicates that manufacturers do in
control strategies. Furthermore, due to cold temperature control is significant. fact have experience with emission
the heavy dependence on the control strategies at colder temperatures.
b. What Are the Current Emissions Under the Low Emission Vehicle
aftertreatment system to perform the
Control Requirements? (LEV) programs, California implemented
main emission reducing functions, any
delayed or non-use of emission controls There are several requirements stringent emissions standards for a 50°
(hardware or software) will further currently in place that have resulted in F FTP test condition in addition to
increase the amount of hydrocarbon significant NMHC reductions and stringent 75° F standards. By creating a
emissions emitted from the vehicle provided experience with control unique 50° F standard, California
following the cold start. strategies that apply across a broad ensures that emission control strategies
Elevated hydrocarbon levels at cold range of in-use driving conditions, successfully used at 75° F are also
temperatures, specifically, the non- including cold temperatures. These utilized at the slightly cooler
methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) portion requirements include the Tier 2 temperatures that encompass a larger
of total hydrocarbons (THC), also standards, the Supplemental Federal range of California’s expected climates.
indicate higher emissions of gaseous air Test Procedure (SFTP) standards, the The 50° F non-methane organic gases
toxics. A detailed description of the cold temperature carbon monoxide (CO) (NMOG) standards are directly
relationship between NMHC and air standard, and the California 50° F proportional to the 75° F certification
toxics can be found in Chapter 2 of the hydrocarbon standard. standard; that is, they are two times the
RIA. Recent EPA research studies 181 on The Tier 2 program (and, before that, 75° F standard. These standards have
Tier 2 gasoline vehicles, and past EPA the NLEV program) contains stringent resulted in proportional emissions
studies 182 on older generation gasoline new standards for light-duty vehicles improvements at 50° F for vehicles
vehicles, demonstrate that many air that have resulted in significant certified to the California standards, as
toxics (e.g., benzene) are a relatively hydrocarbon reductions. To meet these observed in the manufacturer
constant fraction of NMHC. This standards, vehicle manufacturers have certification data. Manufacturers have
relationship is observed regardless of responded with emissions control met the standards and have successfully
vehicle type, NMHC emissions level, or hardware and control strategies that obtained these proportional
temperature. The relationship remains have very effectively minimized improvements at 50° F by implementing
relatively constant for different vehicles emissions, particularly immediately the same emission control strategies
with different levels of NMHC following the vehicle start-up. In developed for 75° F requirements.
emissions, and for the same vehicle at addition, the SFTP rule (effective
beginning in model year 2001) c. Opportunities for Additional Control
colder temperatures. Therefore, it can be
concluded that reductions in NMHC significantly expanded the area of As emissions standards have become
will result in proportional reductions in operation where stringent emission more stringent from Tier 1 to NLEV, and
gaseous air toxics which are control was required, by adding a high now to Tier 2, manufacturers have
components of HC. These observations load/speed cycle (US06) and an air concentrated primarily on emissions
and findings indicate that controlling conditioning cycle (SC03). Vehicle performance just after the start of the
NMHC is an effective approach to manufacturers responded with engine in order to further reduce
reducing toxics which are a component additional control strategies across a emissions. To comply with stringent
of NMHC, including benzene emissions. broader range of in-use driving hydrocarbon emission standards at 75°
In addition to control of air toxics, conditions to successfully meet SFTP F, manufacturers developed new
another benefit of regulating NMHC at requirements. emission control strategies and practices
cold temperatures is reductions in We also have cold temperature carbon that resulted in significant emissions
particulate matter (PM). PM is a criteria monoxide (CO) standards which began reductions at that start temperature. For
pollutant and for gasoline-fueled in model year 1994 for light-duty California, the LEV II program contains
vehicles is an emerging area of interest vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks a standard at 50° F (as just explained),
on which we are continuing to collect (LDTs).183 This program requires which essentially requires proportional
data (see sections III.E and IV.F for more manufacturers to comply with a 20° F control of hydrocarbon emissions down
details on PM). We have limited data CO standard. The 20° F cold CO test to that temperature. On the national
indicating that PM emissions can be replicates the 75° F FTP drive cycle, but level, even though there is no explicit
significantly higher at cold temperatures at the colder temperature. While the requirement, we expected that
proportional reductions in hydrocarbon

181 ‘‘VOC/PM Cold Temperature Characterization 183 57 FR 31888 ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from emissions would occur at other colder
and Interior Climate Control Emissions/Fuel New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle start temperatures—including the 20° F
Economy Impact,’’ Volume I and II, October 2005. Engines: Cold Temperature Carbon Monoxide
182 ‘‘Characterization of Emissions from Emissions from 1994 and Later Model Year
Cold CO test point—as a result of the
Malfunctioning Vehicles fueled with Oxygenated Gasoline-Fueled Light-Duty Vehicles and Light- more stringent NLEV and Tier 2
Gasoline-Ethanol (E10) Fuel,’’ Part I, II and III. Duty Trucks’’, Final Rule, July 17, 1992. standards. We believe that there is no
engineering reason why proportional across almost its entire vehicle lines the Cold CO test, which already requires
control should not be occurring on a (including vehicles up to 5665 GVWR), hydrocarbon measurement.188
widespread basis. further supporting that proportional The separate fleet average standards
However, reported annual control is feasible. are proposed to address challenges
manufacturer certification results related to vehicle weight. We examined
(discussed in the next paragraph) B. What Cold Temperature the certification data from interim non-
indicate that for many engine families, Requirements Are We Proposing? Tier 2 vehicles (i.e., vehicles not yet
very little improvement in hydrocarbon 1. NMHC Exhaust Emissions Standards phased in to the final Tier 2 program,
emissions was realized at the colder 20° but meeting interim standards
F Cold CO test conditions, despite the We are proposing a set of standards established by Tier 2), and we
improved emission control systems that will achieve proportional NMHC determined that there was a general
designed for the vehicle under normal control from the 75° F Tier 2 standards trend of increasing hydrocarbon levels
75° F test conditions. Thus although all to the 20° F test point. The proposed with heavier GVWR vehicles. Heavier
vehicle manufacturers have been highly standard would achieve the greatest vehicles generally produce higher levels
successful at reducing emissions at the degree of hydrocarbon emissions of emissions for several reasons. First,
required FTP start temperature range, in reductions feasible by fully utilizing the added weight results in additional work
general, they do not appear to be substantial existing emission control required to accelerate the vehicle mass.
capitalizing on NMHC emission control hardware required to meet Tier 2 This generally results in higher
strategies and technologies at lower standards. We believe these standards emissions, particularly early in the test
temperatures. would be achievable through calibration right after engine start-up. Second, the
Certification reports submitted by and software control strategies on Tier design of these vehicle emission control
manufacturers for recent model years of 2 level vehicles without use of systems may incorporate designs for
light duty vehicles in fact show a sharp additional hardware. The proposed heavy work (i.e., trailer towing) that
rise in hydrocarbon 184 emissions at 20° standards are shown in Table VI.B–1. may put them at some disadvantage at
F when compared to the reported 75° F 20° F cold starts. For example, the
hydrocarbon emission levels. Any rise TABLE VI.B–1.—PROPOSED 20° F catalyst may be located further away
in hydrocarbon emissions, specifically FTP EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS from the engine so it is protected from
NMHC, will result in proportional rise high exhaust temperatures. This catalyst
in VOC-based air toxics 185. While some NMHC placement may delay the warm-up of
sales-
increase in NMHC emissions can be weighted the catalyst, especially at colder
expected simply due to combustion Vehicle GVWR and category fleet aver- temperatures. Therefore, we believe a
limitations of gasoline engines at colder age stand- standard that is higher than the 0.3
temperatures, the reported levels of ard (grams/ g/mile level proposed for vehicles below
mile)
hydrocarbon emissions seem to indicate 6,000 lbs GVWR, is what is technically
a significantly diminished use of ≤ 6000 lbs: Light-duty vehicles feasible for heavier vehicles. The
hydrocarbon emissions controls (LDV) & Light light-duty proposed 0.5 g/mile standard would
occurring at colder temperatures. For trucks (LLDT) ........................ 0.3 apply for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR,
example, on recent Tier 2 certified > 6000 lbs: Heavy light-duty which includes both HLDTs (6000 lbs to
vehicles, the reported 20° F trucks (HLDT) up to 8,500 8500 lbs) and MDPVs.
hydrocarbon levels on average were 10 lbs & Medium-duty pas- We are proposing the sales-weighted
senger vehicles (MDPV) up fleet average approach because it
to 12 times higher than the equivalent
to 10,000 lbs ......................... 0.5
vehicle’s measured 75° F hydrocarbon achieves the greatest degree of emission
levels. Some vehicles which were control feasible for Tier 2 vehicles,
We are proposing two separate sales-
certified to more stringent Tier 2 bins while allowing manufacturers flexibility
weighted fleet average NMHC levels: (1)
(bins 2, 3, and 4) demonstrated 20° F to certify different vehicle groups to
0.3 g/mile for vehicles at or below 6,000
hydrocarbon levels no different than different levels and thus providing both
pounds GVWR and (2) 0.5 g/mile for
less stringent Tier 2 bins (bins 5, 6, 7, lower cost and feasible lead times. We
vehicles over 6,000 pounds, including
and 8), likewise suggesting no believe this is an appropriate approach
MDPVs.186 The new standard would not
discernable attempt to use the 75° F because the base Tier 2 program is also
require additional certification testing
hydrocarbon controls at the 20° F based on emissions averaging, and will
beyond what is required today with
temperature. On the other hand, in some result in a mix of emissions control
‘‘worst case’’ model selection of a
select cases, individual vehicles did strategies across the fleet that would
durability test group.187 NMHC
demonstrate proportional improvements have varying cold temperature
emissions would be measured during
in hydrocarbon emission results at 20° capabilities. These capabilities won’t be
F relative to their 75° F results, fully understood until manufacturers go
186 Tier 2 created the medium-duty passenger
confirming our belief that proportional vehicle (MDPV) category to include larger complete
through the process of evaluating each
control is feasible and indeed is passenger vehicles, such as SUVs and vans, with a Tier 2 package for cold temperature
occasionally practiced. One GVWR of 8,501–10,000 pounds GVWR. Large pick- emissions control potential. Also, Tier 2
manufacturer’s certification results ups above 8,500 pounds are not included in the is still being phased in and some Tier
MDPV category but are included in the heavy-duty
reflected proportional improvements vehicle category.
2 vehicle emissions control packages are
187 The existing cold FTP test procedures are still being developed. A fleet average
184 Most certification 20° F hydrocarbon levels are
specified in 40 CFR Subpart C. In the proposed rule provides manufacturers with flexibility
reported as THC, but NMHC accounts for for fuel economy labeling, recently signed on to balance challenging vehicle families
approximately 95% of THC as seen in results with January 10, 2006 (71, FR 5426, February 1, 2006),
both THC and NMHC levels reported. This
with ones that more easily achieve the
EPA is seeking comment on the issue of requiring
relationship also is confirmed in EPA test programs manufacturers to run the heater and/or defroster standards.
supporting this rule-making. while conducting the cold FTP test. As discussed
185 ‘‘VOC/PM Cold Temperature Characterization in the fuel economy labeling proposed rule, we do 188 40 CFR Subpart C, § 86.244–94 requires the
and Interior Climate Control Emissions/Fuel not believe this requirement would have a measurement of all pollutants measured over the
Economy Impact’’, Volume I and II, October 2005. significant impact on emissions. FTP except NOX.
There are several ways fleet averaging section, but that none of these potential In addition, a 20° F cold hydrocarbon
can work. In Tier 2, we established bins technologies performs markedly better requirement has been in place in Europe
of standards to which individual vehicle than any other. Moreover, as explained since approximately the 2002 model
families were certified. Each bin in section VI.D, we do not believe that year.189 Many manufacturers currently
contains a NOX standard, and these NOX additional reductions would be feasible have common vehicle models offered in
standards are then sales-weighted to without significant changes in Tier 2 Europe and the U.S. market. While the
demonstrate compliance with the technology, and we are not yet in a European standard is over a different
corporate average NOX standard. In position to fully evaluate the drive cycle, unique strategies have been
other emissions control programs, such achievability of standards based on such developed to comply with this standard.
as the highway motorcycle program and technologies. We thus are not In fact, when the new European cold
the highway and nonroad heavy-duty considering more stringent cold hydrocarbon standard was implemented
engine programs, we have established a temperature NMHC standards. We in conjunction with a new 75° F
Family Emissions Limit (FEL) structure. request comment on our analysis of the standard (Euro4), many manufacturers
In this approach, manufacturers feasibility of the proposed standards. responded by implementing NLEV level
establish individual FELs for each group hardware and supplementing this
a. Currently Available Emission Control
of vehicles certified. These FELs serve hardware with advanced cold start
Technologies
as the standard for each individual emission control strategies. Although
group, and the FELs are averaged We believe that the cold temperature we are proposing a sales-weighted fleet
together on a sales-weighted basis to NMHC standards being proposed today average standard, the European standard
demonstrate overall compliance with for gasoline-fueled vehicles are is a fixed standard that cannot be
the standards. For the proposed new challenging but within the reach of Tier exceeded by any vehicle model. Like the
cold temperature NMHC standards, we 2 level emission control technologies. standard we are proposing, Europe also
are proposing to use the FEL-based Our proposed determination of has made distinctions in the level of the
approach. We believe the FEL approach feasibility is based on the emission standard reflecting that heavier weight
adds flexibility and should lead to cost- control hardware and strategies that are vehicles cannot achieve as stringent a
effective improvements in vehicle already in use today on Tier 2 vehicles. standard. Those manufacturers with
emissions performance. The FEL These emission control technologies are European models shared with the U.S.
approach is discussed further in Section successfully used to meet the stringent market have the opportunity to leverage
VI.B.4 below. Tier 2 standards for HC at the FTP their European models or divisions in
We are proposing to apply the new temperature range of 68° F to 86° F, but an attempt to transfer the emission
cold temperature NMHC standards to generally are not fully used or activated control technologies that are used today
Tier 2 gasoline-fueled vehicles. We are at colder temperatures. As discussed in for 20° F hydrocarbon control.
not proposing to apply the standards to section VI.D, we are not proposing There are several different approaches
diesel vehicles, alternative-fueled standards that would force changes to or strategies used in the vehicles that are
vehicles, or heavy-duty vehicles, in Tier 2 technology at this time. As achieving proportional improvements in
general, due to a lack of data on which discussed above, many current engine NMHC emissions at 20° F FTP. Several
to base standards. Section VI.B., below, families are already achieving emissions European models sold in the U.S.
provides a detailed discussion of levels at or below the proposed market that demonstrate excellent cold
applicability. emission standards (see RIA Chapter 5), hydrocarbon performance are utilizing
As discussed above, we are expecting while other engine families are at levels secondary air systems at the 20° F start
PM reductions at cold temperatures as greater than twice the proposed temperature. These secondary air
a result of the control strategies we standard. The only apparent reason for systems, sometimes called air pumps,
expect manufacturers to meet under the the difference is the failure of some inject ambient air into the exhaust
proposed cold temperature NMHC vehicles to use the Tier 2 control immediately after the cold start. This
standards. We may consider the need technologies at cold temperatures. performs additional combustion of
for a separate PM standard under CAA While manufacturers could always unburned hydrocarbons prior to the
section 202(a), as part of a future choose to use additional hardware to catalytic converter and also accelerates
rulemaking, to further ensure that PM facilitate compliance with the proposed the necessary heating of the catalytic
reductions occur under cold standard, many of the engine families converter. In the past and even recently,
temperature conditions. We also request already at levels below the proposed these systems have been used
comments on what testing challenges standard do not necessarily contain any extensively to improve hydrocarbon
exist for testing PM under cold unique enabling hardware. These performance at 75° F starts. As
conditions. We request that comments vehicles appear to achieve their results predicted in the Tier 2 Final Rule, a
be supported by data where possible. through mainly software and calibration portion of the Tier 2 fleet is being
We request comments on the level of control technologies. Thus, we believe equipped with secondary air systems in
the new standards and the averaging our proposed standards can be met by order to comply with Tier 2 standards.
approach we are proposing, and we urge the application of calibration and Some manufacturers that currently
commenters to include supporting software approaches similar to those have these systems available on their
information and data where possible. currently used at 50° F and 75° F, and vehicles have indicated that they are
we have estimated cost of control based simply not utilizing them at
2. Feasibility of the Proposed Standards on use of calibration and software temperatures below freezing due to past
We believe the proposed standards approaches. Estimated costs are engineering issues. The manufacturers
are feasible, based on our analysis of the provided in section IX below, and in
that are using secondary air at 20° F,

stringency of the standard provided Chapter 8 of the RIA. As described in mainly European manufacturers, have
below and the lead time and flexibilities section VI.B.2.c, our own feasibility indicated that these engineering
described in section VI.B.3. We believe testing of a vehicle over 6000 lbs GVWR
that the proposed standards could be achieved NMHC reductions consistent 189 European Union (EU) Type VI Test (¥7° C)
achieved using a number of the with the proposed standard without the required for new vehicle model certified as of 1/1/
technologies discussed in the following use of new hardware. 2002.
challenges have been addressed through typically even indicate little or no lead time and flexibility within the
design changes. The robustness of these deterioration over the life of the vehicle. program structure, which also
systems below freezing has also been The deterioration factors generated contribute to the feasibility of the
confirmed with the manufacturers and today by manufacturers are common proposed standards. Chapter 8 of the
with the suppliers of the secondary air across all required test cycles including RIA provides our cost estimations per
components.190 While not necessarily cold temperature testing. The standards vehicle and on a nationwide basis,
producing 20° F NMHC emission results we are proposing will have a full useful including capital and development
better than other available technologies, life of 120,000 miles, consistent with costs. We believe the estimated costs are
vehicles equipped with this technology Tier 2 standards. Additionally, reasonable and the proposal is cost
should be able to meet the proposed 20° manufacturers typically target effective, as provided in section IX,
F standard by capitalizing on this certification emission levels that below. Given the emission control
hardware. incorporate a 20% to 30% compliance strategies we expect manufacturers to
Manufacturers have also used several margin primarily to account for in-use utilize, we expect feasible
other strategies to successfully produce issues that may cause emissions implementation of technologies without
proportional improvements in variability. The 0.3 g/mile FEL standard a significant impact on vehicle noise,
hydrocarbon emissions at 20° F. These would leave adequate flexibility for energy consumption, or safety factors.
include lean limit fuel strategies, compliance margins and any emissions Although manufacturers would need to
elevated idle speeds, retarded spark deterioration concerns. See RIA Chapter employ new emissions control strategies
timing, and accelerated closed loop 5 for further discussion and details at cold temperatures, fundamental Tier
times. Some software design strategies regarding current certification levels. 2 vehicle hardware and designs are not
include fuel injection strategies detailed Given enough lead time, we believe expected to change. In addition, we are
in past Society of Automotive Engineers manufacturers would be able to develop providing necessary lead time for
(SAE) papers 191 that synchronize fuel control strategies for each of their manufacturers to identify and resolve
injection timing with engine intake widely varying product lines utilizing any related issues as part of overall
valve position to provide optimal fuel the approaches outlined above without vehicle development. We request
preparation. Spark delivery strategies fundamentally changing the design of comment on our analysis of the
have also been entertained that include the vehicles. feasibility of the proposed standards.
higher energy levels and even c. Feasibility and Test Programs for
redundant spark delivery to possibly 3. Standards Timing and Phase-in
Higher Weight Vehicles
complete additional combustion of a. Phase-In Schedule
unburned hydrocarbons. We expect that While a few of the heavier vehicles
achieved a standard similar to the EPA must consider lead time in
software and/or calibration changes,
lighter weight class, there were limited determining the greatest degree of
such as previously described, will
certification results available for Tier 2 emission reduction achievable under
generally perform as well or better than
compliant vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR section 202(l) of the CAA. We are
added hardware. This is because critical
(due to the later Tier 2 phase-in proposing to begin implementing the
hardware such as the catalyst may not
schedule for these vehicles). To further standard in the 2010 model year (MY)
be immediately usable directly
support the feasibility of the standard for LDVs/LLDTs and 2012 MY for
following the cold start. See RIA
for heavier vehicles, we conducted a HLDTs/MDPVs. The proposed
Chapter 5 for further discussion.
feasibility study for Tier 2 vehicles over implementation schedule, in Table
b. Feasibility Considering Current 6000 lbs GVWR to assess their VI.B–2, begins 3 model years after Tier
Certification Levels, Deterioration and capabilities with typical Tier 2 2 phase-in is complete for both vehicle
Compliance Margin hardware. We were able to reduce HC classes. Manufacturers would
Of the vehicles that were certified to emissions for one vehicle with models demonstrate compliance with phase-in
Tier 2 and demonstrated proportional above and below 6,000 pounds GVWR requirements through sales projections,
improvements in hydrocarbon by between 60–70 percent, depending similar to Tier 2. The 3-year period
emissions, approximately 20% of on control strategy, from a baseline level between completion of the Tier 2 phase-
vehicles below 6,000 pounds GVWR of about 1.0 g/mile. The results are well in and the start of the new cold NMHC
had certification levels in the range of within the 0.5 g/mile standard including standard should provide vehicle
two to three times the 75° F Tier 2 bin compliance margin, and we even manufacturers sufficient lead time to
5 full useful life standard (.18 g/mile to achieved a 0.3 g/mile level on some design their compliance strategies and
.27 g/mile). These reported hydrocarbon tests. We achieved these reductions determine the product development
levels are from Cold CO test results for through recalibration without the use of plans necessary to meet the new
certification test vehicles with typically new hardware. The findings from the standards. We believe that this phase-in
only 4,000 mile aged systems, without study are provided in detail in the RIA. schedule is needed to allow
full useful life deterioration applied. We believe the proposed standards manufacturers to develop compliant
Due to rapid advances in emission are feasible while at the same time vehicles without significant disruptions
control hardware technology, providing the greatest degree of in the product development cycles.
deterioration factors used today by emission reduction achievable through Also, for vehicles above 6,000 GVWR,
manufacturers to demonstrate full the application of available technology. section 202(a) of the Act requires that
useful life compliance are very low and Our feasibility assessment, provided four years of lead time be provided to
above, is based on our analysis of the manufacturers.
stringency of the standard given current We recognize that the new cold
190 Memo to docket ‘‘Discussions Regarding
Secondary Air System Usage at 20° F with emission levels at certification temperature standards we are proposing
European Automotive Manufacturers and Suppliers (considering deterioration, compliance could represent a significant new
of Secondary Air Systems,’’ December 2005. margin, and vehicle weight); available challenge for manufacturers and
191 Meyer, Robert and John B. Heywood, ‘‘Liquid
Fuel Transport Mechanisms into the Cylinder of a

emission control techniques; and our development time will be needed. The
Firing Port-Injected SI Engine During Start-up,’’ own feasibility testing. In addition, issue of NMHC control at cold
SAE 970865, 1997. sections VI.B.3–6 describe the proposed temperatures was not anticipated by
many entities, and research and certification will only require one within the durability test group. We
development to address the issue is vehicle model of a durability group to believe a phase-in allows the program to
consequently at a rudimentary stage. be tested, manufacturers must do begin sooner than would otherwise be
Lead time is therefore necessary before development on all vehicle feasible.
compliance can be demonstrated. While combinations to ensure full compliance
TABLE VI.B–2.—PROPOSED PHASE-IN SCHEDULE FOR 20 °F NMHC STANDARD BY MODEL YEAR

Vehicle GVWR (category) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
≤ 6000 lbs (LDV/LLDT) .................................................... 25% 50% 75% 100% .................... ....................
> 6000 lbs HLDT and MDPV ........................................... .................... .................... 25% 50% 75% 100%
In considering a phase-in period, We request comments on the to the standards early, while ensuring
manufacturers have raised concerns that proposed start date and duration of the that significant numbers of vehicles are
a rapid phase-in schedule would lead to phase-in schedule. We also request introduced during each year of the
a significant increase in the demand for comment on allowing a volume-based alternative phase-in schedule.
their cold testing facilities, which could offset during the phase-in period for Manufacturers would multiply their
necessitate substantial capital cases where manufacturers voluntarily percent phase-in by the number of years
investment in new cold test facilities to certify heavy-duty vehicles above 8,500 the vehicles are phased in prior to the
meet development needs. This is pound GVWR to the proposed cold second full phase-in year. The sum of
because manufacturers would need to temperature standards. This may the calculation would need to be greater
use their cold testing facilities not only provide incentive for voluntary than or equal to 500, which is the sum
for certification but also for vehicle certification of these heavier vehicles. from the primary phase-in schedule
development. If vehicle development is (4*25 + 3*50 + 2*75 + 1*100=500). For
b. Alternative Phase-In Schedules
compressed into a narrow time window, example, the equation for LDVs/LLDTs
significant numbers of new facilities Alternative phase-in schedules would be as follows:
would be needed. Manufacturers were essentially credit the manufacturer for (6×API2008) + (5×API 2009) + (4×API 2010)
further concerned that investment in its early or accelerated efforts and allow + (3×API 2011) + (2×API 2012) +
new test facilities would be stranded at the manufacturer greater flexibility in (1×API 2013) ≥ 500%,
the completion of the initial subsequent years during the phase-in. Where:
development and phase-in period. By introducing vehicles earlier than
API is the anticipated phase-in
required, manufacturers would earn the
As stated earlier, durability test percentage for the referenced model
flexibility to make offsetting
groups may be large and diverse and year.
adjustments, on a vehicle-year basis, to
therefore require significant the phase-in percentages in later years. California used this approach to an
development effort and cold test facility Under these alternative schedules, alternative phase-in for the LEVII
usage for each model. Our proposed manufacturers would have to introduce program.192 It provides alternative
phase-in period accommodates test phase-in credit for both the number of
vehicles that meet or surpass the NHMC
facilities and work load concerns by vehicles phased in early and the number
average standards before they are
distributing these fleet phase-in of years the early phase-in occurs.
required to do so, or else introduce As described above, the final sum of
percentage requirements over a 4-year vehicles that meet or surpass the
period for each vehicle weight category. percentages for both LDVs/LDTs and
standard in greater quantities than HLDTs/MDPVs must equal or exceed
The staggered start dates for the phase- required.
in schedule between the two weight 500—the sum that results from a 25/50/
We are proposing that manufacturers
categories should further alleviate 75/100 percent phase-in. For example, a
may apply for an alternative phase-in
manufacturers’ concerns with needing 10/25/50/55/100 percent phase-in for
schedule that would still result in 100%
LDVs/LDTs that begins in 2009 will
to construct new test facilities. Some phase-in by 2013 and 2015,
have a sum of 510 percent and is
manufacturers may still determine that respectively, for the lighter and heavier acceptable. A 10/20/40/70/100 percent
upgrades to their current cold facility weight categories. As with the primary phase-in that begins the same year has
are needed to handle increased phase-in, manufacturers would base an a sum of 490 percent and is not
workload. Some manufacturers have alternative phase-in on their projected acceptable.
indicated that they would simply add sales estimates. An alternate phase-in To ensure that significant numbers of
additional shifts to their facility work schedule submitted by a manufacturer LDVs/LDTs are introduced in the 2010
schedules that are not in place today. would be subject to EPA approval and time frame (2012 for HLDTs/MDPVs),
Some manufacturers will already meet would need to provide the same manufacturers would not be permitted
the first-year requirement based on emissions reductions as the primary to use alternative phase-in schedules
current certification reporting, phase-in schedule. We propose that the that delay the implementation of the
essentially providing an additional year alternative phase-in could not be used requirements, even if the sum of the
for distributing the anticipated to delay full implementation past the phase-in percentages ultimately meets
development test burden for the last year of the primary phase-in or exceeds 500. Such a situation could
remaining fleet. The 4-year phase-in schedule (2013 for LDVs/LDTs and 2015
occur if a manufacturer delayed

period provides ample time for vehicle for HLDTs/MDPVs). implementation of its compliant
manufacturers to develop a compliance An alternative phase-in schedule production until 2011 and began an 80/
schedule that is coordinated with their would be acceptable if it passes a 85/100 percent phase-in that year for
future product plans and projected specific mathematical test. We have
product sales volumes of the different designed the test to provide 192 Title 13, California Code of Regulations,
vehicle models. manufacturers a benefit from certifying Section 1961(b)(2).
LDVs/LDTs. To protect against this from an NMHC emissions standpoint technological feasibility and cost
possibility, we are proposing that for would be tested for certification. effectiveness of the proposed standard,
any alternative phase-in schedule, a For the new standard, manufacturers ABT allows the standard to be attainable
manufacturer’s phase-in would declare a family emission limit earlier than might otherwise be possible.
percentages*years factor from the 2010 (FEL) for each group either at, above, or Credits may be generated prior to,
and earlier model years sum to at least below the fleet averaging standard. The during, and after the phase-in period.
100 (2012 and earlier for HLDTs/ FEL would be based on the certification Manufacturers could certify LDVs/
MDPVs). The early phase-in also NMHC level, including deterioration LLDTs to standards as early as the 2008
encourages the early introduction of factor, plus the compliance margin model year (2010 for HLDTs/MDPVs)
vehicles meeting the new standard or manufacturers feel is needed to ensure and receive early NMHC credits for their
the introduction of such vehicles in in-use compliance. The FEL becomes efforts. They could use credits generated
greater quantity than required. This the standard for each group, and each under these ‘‘early banking’’ provisions
would achieve early emissions group could have a different FEL so long after the phase-in begins in 2010 (2012
reductions and provide an opportunity as the projected sales-weighted average for HLDTs/MDPVs).
to gain experience in meeting the level met the fleet average standard at
standards. time of certification. Like the standard, a. How Credits Are Calculated
Phase-in schedules, in general, add the certification resolution for the FEL The corporate average for each weight
little flexibility for manufacturers with would be one decimal point. This FEL class would be calculated by computing
limited product offerings because a approach would be similar to having a sales-weighted average of the NMHC
manufacturer with only one or two test bins in 0.1 g/mile intervals, with no levels to which each FEL was certified.
groups cannot take full advantage of a upper limit. Similar to a bin approach, As discussed above, manufacturers
25/50/75/100 percent or similar phase- manufacturers would compute a sales- group vehicles into durability groups or
in. Therefore, consistent with the weighted average for the NMHC test groups and establish an FEL for
recommendations of the Small emissions at the end of the model year each group. This FEL becomes the
Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel), and then determine credits generated or standard for that group. Consistent with
which we discuss in more detail later in needed based on how much the average FEL practices in other programs,
section VI.E, manufacturers meeting is above or below the standard. manufacturers may opt to select an FEL
EPA’s definition of ‘‘small volume above the test level. The FEL would be
5. Credit Program
manufacturer’’ would be exempt from used in calculating credits. The number
the phase-in schedules and would be As described above, we are proposing of credits or debits would then be
required to simply comply with the that manufacturers average the NMHC determined using the following
final 100% compliance requirement. emissions of their vehicles and comply equation:
This provision would only apply to with a corporate average NMHC
standard. In addition, we are proposing Credits or Debits = (Standard ¥ Sales
small volume manufacturers and not to
that when a manufacturer’s average weighted average of FELs to nearest
small test groups of larger
NMHC emissions of vehicles certified tenth) × Actual Sales
manufacturers.
and sold falls below the corporate If a manufacturer’s average was below
4. Certification Levels average standard, it could generate the 0.3 g/mi corporate average standard
Manufacturers typically certify credits that it could save for later use for LDVs/LDTs, credits would be
groupings of vehicles called durability (banking) or sell to another generated (below 0.5 g/mi for HLDTs/
groups and test groups, and they have manufacturer (trading). Manufacturers MDPVs). These credits could then be
some discretion on what vehicle models would consume any credits if their used in a future model year when its
are placed in each group. A durability corporate average NMHC emissions average NMHC might exceed the 0.3 or
group is the basic classification used by were above the applicable standard for the 0.5 standard. Conversely, if the
manufacturers to group vehicles to the weight class. manufacturer’s fleet average was above
demonstrate durability and predict EPA views the proposed averaging, the corporate average standard, banked
deterioration. A test group is a basic banking, and trading (ABT) provisions credits could offset the difference, or
classification within a durability group as an important element in setting credits could be purchased from another
used to demonstrate compliance with emission standards reflecting the manufacturer.
FTP 75° F standards.193 For Cold CO, greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable, considering factors b. Credits Earned Prior to Primary
manufacturers certify on a durability
including cost and lead time. If there are Phase-in Schedule
group basis, whereas for 75° F FTP
testing, manufacturers certify on a test vehicles that will be particularly costly We propose that manufacturers could
group basis. In keeping with the current or have a particularly hard time coming earn early emissions credits if they
cold CO standards, we are proposing to into compliance with the standard, a introduce vehicles that comply with the
require testing on a durability group manufacturer can adjust the compliance new standards early and the corporate
basis for the cold temperature NMHC schedule accordingly, without special average of those vehicles is below the
standard. We also propose to allow delays or exceptions having to be applicable standard. Early credits could
manufacturers the option of certifying written into the rule. This is an be earned starting in 2008 for vehicles
on the smaller test group basis, as is important flexibility especially given meeting the 0.3 g/mile standard and in
allowed under current cold CO the current uncertainty regarding 2010 for vehicles meeting the 0.5 g/mile
standards. Testing on a test group basis optimal technology strategies for any standard. These emissions credits
would require more tests to be run by given vehicle line. In addition, ABT generated prior to the start of the phase-
manufacturers but may provide them allows us to consider a more stringent in could be used both during and after
with more flexibility within the emission standard than might otherwise the phase-in period and have all the
averaging program. In either case, the be achievable under the CAA, since same properties as credits generated by
worst case vehicle within the group ABT reduces the cost and improves the vehicles subject to the primary phase-in
technological feasibility of achieving the schedule. As previously mentioned, we
193 40 CFR 86.1803–01. standard. By enhancing the are also proposing that manufacturers
may apply for an alternative phase-in of that next model year, the deficit emissions well above the 0.5 g/mile
schedule for vehicles that are would need to be covered with an level, based on the additional weight of
introduced early. The alternative phase- appropriate number of credits that the the vehicle. We request comment on
in and early credits provisions would manufacturer generated or purchased. this approach, as well as others for
operate independent of one another. Any remaining deficit would be subject voluntary certification and credit
to an enforcement action. generation.
c. How Credits Can Be Used To prevent deficits from being carried It may be possible to establish a
A manufacturer could use credits in forward indefinitely, we propose that voluntary standard above 0.5 g/mile for
any future year when its corporate manufacturers would not be permitted purposes of generating credits, but we
average was above the standard, or it to run a deficit for two years in a row. would need data on which to base this
could trade (sell) the credits to other We believe that it is reasonable to level of the standard. Suggestions on an
manufacturers. Because of separate sets provide this flexibility to carry a deficit appropriate level of a voluntary
of standards for the different weight for one year given the uncertainties that standard are welcomed, as well as any
categories, we are proposing that manufacturers face with changing data that support such a
manufacturers compute their corporate market forces and consumer recommendation. Comments on testing
NMHC averages separately for LDV/ preferences, especially during the protocols, such as use of the vehicle’s
LLDTs and HLDTs/MDPVs. Credit introduction of new technologies. These adjusted loaded vehicle weight (ALVW)
exchanges between LDVs/LLDTs and uncertainties can make it hard for or loaded vehicle weight (LVW), are also
HLDTs/MDPVs would be allowed. This manufacturers to accurately predict encouraged. We believe such a
will provide added flexibility for fuller- sales trends of different vehicle models. voluntary program could provide
line manufacturers who may have the significant data that would help us
greatest challenge in meeting the new f. Voluntary Heavy-Duty Vehicle Credit
evaluate the feasibility of a future
standards due to their wide disparity of Program
standard for these vehicles.
vehicle types/weights and emissions In addition to MDPV requirements in
levels. Tier 2, we also currently have chassis- 6. Additional Vehicle Cold Temperature
based emissions standards for other Standard Provisions
d. Discounting and Unlimited Life complete heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., large We request comments on all of the
Credits would allow manufacturers a pick-ups and cargo vans) above 8,500 following proposed provisions.
way to address unexpected shifts in pound GVWR. However, these
their sales mix. The NMHC emission a. Applicability
standards do not include cold
standards in this proposed program are temperature CO standards. As noted We are proposing to apply the new
quite stringent and do not present easy below in section VI.B.6.a, we are not cold temperature standards to all
opportunities to generate credits. proposing to apply cold temperature gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles and
Therefore, we are not proposing to NMHC standards to heavy-duty gasoline MDPVs sold nationwide. While we have
discount unused credits. Further, the vehicles due to a current lack of significant amounts of data on which to
degree to which manufacturers invest emissions data on which to base such base our proposals for gasoline-fueled
the resources to achieve extra NMHC standards. We plan to revisit the need light-duty vehicles, we have very little
reductions provides true value to the for and feasibility of standards as data data for light-duty diesels. For 75° F
manufacturer and the environment. We become available. FTP standards, the same set of standards
do not want to take measures to reduce During discussions with apply, but in the 20° F context we know
the incentive for manufacturers to bank manufacturers, we discussed a very little about diesel emissions due to
credits, nor do we want to take voluntary program for chassis-certified a lack of data. Currently, diesel vehicles
measures to encourage unnecessary complete heavy-duty vehicles. We are not subject to the cold CO standard,
credit use. Consequently we are not believe that there may be opportunities so there are no requirements to test
proposing that the NMHC credits would within the framework of a cold diesel vehicles at cold temperatures.
have a credit life limit. However, we are temperature NMHC program to allow for There are sound engineering reasons,
proposing that they only be used to emissions credits from chassis-certified however, to expect cold NMHC
offset deficits accrued with respect to heavy-duty vehicles above 8,500 pounds emissions for diesel vehicles to be as
the proposed 0.3/0.5 g/mile cold GVWR to be used to meet the proposed low as or even lower than the proposed
temperature standards. We request standards. It is possible that some standards. This is because diesel
comment on the need for discounting of control strategies developed for meeting engines operate under leaner air-fuel
credits or credit life limits and what cold NMHC emissions standards could mixtures compared to gasoline engines,
those discount rates or limits, if any, also be applied to these vehicles above and therefore have fewer engine-out
should be. 8,500 pounds GVWR. NMHC emissions due to the abundance
One approach would be to allow of oxygen and more complete
e. Deficits Could Be Carried Forward manufacturers to certify heavy-duty combustion. A very limited amount of
When a manufacturer has an NMHC vehicles voluntarily to the 0.5 g/mile confidential manufacturer-furnished
deficit at the end of a model year—that cold NMHC standards proposed for information is consistent with this
is, its corporate average NMHC level is HLDTs/MDPVs. To the extent that engineering hypothesis. A
above the required corporate average heavy-duty vehicles achieve FELs below comprehensive assessment of
NMHC standard—we are proposing that the 0.5 g/mile standard, manufacturers appropriate standards for diesel vehicles
the manufacturer be allowed to carry could earn credits which could be would require a significant amount of
that deficit forward into the next model applied to any vehicle subject to the investigation and analysis of issues such
year. Such a carry-forward could only proposed standard. It is unclear, as feasibility and costs. This effort
occur after the manufacturer used any however, if this approach would would be better suited to a future
banked credits. If the deficit still existed provide a meaningful opportunity for rulemaking. Therefore, at this time, we
and the manufacturer chose not to, or credit generation, given the stringency are not proposing to apply the cold
was unable to, purchase credits, the of the standard. We would expect that NMHC standards to light-duty diesel
deficit could be carried over. At the end most heavy-duty vehicles would have vehicles. We will continue to evaluate
data for these vehicles as they enter the analyses, we are not proposing cold emission data for EPA evaluation to
fleet and will reconsider the need for temperature NMHC standards for these quantify any emission impact and
standards if data indicate that there may vehicles at this time. We request validity of the AECD.
be instances of high NMHC emissions comments and data on these vehicles
d. In-Use Standards for Vehicles
from diesels at cold temperatures. We and plan to revisit this issue when
sufficient data is available. Produced During Phase-In
have proposed cold temperature FTP
testing for diesels as part of the Fuel b. Useful Life As we have indicated, the standards
Economy Labeling rulemaking, we are proposing would be more
including NMHC measurement.194 This The ‘‘useful life’’ of a vehicle means challenging for some vehicles than for
testing data would allow us to assess the period of use or time during which others. With any new technology, or
NMHC certification type data over time. an emission standard applies to light- even with new calibrations of existing
However, this wouldn’t include duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.195 technology, there are risks of in-use
development testing manufacturers Consistent with the current definition of compliance problems that may not
would need to do in order to meet a new useful life in the Tier 2 regulations, for appear in the certification process. In-
diesel cold temperature standard. all LDVs/LDTs and HLDTs/MDPVs, we use compliance concerns may
In addition, there currently is no cold are proposing new full useful life discourage manufacturers from applying
CO testing requirement for alternative standards for cold temperature NMHC new calibrations or technologies. Thus,
fuel vehicles. There are little data upon standards. Given that we expect that it may be appropriate for the first few
which to evaluate NMHC emissions manufacturers will make calibration or years, for those vehicles most likely to
when operating on alternative fuels at software changes to existing Tier 2 require the greatest applications of
cold temperatures. For fuels such as technologies, it is reasonable for there to effort, to provide assurance to the
be the same useful life as for the Tier 2 manufacturers that they will not face
ethanol, it is difficult to develop a
standards themselves. For LDV/LLDT,
reasonable proposal due to a lack of fuel recall if they exceed standards in use by
the full useful life values would be
specifications, testing protocols, and a specified amount. Therefore, similar to
120,000 miles or 10 years, whichever
current test data. Other fuels such as the approach used in Tier 2, we are
comes first, and for HLDT/MDPV, full
methanol and natural gas pose similar proposing an in-use standard that is 0.1
useful life is 120,000 miles or 11 years,
uncertainty. Therefore, we are not g/mile higher than the certification FEL
whichever comes first.196
proposing a cold NMHC testing for any given test group for a limited
requirement for alternative fuel c. High Altitude number of model years.197 For example,
vehicles. We will continue to investigate We do not expect emissions to be a test group with a 0.2 g/mile FEL
these other technologies and request significantly different at high altitude would have an in-use standard of 0.3 g/
comment on standards for vehicles due to the use of common emissions mile. This would not change the FEL or
operating on fuels other than gasoline. control calibrations. Limited data averaging approaches and would only
We are proposing that flex-fuel submitted by a manufacturer suggest apply in cases where EPA tests vehicles
vehicles would still require certification that FTP emissions performance at high in-use to ensure emissions compliance.
to the applicable cold NMHC standard, altitude generally follows sea level We propose that the in-use standards
though only when operated on gasoline. performance. Furthermore, there are be available for the first few model years
For multi-fuel vehicles, manufacturers very limited cold temperature testing of sales after a test group meeting the
would need to submit a statement at the facilities at high altitudes. Therefore, new standards is introduced, according
time of certification that either confirms under normal circumstances, to a schedule that provides more years
the same control strategies used with manufacturers would not be required to for test groups introduced earlier in the
gasoline would be used when operating submit vehicle test data for high phase-in. This schedule provides
on ethanol, or that identifies any altitude. Instead, manufacturers would manufacturers with time to determine
differences as an Auxiliary Emission be required to submit an engineering the in-use performance of vehicles and
Control Device (AECD). Again, evaluation indicating that common learn from the earliest years of the
dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles, calibration approaches are utilized at program to help ensure that vehicles
including E–85 vehicles, would not be high altitude. Any deviation from sea introduced after the phase-in period
covered. level in emissions control practices meet the final standards in-use. It also
For heavy-duty gasoline-fueled would be required to be included in the assumes that once a test group is
vehicles, we have no data, but we would auxiliary emission control device certified to the new standards, it will be
expect a range of emissions performance (AECD) descriptions submitted by carried over to future model years. The
similar to that of lighter gasoline-fueled manufacturers at certification. tables below provide the proposed
trucks. Due to the lack of test data on Additionally, any AECD specific to high schedule for the availability of the in-
which to base feasibility and cost altitude would require engineering use standards.
TABLE VI.B–3.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE STANDARDS FOR LDVS/LLDTS

Model year of introduction 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Models years that the in-use standard is available for carry-over test
groups ................................................................................................... 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2011 2012 2013
194 ‘‘Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles; 195 40 CFR 86.1803–01. 197 ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy 196 40 CFR 86.1805–04. Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards
Estimates,’’ Proposed Rule, 71, FR 5426, February and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements’’, Final
1, 2006. Rule, 65 FR 6796, February 10, 2000.
TABLE VI.B–4.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE STANDARDS FOR HLDVS/MDPVS

Models years that the in-use standard is available for carry-over test 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
groups. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2013 2014 2015
7. Monitoring and Enforcement they have not generated. A averaging standard would occur through
Under the proposed programs, manufacturer that transferred credits it the vehicle’s certificate of conformity. A
manufacturers could either report that did not have would create an equivalent manufacturer’s certificate of conformity
they met the relevant corporate average number of debits that it would be would be conditioned upon compliance
standard in their annual reports to the required to offset by the reporting with the averaging provisions. The
Agency, or they could show via the use deadline for the same model year. certificate would be void ab initio if a
of credits that they have offset any Failure to cover these debits with manufacturer failed to meet the
exceedance of the corporate average credits by the reporting deadline would corporate average standard and did not
standard. Manufacturers would also be a violation of the conditions under obtain appropriate credits to cover their
report their credit balances or deficits. which EPA issued the certificate of shortfalls in that model year or in the
EPA would monitor the program. conformity, and nonconforming
subsequent model year (see proposed
As in Tier 2, the averaging, banking vehicles would not be covered by the
certificate. EPA would identify the deficit carryforward provision in section
and trading program would be enforced VI.B.5.e.). Manufacturers would need to
through the certificate of conformity nonconforming vehicles in the same
manner described above. track their certification levels and sales
that manufacturers must obtain in order unless they produced only vehicles
In the case of a trade that resulted in
to introduce any regulated vehicles into certified to NMHC levels below the
a negative credit balance that a
commerce.198 The certificate for each standard and did not plan to bank
manufacturer could not cover by the
test group would require all vehicles to credits.
reporting deadline for the model year in
meet the emissions level to which the
which the trade occurred, we propose to We request comments on the above
vehicles were certified, and would be
hold both the buyer and the seller liable. approach for compliance monitoring
conditioned upon the manufacturer
We believe that holding both parties and enforcement.
meeting the corporate average standard liable will induce the buyer to exercise
within the required time frame. If a diligence in assuring that the seller has C. What Evaporative Emissions
manufacturer failed to meet this or will be able to generate appropriate Standards Are We Proposing?
condition, the vehicles causing the credits and will help to ensure that
corporate average exceedance would be inappropriate trades do not occur. We are proposing to adopt a set of
considered to be not covered by the We are not proposing any new numerically more stringent evaporative
certificate of conformity for that engine compliance monitoring activities or emission standards for all light-duty
family. A manufacturer would be programs for vehicles. These vehicles vehicles, light-trucks, and medium-duty
subject to penalties on an individual would be subject to the certification passenger vehicles. The proposed
vehicle basis for sale of vehicles not testing provisions of the CAP2000 rule. standards are equivalent to California’s
covered by a certificate. We are not proposing to require LEV II standards, and these proposed
EPA would review the manufacturer’s manufacturer in-use testing to verify standards are shown in Table VI.C–1.
sales to designate the vehicles that compliance. There is no cold CO
caused the exceedance of the corporate The proposed standards would
manufacturer in-use testing requirement represent about a 20 to 50 percent
average standard. We would designate today (similarly, we do not require
as nonconforming those vehicles in reduction (depending on vehicle weight
manufacturer in-use testing for SCO3 class and type of test) in diurnal plus
those test groups with the highest standards under the SFTP program). As
certification emission values first, hot soak standards from the Tier 2
noted earlier, manufacturers have standards that will be in effect in the
continuing until a number of vehicles limited cold temperature testing
equal to the calculated number of years immediately preceding the
capabilities and we believe these
noncomplying vehicles as determined implementation of today’s proposed
facilities will be needed for product
above is reached. In a test group where standards.199 As with the current Tier 2
development and certification testing.
only a portion of vehicles would be evaporative emission standards, the
However, we have the authority to
deemed nonconforming, we would conduct our own in-use testing program proposed standards vary by vehicle
determine the actual nonconforming for exhaust emissions to ensure that weight class. The increasingly higher
vehicles by counting backwards from vehicles meet standards over their full standards for heavier weight class
the last vehicle produced in that test useful life. We will pursue remedial vehicles account for larger vehicle sizes
group. Manufacturers would be liable actions when substantial numbers of
for penalties for each vehicle sold that properly maintained and used vehicles 199 Diurnal emissions (or diurnal breathing losses)
is not covered by a certificate. fail any standard in-use. We also retain means evaporative emissions as a result of daily
We are proposing to condition the right to conduct Selective
temperature cycles or fluctuations for successive
certificates to enforce the requirements days of parking in hot weather. Hot soak emissions
Enforcement Auditing of new vehicles (or hot soak losses) are the evaporative emissions
that manufacturers not sell credits that at manufacturers’ facilities. from a parked vehicle immediately after turning off
The use of credits would not be the hot engine. For the evaporative emissions test
198 ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from New Motor procedure, diurnal and hot soak emissions are
Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards
permitted to address Selective measured in an enclosure commonly called the
and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements’’, Final Enforcement Auditing or in-use testing SHED (Sealed Housing for Evaporative
Rule, 65 FR 6797, February 10, 2000. failures. The enforcement of the Determination).
and fuel tanks (non-fuel and fuel

emissions).200
TABLE VI.C–1.—PROPOSED EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

[Grams of hydrocarbons per test]
Supplemental
3-day diurnal
Vehicle class 2-day diurnal
plus hot soak plus hot soak
LDVs .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.50 0.65

LLDTs .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.65 0.85
HLDTs .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.90 1.15
MDPVs ................................................................................................................................................................. 1.00 1.25
1. Current Controls and Feasibility of Also, in recent discussions, vehicles that achieve near zero
the Proposed Standards manufacturers have restated that they emissions (e.g., LDV evaporative
Evaporative emissions from light-duty plan to continue producing 50-state emission standards for both the 2-day
vehicles and trucks will represent about evaporative systems in the future. Based and 3-day diurnal plus hot soak tests are
35 percent of the light-duty VOC on this understanding, we do not project 0.35 grams/test, which are more
inventory and about 4 percent of the additional VOC or air toxics reductions stringent than proposed standards).206
benzene inventory in 2020. As from the evaporative standards we are The credits would include full ZEV
described earlier, we are proposing to proposing today.204 Also, we do not credit for a stored hydrogen fuel cell
reduce the level of the evaporative expect additional costs since we expect vehicle and 0.2 credits for (among other
emission standards applicable to that manufacturers will continue to categories for partial credit) a partial
diurnal and hot soak emissions from produce 50-state evaporative systems. zero emission vehicle (PZEV).207
these vehicles by about 20 to 50 percent. Therefore, harmonizing with Currently, only a fraction of California’s
These proposed standards are meant to California’s LEV–II evaporative certified vehicles (gasoline powered,
be effectively the same as the emission standards would be an ‘‘anti- hybrid, and compressed natural gas
evaporative emission standards in the backsliding’’ measure—that is, it would vehicles) meet California’s optional
California LEV II program. Although the prevent potential future backsliding as PZEV standards, but this number is
California program contains evaporative manufacturers pursue cost expected to increase in coming
emissions standards that appear more reductions.205 It would thus codify (i.e., years.208 209 These limited PZEV
stringent than EPA Tier 2 standards if lock in) the approach manufacturers vehicles require additional evaporative
one looks only at the level of the have already indicated they are taking emissions technology or hardware (e.g.,
standard, we believe they are essentially for 50-state evaporative systems. modifications to fuel tank and
equivalent because of differences in We believe this proposed action secondary canister) than we expect to be
testing requirements. For these same would be an important step to ensure needed for vehicles meeting the
reasons, some manufacturers likewise that the federal standards reflect the proposed standards. At this time, we
view the programs as similar in lowest possible evaporative emissions, need to better understand the
stringency. (See section VI.C.5 below for and it also would provide states with evaporative system modifications (i.e.,
further discussion of such test certainty that the emissions reductions technology, costs, lead time, etc.)
differences, e.g., test temperatures and we project to occur due to 50-state potentially needed for other vehicles in
fuel volatilities.) Thus, some compliance strategies will in fact occur. the fleet to meet PZEV-level standards
manufacturers have indicated that they In addition, the proposed standards will before we can rationally evaluate
will produce 50-state evaporative assure that manufacturers continue to whether to adopt more stringent
systems that meet both sets of standards capture the abilities of available fuel standards. For example, at this point we
(manufacturers sent letters indicating system materials to minimize cannot even determine whether the
this to EPA in 2000).201 202 203 In evaporative emissions. PZEV technologies could be used
addition, a review of recent model year We also considered the possibility of fleetwide or on only a limited set of
certification results indicates that whether it is feasible to achieve further vehicles. Thus, in the near term, we lack
essentially all manufacturers certify 50- evaporative emission reductions from any of the information necessary to
state systems, except for a few limited motor vehicles. In this regard, it is determine if further reductions are
cases where manufacturers have not yet important to note that California’s LEV feasible, and if they could be achievable
needed to certify a LEVII vehicle in II program includes partial zero- considering cost, energy and safety
California due to the phase-in schedule. emission vehicle (ZEV) credits for issues. However, we intend to consider
200 Larger vehicles may have greater non-fuel 203 General Motors, Letter from Samuel A. 206 California Air Resources Board, Fact Sheet,
evaporative emissions, probably due to an increased Leonard to Margo Oge of U.S. EPA, May 30, 2000. LEV–II Amendments to California’s Low-Emission
amount of interior trim, vehicle body surface area, A copy of this letter can be found in Docket No. Vehicle Regulations, February 1999
and larger tires. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. 207 PZEV meets California super ultra low
201 DaimlerChrysler, Letter from Reginald R.

204 U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Update emission vehicle exhaust emission standards and
to the Accounting for the Tier 2 and Heavy-Duty have near zero evaporative emissions. California Air
Modlin to Margo Oge of U.S. EPA, May 30, 2000.
2005/2007 Requirements in MOBILE6, EPA420–R– Resources Board, News Release, ARB Modifies Zero
A copy of this letter can be found in Docket No.
03–012, September 2003. Emission Vehicle Regulation, April 24, 2003.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. 205 Anti-backsliding provisions can satisfy the 208 California Air Resources Board, Fact Sheet,
202 Ford, Letter from Kelly M. Brown to Margo
requirement in section 202 (l) (2) that emission California Vehicle Emissions, April 8, 2004.
Oge of U.S. EPA, May 26, 2000. A copy of this letter reductions of hazardous air pollutants be the 209 California Air Resources Board, Consumer
can be found in Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– greatest achievable. Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d Information: 2006 California Certified Vehicles,
0036. at 477. November 7, 2005.
more stringent evaporative emission proposed new evaporative emission potential variability in-use during the
standards in the future, and revisiting certification standards (which are initial years of the program when
this issue in a future rulemaking will equivalent to California LEV II technical issues are most likely to
allow us time to obtain the important certification standards) when operating arise.212 The LEV II program specifies
necessary additional information for on the alternative fuel. that in-use evaporative emission
such standards. For such multi-fueled vehicles or standards of 1.75 times the certification
evaporative emission systems, standards will apply for the first three
2. Evaporative Standards Timing manufacturers would need a few model years after an evaporative family
We are proposing to implement additional years of lead time to adjust is first certified to the LEV II standards
today’s evaporative emission standards their evaporative systems to comply (only for vehicles introduced prior to
in model year 2009 for LDVs/LLDTs and with the proposed evaporative emission model year 2007, the year after 100
model year 2010 for HLDTs/MDPVs. certification standards when operating percent phase-in).213 214 An interim
Today’s proposed rule is not expected to on the alternative fuel. Thus, to reduce three-year period was considered
be finalized until February 2007, at the compliance risk for these types of sufficient to accommodate any technical
which time many manufacturers already multi-fueled vehicles (or evaporative issues that may arise.
will have begun or completed model families) when they first certify to the Federal in-use conditions may raise
year 2008 certification. Thus, model more stringent evaporative standards, unique issues (e.g., salt/ice exposure) for
year 2009 is the earliest practical start the proposed evaporative emission evaporative systems certified to the new
date of new standards for LDVs/LLDTs. certification standards would apply to proposed standards (which are
For HLDTs/MDPVs, the phase-in of the the non-gasoline portion of multi-fueled equivalent to the LEV II standards), and
existing Tier 2 evaporative emission vehicles beginning in the fourth year of thus, we propose to adopt a similar,
standards ends in model year 2009. the program—2012 for LDVs/LLDTs and interim in-use compliance provision for
Thus, the model year 2010 is the earliest 2013 for HLDTs/MDPVs. The proposed federal vehicles. As with the LEV II
start date possible for HLDTs/MDPVs. evaporative emission certification program, this provision would enable
Since the proposed standards are an standards would be implemented in manufacturers to make adjustments for
anti-backsliding measure and we believe 2009 for LDVs/LLDTs and 2010 for unforeseen problems that may occur in-
that manufacturers already meet these HLDTs/MDPVs for the gasoline portion use during the first three years of a new
standards, there is no need for of multi-fueled vehicles and vehicles evaporative family. Like California, we
additional lead time beyond the that are not multi-fueled. We believe believe that a three-year period is
implementation dates proposed. We this additional three years of lead time enough time to resolve these problems,
request comment on this proposed would provide sufficient time for because it allows manufacturers to gain
schedule. manufacturers to make adjustments to real world experience and make
3. Timing for Multi-Fueled Vehicles their new evaporative systems for multi- adjustments to a vehicle within a typical
fueled vehicles, which are limited product cycle.
As discussed earlier in this section, product lines. Depending on the vehicle weight class
manufacturers appear to view the Tier 2 The provisions for in-use evaporative and type of test, the Tier 2 certification
and LEV II evaporative emission emission standards described below in standards are 1.3 to 1.9 times the LEV
programs as similar in stringency, and section VI.C.4 would not change for II certification standards. On average the
thus, they have indicated that they will multi-fueled vehicles. We believe that Tier 2 standards are 1.51 times the LEV
produce 50-state evaporative systems three additional years to prepare II certification standards. Thus, to
that meet both sets of standards. For vehicles (or evaporative families) to maintain the same level of stringency
multi-fueled vehicles capable of meet the certification standards, and to for the in-use evaporative emission
operating on alternative fuel (e.g., E85 simultaneously make vehicle standards provided by the Tier 2
vehicles—fuel is 85% ethanol and 15% adjustments from the federal in-use program, we propose to apply the Tier
gasoline) and conventional fuel (e.g., experience of other vehicles (other 2 standards in-use for only the first
gasoline),210 this commitment for 50- vehicles that are not multi-fueled) is three model years after an evaporative
state systems would still apply. sufficient to resolve any issues for family is first certified under today’s
However, a few multi-fueled vehicles multi-fueled vehicles. Therefore, the proposed standards instead of the 1.75
were certified only on the conventional proposed evaporative emission multiplier implemented in the
fuel (gasoline) for the California LEV II standards would apply both for California LEV II program. Since the
program even though they had 50-state certification and in-use beginning in proposed evaporative emission
evaporative emission systems. For such 2012 for LDVs/LLDTs and 2013 for certification standards (equivalent to
cases, manufacturers did not intend to HLDTs/MDPVs. LEV II standards) would be
sell these vehicles for operation on the
4. In-Use Evaporative Emission implemented in model year 2009 for
alternative fuel (e.g. E85) in California
Standards LDVs/LLDTs and model year 2010 for
(only for operation on conventional fuel
HLDTs/MDPVs, these same certification
in California), but they did certify and As described earlier in this section,
plan to sell these vehicles in the federal we are proposing to adopt evaporative 212 California Air Resources Board, ‘‘LEV II’’ and
Tier 2 program for operation on the emission standards that are equivalent ‘‘CAP 2000’’ Amendments to the California Exhaust
alternative and conventional fuels.211 to California’s LEV II standards for all and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test
For these few types of multi-fueled light duty vehicles, light trucks, and Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks
and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative
vehicles, manufacturers are potentially medium duty passenger vehicles. Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
at risk of not complying with the Currently, the Tier 2 evaporative
Final Statement of Reasons, September 1999.

emission standards are the same for 213 1.75 times the 3-day diurnal plus hot soak and
210 40 CFR 86.1803–01 defines multi-fuel as
certification and in-use vehicles. 2-day diurnal plus hot soak standards.
capable of operating on two or more different fuel However, the California LEV II program 214 For example, evaporative families first
types, either separately or simultaneously. certified to LEV II standards in the 2005 model year
211 For the Tier 2 program, multi-tier vehicles permits manufacturers to meet less shall meet in-use standards of 1.75 times the
must meet the same standards on conventional and stringent standards in-use for a short evaporative certification standards for 2005, 2006,
alternative fuel. time period in order to account for and 2007 model year vehicles.
standards would apply in-use beginning using a fuel containing the maximum the same low permeability hoses and
in model year 2012 for LDVs/LLDTs and allowable concentration of alcohols low loss connections and seals planned
model year 2013 for HLDTs/MDPVs.215 (highest alcohol level allowed by EPA in for California LEV II vehicles.
the fuel on which the vehicle is As shown in Table VI.C–2, combined
5. Existing Differences Between
intended to operate, i.e., a ‘‘worst case’’
California and Federal Evaporative with the maximum alcohol fuel content
test fuel). Under current requirements,
Emission Test Procedures for durability testing, the other key
this fuel would be about 10 percent
As described above, the California ethanol by volume.216 (We are retaining differences between the federal and
LEV II evaporative emission standards these Tier 2 durability requirements for California test requirements are fuel
are numerically more stringent than the proposed evaporative emissions volatilities, diurnal temperature cycles,
EPA’s Tier 2 standards, but due to program.) California does not require and running loss test temperatures.217
differences in California and EPA this provision. To compensate for the The EPA fuel volatility requirement is 2
evaporative test requirements, EPA and increased vulnerability of system psi greater than that of California. The
most manufacturers view the programs components to alcohol fuel, high end of EPA’s diurnal temperature
as similar in stringency. The Tier 2 manufacturers have indicated that they range, is 9° F lower than that of
evaporative program requires will produce a more durable evaporative California. Also, EPA’s running loss
manufacturers to certify the durability emission system than the Tier 2 temperature is 10° F lower than
of their evaporative emission systems numerical standards would imply, using California’s.
TABLE VI.C–2.—DIFFERENCES IN TIER 2 AND LEV II EVAPORATIVE EMISSION TEST REQUIREMENTS
Test requirement EPA tier 2 California LEV II
Fuel volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure in psi) ....................................................................................................... 9 ....................... 7.

Diurnal temperature cycle (degrees F) .............................................................................................................. 72 to 96 ............ 65 to 105.
Running loss test temperature (degrees F) ...................................................................................................... 95 ..................... 105.
Currently, California accepts Tier 2 program and those being finalized new and technologically
evaporative emission results generated proposed today.219 challenging light-duty vehicle/truck
on the federal test procedure (using As explained earlier, section 202(l)(2) emission control programs. The EPA
federal test fuel), because available data requires EPA to adopt regulations that program, known as Tier 2, focused on
indicates the federal procedure to be a contain standards which reflect the reducing NOX emissions from the light-
‘‘worst case’’ procedure. In addition, greatest degree of emissions reductions duty fleet. The California program,
manufacturers can obtain federal achievable through the application of which is the second generation of their
evaporative certification based upon technology that will be available, taking low emission vehicle (LEV) program
California results (meeting LEV II into consideration existing motor and is known as LEV–II, focuses
standards under California fuels and test vehicle standards, the availability and primarily on reducing hydrocarbons by
conditions), if they obtain advance costs of the technology, and noise, tightening the light-duty NMOG
approval from EPA.218 energy and safety factors. The cold standards. Both programs are expected
temperature NMHC program proposed to present the manufacturers with
D. Opportunities for Additional Exhaust
today is appropriate under section significant challenges, and will require
Control Under Normal Conditions
202(l)(2) as a near-term control: That is, the use of hardware and emission
In addition to the cold temperature a control that can be implemented control strategies not used in the fleet
NMHC and evaporative emission relatively soon and without disruption under previously existing programs.
standards we are proposing, we to other existing vehicle emissions Both programs will achieve significant
evaluated an additional option for control program. We are not proposing reductions in emissions. Taken as a
reducing hydrocarbons from light-duty long-term (i.e., controls that require whole, the Tier 2 program presents the
vehicles. This option would further longer lead time to implement) at this manufacturers with significant
align the federal light-duty exhaust time because we lack the information challenges in the coming years. Bringing
emissions control program with that of necessary to assess appropriate long- essentially all passenger vehicles under
California. We are not proposing this term controls. We believe it will be the same emission control program
option today for the reasons described important to address the regardless of their size, weight, and
below. It is possible that a future appropriateness of further MSAT application is a major engineering
evaluation could result in EPA controls in the context of compliance challenge. The Tier 2 program
reconsidering the option of harmonizing with other significant vehicle emissions represents a comprehensive, integrated
the Tier 2 program with California’s regulations (discussed below). package of exhaust, evaporative, and
LEV–II program or otherwise seeking In the late 1990’s both the EPA and fuel quality standards which will
emission reductions beyond those of the the California Air Resources Board achieve significant reductions in
215 For example, evaporative families first proposed LDV/LLDT evaporative emission running loss test requirement is part of the 3-day
certified to the proposed LDV/LLDT evaporative standards in-use. diurnal plus hot soak test sequence.
emission standards in the 2011 model year would 216 Manufacturers are required to develop 218 EPA may require comparative data from both
be required to meet the Tier 2 LDV/LLDT deterioration factors using a fuel that contains the federal and California tests.
evaporative emission standards in-use for 2011, highest legal quantity of ethanol available in the
219 See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d at 480 (EPA
2012, and 2013 model year vehicles (applying Tier can reasonably determine that no further reductions
U.S.
2 standards in-use would be limited to the first 217 Running loss emissions means evaporative
in MSATs are presently achievable due to
three years after introduction of a vehicle), and uncertainties created by other recently promulgated
2014 and later model year vehicles of such emissions as a result of sustained vehicle operation regulatory provisions applicable to the same
evaporative families would be required to meet the (average trip in an urban area) on a hot day. The vehicles).
NMHC, NOX, and PM emissions from all from the base Tier 2 program, and the SVMs have similar characteristics as
light-duty vehicles in the program. next several years will allow an described below in section VI.E.1, the
These reductions will include evaluation based on facts rather than Panel recommended that we apply the
significant reductions in MSATs. assumptions. For these reasons, we are lead time transition and hardship
Emission control in the Tier 2 program deferring a decision on seeking provisions to all SVMs. These
will be based on the widespread additional NMOG reductions from the manufacturers represent just a fraction
implementation of advanced catalyst base Tier 2 program. of one percent of the light-duty vehicle
and related control system technology. and light-duty truck sales. Our proposal
The standards are very stringent and E. Vehicle Provisions for Small Volume today is consistent with the Panel’s
will require manufacturers to make full Manufacturers recommendation.
use of nearly all available emission Prior to issuing a proposal for this
1. Lead Time Transition Provisions
control technologies. proposed rulemaking, we analyzed the
Today the Tier 2 program remains potential impacts of these regulations on In these types of vehicle businesses,
early in its phase-in. Cars and lighter small entities. As a part of this analysis, predicting sales is difficult and it is
trucks will be fully phased into the we convened a Small Business often necessary to rely on other entities
program with the 2007 model year, and Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, for technology (see earlier discussions
the heavier trucks won’t be fully entered or the Panel). During the Panel process, in section VI on technology needed to
into the program until the 2009 model we gathered information and meet the proposed standards).222 223
year. Even though the lighter vehicles recommendations from Small Entity Moreover, percentage phase-in
will be fully phased in by 2007, we Representatives (SERs) on how to requirements pose a dilemma for an
expect the characteristics of this reduce the impact of the rule on small entity such as a SVM that has a limited
segment of the fleet to remain in a state entities, and those comments are product line. For example, it is
of transition at least through 2009, detailed in the Final Panel Report which challenging for a SVM to address
because manufacturers will be making is located in the public record for this percentage phase-in requirements if the
adjustments to their fleets as the larger rulemaking (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– manufacturer makes vehicles in only
trucks phase in. The Tier 2 program is 2005–0036). Based upon these one or two test groups. Because of its
designed to enable vehicles certified to comments, we propose to include lead very limited product lines, a SVM could
the LEV–II program to cross over to the time transition and hardship provisions be required to certify all their vehicles
federal Tier 2 program. At this point in that would be applicable to small to the new standards in the first year of
time, however, it is difficult to predict volume manufacturers as described the phase-in period, whereas a full-line
the degree to which this will occur. The below in section VI.E.1 and VI.E.2. For manufacturer (or major manufacturer)
fleetwide NMOG levels of the Tier 2 further discussion of the Panel process, could utilize all four years of the phase-
program will ultimately be affected by see section XII.C of this proposed rule in. Thus, similar to the flexibility
the manner in which LEV–II vehicles and/or the Final Panel Report. provisions implemented in the Tier 2
are certified within the Tier 2 bin As discussed in more detail in section rule, the Panel recommended that we
structure, and vice versa. We intend to XII.C in addition to the major vehicle allow SVMs, manufacturers with sales
carefully assess these two programs as manufacturers, three distinct categories less than 15,000 vehicles per year
they evolve and periodically evaluate of businesses relating to highway light- (includes all vehicle small entities that
the relative emission reductions and the duty vehicles would be covered by the would be affected by this rule, which
integration of the two programs. new vehicle standards: Small volume are the majority of SVMs) the following
Today’s proposal addresses toxics manufacturers (SVMs), independent flexibility options for meeting cold
emissions from vehicles operating at commercial importers (ICIs),220 and temperature NMHC standards and
cold temperatures. The technology to alternative fuel vehicle converters.221 evaporative emission standards as an
achieve this is already available and we We define small volume manufacturers element of determining appropriate lead
project that compliance will not be as those with total U.S. sales less than time for these entities to comply with
costly. However, we do not believe that 15,000 vehicles per year, and this status the standards.
we could reasonably propose further allows vehicle models to be certified For cold NMHC standards, the Panel
controls at this time. There is enough under a slightly simpler certification recommended that SVMs simply
uncertainty regarding the interaction of process. For certification purposes, comply with the standards with 100
the Tier 2 and LEV–II programs to make SVMs include ICIs and alternative fuel percent of their vehicles during the last
it difficult to evaluate today what might vehicle converters since they sell less year of the 4 year phase-in period. Since
be achievable in the future. Depending than 15,000 vehicles per year. these entities could need additional lead
on the assumptions one makes, the About 34 out of 50 entities that certify time flexibility and proposed standards
LEV–II and Tier 2 programs may or may vehicles are SVMs, and the Panel for light-duty vehicles and light light-
not achieve very similar NMOG identified 21 of these 34 SVMs that are duty trucks would begin in model year
emission levels. Therefore, the eventual small businesses as defined by the 2010 and would end in model year 2013
Tier 2 baseline technologies and Small Business Administration criteria (25%, 50%, 75%, 100% phase-in over 4
emissions upon which new standards
(5 manufacturers, 10 ICIs, and 6
would necessarily be based are not 222 For example, as described later in section
converters). Since a majority of the
known today. Additionally, we believe VI.E.3, ICIs may not be able to predict their sales
SVMs are small businesses and all because they are dependent upon vehicles brought
it is important for manufacturers to
to them by individuals attempting to import
focus in the near term on developing 220 ICIs are companies that hold a Certificate (or uncertified vehicles.
and implementing robust technological
certificates) of Conformity permitting them to 223 SMVs (those with sales less than 15,000
responses to the Tier 2 program without import nonconforming vehicles and to modify these vehicles per year) include ICIs, alternative fuel
the distraction or disruption that could vehicles to meet U.S. emission standards. vehicle converters, companies that produce
221 Alternative fuel vehicle converters are specialty vehicles by modifying vehicles produced
result from changing the program in the
businesses that convert gasoline or diesel vehicles by others, and companies that produce small
midst of its phase-in. We believe that it to operate on alternative fuel (e.g., compressed quantities of their own vehicles, but rely on major
may be feasible in the longer term to natural gas), and converters must seek a certificate manufacturers for engines and other vital emission
seek additional emission reductions for all of their vehicle models. related components.
years), we propose that the SVM technology, we want to make clear that their sales of various vehicles well.
provision would be 100 percent in we would expect this provision to be Therefore, we do not have confidence in
model year 2013. Also, since the rarely used. Our proposed rule contains their ability to certify compliance under
proposed standard for heavy light-duty numerous flexibilities for all a program that would allow them
trucks and medium-duty passenger manufacturers and it delays leeway to produce some vehicles to a
vehicles would start in 2012 (25%, 50%, implementation dates for SVMs, which higher FEL now but sell vehicles with
75%, 100% phase-in over 4 years), we effectively provides them more time. We lower FELs later, such that they were
propose that the SVM provision would would expect small volume able to comply with the fleet average
be 100 percent in model year 2015. manufacturers to prepare for the standard. We also cannot reasonably
In regard to evaporative emission applicable implementation dates in assume that an ICI that certifies and
standards, the Panel recommended that today’s proposed rule. produces vehicles one year, would
since the proposed evaporative certify or even be in business the next.
emissions standards would not have 3. Special Provisions for Independent
Consequently, we propose that ICIs not
phase-in years, we allow SVMs to Commercial Importers (ICIs)
be allowed to utilize the deficit
simply comply with standards during Although the SBAR panel did not carryforward provisions of the proposed
the third year of the program (we have specifically recommend it, we are ABT program.
implemented similar provisions in past proposing to allow ICIs to participate in
rulemakings). Given the additional the averaging, banking, and trading VII. Proposed Gasoline Benzene
challenges that SVMs face, as noted program for cold temperature NMHC Control Program
above, we believe that this fleet average standards (as described in A. Overview of Today’s Proposed Fuel
recommendation is reasonable. Table IV.B.–1), but with appropriate Control Program
Therefore, for a 2009 model year start constraints to ensure that fleet averages
As discussed in sections I, IV, and V
date for light-duty vehicles and light will be met. The existing regulations for
above, people experience elevated risk
light-duty trucks, we propose that SVMs ICIs specifically bar ICIs from
of cancer and other health effects as a
meet the evaporative emission standards participating in emission related
result of inhalation of air toxics. Mobile
in model year 2011. For a model year averaging, banking, and trading
sources are responsible for a significant
2010 implementation date for heavy programs unless specific exceptions are
portion of this risk. As required by
light-duty trucks and medium-duty provided (see 40 CFR 85.1515(d)). The
section 202(l) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
passenger vehicles, we propose that concern is that they may not be able to
has evaluated options to reduce MSAT
SVMs comply in model year 2012. predict their sales and control their fleet
emissions by setting standards for motor
average emissions because they are
2. Hardship Provisions vehicle fuel. We have determined that
dependent upon vehicles brought to
In addition, the Panel recommended there are fuel-related technologies
them by individuals attempting to
that hardship provisions be extended to available to feasibly reduce MSAT
import uncertified vehicles. However,
SVMs for the cold temperature NMHC emissions and that these reductions are
an exception for ICIs to participate in an
and evaporative emission standards as achievable, considering cost, energy,
averaging, banking, and trading program
an aspect of determining the greatest and other factors. These feasible
was made for the Tier 2 NOX fleet
emission reductions feasible. These reductions would be in addition to
average standards, and today we
entities could, on a case-by-case basis, those resulting from actions taken by the
propose to apply a similar exception for
face hardship more than major industry in response to the earlier fuel-
the cold temperature NMHC fleet
manufacturers (manufacturers with related MSAT programs described in
average standards.
sales of 15,000 vehicles or more per If an ICI is able to purchase credits or section V above. Accordingly, we
year), and we are proposing this to certify a test group to a family believe a fuel control program is
provision to provide what could prove emission level (FEL) below the necessary and appropriate to reduce air
to be a needed safety valve for these applicable cold temperature NMHC fleet toxics emissions from motor vehicles to
entities. SVMs would be allowed to average standard, we would permit the the greatest extent achievable (in
apply for up to an additional 2 years to ICI to bank credits for future use. Where addition to the programs proposed
meet the 100 percent phase-in an ICI desires to certify a test group to elsewhere in this notice to reduce
requirements for cold NMHC and the a FEL above the applicable fleet average MSAT emissions by changes to
delayed requirement for evaporative standard, we would permit them to do gasoline-powered motor vehicles and
emissions. As with hardship provisions so if they have adequate and appropriate gas cans). This section of the preamble
for the Tier 2 rule, we propose that credits. Where an ICI desires to certify describes our proposed fuel control
appeals for such hardship relief must be to an FEL above the fleet average program.
made in writing, must be submitted standard and does not have adequate or The section begins with a detailed
before the earliest date of appropriate credits to offset the description of today’s proposed
noncompliance, must include evidence vehicles, we would permit the program. In summary, we propose that
that the noncompliance will occur manufacturer to obtain a certificate for beginning January 1, 2011, refiners
despite the manufacturer’s best efforts to vehicles using such a FEL, but would would meet an average gasoline benzene
comply, and must include evidence that condition the certificate such that the content standard of 0.62% by volume on
severe economic hardship will be faced manufacturer can only produce vehicles all their gasoline (reformulated and
by the company if the relief is not if it first obtains credits from other conventional) nationwide.224 We also
granted. manufacturers or from other vehicles propose that refiners could generate
We would work with the applicant to certified to a FEL lower than the fleet benzene credits and use or sell them as
ensure that all other remedies available average standard during that model a part of a nationwide averaging,
under this rule are exhausted before year. banking, and trading (ABT) program.
granting additional relief. To avoid the Our experience over the years through 224 The State of California has a similar benzene
very existence of the hardship provision certification indicates that the nature of standard and gasoline sold there is not covered by
prompting SVMs to delay development, the ICI business is such that these this proposal. For more information, see California
acquisition and application of new companies cannot predict or estimate Code of Regulations, Title 13 Section 2262.
We believe that the proposed benzene and Anti-dumping annual average facing extreme unforeseen
standard, combined with the proposed provisions (although the 1.3 vol% circumstances or extreme hardship
ABT program, would result in the benzene cap would still apply for RFG). circumstances could apply for similar
largest feasible overall reductions in The proposed benzene control program temporary relief.
benzene emissions of any potential fuel- would also replace the MSAT1
C. Development of the Proposed
based MSAT control program. Finally, requirements. In addition, the program
as an aspect of achieving the greatest Gasoline Benzene Standard
would satisfy certain fuel MSAT
emission reductions, we also propose conditions of the Energy Policy Act of EPA believes that benzene control is
special compliance flexibility for 2005. By consciously designing this by far the most effective fuel-based
approved small refiners. proposed program to address these means of achieving MSAT emissions
This section then describes in detail separate but related goals, we would control, as described in this section.
how we arrived at the proposed significantly consolidate and simplify There are other options that can target
program. We discuss a range of potential the existing national fuel-related MSAT individual MSATs or reduce overall
approaches to reducing MSATs through regulatory program. VOCs and thereby reduce MSATs as
changes in fuel, concluding that Finally, this section concludes with a well. We have evaluated these other
benzene emissions would be detailed summary of our assessment of options, as discussed below, and our
significantly more responsive to fuel the technological feasibility for different analysis indicates that the potential
changes than emissions of any other types of refineries, and the refining MSAT reductions would be
fuel-related MSAT. This is followed by industry as a whole, to meet the considerably smaller and more
discussion of alternate methods of program as proposed. We request expensive.
reducing benzene emissions, resulting general and specific comment on all
in the proposed approach of directly 1. Why Are We Focusing on Controlling
aspects of the proposed program, and
controlling benzene content. We also Benzene Emissions?
we request that comments include
discuss how we arrived at the proposed supporting data whenever possible. We considered controlling emissions
level of 0.62 volume percent (vol%) for of several MSATs through changes to
the benzene standard. We discuss why B. Description of the Proposed Fuel fuel parameters. There are only a
we believe that incorporating the Control Program limited number of MSATs that are
proposed ABT program would be Today’s proposed program has three affected through fuel changes, each of
crucial for the effectiveness of the main components, the development of which we discuss below. For several
overall benzene control program and each of which is further described later reasons, we have concluded that the
describe how the system would work. in this section: most effective and appropriate means of
Finally, we review the —A gasoline benzene content standard. reducing fuel-related MSATs is to
recommendations of the special panel We propose that an annual average reduce the benzene emissions
that was convened to assess the gasoline benzene standard of 0.62 attributable to gasoline.
potential for disproportionate impacts of vol% be implemented beginning Benzene emissions can be reduced
the proposed program on small refiners, January 1, 2011. This single standard much more significantly through fuel
and present our reasoning for the would apply to all gasoline, both changes than can emissions of other
special small refiner provisions we are reformulated (RFG) and conventional MSATs. Relatively small changes in
proposing today. (CG) nationwide (except for gasoline gasoline can result in very significant
Today’s proposed action would fulfill sold in California, which is already reductions in benzene emissions. This
several statutory and regulatory goals for covered by a similar state program). relative responsiveness of benzene
gasoline-related MSAT emissions, —An averaging, banking, and trading emissions to fuel controls (specifically
which are discussed in more detail in (ABT) program. From 2007–2010 to control of gasoline benzene content,
this section. The program would meet refiners could generate benzene as discussed in the next section) is
our commitment in the MSAT1 program credits by taking early steps to reduce coupled with little negative impact on
to consider further MSAT control. The gasoline benzene levels. Beginning in other important characteristics of
program would also allow EPA to 2011 and continuing indefinitely, gasoline or refining processes. A related
streamline the regulatory provisions for refiners could generate credits by and critical advantage of fuel control of
the air toxics performance requirements producing gasoline with benzene benzene emissions, as compared to fuel
of the reformulated gasoline (RFG) and levels below the 0.62% average control of emissions of other MSATs as
Anti-dumping programs. The expected standard. Refiners could apply the discussed below, is that controlling
levels of benzene control by individual credits towards company compliance, benzene emissions does not
refiners under this proposal, combined ‘‘bank’’ the credits for later use, or significantly increase emissions of other
with other gasoline controls such as transfer (‘‘trade’’) them to other MSATs.226
sulfur, RVP, and VOC controls, mean refiners nationwide (outside of In determining an appropriate
that compliance with these provisions is California) under the proposed approach to fuel-related MSAT control,
expected to lead to compliance with the program. Under this program, refiners a key consideration was octane value.
annual average requirements for could use credits to achieve
benzene and toxics performance for RFG compliance with the benzene content 226 A key tool in evaluating the potential for fuel
and the annual average Anti-dumping changes to affect MSAT emissions is EPA’s
standard, regardless of their actual
toxics performance for conventional Complex Model. This model relates changes in
gasoline benzene levels.225 gasoline parameters with emissions of specific
gasoline. EPA is therefore proposing —Hardship provisions. Refiners MSATs and was developed for refiners and EPA to
that upon full implementation in 2011,
approved as ‘‘small refiners’’ would assess compliance with the RFG, Anti-dumping,
the regulatory provisions for the have access to special temporary relief and MSAT1 programs. (See section V.D.1 above.)
benzene control program would become provisions. In addition, any refiner
Given a set of gasoline parameters, it estimates the
the single regulatory mechanism used to emissions of an average vehicle based on a large set
of fuel effects data. We further discuss the Complex
implement these RFG and Anti- 225 However, the per-gallon benzene cap (1.3 Model, as well as other sources of information the
dumping annual average toxics vol%) in the RFG program would continue to apply relationships between fuel changes and MSAT
requirements, replacing the current RFG separately. emissions, in chapter 6 of the RIA.
Among potential approaches to fuel- Complex Model, POM emissions are a evaluation of acetaldehyde emissions to
related MSAT emission reduction, only function of exhaust VOC. Several fuel the analyses associated with the Energy
benzene emission reduction can avoid parameters including volatility and Policy Act.
major losses in octane value and the sulfur content affect VOC emissions. As
b. MSAT Emission Reductions Through
negative cost and environmental discussed below, little data exists about
Lowering Gasoline Volatility or Sulfur
consequences discussed below of the potential impacts of changes in
Content
replacing that lost octane value. gasoline volatility and sulfur content on
Finished gasoline must meet minimum VOC, and thus POM, emissions from We also considered two approaches to
specifications for octane value; these new Tier 2-compliant vehicles. In any fuel-related MSAT control that would
specifications are tied to the operational event, because POM is only a tiny involve increasing the stringency of two
needs of motor vehicles. Thus, refiners fraction of vehicle VOC emissions, we existing emission control programs.
must be keenly aware of how any expect that further changes in these fuel Both were originally promulgated
changes in gasoline production might parameters would have only small primarily to address ozone but also have
reduce the octane value of their fuel, effects on POM. As a result, we are not the effect of reducing some MSAT
what approaches to restore the octane proposing fuel controls to address POM emissions by virtue of their control of
value might be available, and the costs emissions in today’s action. VOC emissions. As explained in section
in material and operational changes of Emissions of the compound 1,3- V, the Tier 2 program included the
any selected approach. butadiene can be reduced by reducing pairing of lower vehicle emissions
There are a limited number of the olefin content of gasoline. However, standards with large reductions in
approaches refiners have at their olefin reduction yields relatively small gasoline sulfur levels. The low sulfur
disposal to restore gasoline octane value reductions in 1,3-butadiene and can fuel helped enable development of more
lost through control of MSAT emissions. increase VOC emissions. In addition, advanced catalytic aftertreatment
These approaches vary in their olefin reduction significantly affects systems needed to meet the stringent
economics and effectiveness, and their octane, with the negative cost and tailpipe standards. These actions will
availability may be limited by the MSAT emissions consequences of result in large reductions of VOC, NOX,
specific configuration of a given octane replacement. We are thus not and air toxics emissions. In
refinery. However, all methods of proposing to address 1,3-butadiene development of today’s proposal, we
replacing octane value have cost emissions through fuel changes. considered whether further reductions
implications, and as shown in the next Emissions of the compound in fuel sulfur would bring significant
paragraph, air toxics implications as formaldehyde can only be effectively additional reductions in MSAT
well. reduced by reducing use of the octane emissions.
In the case of changes in gasoline enhancer methyl tertiary butyl ether The second program considered for
production that are intended to reduce (MTBE). This is because formaldehyde additional stringency was the gasoline
MSAT emissions, it is also important to increases significantly as a combustion volatility program, which was
consider whether restoring any lost product when MTBE is added to implemented in 1989 to address
octane might itself significantly increase gasoline. Formaldehyde also increases evaporative VOC emissions from
other MSAT emissions. Some methods to a lesser extent when ethanol is added gasoline vehicles. Reducing the
of replacing octane value can increase to gasoline, as described below. For a volatility of gasoline can reduce
other MSATs. For example, increasing number of years, MTBE has been used evaporative VOC emissions as well as
aromatics would increase benzene as a cost-effective way to meet exhaust emissions. Evaporative VOC
emissions; adding MTBE would mandated fuel oxygenate requirements emissions include benzene. As a result,
increase formaldehyde emissions; and and to boost octane. In recent years, in developing this proposal we have
adding ethanol would increase many states have banned the use of considered whether further reductions
acetaldehyde emissions. Given the very MTBE because it has leaked from in gasoline volatility may be effective in
large MSAT emission reduction storage tanks and caused significant further reducing MSAT emissions.
associated with benzene control, these groundwater contamination. More In the cases of both further reductions
impacts on other MSATs are relatively recently, in the wake of the removal of in RVP and sulfur reductions below the
insignificant. However, in the case of the oxygenate requirement in the Energy current 30 ppm standard, the available
changes in other fuel qualities (e.g., Policy Act of 2005, many refiners are data is not sufficient to conclude that
aromatics control), the relative impacts taking action to remove MTBE from additional control of either would be a
on other MSATs would be greater. their gasoline as soon as possible. As a valuable MSAT emission reduction
We encourage comment on our result, MTBE use and the resulting strategy. Historic data suggest that
decision to propose a program that formaldehyde emissions are expected to reducing both RVP and sulfur content
directly controls gasoline benzene continue to decline, and no additional would reduce overall VOC emissions
content, including comments on each of federal action appears warranted at this from vehicles, in turn reducing both
the alternate approaches to MSAT time. MSATs and ozone formation. However,
control discussed in the following The compound acetaldehyde is a vehicles complying with the stringent
paragraphs. combustion product of gasoline when new Tier 2 emission standards have
ethanol is added. Controlling dramatically lower VOC emissions than
a. Other MSAT Emissions acetaldehyde would require reductions earlier vehicles. Furthermore, it is likely
As alternatives to the proposed in the use of ethanol as a gasoline that VOC emissions for these vehicles
program focusing on benzene emission additive. However, the Energy Policy would react differently to RVP and
reductions, we considered other MSATs Act of 2005 (section 1501) includes a sulfur control than older vehicles, as
that are responsive to fuel-based renewable fuels program that will new catalysts and control systems may
emission control. Each of these is increase use of ethanol in gasoline have more or less sensitivity to these
discussed next. nationwide. That Act requires a study of variables. Since the dominant effect on
Polycyclic Organic Matter, or POM, is the Act’s impacts on public health, air MSAT emissions of changing these fuel
composed of a number of combustion quality, and water resources. We parameters is through their impact on
products of gasoline. According to the accordingly intend to defer further total VOC mass, it is not possible to
properly assess the impact of changes in conventional gasoline, the CM projects Ambient Air Quality Standards
these fuel parameters on MSAT a decrease of approximately 1% for (NAAQS) for ozone. Since the
emissions without additional data. We exhaust benzene, NOX and CO. implementation of the RFG program,
have begun collecting data on some of MOBILE was developed to estimate several states and localities have made
these new vehicles, but more work will aggregate emissions on a county, state, their own unique fuel property
be required before we can draw or national scale. It uses a fuel effects requirements in an effort to further
conclusions about the effectiveness of dataset that includes the CM dataset improve air quality.230 As a result, by
these fuel controls in reducing MSAT with some updates, along with driving summer 2004 the gasoline distribution
emissions. Therefore, we are not data, to predict emissions inventories of and marketing system in the U.S. had to
proposing additional control of gasoline pollutants for a specified time period differentiate between more than 12
volatility or sulfur at this time, but will and area of the country. MOBILE6.2 different fuel specifications, when
continue to evaluate them for possible contains updates from a small number storing and shipping fuels between
future action. We request comments on of LEV and ULEV vehicles in addition refineries, pipelines, terminals, and
these potential fuel controls as emission to the CM dataset, but applies a lower retail locations. These unique fuels
reduction strategies, in particular for limit of 30 ppm to fuel sulfur content decrease nationwide fungibility of
MSAT emissions, including any data being modeled to avoid extrapolation gasoline, which can lead to local supply
that does or does not support the beyond the range of available emissions problems and amplify price
effectiveness of such controls. data. fluctuations.231, 232 In addition to the
Based primarily on the above models, existing state fuel programs, we are
i. Gasoline Sulfur Content the analyses done for the Tier 2 aware of a number of other states
In general, reducing gasoline sulfur rulemaking suggested benzene emission considering new programs (although in
levels increases the effectiveness of the reductions on the order of 9% could be the context of the recently enacted
catalytic converter at destroying expected in 2020 as a result of the fuel Energy Policy Act it is unclear what will
unburned fuel and other VOCs in sulfur reduction expected from that occur). While the timeline for state
vehicle exhaust. Catalytic converters program alone (the final Tier 2 program action on new fuel formulations could
contain a variety of physical and included low sulfur gasoline as well as be prior to any nationwide ultra-low
chemical structures that act as reaction tightened vehicle standards).228 A sulfur standard, implementation of such
sites for conversion of raw exhaust gases recent study done on vehicles meeting a standard could help diminish issues
into less harmful ones before they are LEV, TLEV, and ULEV standards related to small-market fuel programs in
emitted into the atmosphere. Over time, indicates that sulfur reductions from 30 the long term.
sulfur compounds in the exhaust gases to 5 ppm may reduce NMHC by more From the perspective of gasoline
interfere with these processes, making than 10%, bringing similar reductions production, reducing sulfur to ultra-low
the catalyst less effective under normal in air toxics.229 Additional analyses levels does not happen completely
driving conditions.227 Since many air done by EPA on sulfur reductions in independently of other fuel parameters.
toxics are part of the exhaust VOCs, this range suggest VOC emission The emissions benefits of further sulfur
reduction of fuel sulfur would be reductions on the order of 5% may be reduction gained in vehicle
expected to reduce air toxics emissions. expected, with refining costs estimated aftertreatment may be offset by
As with the Tier 2 program, however, at about a half cent per gallon. Given unintended changes in other gasoline
desulfurizing gasoline further would these analyses using available data, properties. The refining process
reduce gasoline octane. Most options for using sulfur reductions as air toxics modifications required to bring sulfur to
recovering this lost octane (e.g., control alone would not be as cost- ultra-low levels begin to have a stronger
increasing aromatics) would result in effective as other options in this effect on other components of gasoline,
some offsetting MSAT emissions proposal. Further discussion of the such as olefins (the effect of which is
increases. feasibility and costs are available in discussed in the previous section).
EPA primarily uses two computer Chapters 6 and 9, respectively, of the These impacts must be further evaluated
models for examining emissions RIA. before moving forward with a proposal
impacts when considering changes in Since our models do not reflect the of additional sulfur reductions for the
fuel properties: the Complex Model and significant improvements in emissions purpose of air toxics reduction. These
the MOBILE model. The Complex control technology over the past decade, issues are also discussed in more detail
Model (CM) was developed as a more fuel effects studies are necessary in Chapter 6 of the RIA.
compliance tool that refiners use to on newest-technology vehicles before Refiners with whom we have met
ensure their gasoline meets its baseline going forward with sulfur control. A have generally expressed disapproval of
requirements under the RFG, Anti- small cooperative test program is further sulfur control. The Tier 2
dumping, and MSAT1 programs. Given currently underway between EPA and gasoline sulfur program requires refiners
a set of fuel parameters, it estimates the the Alliance of Automobile to meet an average standard of 30 ppm.
emissions of an average vehicle using Manufacturers to evaluate the effects of In response many have invested in and
regression relationships drawn from a reducing sulfur below 10 ppm on Tier brought online desulfurization units,
large set of fuel effects data. The CM 2 Bin 5 compliant vehicles. which would not have the capacity to
contains data on test fuels with sulfur In addition to potential air toxics
230 These changes have focused almost
levels as low as 5 ppm, but is based on reductions from adjustment of gasoline
exclusively on additional RVP control, with just
the Auto/Oil research programs of the sulfur to 10 ppm, reducing sulfur may one program also controlling sulfur to 30 ppm
early 1990s, and reflects performance of also provide significant VOC and NOX earlier than required by EPA.
vehicles on the road during that time emission reductions. These emission 231 EPA, Study of Unique Gasoline Fuel Blends
reductions may be important for states (‘‘Boutique Fuels’’), Effects on Fuel Supply and
period. With a sulfur reduction from 30 Distribution and Potential Improvements, EPA420–
ppm to 10 ppm applied to average 2003 in complying with the National P–01–004
232 GAO, Special Gasoline Blends Reduce
227 For further discussion on sulfur effects on 228 Tier 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA 420–
Emissions and Improve Air Quality, but Complicate
emissions, see the Tier 2 Regulatory Impact R–99–023 Supply and Contribute to Higher Prices, GAO–05–
Analysis, EPA 420–R–99–023. 229 AAM-Honda fuel effects study, 2000 421
reach a new, lower standard of 10 ppm gasoline (CG) ozone nonattainment summer to exceed what is useable in
in many cases. Modifications would areas, resulting in an impacted volume winter, resulting in a net loss of volume
have to be made to units that have of gasoline equal to about 50% of that from the annual pool and a need to
recently been installed to comply with of current federal RFG. Further details make up supply at additional expense.
the current gasoline sulfur of these analyses are covered in Chapter EPA will continue to evaluate further
requirements. In some cases these units 6 of the RIA. gasoline volatility reductions, and seeks
might have to be replaced with new As with the sulfur analyses above, comment on it, especially with data
units. EPA requests comments on the EPA also uses the Complex Model and supporting or opposing such action.
magnitude of the impact of a new, lower MOBILE to estimate emissions impacts
of changes in gasoline vapor pressure. In c. Toxics Performance Standard
sulfur standard, including the potential
effect on refiners that have recently terms of the fuel parameter itself, this While we are not proposing it, we
installed desulfurization units. process is somewhat simpler than considered and are seeking comment on
On the automotive side, sulfur modeling sulfur effects since the range the merits of expressing the standard as
reduction may encourage further of vapor pressures useful in an air toxics performance standard
development of lean-burn or direct- conventional vehicles has been well- rather than as a benzene content
injection gasoline technology. Leaner defined for a number of years and is not standard. Such a standard would be
combustion of gasoline results in greater expected to change. However, parallel to analogous to the current MSAT1
fuel economy and less VOC and carbon the arguments made above for sulfur, standard, but more stringent and with
dioxide emissions, but generally data on the effects of RVP changes on an ABT component. In theory, a toxics
produces more engine-out nitrogen air toxics in these models is dated and performance standard could provide
oxides. Reducing fuel sulfur to 10 ppm does not represent newest technology. broader environmental benefits by
would improve feasibility and reduce Since our models do not reflect addressing other toxics in addition to
cost of next-generation aftertreatment improvements in emissions control benzene. However, because controlling
designed to control these higher levels technology for the Tier 2 program, more benzene is more cost-effective than
of nitrogen oxides. EPA will continue to fuel effects studies must be carried out controlling emissions of other MSATs,
evaluate further gasoline sulfur before making decisions on further refiners are unlikely to reduce emissions
reductions, and seeks comment on it, gasoline vapor pressure controls. The of other MSATs whether or not the
especially with data supporting or cooperative test program between EPA standard is in the form of a toxics
opposing such action. and the Alliance of Automobile performance standard or a benzene
Manufacturers described above is also content standard. Setting a toxics
ii. Gasoline Vapor Pressure performance standard at an appropriate
examining some of the effects of
According to the Complex Model and changes in RVP. level also requires us to predict future
the MOBILE model, reducing fuel vapor Looking beyond emissions benefits, changes in fuel properties in addition to
pressure reduces evaporative as well as more stringent national vapor pressure benzene, and to be able to establish as
exhaust VOC emissions. Reducing VOC standards could also help avoid precisely as possible the effects of those
emissions in turn reduces MSAT additional small market (‘‘boutique’’) fuel properties on emissions of several
emissions. A portion of this MSAT fuels. Several states and localities have MSATs. In addition, a toxics emission
emission decrease through VOC control adopted their own seasonal performance standard is more complex
would likely be offset through an requirements for vapor pressure in an to implement and enforce than a
increase in the relative concentration of effort to improve air quality, benzene content standard. For all of
MSAT emissions. As volatility is contributing to constraints on gasoline these reasons, as discussed more fully
decreased, non-aromatic compounds are supply and potential for price below, we believe a benzene content
removed from the gasoline, increasing volatility.233 234 standard offers more certain
the concentration of aromatics. Feedback from refiners on further environmental results and less
Furthermore, these non-aromatic volatility control has highlighted complexity. However, we seek comment
compounds are higher in octane, which concerns with the summer-winter on the overall merits of an air toxics
would have to be offset—perhaps with butane balance and resulting potentially performance standard, including
still further increases in aromatics. Such adverse supply implications. Currently, comments specifically on the tradeoff
increases in aromatics would lead to an refiners who produce large quantities of between the complexity of complying
increase in the relative concentration of RFG must remove a significant amount with a performance standard and the
benzene in VOC emissions. However, of the light-end components from their additional environmental benefits it
since changing vapor pressure has an fuel in the summer to meet the vapor could provide.
effect on evaporative emissions, pressure specifications. These light Based on our analysis for this
reducing vapor pressure can also reduce components, primarily butanes, are proposal, fuel benzene control is by far
evaporative benzene from stationary often stored and then blended back into the most effective and cost-effective
sources related to gasoline distribution gasoline in the winter when higher fuel means of achieving MSAT emission
and marketing. Moreover, reducing vapor pressures are needed for reductions. This is consistent with our
overall VOC emissions reduces ground drivability reasons. Several refiners experience with the MSAT1 and other
level ozone in urban areas, which itself have indicated that a new rule adding air toxics control programs, which have
has a significant impact on health and a number of reduced RVP areas would shown that even when refiners have the
welfare. cause the amount of butanes removed in flexibility to choose among different
Currently, in reformulated gasoline fuel changes to achieve MSAT control,
(RFG) areas, fuel is limited to roughly reduction in benzene content is the
233 EPA, Study of Unique Gasoline Fuel Blends

7.0 psi Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in the (‘‘Boutique Fuels’’), Effects on Fuel Supply and predominant choice. Only when other
summer season in order to meet the Distribution and Potential Improvement, EPA420– fuel changes that impact MSAT
VOC performance standard. Additional P–01–004. emission performance are mandated
234 GAO, Special Gasoline Blends Reduce
vapor pressure controls considered for Emissions and Improve Air Quality, but Complicate
(e.g., sulfur control, oxygenate use) have
this proposal would regulate RVP levels Supply and Contribute to Higher Prices, GAO–05– refiners made fuel changes other than
to 7.0 or 7.8 in some conventional 421. benzene content to control MSAT
emissions. As a result, even if we were changes from past modeling, we would merits of applying an air toxics
to express the proposed standard as an have the greatest confidence that the performance standard in addition to a
air toxics performance standard rather benzene relationships are unlikely to fuel benzene content standard, and how
than a benzene content standard, we change significantly. This is due to the such a dual standard could be
would expect the outcome to be the direct relationship between benzene implemented. From a theoretical
same—benzene content control with fuel content and benzene evaporative standpoint, this dual standard might
corresponding benzene emission and exhaust emissions, and due to the serve as a backstop to ensure overall
reductions and no changes in other magnitude of these impacts. Thus, we toxics performance is maintained.
MSAT emissions. Our analysis of the would have the greatest confidence that However, it is not clear how such an
feasibility and cost of the program the MSAT emission reductions approach could be realistically
would be identical as well. If future fuel projected from a fuel benzene content implemented, especially in the context
parameters are significantly different standard will be realized in-use. of ABT programs that apply to both.
than we have projected in this analysis In addition, if we were to set an air d. Diesel Fuel Changes
such that emissions of other MSATs toxics performance standard, it would
decrease, then a toxic performance be important to have a clear We are also not proposing today to
standard would result in less benzene understanding of the changes in fuel reduce MSATs by changing diesel fuel.
control than would be achieved by the properties anticipated in the future The existing major diesel fuel sulfur
benzene content standard we propose independent of today’s proposal. programs being implemented in the next
today, with a corresponding overall Significant changes in the composition few years for highway and nonroad
reduction in cost. If future fuel of gasoline are anticipated over the next diesel fuel will have a very large impact
parameters are significantly different several years as a result of the Energy on reducing MSAT emissions ‘‘
such that emissions of other MSATs Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). MTBE is specifically diesel particulate matter
increase, then refiners would need to being removed from gasoline, ethanol and exhaust organic gases. We have
reduce benzene content to levels that use is increasing dramatically, and the found in the on-highway diesel engine
are not feasible considering cost, but oxygenate mandate for RFG is being rulemaking that these are the greatest
overall toxics performance would be eliminated. To the extent that these reductions achievable and reiterate that
maintained. changes would result in reductions in finding here. (See also section V.D.1.f
If we were to set an air toxics modeled MSAT emission performance above.) We are not aware of other
performance standard, the accuracy of automatically, then refiners could changes to diesel fuel that could have a
the model used in estimating the real comply with an air toxics performance significant effect on emissions of any
world effects of the many different fuel standard with less benzene control than other MSATs. We welcome comment on
parameters on MSAT emissions also would be achieved under today’s our decision to focus this proposed
becomes of critical importance. To the proposed benzene standard, and with program exclusively on changes to
extent fuel changes are projected to gasoline.
lower overall costs. Conversely, to the
result in air toxics emission reductions extent that these changes would result 2. Why Are We Proposing To Control
that are not in fact borne out in-use, in increases in modeled MSAT emission Benzene Emissions By Controlling
then the standard will have less benefit. performance, an air toxics performance Gasoline Benzene Content?
There was a great deal of work done in standard would require refiners to take
the early 1990’s to develop the Complex In the previous section, we describe
additional measures to maintain overall how we decided to focus today’s
Model for the reformulated gasoline MSAT performance, but these measures
program. It estimates VOC, NOX, and proposed fuel program on gasoline
may not be cost-effective. benzene emissions. This section
certain MSAT emissions (benzene, 1,3- Although a toxics performance
butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, describes our decision to propose to
standard could theoretically give reduce benzene emissions through a
and POM) as a function of eight fuel refiners more flexibility than a program
properties (RVP, oxygen, aromatics, gasoline benzene content standard. We
focusing only on benzene emissions, we also describe our consideration of two
benzene, olefins, sulfur, E200, and do not believe that such flexibility
E300) for 1990 technology vehicles. other potential approaches to reducing
would be meaningful in actual practice. benzene emissions, both of which
However, a similar set of comprehensive As discussed above, in order to comply
data does not yet exist for new Tier 2 would indirectly reduce gasoline
with a new total MSAT standard, we benzene content: a standard to control
vehicles. Some of the fuel effects that expect that refiners would rely almost
were found to be statistically significant the gasoline content of all aromatic
exclusively on benzene control. compounds; and a standard to control
in the Complex Model may not be However, if their emission performance
significant for Tier 2 vehicles (e.g., benzene emissions.
for other MSATs changed in the future
distillation properties). Others that (due to such factors as changes in a. Benzene Content Standard
impacted MSAT emissions primarily oxygenate use, octane needs, or crude For several reasons we have decided
through their impact on VOC emissions oil quality), refiners could find that a benzene content standard would
may be of much less importance, due to themselves unable to maintain overall be the most cost-effective and most
the much lower VOC emissions of Tier MSAT performance using cost-effective certain way to reduce gasoline benzene
2 vehicles.235 To the extent that the controls. emissions (and thereby MSAT
Complex Model gives air toxics credit For all these reasons, we are not emissions in general). First, a small
for fuel changes that are later found to proposing to address fuel-related MSAT change in gasoline benzene content
be much smaller or not valid at all, a emissions with a toxics performance results in large reductions in benzene
toxics performance standard could standard, but we seek comment on this emissions ‘‘ benzene typically
result in less fuel benzene control and option.236 We also seek comment on the
less in-use MSAT control. Of all the fuel current MSAT 1 program, and (consistent with
236 Asexplained further in section VII.C.5 below, section 1504(b)(2) of the EPact) greater overall
235 This is one reason why the Energy Policy Act based on the use of the currently available models, reductions of air toxics from reformulated gasoline
of 2005 requires EPA to create an updated gasoline the proposed rule would result in greater overall than would be obtained under amended section
emissions model by 2009. reduction of air toxics from all gasoline than the 211(k)(1)(B) as well.
represents around 1 percent of gasoline, consequence of removing a significant that would increase aromatics content
but this contributes about 25 percent of amount of the aromatics in gasoline is more than is needed for octane
benzene exhaust and evaporative the need to replace the large loss in purposes. In addition, as mentioned
emissions.237 Second, we have high octane value. As a result, it is much previously, the Renewable Fuel
confidence in the benzene emission more costly for refiners to reduce Standard that will be promulgated
reductions that would result from fuel benzene emissions through aromatics under the new Energy Policy Act will,
benzene control. Historical data across a control than through benzene control. by boosting ethanol use, increase the
range of vehicles and engine types We have not evaluated the cost of octane of the gasoline pool. We expect
continues to support the relationship aromatics control recently, but when we that this, in turn, will prompt refiners to
between fuel benzene content and did so for the RFG rule in the early reduce their use of aromatics for octane
benzene emissions. Even if Tier 2 1990s, the cost was about 5 times more enhancement. Also, higher gasoline
vehicles react differently, the to achieve the same benzene reduction prices recently have reduced the
relationship is unlikely to change through aromatics control than through demand for premium grade gasoline,
significantly. Third, because a relatively benzene control.238 In recent years a which generally has higher aromatics
small change in gasoline properties is variety of factors have reduced the use levels. To the extent that this trend
needed to achieve the desired result, of MTBE as an octane booster; we continues, we expect that it will tend to
reducing benzene content does not have expect that this trend will raise the further reduce the levels of aromatics in
a large impact on octane value. Benzene relative cost of aromatics control even the overall gasoline pool.
itself does contribute to the octane value further. For all of these reasons, we believe
of gasoline, but the small loss of octane In addition, aromatics reductions that reducing benzene emissions
from reducing benzene content is much would have to be offset with other high- through a benzene content standard
less than the octane loss from reducing octane compounds, such as ethanol and would be much superior to doing so
other aromatics for the same benzene ethers (e.g., ETBE and MTBE). through an aromatics content standard.
emission effect, as discussed below, and Increasing other high-octane However, there may be other benefits
the consequences of refiners having to compounds tends to significantly associated with aromatics control in
replace that octane value are also much increase other air toxics emissions (like addition to benzene emissions. EPA is
less. (This is why, as noted earlier, we acetaldehyde or formaldehyde). working to improve its understanding of
anticipate that refiners would seek to Consequently, the benzene emission the effect of mobile source emissions on
comply with any toxics standard by reductions would be substantially offset ambient PM, especially secondary PM.
reducing benzene levels in any case.) by increases in other toxics. For these For example, there is limited data that
Fourth, we believe that a direct benzene reasons, aromatics control has suggest that aromatic compounds
content standard would best ensure real historically only been cost-effective for (toluene, xylene, and benzene) react
benzene emission reductions, including refiners when other requirements are photochemically in the atmosphere to
both exhaust and evaporative benzene placed on them, such as state or federal form secondary particulate matter (in
emissions. We discuss this conclusion oxygenate mandates that also serve to the form of secondary organic aerosol
below, in the context of the potential boost octane value. For this same (SOA)), although our current modeling
alternative of a benzene emission reason, we anticipate that further tools do not fully reflect this. One caveat
standard. aromatics reductions will occur as a regarding this work is that a large
result of the near doubling of the use of number of gaseous hydrocarbons
b. Gasoline Aromatics Content Standard emitted into the atmosphere having the
ethanol in gasoline due to the renewable
Because benzene emissions are fuels standard contained in the EPAct. potential to form SOA have not yet been
formed from benzene and other Given a mandate for ethanol use and the studied in this way. It is possible that
aromatics that are present in gasoline, cost associated with it, refiners can hydrocarbons which have not yet been
we considered a standard that would reduce their refining costs by further studied produce some of the SOA
limit the aromatics content of gasoline. reducing aromatics. species which are being used as tracers
However, we believe that reducing Aromatics control would also affect for other gaseous hydrocarbons. This
benzene emissions through a more other recent fuel control programs. For means that the current interpretation of
general reduction in gasoline aromatics example, many refineries depend on the the available studies may over-estimate
content would be much less cost- reforming process that produces the amount of SOA formation in the
effective than direct benzene reduction. aromatics to also supply much or all of atmosphere. We seek comment on the
Non-benzene aromatics account for on the hydrogen needed for gasoline and potential benefits, costs, and other
average about 30 percent of gasoline diesel desulfurization processes. implications of aromatics control for
(typically ranging between about 20 Reducing aromatics thus would consideration in the future.
percent and 40 percent), and this indirectly reduce hydrogen supply,
fraction contributes about 30 percent of c. Benzene Emission Standard
which would then likely require refiners
benzene emissions. In contrast, benzene to either purchase hydrogen or build
In addition to the benzene or
only makes up about 1 percent of aromatics fuel content standards
hydrogen production facilities.
gasoline but is responsible for about 25 At the same time, although it would discussed above, we have considered
percent of benzene emissions. The not be constrained, we do not believe reducing benzene emissions through a
remaining benzene emissions are that in the absence of aromatics control, benzene emission standard. The
formed from other compounds. Based refiners would be likely to increase primary argument for such an approach
on the Complex Model, it would require gasoline aromatics content in the future. is that it would focus on the
about a 20 percent reduction in non- environmental outcome we are
Aromatics are a relatively valuable

benzene aromatics to achieve the same gasoline component, and refiners are interested in ‘‘ reduced benzene
benzene emission reductions as the generally careful not to make changes emissions ‘‘ while providing refiners
proposed benzene content standard. As some flexibility in how that goal was
we discussed earlier, a major 238 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for met.
Reformulated Gasoline, AEPA420–R–93–017, In order to fully discuss this option,
237 Based on the Complex Model. December 1993. it is useful to clarify how such a
benzene emission standard would be refiners, we do not believe that such gallon benzene limit, which would
implemented. Instead of directly flexibility would actually exist. Faced ensure that no gasoline exceeded a
measuring gasoline content to determine with a dependence on aromatics to meet specified benzene level. In contrast, a
compliance, as would be the case with octane requirements, and in some cases benzene content standard could be
a benzene (or aromatics) content to provide hydrogen supply for expressed as a flexible average level,
standard, compliance would be desulfurization of gasoline and diesel allowing some of the existing variability
determined using EPA’s Complex Model fuel, we believe that refiners would in current benzene levels to remain
or an updated version of it. Several choose benzene content reduction over while reducing overall benzene levels.
parameters of a refiner’s gasoline aromatics reductions even when they For several reasons, it became clear that
(including benzene and aromatics theoretically had the choice to do an average standard was the most
content) would be used as inputs into otherwise. Experience with the MSAT1 appropriate for this program.
the model. Based on these and other emissions performance standard has As mentioned above, there is a great
assumed properties of the gasoline, the confirmed this. However, as mentioned diversity in the benzene content of
model would estimate the expected previously, gasoline parameters do gasoline currently produced at refineries
level of benzene emissions from that change, octane requirements can across the country. In 2003, the annual
gasoline formulation. decrease, ethanol will supply additional average benzene content of refineries
As compared to a program based on octane, and therefore aromatic ranged nationally from under 0.5 vol%
the direct measurement of benzene reductions may occur in the future to above 3.5 vol%. This variation among
content in gasoline, we believe that one regardless. Were this to occur, a benzene refineries is also reflected in large
relying on modeled estimates of emission standard set today could allow regional differences in average gasoline
benzene emissions would be difficult to benzene content to increase in the benzene content, as illustrated below
set today. As with the toxics future. Given the additional complexity (Tables VII.C–2 and VII.F–1).
performance standard we considered and uncertainty associated with a In addition to average benzene levels
above, gasoline parameters and their benzene emission standard, we have varying widely across refineries and
effects on MSAT emissions will be therefore elected to propose a benzene regions, per-gallon benzene levels for
changing in the future due to the Energy content standard exclusively. We individual batches produced by a
Policy Act, changes in crude oil request comment on this approach and refinery also vary dramatically
supplies, and perhaps other unknown on a benzene emission standard. depending on the crude oil supply and
factors. In addition, the effects of fuel the refinery streams used to produce a
changes on MSAT emissions from the 3. How Did We Select the Level of the particular batch. This variation occurs
new Tier 2 vehicles now entering the Proposed Gasoline Benzene Content as a result of a wide range of day-to-day
light-duty fleet are poorly represented in Standard? decisions necessary in producing
our modeling. Thus, it would be a. Current Gasoline Benzene Levels marketable gasoline within a refinery on
difficult to accurately predict future a continuous basis. We reviewed actual
gasoline parameters and set an In selecting an appropriate level for batch data for a typical refinery
appropriate benzene emission standard the proposed benzene content standard, producing both RFG and CG with an
that ensured the greatest emission we began by evaluating the current average benzene content of 1.6 vol% for
reduction achievable, especially a status of the industry regarding gasoline all its gasoline, and batch benzene levels
standard that could remain stable for a benzene. Benzene content varies widely ranged from under 0.1 to 3.0 vol% for
number of years. As benzene content among refineries, depending on such CG. The range for RFG is typically
has been and is sure to remain by far the factors as refinery configuration and narrower due to the existing 1.3 vol%
most important fuel parameter in proximity to benzene markets. The per gallon cap, but still shows
estimating benzene emissions, a national average benzene level was 1.6 significant batch to batch fluctuations.
benzene content standard provides vol% in 1990. Due to the 0.95 vol% Batches that refiners produce with
greater assurance of actual benzene requirement of the 1995 RFG program, benzene higher than 1.3 vol% are
emission reduction in-use. the introduction of gasoline oxygenate marketed as CG.
Even if it were practical to set a long- requirements, and other factors, benzene We considered controlling benzene
term benzene emission standard, such levels have since declined. By 2003, emissions with a fixed, per-gallon
an approach would be problematic for RFG averaged 0.62 vol% benzene. (See benzene content standard to be met at
other reasons. As we have stated, the section V.D.1 above.) all refineries. By capping gasoline
only significant option for reducing Benzene levels have also declined for benzene content in this way, the
benzene emissions other than reducing CG over the same period, to an average program would ensure that all gasoline
benzene content is reducing aromatics of 1.14 vol%. This is in part because nationwide would have benzene levels
content. Since we do not believe that when faced with investing in new below the selected upper limit.
requiring control of gasoline aromatics processes to comply with the RFG However, as we developed the rule, it
is appropriate at this time, a benzene benzene standard, some refiners found became clear that with the large
emission standard would not result in it economical to install more benzene variation in benzene levels among
appreciably different emission extraction capacity than was needed to refineries and regions (reflecting the
reductions than would result from a meet the standard. As a result, in many variation in the economics of reducing
benzene content standard. However, cases, these refiners have also controlled benzene), a per-gallon standard would
given that aromatics control is a less benzene from CG. have to be so high (to account for
effective means of reducing benzene maximum, legitimate potential
emissions and has a more disruptive b. The Need for an Average Benzene variability) as to leave most refineries
effect on octane values (as just Standard with little or no need to reduce benzene.
discussed), requiring more aromatics Even before considering the level of Moreover, the burden of the national
control could dramatically increase the the benzene content standard, we first control program would fall almost
cost of compliance. Finally, although a needed to consider the standard’s entirely on the refineries where the
benzene emission standard might be potential form. A standard for this challenges of control would be greatest,
assumed to offer additional flexibility to purpose could be expressed as a per- and where the most lead time would be
required for compliance. With many benzene content. (Section VII.F below appears likely, ‘‘perfect’’ credit trading
refineries able to comply without and Chapter 6 of the RIA have more did not occur, some refiners would have
making any changes, we do not believe detailed discussions of benzene to use additional, more extreme
such a program would represent the reduction technologies). approaches that would be even more
greatest reduction feasible, as the Clean All of the methods that we considered costly and would require more difficult
Air Act requires. focus on reducing benzene content in compromises in the operation of the
The typical fluctuations in benzene the reformate stream, which is the refineries. (We discuss these
content among batches at individual product of the reformer unit. The role of technological and operational
refineries, as discussed above, also the reformer unit is to increase gasoline approaches to benzene reduction in
indicate the need for refiners to have a octane, which it does by generating more detail in section VII.F below and
degree of flexibility in producing aromatic compounds from simpler in Chapter 6 of the RIA.)
gasoline, as would be provided by an hydrocarbons. Benzene is one of the In 2003, the average benzene level in
average benzene standard. Restrictions aromatic compounds produced by the RFG was 0.62 vol%.240 We believe an
on day-to-day fluctuations would not reformer. Reformate accounts for 30– annual average benzene standard of 0.62
significantly affect average benzene 40% of gasoline volume and can contain vol% applied to all gasoline (both CG
levels, but would certainly increase as much as 12% benzene. As a result, and RFG) would be feasible considering
costs as refiners invested in avoiding reformate contributes the majority of the cost and other factors. Furthermore,
occasionally higher benzene batches. total benzene content of gasoline. For implementing an average benzene
We believe that allowing refiners to these reasons, treatment of reformate is standard of 0.62 vol% would achieve
average batches with fluctuating usually the most effective and several other important program goals.
benzene over a year’s time, as we economical means of reducing benzene At this level, the same benzene standard
propose, would result in a more cost- content. Several proven and could be applied to both RFG and CG
effective program. commercially available technologies nationwide, and our analysis shows that
Most importantly, it is clear that with exist for reducing benzene creation in the RFG benzene reductions already
the incorporation of a carefully- the reformer and removing it from the achieved by the industry to date would
designed benzene credit averaging, reformate product. not be lost. We expect that refiners
banking, and trading (ABT) program, a The least stringent standard we currently producing RFG with benzene
more stringent benzene standard would evaluated, a national average of 0.95 levels below 0.62 vol% would continue
be feasible, and implementation could vol% benzene, would not require any to be committed to producing low-
occur earlier. Thus, we are proposing a changes at most refineries. For the benzene gasoline based on prior
0.62 vol% annual average standard to refineries where action would be investment in benzene extraction
begin in 2011. Under the proposed ABT needed, we project that most could be equipment or ABT credit incentives.
program, refiners could generate early brought into compliance by reducing Additionally, as discussed below in
credits by making early reduction efforts creation of benzene in the reformer VII.C.5, a gasoline benzene standard of
prior to 2011. Refiners would have an using the simplest and least costly of the 0.62 vol% would achieve sufficient
incentive to do so, because the credits technology options evaluated. We do mobile source air toxic reductions
generated could be used to postpone not believe that a standard at this level allowing this program to supersede the
more expensive final investments in would meet the statutory requirements additional MSAT requirements under
benzene control technology. In this way, of section 202(l) of the Clean Air Act to EPAct. Finally, an average benzene
the ABT program would allow the achieve the greatest reductions standard applied to both CG and RFG,
economic burden of the benzene achievable considering cost and other would allow for a uniform nationwide
standard to be more efficiently factors since, as discussed below, ABT program providing additional
distributed among refiners and over greater reductions are feasible at flexibility and reduced compliance costs
time. The proposed ABT program would reasonable cost, and without adverse to refiners, resulting in the greatest
result in lower benzene levels in all energy or safety implications. achievable reductions within the
As the most stringent case, we meaning of section 202(l).
areas of the country compared to today’s
evaluated a national average benzene At a national average standard of 0.62
levels, as described in more detail below
content standard of 0.52 vol%. Our vol%, we estimate that a number of
in section VII.D.
analysis indicates that a standard at this refiners would produce gasoline with
c. Potential Levels for the Average level would require all refiners to invest significantly lower fuel benzene levels,
Benzene Standard in the most effective technologies used creating enough benzene credits to
We evaluated a range of potential today that remove the benzene from allow refiners in less economically
standards on a national refinery annual their reformate product streams favorable positions to purchase these
average basis from 0.52 to 0.95 vol% (benzene saturation and benzene credits on an on-going basis and use
benzene.239 Our refinery-by-refinery extraction, as discussed below). If the them for compliance purposes. We
model incorporates data on individual ABT program were fully utilized (all project that further reductions would
refineries whenever possible and credits generated were used), we believe occur not only in CG, but also in RFG,
estimates the likely technological all refiners might comply with this despite the fact that RFG is already
approaches that refiners would choose average standard. Because of the almost averaging 0.62 vol%. As discussed in
universal need for refineries to use the
for each refinery to comply with each section IX below and in Chapter 9 of the
most expensive reformate-based
potential standard at the least cost. The RIA, as the stringency is pushed below
benzene control technologies, we
model chooses among several 0.62 vol%, the overall program costs
believe a standard of 0.52 vol% would
technological options that are the most would begin to rise more steeply. This
be very challenging economically for
common and effective methods is because in meeting a lower average
many refineries, and we believe that
available to refiners to reduce gasoline standard, there would be fewer
such a standard would not be
239 For this evaluation we used both refinery achievable taking costs into 240 Volume-weighted average benzene level based
linear programming (LP) models and a refinery-by- consideration, as we are required to do on January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004 RFG batch
refinery model developed specifically for this rule. under section 202(l). In addition, if, as reports.
refineries able to comply at low cost, unified standard and nationwide ABT, vol% become effective on January 1,
resulting in fewer credits being we believe that the program would 2011. Because the final rule will be
generated. This in turn would require achieve the maximum economical completed in early 2007, this would
more investment among refiners with reduction in all areas and greater overall allow about 4 years for refiners to plan
higher costs of compliance. benzene reduction over the CG and RFG and execute the necessary capital
We also considered a program that pools. projects and operational changes needed
would apply separate benzene content In addition, we considered a to meet the program requirements. We
standards to RFG and CG. In the context somewhat less stringent national discuss our assessment of necessary
of any nationwide ABT program that average standard than the proposed 0.62 lead time in section VII.F below. We
allowed trading across both RFG and vol% (e.g., 0.65 or 0.70 vol%). Such believe that this proposed level for the
CG, separate standards for these two standards would still achieve significant standard, the proposed ABT program,
gasoline pools would not be benzene emission reductions. However, and the proposed implementation date
fundamentally different from the we are concerned that a less stringent together meet the statutory requirement
proposed unified standard. The only standard would not satisfy our statutory that the program results in the greatest
impact would be to somewhat change obligation for the most stringent emission reduction achievable
which refiners generated credits and standard feasible considering cost and considering costs and other factors.
which used credits, and to what degree. other factors. Furthermore, such We encourage comment on our
For separate RFG and CG standards to standards would not allow us to selection of this level for the standard,
have a meaningful impact in accomplish several important especially with data and analysis that
comparison to today’s proposed programmatic objectives. Given that the support the comments.
program, separate trading programs for average benzene content of RFG in 2003
each of the two gasoline pools would be was already 0.62 vol%, such higher d. Comparison of Other Benzene
required. Our modeling shows that standards would not provide the Regulatory Programs
without the credits generated by RFG certainty that the air toxics performance
producers in a nationwide trading In addition to the benzene content
of RFG would decline in the future. This
program, it would not be possible to set standard of the RFG program, California
would then trigger the provisions in the
as stringent a standard for CG. The and several countries have regulatory
2005 EPAct to adjust the MSAT1
higher-benzene refineries that would limits on the benzene content of
baseline for RFG. The only way of
most need credits to meet a stringent gasoline. Table VII.C–1 shows the basic
avoiding this situation would be to
average standard are a subset of provisions of each of these programs.
maintain separate standards for RFG
refineries that produce CG. As a result, and CG where the RFG standard was Canada has limits similar to those
in a program with separate RFG and CG still more stringent than 0.62 vol% and covering U.S. RFG. In Canada,
pools, we would expect to set a slightly credits could not be used from CG to producers may either comply with a 1.0
more stringent standard for RFG alone, comply. As discussed above, having vol% flat limit or an averaging standard
but we would need to set a substantially separate standards with separate ABT of 0.95 vol%, with a per-gallon cap of
relaxed standard for CG. The net result programs raises additional cost and 1.5 vol%. The European Union regulates
would be, at best, the same nationwide feasibility issues. fuel to the same level in all its member
average benzene reductions in the RFG For all of the above reasons, we countries, currently a per-gallon cap of
and CG pools that would be expected believe that a refinery annual average 1.0 vol%. Japan has the same limit as
under a unified standard. However, benzene content standard of 0.62 vol% the E.U., while South Korea will be
there would be a clear risk that the applying to all gasoline nationwide moving from a cap of 1.5 to 1.0 vol%
reduced generation of credits by lower- (excluding California), in conjunction in 2006.
cost refineries would lead to either a with an appropriately-designed ABT California is the only state that has
significant increase in the cost of the system, would maximize benzene implemented a benzene standard, and it
program (because higher-cost refineries emission reductions considering cost is similar to the standard we are
would need to make refinery changes and other factors. proposing today. California’s average
earlier) or the potential for fewer Section 202(l)(2) also requires that we standard is 0.7 vol%, with a per-gallon
reductions through the process of consider lead time in determining the cap of 1.1 vol%. Together, these
setting the levels for the separate CG greatest reductions achievable. We are standards result in an average 0.62 vol%
and RFG standards. Conversely, with a proposing that the standard of 0.62 in-use gasoline benzene level.
TABLE VII.C–1.—OTHER GASOLINE BENZENE CONTROL PROGRAMS

California European
Federal RFG Canada South Korea Japan
phase 3 RFG Union
Average Std (vol%) .................................. 0.95 a 0.7 0.95 ........................ ........................ ........................
Per-gallon Cap (vol%) .............................. 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.5 b 1.0 1.0
a Producers may also comply with a per-gallon cap of 1.0.
b Limit to be lowered to 1.0 in 2006.
4. How Do We Address Variations in levels across the country. According to ranged from 0.41 to 3.81 vol%,
Refinery Benzene Levels? summer 2003 batch data (proposed including both RFG and CG. The current
a. Overall Reduction in Benzene Level baseline 241), average benzene content
predict refinery behavior (discussed later in section
and Variation 241 For IX) is based on inputs from the linear programming
the purpose of our analyses, we selected
2003 to represent current (baseline) conditions (LP) model, which is set up to only model the
As explained above, there is currently because it reflected the most recent batch data summer season. As a result, we have used summer
a wide variation in gasoline benzene available. The refinery-by-refinery model used to 2003 as our baseline period.
variation in benzene levels is primarily refineries would increase their benzene For others it would be economical to
attributable to differences in crude oil levels. make some reduction in gasoline
quality, different refinery Upon implementation of the proposed benzene levels and rely partially upon
configurations, and differences in 0.62 vol% benzene standard in 2011, we credits. For some refineries already
refinery operations. Our analysis of the believe that some refiners would reduce below the standard, no benzene
proposed program, summarized below, benzene levels to below the standard reduction efforts would be necessary.
concludes that average benzene levels while others would reduce benzene For the limited number of remaining
would be reduced in all areas of the levels but would need to rely partially technologically-challenged refineries it
or largely on credits generated and
country (PADDs 242) and variation would be most economical to rely
traded under the proposed ABT
among refineries would also be reduced. wholly upon credits. Regardless of the
program, as described below. Refiners’
We believe that under the proposed compliance strategies selected, under
compliance strategies would ultimately
rule, virtually all refineries would be driven by economics. For many it the proposed program, benzene levels
reduce their benzene levels and that no would be economical to reduce gasoline and variation would be reduced
benzene levels to 0.62 vol% or below. nationwide.
TABLE VII.C–2.—BENZENE LEVELS IN GASOLINE PRODUCED CURRENTLY AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PROGRAM
Number of refineries by gasoline benzene level (vol%) Benezene level (vol%) *
<0.5 0.5–<1.0 1.0–<1.5 1.5–<2.0 2.0–<2.5 >=2.5 Min Max Range ** Avg ***
Starting Gasoline Benzene Levels***
PADD 1 ..................................................... 4 3 3 0 2 0 0.41 2.19 1.77 0.62

PADD 2 ..................................................... 0 5 8 11 1 1 0.60 2.85 2.25 1.32
PADD 3 ..................................................... 4 18 10 7 0 2 0.41 3.10 2.69 0.86
PADD 4 ..................................................... 0 1 4 6 3 2 0.60 3.56 2.96 1.60
PADD 5 **** ............................................... 0 0 1 3 2 2 1.36 3.81 2.44 2.06
Total ................................................... 8 27 26 27 8 7 0.41 3.81 3.39 0.97
Benzene Levels After Program Implementation
PADD 1 ..................................................... 4 5 1 2 0 0 0.41 1.96 1.54 0.51

PADD 2 ..................................................... 1 22 1 2 0 0 0.49 1.95 1.46 0.73
PADD 3 ..................................................... 10 27 3 0 1 0 0.36 2.07 1.71 0.55
PADD 4 ..................................................... 0 8 7 1 0 0 0.53 1.94 1.40 0.95
PADD 5 *** ................................................ 0 4 2 2 0 0 0.54 1.84 1.30 1.04
Total ................................................... 15 66 14 7 1 0 0.36 2.07 1.71 0.62

* Starting benzene levels based on summer 2003 batch data.
** Range in benzene level (MIN–MAX).
*** Average volume-weighted benzene level.
**** PADD 5 excluding California.
As shown in Table VII.C–2, average eliminate the uncertainty associated nevertheless considered whether an
benzene levels would be reduced by with relying on credits. Finally, upper limit on benzene (in addition to
36%, from 0.97 vol% (baseline) to 0.62 reducing benzene levels could generate the average standard) would be valuable
vol% once the program is fully credits that would be valuable to the to prevent that outcome from
implemented. Variation in benzene refining industry. happening.243 We considered two
level, measured in terms of range, different forms of an upper benzene
b. Consideration of an Upper Limit
would be reduced by 50% (from 3.39 limit to complement the average
Standard
vol% to 1.71 vol%). In addition the standard: a per-gallon cap standard and
areas with the highest starting benzene We believe that the proposed program a maximum average standard.
levels and variation (PADDs 2, 3, 4 and would provide significant benefits in all i. Per-Gallon Cap Standard
5) would experience the greatest areas of the nation. Nevertheless, we
reductions. recognize that some commenters are A cap would require that each gallon
In conclusion, we project that under likely to be concerned that under a (or batch) of gasoline produced or
the proposed program all areas of the flexible ABT program it is possible that imported not contain more than a
country would see reductions in average some refiners could maintain their specified concentration of benzene.
benzene level and variation among current benzene levels or even increase Such a standard would force those
refineries would also be reduced. them and comply through the use of refineries with the highest benzene
Refiners would have several motivations credits. If such a refinery dominated a levels to make physical changes to their
for making the benzene reductions particular market, then even though gasoline instead of having the option of
projected by our analysis. First, nationally there would be significant relying exclusively on credits. In
reducing actual benzene levels could be benzene reductions, they might not addition to formally limiting the
the most economically-favorable occur in that market. While our analysis maximum benzene content sold
compliance strategy. Secondly, reducing does not lead us to believe that such an anywhere in the country, such a cap
benzene levels would help reduce or outcome would happen, we have would also be straightforward to enforce
242 The Department of Energy divides the United Defense Districts, or PADDs. The states included in 243 Upper limits on benzene are a part of
States into five Petroleum Administration for each PADD are defined at 40 CFR 80.41. comparable programs in California and in other
countries.
at any point in the distribution system. At the same time, the per-gallon cap national program achieves significant
Note that we are proposing that the would appear to provide no overall overall benzene emission reductions.
existing per-gallon cap of 1.3 vol% additional reduction in benzene levels. We invite comment on our
benzene would remain in effect for RFG Despite the increased costs, particularly conclusions about having an upper limit
under this rule. EPA invites comment for higher-benzene refiners, our analysis in addition to an average standard.
on whether the RFG benzene cap should indicates that little additional emission
be retained. reduction would result (primarily 5. How Would the Proposed Program
The primary disadvantage of adding a because the higher-benzene refineries Meet or Exceed Related Statutory and
rigid cap is that it would not allow for represent a relatively small fraction of Regulatory Requirements?
occasional, short-term fluctuations in nationwide gasoline production).
Instead, as discussed below, emission Three fuels programs (RFG, Anti-
benzene content. Refiners are faced with
reductions are expected to simply shift dumping and MSAT1) currently contain
a range of unexpected or planned
from one region of the country to direct controls on the toxics
circumstances that could cause
another, with no change in the overall performance of gasoline.247 Based on
temporary spikes in benzene content,
emission reductions. Because of this, our analyses of the proposed program,
including equipment malfunctions and
and due to the potential deleterious cost including the proposed ABT program,
periodic maintenance. Although the 1.3
impacts, we are not proposing a per- we expect that meeting the proposed
vol% cap would remain for RFG, to
gallon cap benzene standard. fuel benzene content standard combined
apply a cap in this range to CG would
eliminate a necessary market for higher with other fuel controls would also lead
ii. Maximum Average Standard
benzene batches.244 With no ability to to compliance with the toxics
Another means of ensuring some requirements of all these programs.
market the gasoline, the refiner would reduction by those refiners with the
be forced to suspend gasoline The RFG program, implemented in
highest benzene concentrations would
production. This could in turn force the 1995, contains a fuel benzene standard
be to impose a maximum average
shutdown of the entire refinery, that requires a refinery’s or importer’s
standard. An annual maximum average
sacrificing supply of all products. To RFG to average no greater than 0.95
standard for each refinery would limit
attempt to avoid this situation, refiners the average benzene content of its actual vol% benzene annually.248 In addition,
would need to invest more heavily in production over the course of the year, RFG has a per-gallon benzene cap of 1.3
benzene control than needed to meet the regardless of the extent to which credits vol%. Each refinery’s or importer’s RFG
average standard, simply to provide may have been used for compliance. must also achieve at least a 21.5%
back-up control to protect against short- While slightly less restrictive than a per- annual average reduction in total toxics
term fluctuations. For some higher- gallon cap standard in that some emissions compared to 1990 baseline
benzene refineries, a cap could make shorter-term fluctuations in benzene gasoline.249 The Anti-dumping
complying with the program levels could occur, a maximum average regulations require that a refinery’s or
prohibitively expensive. standard would still limit the flexibility importer’s CG produce no more exhaust
Consequently, we concluded that if otherwise available through the ABT toxics emissions on an annual average
we were to impose a per-gallon cap, it program. Our modeling shows that a basis than its 1990 gasoline.250 This
would have to be high enough to allow number of refiners would need to invest program keeps refiners from shifting
most refineries to continue to operate substantially more to ensure compliance fuel components responsible for
even in such upset situations (in order with both the average and maximum elevated toxic emissions into CG as a
to account for legitimate maximum average standards. With the addition of way to comply with the RFG standards.
potential daily variability), thereby a maximum average standard, we expect Section V.D.1 above describes these
providing little overall benefit.245 emission reductions to simply shift from programs in more detail.
Alternatively, we would have to allow one region of the country to another The MSAT1 program, implemented in
exceptions to the per-gallon cap for such with no net change in overall emission 2002, was overlaid on the RFG and
upset situations, which would be reductions. For example, when Anti-dumping programs.251 As
burdensome to implement and also analyzing a 1.3 vol% maximum average explained in section V.D above, it was
result in little overall benefit. standard, benzene levels were lowered not designed to further reduce MSAT
If refiners with higher-benzene in two PADDs and raised in three emissions, but to lock in
refineries need to invest in greater PADDs compared to our proposed overcompliance on toxics performance
benzene control in order to protect program yet the overall emission that was being achieved in RFG and CG
against unpredictable upsets, their costs reductions remained the same.246 Since under the RFG and Anti-dumping
would be even higher relative to those we believe that a maximum average programs. The MSAT1 rule requires the
of lower-benzene refineries. As in the standard would increase costs but not annual average toxics performance of a
case of a program with no ABT at all, achieve any greater emission reduction, refinery’s or importer’s gasoline to be at
the statutory requirement to balance the we are not proposing such a standard. least as clean as the average
degree of feasible emission reduction We believe that the proposed ABT performance of its gasoline during the
with cost (and other factors) would have program, in combination with the three-year baseline period 1998–
the counterproductive effect of requiring proposed 0.62 vol% benzene standard
a less stringent overall program. without a cap or maximum average 247 Other gasoline fuel controls, such as sulfur,
limit, would result in the maximum RVP or VOC performance standards, indirectly
244 As explained in section VII.C.5 below, CG feasible reduction in benzene emissions, control toxics performance by reducing overall
considering costs, energy, and safety emissions of VOCs.
provides a limited safety valve for occasional

248 40 CFR 80 Subpart D. Refiners also have the
batches of high-benzene RFG due to the Anti- issues. The proposed ABT program
dumping provisions. option of meeting a per gallon limit of 1.0 vol%.
245 In California and other countries with benzene
would provide refiners with compliance 249 Emissions determined using the Complex
control programs, the refining industry tends to be flexibility while ensuring that the Model, as defined in 40 CFR 80.45.
250 CFR 80 Subpart E, emissions determined using
more homogeneous than in the U.S. as a whole and
face different market situations, resulting in 246 This program comparison is discussed further the Complex Model.
different considerations regarding upper limits. in Chapter 9 of the RIA (Table 9.6–7). 251 40 CFR 80 Subpart J.
2000.252 Compliance with MSAT1 is its petrochemical value and the credit program as the standards would be
determined separately for each market, we do not expect any refiners to modified by the EPAct.
refinery’s or importer’s RFG and CG. increase benzene content in their We performed an analysis of aggregate
Today’s proposed 0.62 vol% benzene gasoline. toxics emissions for the relevant
content standard would apply to all of In addition, we expect significant
baseline periods as well as for future
a refinery’s or importer’s gasoline ‘‘ that changes in oxygenate blending over the
years with and without the proposed
is, the total of its RFG and CG next several years, but these are very
program. This analysis was carried out
production or imports. This level of difficult predict on a refinery-by-
using MOBILE6.2 because that model
benzene control would far surpass the refinery basis. Regardless of how
accounts for changes in the vehicle fleet,
RFG standard of 0.95 vol%, and would individual refineries choose to blend
put in place a benzene content standard oxygenates in the future, we believe which is important when modeling
for CG for the first time.253 As described their gasoline will continue to comply future years. Results are shown in Table
further in Chapter 6 of the RIA, we with baseline requirements. This is VII.C–3. Since this modeling approach
analyzed the expected overall toxics because all RFG is currently was intended to compare emissions
performance under today’s proposed overcomplying with the statutory from different fuels and fleet year mixes,
program of benzene and vehicle requirement of 21.5% annual average the emissions figures generated here are
standards using currently-available toxics reductions by a significant different from those used for gasoline
models and compared it to toxics margin. Similarly, most CG is compliance determination.
performance under the pre-existing overcomplying with its 1990 baselines The first row shows mg/mi air toxics
standards.254 When RFG and CG toxics by a significant margin. Furthermore, emissions in 2002 under the MSAT1
emissions are evaluated at this new we believe most refiners currently refinery-specific baseline requirements.
level of benzene control, it is clear that blending oxygenates will continue to do The second row shows how these would
the benzene standard proposed today so at the same or greater level into the change by updating the RFG baselines to
would result in the MSAT1 toxics future. 2001–02 as specified in EPAct. Since
emissions performance requirements EPA is thus proposing that upon full significant changes are expected in the
being surpassed (i.e., bettered) not only implementation in 2011 the regulatory gasoline pool between 2002 and the
on average nationwide, but for every provisions for the benzene control proposed implementation time of the
PADD.255 program would become the single fuel standard, such as gasoline sulfur
To address compliance with statutory regulatory mechanism used to reductions and oxygenate changes, we
requirements currently in effect through implement these RFG and Anti- decided to model a ‘‘future baseline’’ to
the RFG and Anti-dumping programs, dumping annual average toxics allow comparison with the proposed
we carried out a refinery-by-refinery requirements, replacing the current RFG standard at the time it would become
analysis of toxics emissions and Anti-dumping annual average effective in 2011. As a result, the third
performance using the Complex Model provisions. However, the 1.3 vol% row shows the projected mg/mi
(the same model used for determining maximum benzene cap would remain in emissions in 2011 under the EPAct
compliance with these programs). We place for RFG under 40 CFR 80.41; we baseline adjustments, but without
used 2003 exhaust toxics performance are requesting comment on the need to
today’s proposed program. The large
for CG and 2003 total toxics retain this requirement for RFG. The
reductions in air toxics emissions
performance for RFG as benchmarks, proposed benzene control program
between the EPAct baseline and this
which are at least as stringent as the would also replace the MSAT1
2011 baseline are primarily due to
relevant toxics performance baselines. requirements.
We applied changes to each refiner’s Section 1504(b) of the Energy Policy nationwide reduction in gasoline sulfur
fuel parameters for today’s proposed Act of 2005 (EPAct) requires that the content to 30 ppm average and
standards and the gasoline sulfur MSAT1 toxics emissions baselines for significant phase-in of Tier 2 vehicles
standard phased in this year (30 ppm RFG be adjusted to reflect 2001–2002 into the national fleet.
average, 80 ppm max). The results fuel qualities, which would make them An important comparison is made
indicate that all refineries maintained or slightly more stringent than the 1998– between rows three and four, where the
reduced their emissions of toxics over 2000 baselines originally used in the estimated toxics emissions under the
2003. We expect large reductions in MSAT1 program. However, as provided proposed fuel standard only are
sulfur for almost all refineries under the for in the Act, this action becomes compared to the projected emissions
gasoline sulfur program, and large unnecessary and can be avoided if without the proposed standard. The
reductions in CG benzene levels along today’s proposed program achieves fourth row shows small reductions for
with modest reductions in RFG benzene greater overall reductions of toxics RFG and more significant reductions for
levels. We do not expect backsliding in emissions from RFG (i.e., PADDs 1 and CG with the introduction of the
sulfur levels by the few refiners 3) than would be achieved by this proposed benzene standard in 2011. We
previously below 30 ppm because they baseline year adjustment. Therefore, in also evaluated the effects of the vehicle
had been producing ultra-low sulfur addition to comparing the proposed standard also proposed today on toxics
gasoline for reasons related to refinery standard to the current MSAT1 emissions at two points in time, shown
configuration. Furthermore, because of program, we also compared it to the in the last two rows of the table.
252 Emissions determined using the Complex projections difficult. However, we do not believe and given the magnitude of the projected effects we
Model, as defined in 40 CFR 80.45. the conclusions would change for these reasons: (1) do not expect that the direction of the result would
253 Proposed program retains the 1.3 vol% The fuel effect changes modeled here related to change even if significantly different values for
benzene, for which we expect data for new absolute emissions were submitted.
maximum benzene cap for RFG required by 40 CFR
technology vehicles to show similar trends as those
80.41. for older vehicles; (2) much of the projected change
255 The analysis shows an even greater benefit in
254 As discussed previously, the existing models

in future emissions are due to changes in vehicles overall toxics reductions when the combined effect
contain limited data on the impacts of fuel changes technology, not fuel changes; and (3) for this of the benzene standard and the vehicle standards
on 2004 and later technology vehicles, making such analysis we need only look at the relative changes, are considered.
TABLE VII.C–3.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOXICS PERFORMANCE OF LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES IN MG/MI UNDER
CURRENT AND PROPOSED PROGRAMS a
Fleet RFG by PADD CG by PADD
Regulatory scenario
Year I II III I II III IV V
MSAT1 Baseline b (1998–2000) ... 2002 108 124 89 104 135 96 137 152
EPAct Baseline b (RFG: 2001–
2002) ........................................ 2002 103 121 85 104 135 96 137 152
EPAct Baseline, 2011 c ................ 2011 67 79 51 62 79 54 77 96
Proposed program, 2011 c (Fuel
standard only) ........................... 2011 66 78 50 59 74 51 71 85
Proposed program, 2011 c (Fuel +
vehicle standards) .................... 2011 63 76 47 55 72 47 67 81
Proposed program, 2025 c (Fuel +
vehicle standards) .................... 2025 39 46 30 35 44 31 42 50
a Total
toxics performance for this analysis includes overall emissions of 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene and formaldehyde as
calculated by MOBILE6.2. Although POM appears in the Complex Model, it is not included here. However, it contributes a small and relatively
constant mass to the total toxics figure (4%), and therefore doesn’t make a significant difference in the comparisons.
b Baseline figures generated in this analysis were calculated differently from the regulatory baselines determined as part of the MSAT1 pro-
gram, and are only intended to be a point of comparison for future year cases.
c Future year scenarios include (in addition to the controls proposed today, where stated) effects of the Tier 2 vehicle and gasoline sulfur
standards and vehicle fleet turnover with time, as well as rough estimates of the renewable fuels standard and the phase-out of ether blending.
Based on these analyses, we believe implementation of the gasoline sulfur make qualifying early baseline
the fuel program proposed in this program (January 1, 2006), all gasoline reductions prior to 2011 and by
notice, as well as the combined fuel and will continue to meet or exceed the NOX refineries and importers that
vehicle program, would also achieve requirements of the RFG and Anti- overcomply with the 0.62 vol%
greater overall toxics reductions than dumping programs. standard in 2011 and beyond. All
would be achieved under the EPAct As discussed elsewhere in this credits generated could be used
were the RFG baseline period updated preamble, we believe that today’s internally towards company compliance
to 2001–2002. proposed nationwide program would (‘‘averaged’’), ‘‘banked’’ for future use,
In summary, today’s proposed action achieve significant reductions in and/or transferred (‘‘traded’’) to another
for fuels would fulfill several statutory gasoline-related benzene emissions. The refiner or importer.
and regulatory goals related to control of program would also have the effect of The majority of the ABT credit
gasoline mobile source air toxics preempting states from regulating provisions we are proposing are similar
emissions. The proposed program (in gasoline benzene content. The program to those offered in the gasoline sulfur
conjunction with the proposed vehicle is proposed under Clean Air Act section program, with a few exceptions. The
standards) would meet our commitment 211(c), which includes preemption of major difference is that in the proposed
in the MSAT1 rulemaking to consider state fuel programs in section program, credit use would not be
further MSAT control. It would also 211(c)(4).256 The existing RFG benzene restricted by an upper limit (discussed
result in air toxics emission reductions program, also authorized under section in VII.C.4.b above) and in fact would be
greater than required under all pre- 211(c)(1), preempts states in RFG areas encouraged by extended credit life and
existing gasoline toxics programs, as from regulating benzene. Today’s nationwide credit trading provisions.
well as under the baseline adjustments nationwide program expands this We are able to propose a flexible ABT
specified by the Energy Policy Act. By preemption to all states except program and a gradual phase-in of the
designing this program to address these California, which is exempt from this 0.62 vol% benzene because there is no
separate but related goals, we would be preemption. corresponding vehicle standard being
able to achieve a benefit in addition to D. Description of the Proposed proposed that is dependent on gasoline
the emissions reductions: A significant Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) benzene content. A program with fewer
consolidation and simplification of Program restrictions would help ensure that the
regulation of gasoline MSATs. overall proposed benzene control
As part of today’s action, in addition 1. Overview program would result in the greatest
to the streamlining of toxics As mentioned earlier, we are achievable benzene reductions,
requirements, we propose that the proposing a specially-designed ABT considering cost and other factors.
gasoline sulfur program become the sole program to allow EPA to set a more Because of the wide variation in
regulatory mechanism used to stringent nationwide gasoline benzene current benzene levels among refineries,
implement gasoline NOX requirements. standard than otherwise possible. The we recognize that some refiners would
Gasoline producers are required to show proposed ABT program would allow be better situated than others,
reductions from their RFG relative to the refiners and importers to use benzene technologically and financially, to
1990 Clean Air Act baseline gasoline credits generated or obtained under the respond to the proposed benzene
NOX emissions, as determined using the provisions of the ABT program to standard. As we discuss below, we
Complex Model. Conventional gasoline comply with the 0.62 vol% refinery believe that the credit trading provisions
must comply with Anti-dumping average standard in 2011 and of the ABT program would be well
individual NOX baselines for each indefinitely thereafter. Benzene credits suited to moderate the financial impacts
refinery, similar to the Anti-dumping could be generated by refineries that that could otherwise occur with the
toxics standards. A refinery-by-refinery proposed benzene control program.
NOX analysis parallel to that described 256 See discussion of statutory authority in section However, in other air quality
above indicated that with the final I.C. of this preamble. programs, we have used other trading
mechanisms to address the varying with the standard without making any gallons of gasoline produced during the
impacts of such programs on different additional process improvements. These 2011 calendar year. The credits needed
regulated entities. For example, in refineries would generate approximately would be expressed in gallons of
EPA’s Acid Rain program a limited 42 million gallons of benzene credits benzene.
number of ‘‘emissions allowances’’ are per year without making any investment We believe that individual refineries
allocated among entities, which can in technology. Additionally, the model would rely differently upon credits,
then be banked and traded. We invite predicts that 5 other refineries would depending on their unique refinery
comment on this and other alternative reduce gasoline benzene levels even situations. As mentioned earlier, the
credit approaches that might be further below 0.62 vol% resulting in current range in gasoline refinery
appropriate to gasoline benzene control. deeper overcompliance and an technologies and starting benzene levels
The following paragraphs provide additional 6 million gallons of benzene would make it significantly more
more details on our proposed benzene credits per year. expensive for some refineries to comply
ABT program. We encourage comments Second, standard credits would be with the standard based on actual
on the design elements we have generated by refineries whose current reduced benzene levels than others. As
proposed for the program. If you believe gasoline benzene levels are above 0.62 such, some technologically-challenged
that alternative approaches would make vol% but are predicted by the model to refiners may choose to rely largely or
the program more effective, please share overcomply with the standard based on entirely upon credits because it would
your specific comments and existing refinery technology, access to be much more economical than making
recommendations with us. capital markets, and/or proximity to the process improvements to reduce
benzene chemical market. The model benzene levels. Other refiners may
2. Standard Credit Generation (2011 and
predicts that 34 refineries with gasoline choose to make incremental process
Beyond)
benzene levels above 0.62 vol% would improvements to reduce refinery
We are proposing that standard make process improvements to reduce benzene levels and then rely partially
benzene credits could be generated by benzene levels below the standard and on credits to fully comply. Still others
any refinery or importer that in turn generate approximately 40 may choose to reduce benzene levels to
overcomplies with the 0.62 vol% million gallons of benzene credits per at or around 0.62 vol% and maintain an
gasoline benzene standard on an annual year. ‘‘emergency supply’’ of credits to
volume-weighted basis in 2011 and For the refineries which the model address short-term spikes in benzene
beyond. For example, if in 2011 a predicts to make process changes to levels due to refinery malfunctions.
refinery’s annual average benzene level overcomply with the standard, the Overall, the proposed credit trading
was 0.52, its standard benzene credits incremental cost to overcomply is program would encourage low-cost
would be determined based on the relatively small or even profitable in refineries to comply or overcomply with
margin of overcompliance with the some cases of benzene extraction.258 As the standard while allowing high-cost
standard (0.62¥0.52 = 0.10 vol%) expected, refineries with the lowest refineries to rely upon credits to
divided by 100 and multiplied by the compliance costs would have the comply. This would reduce the total
gallons of gasoline produced during the greatest incentive to overcomply based economic burden to the refining
2011 calendar year. The credits would on the value of the credits to the industry.
be expressed as gallons of benzene. refining industry.
Likewise, if in 2012 the same refinery a. Credit Trading Area
produced the same amount of gasoline 3. Credit Use We are proposing a nationwide credit
with the same benzene content they We are proposing that refiners and trading program with no geographic
would earn the same amount of credits. importers could use benzene credits restrictions on trading. In other words,
The standard credit generation generated or obtained under the a refiner or importer could obtain
opportunities for overcomplying with provisions of the ABT program to benzene credits and use them towards
the standard would continue comply with the 0.62 vol% gasoline compliance regardless of where the
indefinitely. benzene standard in 2011 and credits were generated. We believe that
The refinery cost model discussed indefinitely thereafter. Refineries and restricting credit trading could reduce
further in section IX.A, predicts which importers could use credits to comply refiners’ incentive to generate credits
refineries would reduce benzene levels on a one-for-one basis, applying each and hinder trading essential to this
in an order of precedence based on cost benzene gallon credit to offset the same program. As explained in Chapter 6 of
until the 0.62 vol% refinery average volume of benzene produced in gasoline the RIA, if PADD restrictions were
standard is achieved. The model also above the standard. For example, if in placed on credit trading, there would be
predicts which refineries would 2011 a refinery’s annual average an imbalance between the supply and
overcomply with the standard in 2011 benzene level was 0.72, the number of demand of credits.
and beyond and in turn generate benzene credits needed to comply In other fuel standard ABT programs
standard credits.257 Credits would be would be determined based on the (e.g., the highway diesel sulfur
generated by two main sources. margin of under-compliance with the program), credit trading restrictions
First, standard credits would be standard (0.72¥0.62 = 0.10 vol%) were necessary to ensure there was
generated by refineries whose current divided by 100 and multiplied by the adequate low-sulfur fuel available in
gasoline benzene levels are already each geographic area to meet the
below the 0.62 vol% standard. 258 Despite the low costs of benzene extraction, corresponding vehicle standard. Since
According to the model, 19 refineries without a benzene control standard refiners are there is no vehicle emission standard
are predicted to maintain current reluctant to invest in capital-intensive processes
being proposed that is dependent on
such as extraction. This is because many other

gasoline benzene levels and overcomply projects involving capital investments that they gasoline benzene content, we do not
may be considering typically have a better or more believe there is a need for geographic
257 The refinery cost model assumes that all certain payout (past price volatility in the benzene trading restrictions. As mentioned
credits generated are used each year. To the extent chemical market can discourage future investment).
that this does not occur, more refiners would have Thus, refiners tend to postpone capital projects
above, we project that under the
to invest in technology to comply, increasing the such as extraction even if they may appear to be proposed ABT program, all areas of the
cost of the program. profitable today. country (i.e., all PADDs) would
experience a large reduction in gasoline and trading concerns yet sufficiently trade these credits at the end of their life
benzene levels as a result of the long to provide program flexibility. to small refiners who could utilize them
standard. We are proposing that standard for two more years. However, EPA is
As discussed earlier, California credits generated in 2011 and beyond concerned that extending credit life
gasoline would not be subject to the would have to be used within five years beyond the five-year statute of
proposed benzene standards. However, of the year in which they were limitations in the Clean Air Act (net 7-
California refiners that produce gasoline generated. For example, credits year credit life for standard credits
that is used outside of California would generated based on 2011 gasoline generated by or traded to small refiners)
be able to generate credits on that production would have to be used could create significant enforceability
gasoline (and use credits to achieve towards compliance with the 2016 problems. Consequently, EPA seeks
compliance on their non-California calendar year or earlier, otherwise they
comment on provisions that could be
gasoline if necessary). Likewise, as would expire. Standard credits traded to
included in the regulations that would
proposed, refiners outside of California another party would still have to be
used during the same five-year period address this enforceability concern
that produce gasoline that is used in regarding the extended credit life for
California would not be allowed to use because credit life is tied to the date of
generation, not the date of transfer. small refiner standard credits.
that gasoline as the basis for any credit
generation, or compliance with the We are proposing that early credits As discussed in Section X.A, we are
proposed benzene standard. However, generated prior to 2011 (discussed in also seeking comment on different ways
we request comment on whether and the paragraphs to follow) would have a of structuring the program that may be
how credits could be allowed to be three-year credit life from the start of the able to allow for unlimited credit life
generated on California gasoline program. In other words, early credits since, unlike in the gasoline sulfur
would have to be applied to the 2011, program, there is no vehicle standard
benzene reductions and applied to the
2012, and/or 2013 compliance years or being proposed that is dependent on
benzene compliance for non-California
they would expire. fuel quality. We considered that
gasoline. These proposed credit life provisions
EPA seeks comment on the proposed unlimited credit life could further
are similar to those finalized in the
nationwide trading provision, its effect promote credit generation and allow
gasoline sulfur program, except the
on incentives for refiners to generate refiners to maintain an ongoing supply
early credit life is three years instead of
credits, and environmental impacts. of credits in the event of an emergency.
two. We are proposing a three-year early
credit life because it corresponds with However, for several reasons we have
b. Credit Life elected to propose a limited credit life
the number of early credits projected to
We are proposing limited credit life to be generated according to our refinery based on the context of the rest of the
enable proper enforcement of the cost model.259 Additionally, we predict proposed program. If unlimited credit
program and to encourage trading of that three years would be more than life were to discourage trading of
credits. Since the proposed standard is sufficient time for all early credits credits, this could force refineries with
a refinery gate standard (i.e., enforced as generated to be utilized. We believe that more expensive benzene control
the fuel leaves the refinery) with no this certainty that all credits could be technologies to comply and thus
enforceable downstream standard, it is utilized would strengthen refiners’ increase the total cost of the program. In
critical that EPA be able to conduct incentive to generate early credits and addition, unlimited credit life would
enforcement at the refinery. A subsequently establish a more reliable make it more difficult to verify
reasonable limitation on credit life credit market for trading. compliance with the standard. One way
would allow EPA to verify the validity In addition to the above-mentioned of addressing this concern would be to
of credits through record retention. provisions, we are proposing that credit require refiners to retain credit records
Credit information must be life may be extended by two years for indefinitely. Even then, given the fluid
independently verifiable such that, in early credits and/or standard credits nature of refiner and importer
the event of violations involving credits, generated by or traded to approved ownership in recent years, in many
the liable party is identifiable and small refiners. We are offering this cases it would still be difficult to verify
accountable. EPA enforcement activities provision as a mechanism to encourage the validity of historical credit
are limited by the five-year statute of more credit trading to small refiners. generation and use. Since the proposed
limitations in the Clean Air Act. As a Small refiners often face special benzene standard would be enforced
consequence, credit life greater than five technological challenges, so they would solely at the refinery, it is critical that
years creates potentially serious tend to have more of a need to rely on such enforcement be as simple and
enforcement difficulties. This is credits. At the same time, they often straightforward as possible.
particularly important given the ongoing have fewer business affiliations than Nonetheless, as discussed in Section
changes in business relationships, other refiners, so they could have X.A, it may be possible to design the
ownership, and merger practices that difficulty obtaining credits. We believe overall program in such a way to
are characteristic of the refining this provision would be equally address these concerns and still allow
industry. In addition, since credit beneficial to refiners generating credits. for infinite credit life.
trading plays an essential role in This additional credit life for credits
moderating program costs, it is traded to small refiners would give In conclusion, we are proposing a
important that refiners have an refiners generating credits a greater reasonably limited credit life for both
incentive to trade credits rather than opportunity to fully utilize the credits early and standard benzene credits. We
hoard them. Instituting a credit before they expire. For example, a seek comment on unlimited credit life.
expiration date would promote trading refiner who was holding on to credits Please share with us any additional
because refiners would be forced to ‘‘use for emergency purposes or other reasons ideas you may have on how unlimited
it or lose it.’’ In summary, we believe later found to be unnecessary, could credit life could be beneficial to this
the proposed credit life provisions, program and/or how associated
described in more detail below, are 259 Derivation of three-year early credit lag is recordkeeping and enforcement issues
limited enough to satisfy enforcement found in Chapter 6 of the RIA (section 6.5.3.1). could be mitigated.
4. Early Credit Generation (2007–2010) what constitutes a qualifying benzene strategy, but completed earlier than
reduction is found in the subsections to required. We project that from mid-2007
To encourage early application of and follow. The early credits generated to 2010, refiners could implement
innovation in benzene control under this program would be operational changes and/or make small
technology, we are proposing that interchangeable with the standard capital investments to reduce gasoline
refiners could generate early benzene credits generated in 2011 and beyond benzene. These actions would create a
credits from June 1, 2007 to December and would follow the above-mentioned two-step phase down in gasoline
31, 2010 by making qualifying credit use provisions. benzene prior to 2011 as shown in
reductions from their pre-determined The early reductions we are projecting
Figure VII.D–1.
refinery baselines. A discussion of how to occur would be the initial steps of
refinery baselines are established and each refinery’s ultimate benzene control BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

construction and other related services, operations are more variable than
The credits generated under the early reducing overall compliance costs. refinery operations, importers could
credit program could be used to provide Importers would not be permitted to potentially redistribute the importation
refiners with additional lead time to generate early credits, for several of foreign gasoline based on benzene
make their investments. If properly reasons.260 First, unlike refineries, level to generate early credits without
implemented, we project that the delay importers would not need additional making a net reduction in gasoline
could be as much as three years as lead time to comply with the standard, benzene. This type of scheme could
described in Chapter 6 of the RIA. since they would not be investing in result in a large number of early credits
Accordingly, we are proposing a three- benzene control technology. being generated with no net benzene
year early credit life, as discussed Additionally, because importer emission reduction value. This is not
earlier. The additional lead time would 260 As discussed in section VII.I.1 below, foreign
expected to occur for refineries because
allow the refining industry to spread out refiners may generate early credits under the they are already operating at high
demand for design, engineering,
EP29MR06.006</GPH>
proposed 40 CFR 80.1420 provisions. capacity and do not have the flexibility
to quickly increase, decrease, or shift credits would need to submit a baseline concentration), fixed reduction trigger
production volumes. Additionally, application at least 60 days prior to points (refineries must reduce gasoline
under the proposed program, refineries beginning credit generation. We are benzene levels by a certain
are prohibited from moving benzene- proposing a shorter notification period concentration), and percent reduction
rich blendstocks around to generate for this rule (past rules were 120 days) trigger points (refineries must reduce
early credits as described below. to accommodate our proposed early gasoline benzene by a percentage).
We believe that refiners would have credit generation start date of June 1, Based on our analysis found in Chapter
several motivations for making early 2007. EPA would review all baseline 6 of the RIA, we found absolute level
benzene reductions. For refiners who applications and notify the refiner of trigger points to be too restrictive for
have a series of technology any discrepancies found with the data high benzene level refineries that could
improvements to make, early innovative submitted. If we did not respond within benefit from reductions the most. We
improvements would help the refiner 60 days, the baseline would be also found fixed reduction trigger points
get one step closer to compliance. Early considered to be approved, subject to to be too restrictive to low benzene level
reductions would also generate credits later review by EPA. refineries which would be penalized for
which could be used to postpone Under the proposed program, refiners already being ‘‘cleaner.’’ Percent
subsequent investments. For refiners would be prohibited from moving reduction trigger points were found to
capable of making early advancements gasoline and gasoline blendstock be consistently limiting towards all
to reduce their benzene levels below streams from one refinery to another in refineries, regardless of starting benzene
0.62 vol%, the early credits generated order to generate early credits. This type level. As such, we propose to conclude
would not be needed for their own of transaction would result in artificial that a percent reduction trigger point
future use. For these refiners, trading credits with no associated emission would be the most appropriate early
early credits to other refiners may be a reduction value. If traded and used credit validation tool to address the
way to offset the cost of their early towards compliance, these artificial wide range in starting benzene levels.
capital investment(s). credits could negatively impact the To determine an appropriate value for
benefits of the program. We considered the percent reduction trigger point, we
a. Establishing Early Credit Baselines basing credit generation for multi- considered a range of reductions from
We are proposing that any refiner refinery refiners on corporate benzene 5–40% and examined the resulting early
planning on generating early credits baselines instead of individual refinery credit generation outcomes. We found
would have to obtain an individual baselines, but determined that this that as the value of the percent
refinery benzene baseline in order to could hinder credit generation. If a valid reduction trigger point increased, the
provide a starting point for calculating reduction was made at one refinery and potential for windfall credit generation
early credits. an unrelated expansion occurred at decreased, but unfortunately so did the
Refinery benzene baselines would be another facility during this time, the number of early credits generated from
defined as the annualized volume- credits earned based on a corporate legitimate refinery modifications. To
weighted benzene content of gasoline baseline could be reduced to zero. address this competing relationship
produced at a refinery from January 1, Instead, we propose to validate early between windfall and early credit
2004 to December 31, 2005. We are credits based on existing reporting generation, we are proposing a 10%
proposing a two-year baseline period to requirements (e.g., batch reports and reduction trigger point. We believe that
account for normal operational pre-compliance reporting data). We seek this trigger point is restrictive enough to
fluctuations in benzene level. We comment on this approach. prevent most windfall credit generation,
propose using the 2004 and 2005 but not too restrictive to discourage
b. Early Credit Reduction Criteria
calendar years because we believe this refineries from making early benzene
(Trigger Points)
would represent the most current batch reductions. The proposed 10%
gasoline data available prior to today’s We are proposing that to generate reduction trigger point roughly
proposal. early credits, refiners would first need coincides with the average fluctuation
We would require refiners to submit to reduce gasoline benzene levels to in benzene level in 2004 as discussed in
individual baselines for each refinery 0.90 times their refinery benzene Chapter 6 of the RIA. A 10% reduction
that is planning to generate early baseline during a given averaging trigger point for early credits was also
benzene credits. Refinery benzene period. The purpose of setting an early finalized in the gasoline sulfur
baselines would be calculated using the credit generation trigger point is to rulemaking, which also affected the
2004–2005 batch data submitted to us ensure that changes in benzene level are entire gasoline pool and had to
under the RFG and Anti-dumping representative of real process encompass a variety of unique refinery
requirements.261 We propose that joint improvements. Without a trigger point, situations.262 EPA requests comments
ventures, in which two or more refiners refineries could generate ‘‘windfall’’ on the proposed trigger point and seeks
collectively own and operate one or early credits based on normal year to alternate recommendations for
more refineries, be treated as separate year fluctuations in benzene level validating early credits.
refining entities for early credit associated with MSAT1. These artificial
credits would compromise the c. Calculating Early Credits
generation purposes.
Refiners would be required to submit environmental benefits of an ABT We are proposing that once the 10%
their refinery baselines in writing to program because they would have no reduction trigger point was met,
EPA. We propose that refiners could real associated benzene emission refineries could generate early credits
begin applying for 2004–05 benzene reduction value. based on the entire reduction. In terms
baselines as early as March 1, 2007. In designing the early credit of benzene levels, a refinery would first
There would be no single cut-off date generation program, we considered a have to reduce its average benzene level
for applying for a baseline; however, a variety of different types of trigger to 0.90 times its original baseline
refiner planning on generating early points. We performed sensitivity benzene level during a given averaging
analyses around absolute level trigger period in order to generate credits. For
261 RFG, 40 CFR 80.75; Anti-dumping, 40 CFR points (refineries must reduce gasoline
80.105. benzene levels to a certain 262 40 CFR 80.305.
example, if in 2008 a refinery reduced alternative options is found in section necessary to prevent the development of
its annual benzene level from a baseline X.A below. major problems.
of 2.00 vol% to 1.50 vol% (below the
b. Pre-Compliance Reporting 6. Special ABT Provisions for Small
trigger of 0.90 × 2.00 = 1.80 vol%), its
Requirements Refiners
benzene credits would be determined
based on the difference in annual In order to provide an early indication Approved small refiners would follow
benzene content (2.00¥1.50 = 0.50 of the credit market for refiners all the above-mentioned ABT provisions
vol%) divided by 100 and multiplied by planning on relying upon benzene with the exception of special credit
the gallons of gasoline produced in credits as a compliance strategy in 2011 generation provisions which
2008. The credits would be expressed in and beyond, we are requesting that accommodate their 2015 compliance
gallons of benzene. refiners submit pre-compliance reports start date. Early credits could be
to us in 2008, 2009, and 2010. EPA generated by small refiners from June 1,
5. Additional Credit Provisions would then summarize this information 2007 to December 31, 2014 for refineries
a. Credit Trading (in such a way as to protect confidential that reduce their average gasoline
The potential exists for credits to be business information) in a report benzene level to 0.90 times their
generated by one party, subsequently available to the industry. This is similar original 2004–2005 baseline level.
transferred or used in good faith by to the way pre-compliance reports are Standard credits could also be generated
another, and later found to have been used for the ultra-low sulfur diesel by small refiners beginning January 1,
calculated or created improperly or program. In addition, we are proposing 2015 and continuing indefinitely for
otherwise determined to be invalid. As that refiners provide us with a final refineries that overcomply with the
in past programs, we propose that summary pre-compliance report in standard by producing gasoline with an
should this occur both the seller and 2011, to allow for a complete account of annual average benzene content below
purchaser would have to adjust their early credit generation.263 The reports 0.62 vol%. Additionally, all credits
benzene calculations to reflect the would be due annually by June 1st and generated by or traded to approved
proper credits and either party (or both) would contain refiners’ most up-to-date small refiners would have an additional
could be determined to be in violation implementation plans for complying two-year credit life as described above
of the standards and other requirements with the 0.62 vol% benzene standard. in VII.D.3.b.
if the adjusted calculations demonstrate More specifically, we would require
E. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions for
noncompliance with the 0.62 vol% refiners to annually submit to us
Qualifying Refiners
standard. This would allow the credit engineering and construction plans and
market to properly allocate any such the following data: 1. Hardship Provisions for Qualifying
risk. —Actual/projected gasoline production Small Refiners
As with ABT programs in other rules, volume and average benzene level for
In developing our proposed MSAT
we are proposing that credits should be the June 1, 2007 through December
program, we evaluated the need and the
transferred directly from the refiner or 31, 2007 annual averaging period, and
ability of refiners to meet the proposed
importer that generated them to the for the 2008–2015 annual averaging
benzene standards as expeditiously as
party that would use them for periods.
possible. We believe it is feasible and
—Actual/projected early credits
compliance purposes. This would necessary for the vast majority of the
generated during the June 1, 2007
ensure that the parties purchasing them program to be implemented in the
through December 31, 2007 annual
would be better able to assess the proposed time frame to achieve the air
averaging period, and for the 2008–
likelihood that the credits were valid, quality benefits as soon as possible.
2010 annual averaging periods (June 1
and would aid in compliance However, based on information
through December 31, 2007 and 2008–
monitoring. An exception would exist available from small refiners, we believe
2014 for small refiners).
where a credit generator transferred that refineries owned by small
—Standard credits projected to be
credits to a refiner or importer who businesses generally face unique
generated during the 2011–2015
could not use all the credits, in which hardship circumstances, compared to
annual averaging periods (2015 for
event that transferee could transfer the larger refiners. Thus, we are proposing
small refiners).
credits to another refiner or importer. several special provisions for refiners
—Credits projected to be needed for
However, based on the increased that qualify as ‘‘small refiners’’ to
compliance during 2011–2015 annual
difficulty in assuring the validity of reduce the disproportionate burden that
averaging periods (2015 for small
credits as the credits change hands more the proposed standards would have on
refiners).
than once, we are proposing that credits these refiners. These provisions are
could only be transferred a limited Pre-compliance reporting has proven discussed in detail below.
number of times. We are requesting to be an indispensable mechanism in
comment on the maximum number of implementing the gasoline and diesel a. Qualifying Small Refiners
allowable trades, in the range of 2 to 4 sulfur programs, and we expect this to EPA is proposing several special
trades. After the maximum number of be the case in today’s proposed provisions that would be available to
trades, such credits would have be used program. A detailed understanding of companies that are approved as small
or terminated. how individual refiners and the refiners. Small refiners generally lack
We propose no prohibitions against industry at large are progressing toward the resources available to larger
brokers facilitating the transfer of credits final implementation of the proposed companies that help large companies,
from one party to another. Any person standards would help identify early including those large companies that
could act as a credit broker, whether or concerns and allow timely action if own small-capacity refineries, to raise
not such person was a refiner or capital for investing in benzene control
263 Based on their proposed January 1, 2015
importer, so long as the title to the equipment. These resources include
compliance date, small refiners would be required
credits was transferred directly from the to submit annual pre-compliance reports to us in
shifting internal funds, securing
generator to the user. Further discussion 2008 through 2014 with a final summary pre- financing, or selling assets. Small
of these credit trading provisions and compliance report in 2015. refiners are also likely to have more
difficulty in competing for engineering refiners’ costs would likely be similar to additional sources of income or capital
resources and completing construction non-small refiners, as very little capital beyond refinery earnings for financing
of the needed benzene control investment would need to be made for and typically do not have the financial
equipment (and any necessary octane these technologies. However, for backing that larger and generally more
recovery) equipment in time to meet the technologies such as benzene saturation integrated companies have. Therefore,
standards proposed today. Therefore, and benzene extraction, we anticipate they could benefit from additional time
we are proposing small refiner relief that the costs to small refiners would be to accumulate capital internally or to
provisions in today’s action as an aspect higher. Due to the poorer economies of secure capital financing from lenders.
of realizing the greatest emission scale, benzene saturation is expected to Second, providing small refiners more
reductions achievable. cost small refiners about 2.2 cents per time to comply would increase the
Since small refiners are more likely to gallon (while it is projected that availability of engineering and
face hardship circumstances than larger benzene saturation would cost a non- construction resources to them. Some
refiners, we are proposing temporary small refinery about 1.3 cents per refiners would need to install additional
provisions that would provide gallon).264 Likewise, benzene extraction processing equipment to meet the
additional time to meet the benzene is estimated to cost those refineries able proposed benzene standard. We
standards for refineries owned by small to use this technology about 0.1 cents anticipate that there could be increased
businesses. This approach would allow per gallon; however, for small refiners competition for technology services,
the overall program to begin as early as benzene extraction is expected to cost engineering resources, and construction
possible, while still addressing the about 0.5 cents per gallon. management and labor. In addition,
ability of small refiners to comply. The Panel also noted that the burden vendors would be more likely to
imposed on the small refiners by the contract with the larger refiners first, as
i. Regulatory Flexibility for Small
proposed benzene standard could vary their projects would offer larger profits
Refiners
from refiner to refiner. Thus, the Panel for the vendors. Temporarily delaying
As explained in the discussion of our compliance for small refiners would
recommended that more than one type
compliance with the Regulatory spread out the demand for these
of burden reduction be offered so that
Flexibility Act below in section XII.C resources and probably reduce any cost
most, if not all, small refiners could
and in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility premiums caused by limited supply.
benefit. We have continued to consider
Analysis in Chapter 14 of the RIA, we Third, we are anticipating that many
the issues that were raised during the
considered the impacts of today’s small refiners may choose to comply
SBREFA process and have decided to
proposed regulations on small with the proposed benzene standard by
propose the provisions recommended
businesses. Most of our analysis of small purchasing credits. Having additional
by the Panel.
business impacts was performed as a lead time (which could also result in
part of the work of the Small Business ii. Rationale for Small Refiner additional time to generate credits for
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel Provisions some small refiners) could help to
convened by EPA, pursuant to the ensure that there would be sufficient
Generally, we structured these
Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended credits available and that there would
proposed provisions to reduce the
by the Small Business Regulatory be a robust credit trading market.
burden on small refiners while still
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Furthermore, offering two years of
achieving the air quality benefits that
(SBREFA). The final report of the Panel additional credit life for credits traded
this program would provide. We believe
is available in the docket for this to small refiners, as discussed in section
that the proposed regulatory flexibility
proposed rule. VII.D.3.b, would improve credit
For the SBREFA process, EPA provisions for small refiners are a
availability.
conducted outreach, fact-finding, and necessary aspect of standards reflecting
Lastly, we recognize that while the
analysis of the potential impacts of our the greatest achievable emission
proposed benzene standard may be
regulations on small businesses. Based reductions considering costs and lead achieved using the four technologies
on these discussions and analyses by all time, because they would appropriately suggested above, new technologies may
Panel members, the Panel concluded adjust potential costs and lead time for also be developed that may reduce the
that small refiners in general would the dissimilarly situated small refiner capital and/or operational costs. Thus,
likely experience a significant and industry segment, and at the same time we believe that allowing small refiners
disproportionate financial hardship in allow EPA to propose a uniform some additional time for newer
reaching the objectives of today’s benzene standard for all refineries. technologies to be proven out by other
proposed program. First, the proposed compliance refiners would have the added benefit of
One indication of this schedule for this program, combined reducing the risks faced by small
disproportionate hardship for small with flexibility for small refiners, would refiners. The added time would likely
refiners is the higher per-gallon capital achieve the air quality benefits of the allow for small refiners to benefit from
costs projected for the removal of program as soon as possible, while still the lower costs of these technologies.
benzene from gasoline under the ensuring that small refiners that choose This would help to offset the potentially
proposed program. Refinery modeling of to comply by raising capital for benzene disproportionate financial burden facing
refineries owned by refiners likely to reduction technologies would have small refiners.
qualify as small refiners, and of non- adequate time to do so. As noted above, We discuss below the provisions that
small refineries, indicates that small most small refiners have limited we are proposing to help mitigate the
refiners could have significantly higher 264 Smaller refineries are less likely to be able to
effects on small refiners. Small refiners
costs to apply some technologies. For that chose to make use of the small
take advantage of economies of scale. For example,

two of the technologies that we believe a portion of the capital costs invested for a benzene refiner delayed provision would also
that refiners would use to reduce their control unit is fixed (i.e., engineering design costs) delay, to some extent, the benzene
benzene levels, routing the six carbon resulting in similar costs for each investment emission reductions that would
project. However, when amortized over the volume
hydrocarbon compounds around the of fuel processed by a small versus large unit, the
otherwise have been achieved.
reformer and isomerizing these per-gallon capital costs are higher for the smaller However, the overall impact of these
compounds, we anticipate that small unit, resulting in poorer economies of scale. postponed reductions would be
reasonable, for several reasons. Small refinery during the period from January and to define a subsidiary of a company
refiners represent a relatively small 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. to mean any company in which the
fraction of national gasoline production. New owners that purchased a refinery refiner or its parent(s) has a controlling
Our current estimates (of refiners that after that date would do so with full ownership interest. In many cases, there
we expect would qualify as small knowledge of the proposed regulations, are likely to be multiple layers of parent
refiners) indicate that these refiners and should have planned to comply companies, with the ultimate parent
produce about 2.5 percent of the total along with their purchase decisions. As being the one for which no one else has
gasoline pool. In addition, these small with the earlier fuel rules, we are controlling interest. The employees and
refiners are generally dispersed proposing that a refiner that restarts a crude capacity of all parent companies,
geographically across the country and refinery in the future may be eligible for and all subsidiaries of all parent
the gasoline that they produce is small refiner status. Thus, a refiner companies, would thus be taken into
sometimes transported to other areas, so restarting a refinery that was shut down consideration when evaluating
the limited loss in benzene emissions or non-operational between January 1, compliance with these criteria.
reduction would also be dispersed. 2005 and January 1, 2006 could apply As with our earlier fuel sulfur
Finally, absent small refiner flexibility, for small refiner status. In such cases, regulations, we are also proposing today
EPA would likely have to consider we would judge eligibility under the that refiners owned and controlled by
setting a less stringent benzene standard employment and crude oil capacity an Alaska Regional or Village
or delaying the overall program (until criteria based on the most recent 12 Corporation organized under the Alaska
the burden of the program on many consecutive months prior to the Native Claims Settlement Act, would
small refiners was diminished), which application, unless we conclude from also be eligible for small refiner status,
would serve to reduce and delay the air data provided by the refiner that another based only on the refiner’s employees
quality benefits of the overall program. period of time is more appropriate. and crude oil capacity.265
By providing temporary relief to small However, unlike past fuel rules, we
refiners, we are able to adopt a program propose to limit this to a company that c. What Options Would Be Available
that would reduce benzene emissions in owned the refinery at the time that it For Small Refiners?
a timely and feasible manner for the was shut down. New purchasers would We are proposing several provisions
industry as a whole. not be eligible for small refiner status for today to help reduce the burdens on
The proposed small refiner provisions the same reasons described above. small refiners, as discussed above. In
should be viewed as a subset of the Companies with refineries built after addition, these provisions would also
hardship provisions described in January 1, 2005 would also not be allow for incentives for small refiners
section VII.E.2.b. Rather than dealing eligible for the small refiner hardship that make reductions to their benzene
with many refineries on a case-by-case provisions. levels.
basis through the general hardship —Had no more than 1,500 employees,
provisions (described later), we limit the i. Delay in Standards
based on the average number of
number by proposing to provide employees for all pay periods from We propose that small refiners be
predetermined types of relief to a subset January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006; allowed to postpone compliance with
of refineries based on criteria designed and, the proposed benzene standard until
to identify refineries most likely to be in —Had a crude oil capacity less than or January 1, 2015, which is four years
need of such automatic relief. equal to 155,000 barrels per calendar after the general program would begin.
b. How Do We Propose To Define Small day (bpcd) for 2005. While all refiners would be allowed
Refiners for the Purpose of the Hardship In determining its total number of some lead time before the general
Provisions? employees and crude oil capacity, a proposed program began, we believe
refiner would need to include the that in general small refiners would still
The definition of small refiner for this
number of employees and crude oil face disproportionate challenges. The
proposed program is in most ways the
capacity of any subsidiary companies, proposed four-year delay for small
same as our small refiner definitions in
any parent companies, any subsidiaries refiners would help mitigate these
the Gasoline Sulfur and Highway and
of the parent companies, and any joint challenges. Further, previous EPA fuel
Nonroad Diesel rules. These definitions,
venture partners. There has been some programs have included two to four year
in turn, were based on the criteria use
confusion in past rules regarding how delays in the start date of the effective
by the Small Business Administration.
these provisions were interpreted, and standards for small refiners, consistent
However, we are proposing to clarify
as a result, we are proposing to clarify with the lead time we believe
some ambiguities about the definition
(and, in some cases, modify) them here. appropriate here.
that have existed in the past.
A small refiner would need to For example, in previous rules we Small refiners have indicated to us
demonstrate that it met all of the defined a subsidiary to be a company in that an extension of available lead time
following criteria: which the refiner or its parent(s) has a would allow them to more efficiently
Produced gasoline from crude during 50 percent or greater interest. We realize carry out necessary capital projects with
calendar year 2005. that it is possible for a parent to have less direct competition with non-small
Small refiner provisions would be controlling ownership interest in a refiners for financing and for contractor
limited to refiners of gasoline from subsidiary despite having less than 50 to carry out capital improvements.
crude because they would be the ones percent ownership. Similarly, we realize There appears to be merit in this
that bore the investment burden and that it is also possible for multiple position, and we propose that approved
therefore the inherent economic parents to each have less than 50 small refiners have four years of
hardship. Therefore, blenders and percent ownership interest but still additional lead time. This would
importers would not be eligible, nor maintain a controlling ownership provide three years after the 2012
would be additive component interest. Therefore, in order to clarify review of the program, which we
producers. our rules, we are proposing to define a believe would be enough time for such
Small refiner status would be limited parent company as any company (or
to refiners that owned and operated the companies) with controlling interest, 265 43 U.S.C. 1626.
refiners to complete necessary capital the first year of the overall benzene summary, by the refiner, of technical or
projects if they chose to pursue them. control program. Further, requiring the financial infeasibility (or some other
submission of pre-compliance reports type of similar situation that would
ii. ABT Credit Generation Opportunities
from all refiners, similar to the highway render its compliance with the standard
While we have anticipated that many and nonroad diesel programs, would aid difficult). This hardship provision might
small refiners would likely find it more in assessing the ABT program prior to include further delays and/or a slightly
economical to purchase credits for performing the review. A small refiner relaxed standard on an individual
compliance, some have indicated they delay option of four years after the refinery basis for up to two years.
would make reductions to their gasoline compliance date for other refiners, Following the two-year relief, a small
benzene levels to meet the proposed coupled with a review after the first year refiner would be allowed to request
benzene standard. Further, a few small of the overall program, would still multiple extensions of the hardship
refiners indicated that they would likely provide small refiners with roughly until the refinery’s material situation
do so earlier than would be required by three years that we believe would be changed. We are proposing the
the January 1, 2015 proposed small needed to obtain financing and perform inclusion of such a hardship provision
refiner start date. Therefore, we are engineering and construction. We are which could be applied for following,
proposing that early credit generation be proposing to perform a review within and based on the results of, the ABT
allowed for small refiners that take steps the first year of the overall program (i.e., program review.
to meet the benzene requirement prior by 2012). To aid the review, we are also With respect to the second element,
to their effective date. Small refiner proposing the requirement that all the Panel recommended that EPA
credit generation would be governed by refiners submit refinery pre-compliance develop options to help the credit
the same rules as the general program, reports annually beginning June 1, 2008. market if it is found (following the
described above in section VII.D, the Refiners’ 2011 annual compliance review) that there is not an ample
only difference being that small refiners reports will be similar to the pre- supply of credits or that small refiners
would have an extended early credit compliance reports, but the annual are having difficulty obtaining credits.
generation period of up to seven years. compliance reports will also contain These options could include the
Early credits could be generated by information such as credits generated, ‘‘creation’’ of credits by EPA that would
small refiners making qualifying credits used, credits banked, credit be introduced into the credit market to
reductions from June 1, 2007 to balance, cost of credits purchased. EPA ensure that there are additional credits
December 31, 2014, after which credits would aggregate the data (to protect available for small refiners. Another
could be generated indefinitely for those individual refiners’ confidentiality) and option the Panel discussed to assist the
that overcomplied with the standard. make the results available to the credit market was to impose additional
industry. When combined with the four- requirements to encourage trading with
iii. Extended Credit Life small refiners. These could include a
year delay option, this would provide
As discussed previously, in order to requirement that a percentage of all
small refiners (and others) with the
encourage the trading of credits to small credits sold be set aside and only made
knowledge of the credit trading market’s
refiners, we are proposing that the available for small refiners. Similarly,
status before they would need to make
useful life of credits be extended by 2 we could require that credits sold, or a
a decision to either purchase credits or
years if they are generated by or traded certain percentage of credits sold, be
to obtain financing to invest in capital
to small refiners. This is meant to made available to small refiners before
equipment.
directly address concerns expressed by they are allowed to be sold to any other
Further, we are requesting comment
small refiners that they would be unable refiners. Options such as these would
on elements to be included in the ABT
to rely on the credit market to avoid help to ensure that small refiners were
program review, and suggested actions
large capital costs for benzene control. able to purchase credits. One such
that could be taken following such a
recommendation by the Panel, to extend
iv. ABT Program Review review. Such elements could include:
credit life for small refiners, is included
As previously stated, we are —Revisiting the small refiner provisions in today’s proposal and described
anticipating that it may be more if it is found that the credit trading above.
economically sound for some refiners to market did not exist to a sufficient We welcome comment on additional
purchase and use credits. During degree to allow them to purchase measures that could be taken following
discussions with small refiners, all of credits, or that credits were only the review if it was found that there was
the small refiners voiced their concerns available at a cost-prohibitive price. a shortage of credits or that credits were
about reliance on a credit market for —Options to either help the credit not available to small refiners.
compliance with the benzene standard. market, or help small refiners gain
Specifically, small refiners feared that: access to credits. d. How Would Refiners Apply for Small
(1) there could be a shortage of credits, With respect to the first element, the Refiner Status?
(2) that larger refiners would not trade SBAR Panel recommended that EPA A refiner applying for status as a
credits with smaller refiners, and (3) consider establishing an additional small refiner would be required to apply
that the cost of credits could be so high hardship provision to assist any small and provide EPA with several types of
that the option to purchase credits for refiners that were unable to comply information by December 31, 2007. (The
compliance would not be a viable with the benzene standard even with a detailed application requirements are
option. Due to these concerns it was viable credit market. Such a hardship summarized below.) All refiners seeking
suggested that EPA perform a review of provision would address the case of a small refiner status under this program
the ABT program (and thus, the small small refiner for which compliance would need to apply for small refiner
refiner flexibility options) by 2012, one would be feasible only through the status, regardless of whether or not the
year after the general program begins. purchase of credits, but it was not refiner had been approved for small
Such a review would take into economically feasible for the refiner to refiner status under another fuel
account the number of early credits do so. This hardship would be provided program. As with applications for relief
generated, as well as the number of to a small refiner on a case-by-case basis under other rules, applications for small
credits generated and transferred during following the review and based on a refiner status under this proposed rule
that were later found to contain false or acquisition by another refiner, we are next year. The proposed hardship
inaccurate information would be void proposing provisions which are similar provisions would allow a deficit to be
ab initio. to those finalized in the nonroad diesel carried over for an extended, but
Requirements for small refiner status final rule to allow for an additional 30 limited, time period. EPA would
applications: months of lead time. A complete determine an appropriate extended
—The total crude oil capacity as discussion of this provision is located in deficit carryover time period based on
reported to the Energy Information the preamble to the final nonroad diesel the nature and degree of the hardship,
Administration (EIA) of the U.S. rule. as presented by the refiner in their
hardship application, and on our
Department of Energy (DOE) for the 2. General Hardship Provisions
assessment of the credit market. Note
most recent 12 months of operation. Unlike previous fuel programs, that any waivers granted under this
This would include the capacity of all today’s program includes inherent proposed rule would be separate and
refineries controlled by a refiner and flexibility because there is a nationwide apart from EPA’s authority under the
by all subsidiaries and parent credit trading program. Refiners would Energy Policy Act to issue temporary
companies and their subsidiaries. We have the ability to avoid or minimize waivers for extreme and unusual supply
would presume that the information capital investments indefinitely by circumstances, under section 211(c)(4).
submitted to EIA is correct. (In cases purchasing credits, and we expect that
where a company disagreed with this many refiners would utilize this option. a. Temporary Waivers Based on
information, the company could We also expect that refiners and Unforeseen Circumstances
petition EPA with appropriate data to importers who normally would produce We are proposing a provision which,
correct the record when the company or import gasoline that met the at our discretion, would permit any
submitted its application for small proposed standard would periodically refiner to seek a temporary waiver from
refiner status. EPA could accept such rely on credits in order to achieve the MSAT benzene standard under
alternate data at its discretion.) compliance. As discussed in section certain rare circumstances. This waiver
—The name and address of each VII.D, we expect that sufficient credits provision is similar to provisions in
location where employees worked would be available on an annual basis prior fuel regulations. It is intended to
during the 12 months preceding to accommodate the needs of the provide refiners relief in unanticipated
January 1, 2006; and the average regulated industry, and we expect that circumstances—such as a refinery fire or
number of employees at each location these credits would be available at a natural disaster—that cannot be
during this time period. This would prices that are comparable to the reasonably foreseen now or in the near
include the employees of the refiner alternative cost of making the capital future.
and all subsidiaries and parent investment necessary to produce Under this provision, a refiner could
companies and their subsidiaries. compliant gasoline. We are proposing to seek permission to extend the deficit
—In the case of a refiner who require that refiners submit pre- carryover provisions of the proposal for
reactivated a refinery that was compliance reports beginning in 2008. more than the one year already allowed
shutdown or non-operational between These reports would indicate how the if it could demonstrate that the
January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2006, refinery plans to achieve compliance magnitude of the impact was so severe
the name and address of each location with the 0.62 vol% standard as well as as to require such an extension. We are
where employees worked since the the amount of credits expected to be proposing that the refiner would be
refiner reactivated the refinery and generated or expected to be needed. The required to show that: (1) The waiver
the average number of employees at information provided in these reports would be in the public interest; (2) the
each location for each calendar year would enable an assessment of the refiner was not able to avoid the
since the refiner reactivated the robustness of the credit market and the nonconformity; (3) it would meet the
refinery. ability of refiners to rely on credits as proposed benzene standard as
—The type of business activities carried the program began. expeditiously as possible; (4) it would
out at each location. Although we expect credits to be make up the air quality detriment
—An indication of the small refiner available at competitive prices to those associated with the nonconforming
option(s) the refiner intends to use who need them, we are proposing gasoline, where practicable; and (5) it
(for each refinery). hardship provisions to accommodate an would pay to the U.S. Treasury an
—Contact information for a corporate inability to comply with the proposed amount equal to the economic benefit of
contact person, including: name, standard at the start of the program, and the nonconformity less the amount
mailing address, phone and fax to deal with unforeseen circumstances. expended to make up the air quality
numbers, e-mail address. These provisions would be available to detriment. These conditions are similar
—A letter signed by the president, chief all refiners, small and non-small, though to those in the RFG, Tier 2 gasoline
operating officer, or chief executive relief would be granted on a case-by- sulfur, and the highway and nonroad
officer of the company (or a designee) case basis following a showing of diesel regulations, and are necessary
stating that the information contained certain requirements, primarily that and appropriate to ensure that any
in the application was true to the best compliance through the use of credits waivers that were granted would be
of his/her knowledge and that the was not feasible. We are proposing that limited in scope.
company owned the refinery as of any hardship waiver would not be a As discussed, such a request would be
January 1, 2007. total waiver of compliance. Rather, such based on the refiner’s inability to
a waiver would allow the refiner to have produce compliant gasoline at the
e. The Effect of Financial and Other an extended period of deficit carryover. affected facility due to extreme and
Transactions on Small Refiner Status Under regular circumstances, our unusual circumstances outside the
and Small Refiner Relief Provisions proposed deficit carryover provision refiner’s control that could not have
In situations where a small refiner would allow an entity to be in deficit been avoided through the exercise of
loses its small refiner status due to with the proposed benzene standard for due diligence. The hardship request
merger with a non-small refiner, one year, provided that they made up would also need to show that other
acquisition of another refiner, or the deficit and were in compliance the avenues for mitigating the problem,
such as the purchase of credits toward offsetting any loss of emission control refining industry to reduce benzene
compliance under the proposed credit from the program through the deficit levels in gasoline to an average of 0.62
provisions, had been pursued and yet carryforward provisions. We believe vol% starting January 1, 2011. Based on
were insufficient or unavailable. that providing short-term relief to those this assessment, we believe that it is
Especially in light of the credit refiners that need additional time due to technologically feasible for refiners to
flexibilities built into the proposed hardship circumstances would help to meet the benzene standard by the start
overall program, we expect that the facilitate the adoption of the overall date using technologies that are
need for additional relief would be rare. MSAT program for the majority of the currently available.
industry. However, we do not intend for
b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme We begin this section by describing
hardship waiver provisions to
Hardship Circumstances where benzene comes from and the
encourage refiners to delay planning
current levels found in gasoline. Next
In addition to the provision for short- and investments they would otherwise
we discuss the benzene reduction
term relief in extreme unforeseen make. Again, because of the flexibilities
of the proposed overall program, we technologies available to refiners today
circumstances, we are also proposing a and how they are expected to be used
hardship provision where a refiner expect that the need for additional relief
would be rare. to meet the proposed benzene standard.
could receive an extension of the deficit Then we provide our analysis of the
carryover provisions based on extreme c. Early Compliance With the Proposed lead time necessary for complying with
hardship circumstances. Such hardship Benzene Standard the benzene standard. All of these issues
could exist based on severe economic or are discussed in more detail in Chapters
physical lead time limitations of the We are also requesting comment on a
means for allowing refineries, under 6 and 9 of the Regulatory Impact
refinery to comply with the benzene
certain conditions, to meet the proposed Analysis.
standard at the start of the program, and
if they were unable to procure sufficient benzene standard early in lieu of
1. Benzene Levels in Gasoline
MSAT1. In order to meet the proposed
credits. A refiner seeking such hardship
benzene standard early, refiners would EPA receives information on gasoline
relief under this proposed rule would
need to meet several criteria similar to quality, including benzene levels, from
have to demonstrate that these criteria
those used in the past when EPA has each refinery and importer in the U.S.
were met. In addition to showing that
adjusted refinery baselines under the under the reporting requirements of the
unusual circumstances exist that impose
MSAT1 program. Specifically, the RFG and CG programs. As discussed
extreme hardship in meeting the
eligibility for such provisions would be earlier in this section, benzene levels
proposed standard, the refiner would
limited to refiners that have historically averaged 0.94 vol% for gasoline
have to show (1) best efforts to comply,
had better than average toxics produced in and imported into the U.S.
including through the purchase of
performance, lower than average in 2003, which is the most recent year
credits, (2) the relief granted under this benzene and sulfur levels, and a
provision would be in the public for which complete data is available.
significant volume of gasoline impacted However, for individual refineries, daily
interest, (3) that the environmental by the phase-out of MTBE as an
impact would be acceptable, and (4) that batch gasoline benzene levels and
oxygenate. The result of not allowing annual average levels can vary
it has active plans to meet the such early compliance could be less
requirements as expeditiously as significantly from the national average.
supply of their cleaner fuel and more As indicated earlier in describing our
possible. Because such a demonstration supply of fuel with higher toxics
could not be made prior to the decision-making process for the type
emissions, with a worsening of overall and level of gasoline benzene standard,
development of the credit market, EPA environmental performance under
would not begin to consider such it is very important to understand how
MSAT1. A refiner opting into such
hardship requests until August 1, 2010, current benzene levels vary by
provisions would not be allowed to
that is, until after the final pre- individual refinery, by region, as well as
generate benzene credits on the affected
compliance reports are submitted. day-to-day by batch.
fuel prior to 2011, since an ability to
Consequently, requests for such reduce benzene further would The variability in 2003 average annual
hardship relief would have to be presumably negate the need for an early gasoline benzene levels by individual
received prior to January 1, 2011. compliance option. refinery is shown in Figure VII.F–1.
If hardship relief under these This figure contains a summary of
circumstances was approved, we would F. Technological Feasibility of Gasoline annual average gasoline benzene levels
expect to impose appropriate conditions Benzene Reduction by individual refinery for CG and RFG
to ensure that the refiner was making This section summarizes our versus the cumulative volume of
best efforts to achieve compliance assessment of the feasibility for the gasoline produced.
Figure VII.F–1 shows that the annual 1.1 vol%. The second refinery had RFG content of crude oil. For example,
average benzene levels of CG as benzene levels that averaged around 0.4 Alaskan North Slope crude oil contains
produced by individual refineries varies vol% ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 vol%. Its a high percentage of aromatics. Refiners
from 0.29 to 4.01 vol%. Based on the CG benzene levels averaged about 0.6 processing this crude oil in their
data in the figure, the volume-weighted vol% with batches that ranged from 0.1 refineries shared with us that their
average benzene content for U.S. CG is to 1.2 vol%. The batches for both RFG straight run naphtha contains on the
1.10 vol%. As expected, the annual and CG varied on a day-to-day basis order of 3 vol% benzene (the production
average benzene levels of RFG as and, overall, by over an order of of naphtha is discussed further below).
produced by individual refineries are magnitude. It is clear from our review of This is one reason why the gasoline in
lower, ranging from 0.10 to 1.09 vol%. batch-by-batch data submitted to EPA PADD 5 outside of California is high in
The volume-weighted average benzene that benzene variability is typical of benzene. Conversely, refiners that
content for U.S. RFG (not including refineries nationwide. process very paraffinic crude oils (low
California) is 0.62 vol%. There are several contributing factors in aromatics) usually have a low amount
The information presented for annual to the variability in refinery gasoline of benzene in their straight run naphtha.
average gasoline benzene levels does not benzene levels across all the refineries. Because crude oil supplies tend to be
illustrate the very large day-to-day We will review these factors and constant over periods of months, crude
variability in gasoline batches produced describe how each impacts batch-by- oil quality is not a major contributor to
by each refinery. We evaluated the batch and annual average gasoline day-to-day variations in benzene among
batch-by-batch gasoline benzene levels benzene levels. gasoline batches. However, because
for several refineries that produce both The first factor contributing to the crude oil supplies often vary from
RFG and CG, using information variability in gasoline benzene levels is refinery to refinery, differences in crude
submitted to EPA as part of the crude oil quality. Each refinery quality are an important factor in the
reporting requirements for the RFG and processes a particular crude oil slate, variability among refineries.
CG Anti-dumping Programs. One which tends to be fairly constant except The second factor contributing to the
refinery had no particular trend for its for seasonal changes that reflect changes variability in benzene levels is
CG benzene levels, with benzene levels in product demand. Crude oil varies differences in the types of processing
that varied from 0.1 to 3 vol%. That greatly in aromatics content. Since units and gasoline blendstocks among
same refinery’s RFG averaged around benzene is an aromatic compound, its refineries. If a refinery is operated to
EP29MR06.007</GPH>
0.95 vol% benzene, ranging from 0.05 to level tends to vary with the aromatics rely on its reformer for virtually all of
its octane needs—especially the type most important factor in the drastically some of the streams used to blend CG.
that operates at higher pressures and differing benzene levels among batches In addition, some refiners add specific
temperatures and thus tends to produce of gasoline at any given refinery. refinery units such as benzene
more benzene—it will likely have a high This practice by refiners of producing extraction to intentionally produce
benzene level in its gasoline. Refineries or purchasing different blendstocks and chemical-grade benzene. Benzene
with a reformer and without a fluidized blending them in different ways to commands a much higher price on the
catalytic cracking (FCC) unit are produce gasoline is an integral and chemical market compared to the price
particularly prone to higher benzene essential aspect of the refining business. of gasoline. For these refiners, the profit
levels, since they rely heavily on the Thus, in designing an effective benzene from the sale of benzene pays for the
product of the reformer (reformate) to control program, it is critical that equipment upgrades needed to greatly
meet octane needs. However, refineries benzene levels be reduced while reduce the levels of benzene in their
that can rely on other means for refiners retain the ability to change gasoline. In most cases, refineries with
boosting their gasoline octane can blendstocks (and crude supplies) as extraction units are marketing their low-
usually rely less on the reformer and needed from batch to batch and refinery benzene gasoline in the RFG areas.
can run this unit at a lower severity, to refinery. We believe that the The use of these benzene control
resulting in less benzene in their proposed program accomplishes these technologies by some refiners
gasoline pool. Examples of such other goals. contributes to the variability in gasoline
octane-boosting refinery units include A third important source of variability benzene levels among refineries. The
the alkylation unit, the isomerization in existing benzene levels in gasoline is use of these technologies can also
unit and units that produce oxygenates. the fact that many refiners are already contribute to the batch-to-batch
Refiners may have these units in their operating their refineries today to variability in benzene levels. This is
refineries, or in many cases, they can intentionally reduce benzene levels in because, as with different blendstocks,
purchase the gasoline blendstocks their gasoline, while others are not. For refiners need to be able to change the
produced by these units from other example, refiners that are currently operating characteristics of these
refineries or third-party producers. The producing RFG must ensure their RFG technologies to meet varying needs in
blending of the products of these averages 0.95 vol% or less and is always gasoline quality. In addition, planned or
processes—alkylate, isomerate, and under the 1.3 vol% cap (see discussion unexpected shut-downs of benzene
oxygenates—into the gasoline pool of the current toxics program in section control equipment may result in
provides a significant octane VII.C.5 above). Similarly, refiners temporarily high batch benzene levels
contribution, which can allow refiners producing gasoline to comply the relative to the normally low gasoline
to rely less on the octane from California RFG program need to produce levels when the unit is operating.
reformate. Since refiners make gasoline with reduced benzene. These The variations in gasoline benzene
individual decisions about producing or refiners are generally using benzene levels among refineries also lead to
purchasing different blendstocks for control technologies to actively produce variations in benzene levels among
each refinery, this variation is another gasoline with lower benzene levels. If regions of the country. Table VII.F–1
important contributor to differences in they are producing CG along with the shows the average gasoline benzene
gasoline benzene content among RFG, their CG is usually lower in levels for all gasoline produced in (and
refineries. In addition, the variation in benzene as well compared with the CG imported into) the U.S. by PADD for
gasoline blendstocks used to produce produced by other refiners, since the 2003. The information is presented for
different batches of gasoline is by far the benzene control technology often affects both CG and RFG.
TABLE VII.F–1.—BENZENE LEVELS BY GASOLINE TYPE PRODUCED IN OR IMPORTED INTO EACH PADD IN 2003
PADD PADD PADD PADD PADD CA U.S.
1 2 3 4 5
Conventional Gasoline ..................................................................................... 0.84 1.39 0.94 1.54 1.79 0.63 1.11
Reformulated Gasoline .................................................................................... 0.60 0.82 0.56 n/a n/a 0.62 0.62
Gasoline Average ............................................................................................ 0.70 1.28 0.87 1.54 1.79 0.62 0.94
Table VII.F–1 shows that benzene benzene levels in their RFG generally oil falls within the boiling range of
levels vary fairly widely across different also impact the benzene levels in their gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel. The
regions of the country. PADD 1 and 3 CG. In contrast, other parts of the U.S. rest of crude oil boils at too high a
benzene levels are lower because the with little to no RFG production and temperature to be blended directly into
refineries in these regions produce a little extraction have much higher these products and therefore must be
high percentage of RFG for both the benzene levels. cracked into lighter compounds.
Northeast and Gulf Coast. Also, a Material that boils within the gasoline
number of refineries in these two 2. Technologies for Reducing Gasoline boiling range is called naphtha. There
regions are extracting benzene for sale Benzene Levels are two principal sources of naphtha.
into the chemicals market, contributing a. Why Is Benzene Found in Gasoline? The first is ‘‘straight run’’ naphtha,
to the much lower benzene level in which comes directly off of the crude oil
these PADDs. It is interesting to note To discuss benzene reduction atmospheric distillation column.
that, in addition to RFG, CG benzene technologies, it is helpful to first review Another principle source of naphtha is
levels are low in PADDs 1 and 3. There some of the basics of refinery that generated from the cracking
are two reasons for this. First, some RFG operations. Refineries process crude oil reactions. Each type of naphtha
produced by refineries ends up being into usable products such as gasoline, contributes to benzene in gasoline.
sold as CG. Second, as mentioned diesel fuel and jet fuel. For a typical Typically, little of the benzene in
above, refiners that are reducing the crude oil, about 50 percent of the crude gasoline comes from benzene naturally
occurring in crude oil. Straight run benzene.266 In the discussion below the range of benzene levels found in
naphtha, which comes directly from the about how benzene in the reformate reformate from refinery to refinery.
distillation of crude oil, thus tends to stream can be reduced, we elaborate In addition to benzene occurring in
have a low benzene content, although it further about the opportunities that the reformate stream, another source of
can contain anywhere from 0.3 to 3 refiners have to manage both of these benzene in gasoline is naphtha
vol% benzene. While straight run benzene-producing processes. produced from cracking processes.
naphtha is in the correct distillation Three factors contribute to the wide There are three primary cracking
range to be usable as gasoline, its octane range in benzene levels in the reformate processes in the refinery—the FCC unit,
value is too low for blending directly the hydrocracker, and the coker. The
stream, and these factors are important
into gasoline. Thus, the octane value of naphthas produced by these cracking
in the decisions refiners would make in
this material must be increased to processes contain anywhere from 0.5 to
response to the proposed benzene
enable it to be used as a gasoline 5 vol% benzene. The benzene in these
control program. First, different
blendstock. streams is typically formed from the
feedstocks contain different amounts of
The primary means for increasing the cracking of heavier aromatic compounds
octane value of naphtha (whether benzene and different levels of benzene into lighter compounds that can then be
straight run or from cracking processes) precursors that are more or less capable blended into gasoline. The benzene
is reforming. Reforming reacts the of being converted to benzene by the content of cracked streams is therefore
heavier portion of straight run naphtha reformer. Second, the type of reformer largely a function of the aromatics
(six-carbon material and heavier) over a being used affects how much benzene is content of the crude oil feedstocks and
precious metal catalyst at a high produced during the reforming process. the need of a particular refinery to
temperature. The reforming process For example, refineries with the older, produce gasoline from heavier
converts many of the naphtha higher pressure reformers tend to form feedstocks. As we discuss later, we do
compounds to aromatic compounds, more benzene by cracking heavier not expect that benzene reductions from
which raises the octane of this reformate aromatics than refineries with newer, these cracked naphthas would be a
stream to over 90 octane numbers. lower pressure units. Third, the severity major avenue for compliance with the
(‘‘Octane number’’ is the unit of octane with which the reformer is being proposed benzene control program for
value.) Since benzene is an aromatic operated also affects benzene levels in most refiners.
compound, it is produced along with reformate. The greater the severity at Finally, there are other intermediate
toluene and xylene, the other primary which the reformer is operated, the streams that contribute to benzene in
aromatic compounds found in gasoline. greater the conversion of feedstocks to gasoline but that have such low benzene
The reforming process increases the aromatics (and the more hydrogen is content or are found in such low
benzene content of the straight run produced). However, more severe volumes in gasoline that they are of very
naphtha stream from 0.3 to 3 vol% to 3 operation shortens the time between the limited importance in reducing benzene
to 11 vol%. catalyst regeneration events that the levels. Examples of these are light
There are two ways that benzene reformer must periodically undergo. straight run naphtha and the oxygenates
levels increase in the reformer above the Greater severity also lowers the gasoline MTBE and ethanol.
benzene levels occurring naturally in yield from this unit. Because refiners Table VII.F–2 summarizes the typical
crude oil—the conversion of non- balance these operation and production ranges in benzene content and average
aromatic six-carbon hydrocarbons into factors individually at each refinery in percentages of gasoline of the various
benzene, and the cracking of heavier deciding on how severely to operate the intermediate streams that are blended to
aromatic hydrocarbon compounds into reformer, these decisions contribute to produce gasoline.
TABLE VII.F–2.—BENZENE CONTENT AND TYPICAL GASOLINE FRACTION OF VARIOUS GASOLINE BLENDSTOCKS
Average
Typical
Process or blendstock name benzene level volume in
gasoline
(vol%) (percent)
Reformate ...................................................................................................................................................... 3–11 30

FCC Naphtha ................................................................................................................................................. 0.5–2 36
Alkylate .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 12
Isomerate ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 4
Hydrocrackate ................................................................................................................................................ 1–5 3
Butane ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 4
Light Straight Run .......................................................................................................................................... 0.3–3 4
MTBE/Ethanol ................................................................................................................................................ 0.05 3
Natural Gasoline ............................................................................................................................................ 0.3–3 3
Coker Naphtha ............................................................................................................................................... 3 1
Table VII.F–2 shows that the principal product stream from the reformer, benzene in reformate is the primary
contributor of benzene to gasoline is reformate, accounts for between 15 and focus of the various benzene reduction
reformate. This is due both to its high 50 percent of the content of gasoline, technologies available to refiners.
benzene content and the relatively large depending on the refinery (typically Control of benzene from the other
gasoline fraction that reformate about 35 percent.) For this reason and streams quickly becomes cost
comprises of the gasoline pool. The as discussed below, reducing the prohibitive due to either the low
266 In the process of converting the straight run hydrogen is produced that is critical for the various later, the impact on hydrogen production is an
naphtha into aromatics, a significant amount of hydrotreating operations in refineries. As discussed important consideration in reducing benzene levels.
depending on the refinery (typically these compounds around the reformer reactor, converting the benzene to
about 35 percent.) For this reason and prevents the formation of much of the cyclohexane. Because hydrogen is used
as discussed below, reducing the benzene in the reformer, though it does in this process, refiners that choose this
benzene in reformate is the primary not reduce the naturally-occurring technology need to ensure that they
focus of the various benzene reduction benzene. have a sufficient source of hydrogen.
technologies available to refiners. For a typical refinery, the technology Refiners cannot afford to saturate other
Control of benzene from the other to route the six-carbon material around aromatic compounds present in their
streams quickly becomes cost the reformer would likely require only reformate as it would cause too great an
prohibitive due to either the low a small capital investment. Compared octane loss. Thus, it is necessary to
concentration of benzene in the stream, with a scenario where all of this separate a six-carbon stream, which
the low volume of the stream, or both. material goes to the reformer, the contains the benzene, from the rest of
combined rerouted and reformate reformate, and only feed the six-carbon
b. Benzene Control Technologies streams would overall have about 60 stream to the benzene saturation unit.
Related to the Reformer percent less benzene, and finished This separation is done with a
There are several technologies that gasoline would have about 31 percent distillation unit called a reformate
reduce gasoline benzene by controlling less benzene. However, in most cases splitter placed just after the reformer.
the benzene in the feedstock to and the this would not be sufficient to achieve There are two vendors that produce
product stream from the reformer.267 a 0.62 vol% benzene standard, and benzene saturation units. UOP produces
One approach is to route the some combination of the technologies a technology named Bensat. There are at
intermediate refiner streams that have discussed next would also be needed. least six Bensat units operating in the
the greatest tendency to form benzene in U.S. today and many more around the
a way that bypasses the reformer. This ii. Routing to the Isomerization Unit
world. CDTech licenses another,
approach is very important in benzene A variation of routing around the somewhat newer technology for this
control, but it is limited in its reformer involves the isomerization of purpose called CDHydro. There are six
effectiveness because it does not address the re-routed benzene precursors. Rather CDHydro units operating today, mostly
any of the naturally-occurring benzene than directly blending the rerouted outside of the U.S. Benzene saturation
and some of the benzene formed in the stream into gasoline, this stream can can reduce benzene in the reformate by
reformer. For this reason, refiners often first be processed in the isomerization about 96 percent.
use a second category of technologies unit. This has two main advantages.
that remove or destroy benzene, First, it increases the effectiveness of iv. Benzene Extraction
including both the naturally occurring benzene control, since the isomerization Extraction is a technology that
benzene as well as that formed in the process converts the naturally-occurring chemically removes benzene from
reformer. These technologies are benzene in this rerouted stream to reformate. The removed benzene can be
isomerization, benzene saturation, and another compound. Second, it recovers sold as a high-value product in the
benzene extraction. We discuss each of some of the octane otherwise lost by the chemicals market. To extract only
these approaches to benzene reduction conversion of benzene. benzene from the reformate, a reformate
below. The effectiveness of these The typical role of the isomerization splitter is installed just after the
technologies in reducing the benzene unit is to convert five-carbon reformer to separate a benzene-rich
content of reformate varies from hydrocarbons from straight-chain to stream from the rest of the reformate.
approximately 60% to 96%. The actual branched-chain compounds, thus The benzene-rich stream is sent to an
impact on an individual refinery’s increasing the octane value of this extraction unit which separates the
finished gasoline benzene content, stream. If the isomerization unit at a benzene from the rest of the
however, will be a function of many refinery has sufficient additional hydrocarbons. Since the benzene must
different refinery-specific factors, capacity to handle the rerouted six- be sufficiently concentrated before it
including the extent to which they are carbon hydrocarbons, that stream can can be sold on the chemicals market, a
already utilizing one of these also be sent to this unit, where the very thorough distillation step is
technologies. benzene present in that stream would be incorporated with the extraction step to
saturated and converted into another concentrate the benzene to the
i. Routing Around the Reformer necessary purity. Where it is economical
compound (cyclohexane). (This benzene
The primary compounds that are saturation process is similar to what to use, benzene extraction can reduce
converted to benzene by the reforming occurs in a dedicated benzene benzene levels in the reformate by 96
unit are the six-carbon hydrocarbon saturation unit, as described below.) percent.
compounds contained in the straight Compared to a scenario where all this There are two important
run naphtha fed to the reformer. These material goes to the reformer, routing considerations refiners have with
compounds, along with the naturally- the six-carbon compounds to the respect to using benzene extraction. The
occurring benzene in this straight run isomerization unit in this manner can first is the price of chemical grade
naphtha stream, can be removed from reduce the benzene levels in the benzene. If the price of chemical grade
the feedstock to the reforming unit using combined rerouted and reformate benzene is sufficiently higher than the
the upstream distillation unit, bypassed streams by about 80 percent. The option price of gasoline, benzene extraction can
around the reforming unit, and then of isomerization is currently available to realize an attractive return on capital
blended directly into gasoline. Routing those refineries with sufficient capacity invested and is often chosen as a
in an existing isomerization unit to treat technology for achieving benzene
267 The benzene reduction technologies are
all of the six-carbon material. reduction. The difference in price
discussed here in the context of the feasibility for

reducing the benzene levels of gasoline to meet a between benzene and gasoline has been
gasoline benzene content standard. However, this
iii. Benzene Saturation significantly higher than its historic
discussion applies equally to the feasibility of a The function of a benzene saturation levels during the last few years. While
total air toxics standard, since we believe that unit is to react hydrogen with the we expect that this difference will
benzene control would be the only means that
refiners would choose in order to comply with such benzene in the reformate (that is, to return closer to the lower historic levels
a standard. saturate the benzene) in a dedicated by the time the proposed program
would be implemented, the difference However, because they may be feasible stream to reduce benzene. However,
in prices should still be sufficient to in some unique situations, we mention there could be other reasons that
make extraction a very cost-effective these potential gasoline benzene refiners might find compelling for
technology for reducing gasoline reduction approaches here. treating this stream. First, since its
benzene levels. A more detailed One of these less attractive octane is fairly low to begin with, it
discussion about benzene prices is opportunities for additional benzene could be fed to the reformer and its
contained later in this preamble (section reduction would be for refiners to benzene would be treated in the
IX) and in Chapter 9 of the RIA. capture more of the reformate benzene reformate, along with the benefit of
The other consideration in using in the reformate splitter and send this
improving the octane quality of this
benzene extraction is the distance that additional benzene to the saturation
stream. Second, refiners producing low-
a refinery is from the markets where unit. Refiners attempt to minimize both
benzene is used as a chemical feedstock. the capital and operating costs when sulfur gasoline under the gasoline sulfur
Transportation of chemical grade splitting a benzene-rich stream out of program may not be able to easily
benzene requires special hazardous- the reformate stream for treating in a tolerate the sulfur from this stream if it
materials precautions, including benzene saturation unit. To do this, they were blended directly into gasoline.
protection against leaks. Certain optimize the distillation cut between Thus, if they treat this stream in the
precautions are also necessary to benzene and toluene, thus achieving a reformer, it would undergo the
preserve the purity of the benzene benzene reduction of about 96 percent hydrotreating (desulfurization) that is
during shipment. These special in the reformate while preserving all but necessary for all streams fed to the
precautions are costly for shipping about 1 percent of the high-octane reformer. Overall, we do not have
benzene over long distances. Thus if a toluene. However, if a refiner were to be sufficient information to conclude
refinery were located far from the faced with a dire need for additional whether treating natural gasoline might
chemical benzene markets, the benzene reductions, it could change its become more attractive in the future.
economics for using extraction would be distillation cut to send the last 4 percent
Another approach to benzene
much less attractive compared to that of of the benzene to the saturation unit.
reduction that we believe could be
refiners located near benzene markets. Since this cut would also bring with it
The result has been that chemical more toluene than the normal optimized attractive in certain unique
grade benzene production has been scenario, this toluene would also be circumstances relates to the benzene
limited to those refineries located near saturated, resulting in a larger loss in content in naphtha from the fluidized
the benzene markets. This includes octane and greater hydrogen catalytic cracker, or FCC unit. As shown
refineries on the Gulf and on the East consumption. in Table VII.F–2, FCC naphtha contains
Coast and to a limited extent, several Some refineries with hydrocracking less than 1 percent benzene on average.
refineries in the Midwest. This could units may have another means of further Despite the very low concentration of
change if the very high benzene prices reducing the gasoline benzene levels. benzene in FCC naphtha, the large
in 2004 and the beginning of 2005 were They may be able to reduce the benzene volumetric contribution of this stream to
to continue, instead of returning to content of one of the products of the gasoline results in this stream
lower historical levels. However, even if hydrocracker, the light hydrocrackate contributing a significant amount of
benzene prices remain high by the time stream. Today, light hydrocrackate is benzene to gasoline as well. There are
that a benzene control standard would normally blended directly into gasoline. no proven processes which treat
take effect, refineries located away from Light hydrocrackate contains a moderate benzene in FCC naphtha. This is
the benzene markets may be concerned level of benzene, although its because its concentration is so low as
that the higher benzene prices may not contribution to the gasoline benzene well as because FCC naphtha contains a
be certain enough for the long term to levels is significant only in those high concentration of olefins.
warrant investment in extraction. Our refineries with hydrocrackers. Light
Segregating a benzene-rich stream from
analysis for today’s proposal hydrocrackate could be treated by
conservatively assumes that only routing this stream to an isomerization FCC naphtha and sending it to a
refineries on the Gulf and East coasts unit, similar to how refiners isomerize benzene saturation unit would saturate
would choose to use benzene extraction the six-carbon straight run naphtha as the olefins in the same boiling range,
to lower their gasoline benzene levels. discussed above. Alternatively, refiners resulting in an unacceptable loss in
Despite some existing extraction units could use additional distillation octane value. Also, some refiners
in the Midwest, the benzene market equipment to cut the light operate their FCC units today more
there is small and no additional benzene hydrocrackate more finely. In this way, severely to improve octane, an action
extraction is assumed to occur there. more of the benzene could be shifted to that also increases benzene content.
the ‘‘medium’’ hydrocrackate stream, Conceivably, refiners could redesign
c. Other Benzene Reduction which in most refineries is sent to the their FCC process (change the catalyst
Technologies reformer and thus would be treated and operating characteristics) to reduce
We are aware of other, less attractive along with the reformate. the severity and produce slightly less
technologies capable of achieving Another way that we believe some benzene. We do not have sufficient
benzene reductions in gasoline. These refiners could further reduce their information to know whether many
technologies tend to have more serious benzene levels would be to treat the refiners are already operating at high
impacts on other important refinery benzene in natural gasoline. Many FCC severity and thus have the potential
processes or on fuel quality and are refiners, especially in PADDs 3 and 4, to reduce benzene by reducing that
generally capable of only modest blend some light gasoline-like material,
severity.
benzene reductions. We do not which is a by-product of natural gas
currently have sufficient information wells, into their gasoline. In most cases, We request comment on our
about how widely these approaches are we believe that this material is blended assessment of benzene reduction
or could be utilized or their potential directly into gasoline. Because the approaches, including data related to
costs, and in our modeling we have not benzene concentration in this stream is the current or potential usage and
assumed that refiners would use them. not high, it would be costly to treat the potential effectiveness of each approach.
d. Impacts on Octane and Strategies for octane blendstock called alkylate. units in the Midwest to produce RFG for
Recovering Octane Loss Alkylate is produced by reacting normal the markets there. California has its own
All these benzene reduction butane and isobutane with isobutylene RFG program which also put into place
technologies affect the octane of the over an acid catalyst. Not only is this a stringent benzene standard for the
final gasoline. Regular grade gasoline stream high in octane, but it converts gasoline sold there. The Oil and Gas
must comply with a minimum 87 octane compounds that are too volatile to be Journal’s Worldwide Refining Report
(R+M)/2 rating (or a sub-octane rating of blended in large amounts into the shows that four California refineries
86 for driving in altitude), while gasoline pool into heavier compounds have benzene saturation units. If we
premium grade gasoline must comply that can be readily blended into assume that those RFG and California
with an octane rating which ranges from gasoline. If the refinery is short of refineries that do not have extraction or
91 to 93 (R+M)/2. Gasoline must meet feedstocks for alkylate, then the saturation units are routing their
these octane ratings to be sold as operations of the FCC unit, which is the precursors around their reformer, then
principal producer of these feedstocks, there are 28 refineries using benzene
gasoline at retail. Routing the benzene
can be adjusted to produce more of the precursor rerouting as their means to
precursors around the reformer reduces
feedstocks for the alkylate unit, reduce benzene levels. Thus, these
the octane of the six-carbon compound
increasing the availability of this high technologies have been demonstrated in
stream, which normally exits the
octane blendstock. many refineries since the mid-1990s in
reformer with the rest of the reformate. Octane can also be increased by the U.S. and are considered by the
Without these compounds in the purchasing high-octane blendstocks and refining community as commercially
reformate, a loss of octane in the blending them into the gasoline pool. proven technologies.
gasoline pool of about 0.14 octane For example, some refiners with excess Worldwide experience provides
numbers typically occurs. If this octane production capacity market high further evidence of the commercial
rerouted stream can be sent to an octane blendstocks such as alkylate or viability of these benzene control
isomerization unit, a portion of this lost aromatics such as toluene. Oxygenates, technologies. A vendor of benzene
octane can be recovered, provided that such as ethanol, can also be blended control technology has shared with us
sufficient capacity remains in that unit into the gasoline pool. Other oxygenates how the refining companies in other
to continue treating the five-carbon such as methyl tertiary butyl ether countries have controlled the benzene
naphtha compounds. Benzene (MTBE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether levels of their gasoline in response to
saturation and benzene extraction both (ETBE), tertiary amyl methyl ether the benzene standards put in place
affect the octane of reformate and (TAME), and other ethers are sometimes there. In Europe, benzene control is
therefore the gasoline pool. Benzene used. The availability and cost of typically achieved by routing the
saturation typically reduces the octane oxygenates for octane replacement vary benzene precursors around the reformer
of gasoline by 0.24 octane numbers, and according to material prices as well as and feeding that rerouted stream to an
benzene extraction typically reduces the state and federal policies that either isomerization unit. In Japan, much of
octane by 0.14 octane numbers. encourage or discourage their use. (For the benzene is extracted from gasoline
Refiners can recover the lost octane in example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and sold to the chemicals market.
a number of ways. First, the reformer requires an increase in the volume of Finally, in Australia and New Zealand,
severity can be increased. However, if renewable fuels, including ethanol, refiners tend to use benzene saturation
the refiner is reducing benzene through which are blended into gasoline). to reduce the benzene levels in their
precursor rerouting or saturation, this gasoline.
strategy can be somewhat e. Experience Using Benzene Control
counterproductive. This is because Technologies f. What Are the Potential Impacts of
increased severity increases the amount All of the benzene reduction Benzene Control on Other Fuel
of benzene in the reformate and thus technologies and octane generating Properties?
increases the cost of saturation and technologies described above have been With the complex nature of modern
offsets some of the benzene reduction of demonstrated in refineries in the U.S. refinery operations, most changes to fuel
precursor rerouting. Increasing reformer and abroad. All four of these properties affect other fuel properties to
severity would also decrease the technologies have been used for some degree. In the case of benzene
operating cycle life of the reformer, compliance purposes for the federal control, the ‘‘ripple effects’’ on other
requiring more frequent regeneration. RFG program, which has required that fuel properties tends to be limited.
However, where benzene extraction is benzene levels be reduced to an average However, as discussed above, the
used, increased reformer severity can of 0.95 vol% or lower since 1995. reduction in benzene content that we
improve the economics of extraction According to the Oil and Gas Journal’s are proposing in this rule, depending on
because not only is lost octane replaced worldwide refining capacity report for how it is accomplished, would in most
but the amount of benzene extracted is 2003, there were 27 refineries in the cases slightly reduce the overall octane
increased. Again, operating the reformer U.S. with extraction units. Those of the resulting gasoline. Refiners would
more severely would have the negative refineries that chose extraction often likely compensate by increasing the
impact of shortening the reformer’s reduced their benzene to levels well volume of reformate (other aromatics)
operating cycle between regeneration below 0.95 vol% because of the value of blended into the gasoline, requiring a
events. benzene as a chemical feedstock, as small increase in reformer severity and
Lost octane can also be recovered by discussed above. Once a refiner invests energy inputs. Some analysis of gasoline
increasing the activity of other octane- in extraction, they have a strong property survey data suggests that as
producing units at the refinery. As incentive to maximize benzene benzene is reduced in gasoline, other
discussed above, saturating benzene in production and thus the availability of aromatics may increase somewhat to
the isomerization unit loses the octane benzene to sell to the chemical market, help compensate.
value of that benzene, but octane is often reducing gasoline benzene more Another option refiners might
increased by the simultaneous than is required by regulation. The RFG consider in response to the proposed
formation of branch-chain compounds. program also led to the installation of a rule is match-blending ethanol to make
Also, many refineries produce a high- small number of benzene saturation up octane and increase supply volume.
This has been done for several years however, a standard at this level would discussed above (assuming that an ABT
with MTBE as an economical way to require significant investment at option is not available to them).
meet toxics performance requirements essentially all refineries—that is, near- The approach of capturing more of the
and octane targets for RFG. Like MTBE, universal installation of either benzene reformate benzene in the reformate
ethanol has a relatively high blending saturation or benzene extraction splitter and sending this additional
octane, and is already added in many capability. As discussed in section IX benzene to the saturation unit would
markets to take advantage of tax benefits below, this would be a very expensive allow 7 of the 13 challenged refineries
or to support local suppliers. Since the result—costing about three times more to reach the 0.62 vol% level. Then,
use of ethanol is being encouraged in than the proposed program—that we do those refineries with a hydrocracker or
the recently-enacted energy legislation, not believe would be reasonable when a coker could reduce the benzene
refiners will likely seek to capture the costs are taken into account. content of the light hydrocrackate or
octane benefits as part of their process, Furthermore, the model projects that coker stream. This step would allow 5
which could help offset the octane loss all refineries would use optimal more refineries to reach the target level.
some refiners will see as a result of combinations of actual benzene Finally, the treatment of benzene in
benzene reduction processes. reductions and/or credit purchases and natural gasoline would bring the
Furthermore, to the extent that current would meet the average standard remaining 1 refinery to the 0.62 vol%
MTBE production is shifted to without going beyond the primary level or below. (Because of our lack of
production of isooctene, isooctane, and technologies of reformate benzene information about the potential for
alkylate, these compounds would be reduction discussed earlier in this reducing the severity of the FCC unit,
available as high-octane, low-benzene section. To reach this conclusion, our and because we do not believe that
gasoline blendstocks. model assumes a fully utilized credit reducing the benzene level of FCC
Finally, refiners may blend in trading program (that is, each refiner is naphtha is feasible, we did not consider
isomerate or alkylate, which are very assumed to minimize its average costs FCC options in this analysis.) Again, we
‘‘clean’’ gasoline blendstocks, thereby and to freely trade credits among expect that at the proposed standard
reducing the levels of ‘‘dirtier’’ gasoline companies so that all credits generated level of 0.62 vol% in the context of the
blendstocks, and reducing overall are used). Although the assumption of a proposed ABT program, all refineries
sulfur, olefins, and aromatics. We do not fully utilized credit trading program is would be able to comply. This analysis
anticipate major changes in other fuel appropriate for our modeling purposes, demonstrates that there are options,
properties due to reductions in benzene. it is very possible that this would not although extreme and costly, for
Our modeling of the emissions impacts occur in practice. For example, some challenged refineries even if the ABT
of the proposed benzene standard does refiners might choose to hold onto program does not fully function as
account for the modest changes in other credits that they generate, saving them projected.
fuel properties. As discussed in section for potential ‘‘emergencies’’ when
4. Lead Time
V of this preamble and Chapter 2 of the unexpected events would otherwise
cause noncompliance with the benzene Our proposal for the gasoline benzene
RIA, this emissions modeling indicates
standard. standard to begin on January 1, 2011
that the proposed benzene standard has
Given the high cost of control for would allow about four years after we
negligible impacts on the emissions of
some refineries and the potential that expect the rulemaking to be finalized for
other mobile source air toxics.
credit trading would be less-than-fully refiners to comply with the program’s
3. Feasible Level of Benzene Control utilized, we have looked at standards requirements. As discussed below, we
A key aspect of our selection of the less stringent than 0.52 vol% that might believe that four years of lead time
level of the proposed average benzene be feasible, considering cost. Based on would allow refiners sufficient time to
standard of 0.62 vol% was our our modeling, we believe that with the install the capital equipment they
evaluation of the benzene levels proposed ABT program all gasoline would need to lower their benzene
achievable by individual refineries. Our could be produced at the proposed levels, and would also allow this
modeling analyses, which combine our average level of 0.62 vol% without program to avoid significant conflict
understanding of technological and extreme economic consequences. We with other fuel programs being
economic factors, is summarized in believe that sufficient credits would be implemented around the same time. In
section IX below and discussed in detail generated such that refineries facing the addition, the ABT program would allow
in Chapter 9 of the RIA. Later in this highest costs of benzene control would the industry to phase in the program,
section we summarize our conclusions have sufficient access to credits and through the early credit provisions, so
about the overall feasibility of the would not need to turn to cost that significant benzene reductions
program in terms of the requirements of prohibitive technologies. would occur earlier than the program
From a strict feasibility standpoint, start date. The credits earned could
the Clean Air Act.
We assessed the benzene levels we have also assessed whether all allow the investment in higher capital
achievable for each refinery, assuming refineries could meet the proposed cost and less cost-effective technologies
that each refinery pursued the most benzene level in cases where sufficient to be delayed relative to the program
stringent form of reformate benzene credits were not available to every start date.
control available to it—installing either refinery that might want them. We In recent years, the implementation of
benzene saturation or extraction units. found that, despite the application of the gasoline sulfur and highway diesel
Based on this assessment, we project maximum reformate benzene control in sulfur programs has provided an
that the most stringent benzene level the refinery model to all refineries, the opportunity to observe the response of
analysis concluded that 13 refineries the refining industry to major fuel
achievable on average for all U.S.

gasoline would be 0.52 vol% would still have benzene levels that control requirements. Many refiners
benzene.268 As discussed above, exceeded a 0.62 benzene level, with one have demonstrated their ability to make
refinery as high as 0.77 vol% benzene. very large, expensive sulfur control
268 This analysis is within the constraints of our We have evaluated how these 13 modifications to their refineries in less
modeling and the refinery-specific information refineries might use the other, less than four years, and in some cases
available to us at the time of this proposal. attractive benzene control technologies significantly less. It is helpful to
compare this sulfur control experience planning, design, construction and start- above would be particularly attractive to
with the types of technologies refiners up all during the four year run-up small refiners for implementing into
would use to reduce benzene. toward the start date of the program. For their refineries. These are benzene
Refiners could implement approaches example, the engineering and precursor rerouting, and, if the refinery
to benzene control that require very construction (E&C) industry will be has an isomerization unit, routing the
little or no capital equipment, including busy designing and constructing each of benzene precursors to the isomerization
routing of benzene precursors around the units that will be installed. Different unit. These technologies would be
the reformer and the use of an existing portions of the E&C industry will be attractive to small refiners because they
isomerization unit, with very little lead engaged at specific periods of time would require little or no capital
time requirements. We believe that leading up to the time that the unit is investments to implement for reducing
approaches using moderately complex started up. For this reason, staggering their gasoline benzene levels. Therefore,
capital equipment, including improving the start year of this benzene fuel the per-gallon cost of these two
the effectiveness of precursor rerouting standard with the start years for the technologies is about the same as that
and expanding existing extraction Nonroad Diesel program would help to for large refineries.
capacity, would generally require one to avoid excessive demand on specific Smaller refineries tend to have fewer
two years of lead time. Projects that parts of the E&C industry. The process units and blending streams,
involve the installation of new staggering of today’s proposed which generally also means that they
equipment, including benzene program’s start date with those of the will have fewer options for recovering
saturation and extraction units, require Nonroad Diesel program may also help lost octane. For example, these
more time, generally two to three years. refiners that might be seeking to acquire refineries are less likely to have an
This includes time for the equipment capital through banks or other lending alkylation unit. An alkylation unit gives
installation as well as related offsite institutions by spreading out the refiners short on octane the option to
equipment and any necessary capital requests. change the operations of their FCC unit
equipment for production of hydrogen We believe that the proposed to make more olefins and then send the
or high-octane blendstocks. Of all the implementation date of January 1, 2011 appropriate olefins to their alkylation
benzene control approaches, benzene would minimize overlap and possible unit to produce more of that high octane
extraction is closest in scope and interference with the implementation of blendstock. This is not an option for
complexity to the technologies the the Nonroad Diesel rule. several of the small refiners that do not
industry is using for fuel sulfur control. Implementation of the proposed have an alkylation unit. Also, small
In addition to the time needed for benzene standard one year earlier or one refineries are more likely to have a
planning and installing the extraction year later would overlap directly with higher pressure reforming unit. The
unit and related equipment, extraction one of the two Nonroad Diesel higher pressure reformer units tend to
also requires time to install additional implementation dates. We also believe produce more benzene from the
facilities for storing extracted benzene that the additional year of lead time, cracking of heavier aromatic compounds
and for loading it for transport. Thus, as compared to a 2010 start date, would and will tend to do this more as their
with the earlier programs, we believe make the program more effective. severity is increased. A higher pressure
the refiners choosing to add a benzene Because we expect that the proposed reformer also has a more difficult
extraction unit could in some cases ABT program would encourage many regeneration cycle and shorter cycle
need as much as four years to complete refiners to reduce benzene levels early lengths as it is operated more severely.
the project. Overall, we believe that four whenever possible, we believe that Thus, while other refiners with lower
years of lead time would ensure that all significant benzene reductions would pressure units may be able to increase
refiners would have sufficient time to occur prior to 2011. We discuss this the severity of their reformers to make
comply, regardless of the benzene more octane without producing much
expected early benzene reduction
control technology they select. more benzene and greatly reducing the
further as a part of the description of the
Another factor in selecting an cycle lengths of their reformers, many of
proposed ABT program in section VII.D
appropriate date to begin the program is the small refiners may not have as much
above.
the timing of the implementation of flexibility in this area. In any event,
For these reasons, we are proposing
other large fuel control programs, these greater technological challenges
that the gasoline benzene standard be
especially the Nonroad Diesel rule.269 can be offset somewhat where it is
implemented beginning January 1, 2011.
The 15 ppm sulfur standard mandated economical to purchase high octane
We request comment on the issue of
by the Nonroad Diesel Fuel program blendstocks or oxygenates from other
lead time, including data supporting
applies to nonroad diesel fuel in 2010 refiners or from the petrochemical
four years or a different length of time.
and to locomotive and marine diesel industry.
fuel in 2012. Refiners modifying their 5. Issues
b. Imported Gasoline
refineries to produce either ultra low a. Small Refiners Although the majority of petroleum
sulfur nonroad or locomotive and Small refiners are technically capable products in the U.S. are made from
marine diesel fuel will do so during the of realizing a similar benzene reduction imported crude oil, only about five
several years prior to 2010 and 2012. from their gasoline as large refiners. percent of the gasoline consumed in this
For each of those start dates, there is a Because of economies of scale, however, country was imported as finished
progression of actions which includes some of the benzene control gasoline in 2003. This imported fuel is
269 The months leading up to January 2010 will
technologies which would be more approximately half RFG and half CG,
affordable for larger refineries would be and had an average benzene content of
also be when several small refiners and refiners that

were granted hardship relief will be implementing much more challenging and more 0.8% volume in 2003. No batches of
their gasoline sulfur programs. We believe that any expensive for small refiners. This is due imported gasoline had a benzene level
serious interference among implementation projects to the poorer economies of scale that the above 2.4%. Over 90% of the imported
that individual refiners might demonstrate during
this time period could be addressed under the small
small refiners are faced with installing gasoline was delivered into the East
refiner or general hardship provisions of the capital into their refineries. Two of the Coast and Florida, with about 5%
proposed rule. benzene control technologies discussed arriving on the West Coast, and the
remainder being brought into other average standard than the proposed 0.62 energy used for benzene extraction. Our
regions of the country. The origin of the vol% (e.g., 0.65 or 0.70 vol%) would not modeling of increased energy use
majority of this gasoline was Canada satisfy our statutory obligation for the indicates that the process energy used
(40%), Western Europe (31%), and most stringent standard feasible by refiners to produce gasoline would
South America (17%). considering cost and other factors. increase by about one percent. Overall,
Since imported finished gasoline is Furthermore, such standards would not we believe that the proposed rule would
not processed in a domestic refinery, accomplish several important result in no significant adverse energy
where refiners would be taking steps to programmatic objectives as discussed in impacts.
meet the proposed benzene standard, section VII.C. The proposed gasoline benzene
importers would be affected in other We have also considered energy provisions would not affect the current
ways. Importers would most likely implications of the proposed program, gasoline distribution practices.
either begin to purchase gasoline that is as well as noise and safety, and we
We discuss our analysis of the energy
low enough in benzene to meet the believe the proposed program would
and supply effects of the proposed
standard, or they would continue to have very little impact on any of these
gasoline benzene standard further in
import gasoline with benzene at current factors. Analyses supporting these
levels but purchase credits to cover the conclusions are also found in Chapter 9 section IX of this preamble and in
fuel being above the standard. As shown of the RIA. We carefully considered lead Chapter 9 of the Regulatory Impact
above, over 70 percent of imported time in establishing the stringency and Analysis.
gasoline comes from countries that have timing of the proposed program (see The fuel supply and energy effects
already set benzene limits on their section VII.F above). described above would be offset
gasoline. As a result, we believe that Consequently, we believe that the substantially by the positive effects on
gasoline with some degree of benzene proposed program would meet the gasoline supply and energy use of the
control will be easily available for requirements of section 202(l) of the proposed gas can standards also
importers to market. In some cases, we Clean Air Act, reflecting ‘‘the greatest proposed in today’s action. These
also expect that some foreign refiners degree of emission reduction achievable proposed provisions would greatly
may produce for export some fraction of through the application of technology reduce the gasoline lost to evaporation
their gasoline to meet our proposed 0.62 which is available, taking into from gas cans. This would in turn
vol% average standard benzene. This consideration * * * the availability and reduce the demand for gasoline,
would provide importers further options costs of the technology, and noise, increasing the gasoline supply and
in the U.S. gasoline market. energy, and safety factors, and lead reducing the energy used in producing
time.’’ gasoline.
G. How Does the Proposed Fuel Control
Program Satisfy the Statutory H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, I. How Would the Proposed Gasoline
Requirements? or Use Benzene Standard Be Implemented?
As discussed earlier in this section, This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy This section discusses the details
we have concluded that the most action’’ as defined in Executive Order associated with meeting the proposed
effective and appropriate program for 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 0.62 vol% benzene standard.
MSAT emission reduction from gasoline That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
is a benzene control program. Today’s Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 1. General Provisions
action proposes such a program, with an 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to a. What Are the Implementation Dates
average benzene content standard of have a significant adverse effect on the for the Proposed Program?
0.62 vol% and a specially-designed supply, distribution, or use of energy. If
averaging, banking, and trading promulgated, the gasoline benzene We are proposing that refiners and
program. In section VII.F above, we provisions of the proposed rule would importers would achieve compliance
summarize our evaluation of the shift about 22,000 barrels per day of with the requirements of the proposed
feasibility of the proposed program, and benzene from the gasoline market to the benzene program beginning with the
in section IX.A we summarize our petrochemical market. This volume annual averaging period beginning
evaluation of the costs of the program. represents about 0.2 percent of January 1, 2011. Refineries with
The analyses supporting our nationwide gasoline production. The approved benzene baselines could
conclusions in these sections are actual impact of the rule on the gasoline generate early credits from June 1, 2007,
discussed in detail in Chapters 6 and 9 market, however, is likely to be less due through December 31, 2010. Refineries
of the RIA. to offsetting changes in the production and importers could generate standard
Taking all of this information into of petrochemicals, as well as expected credits beginning with the annual
account, we believe that a program more growth in the petrochemical market averaging period beginning January 1,
stringent than the proposed program absent this rule. The major sources of 2011, provided that the average benzene
would not be feasible, taking into benzene for the petrochemical market content of the gasoline they produce or
consideration cost. As we have other than reformate from gasoline import during the year was less than
discussed, making the standard more production are also derived from 0.62 vol% benzene.
stringent would require more refiners to gasoline components or gasoline Approved small refiners would be
install the more expensive benzene feedstocks. Consequently, the expected allowed to delay compliance with the
control equipment, with very little shift toward more benzene production 0.62 vol% standard until the annual
improvement in benzene emissions. from reformate due to this proposed rule averaging period beginning January 1,
Also, we have shown that related costs would be offset by less benzene 2015. They could, however, generate
increase very rapidly as the level of the produced from other gasoline early credits beginning June 1, 2007
standard is made more stringent. feedstocks. through December 31, 2014, provided
Conversely, while it would provide The rule would require refiners to use that they had an approved benzene
significant benzene emission a small additional amount of energy in baseline. They would be able to generate
reductions, we are concerned that a processing gasoline to reduce benzene standard credits beginning January 1,
somewhat less stringent national levels, primarily due to the increased 2015.
b. Which Regulated Parties Would Be generate early credits and to apply for expect this situation will continue.
Subject to the Proposed Benzene temporary hardship relief and small There would be no additional benefit to
Standards? refiner status. See proposed 40 CFR consumers of California gasoline or to
Domestic refiners and importers 80.1420. However, under the earlier the implementation and benefits of the
would be subject to the proposed rules, few foreign refiners have chosen proposed program by the inclusion of
standards. We are proposing that each to undertake these additional gasoline used in California.
refinery of a refiner must meet the requirements, and almost all gasoline This proposal also would exclude
standard, and all associated produced at foreign refineries is those specialized gasoline applications
requirements, individually. Refinery included in an importer’s compliance that have been exempted from other
grouping, or aggregation, as allowed in determination for the current EPA EPA gasoline rules, such as gasoline
the Anti-dumping and MSAT1 program gasoline programs.270 We invite used to fuel aircraft, or for sanctioned
for CG, would not be permitted for comment on the value of extending racing events, gasoline that is exported
purposes of complying with the these provisions to this proposed for sale and use outside of the U.S., and
proposed benzene standard (although benzene program. gasoline used for research, development
As mentioned, we are proposing to or testing purposes, under certain
the ABT provisions provide similar
extend the small refiner provisions to circumstances.
flexibility, and the credit generation and
foreign refiners. Our experience in past
transfer provisions would perform d. How Would Compliance With the
rules is that they are not taken
basically the same functions). For an Benzene Standard Be Determined?
advantage of for various reasons. Most
importer, we are proposing that the
foreign refineries are state-owned or Compliance with the proposed
requirements apply to the entire volume
owned by large multinational benzene standard would be on an
imported during the averaging period companies, and would exceed the annual, calendar year basis, similar to
regardless of import locations or employee-count criterion. Others have almost all other current gasoline
sources. In addition, where a company typically not been interested in fulfilling controls. A refiner’s or importer’s
has both refinery and import operations, the enforcement-related requirements compliance (or Compliance Benzene
each operation would have to achieve that apply to foreign refineries. We Value, as used in the proposed
its own compliance with the 0.62 vol% request comment on extending the small regulation) would be determined from
benzene standard. We are proposing refiner provisions to foreign refiners. the annual average benzene content of
that those who only added oxygenate or
c. What Gasoline Would Be Subject to its gasoline (produced or imported), any
butane to gasoline or gasoline blending
the Proposed Benzene Standards? credits used for compliance purposes,
stock would not be subject to the
and any deficit carried over from the
proposed standards for that gasoline All finished gasoline produced by a previous year, and would have to be
unless they also added other blending refinery or imported by an importer 0.62 vol% or lower, on a benzene
components to the blend. This would be would be subject to the proposed volume basis. The Compliance Benzene
similar to the current treatment of these benzene content standard. In addition, Value would differ from the refiner’s or
entities and their gasoline under the gasoline blending stock which becomes importer’s actual annual average
RFG, Anti-dumping and MSAT1 finished gasoline solely upon the benzene concentration because the latter
programs, where specialized accounting addition of oxygenate would also be would be solely a volume weighted
and calculation procedures are subject to the proposed standard.271 average of the benzene concentrations of
specified. In these cases, the refinery (or Other gasoline blendstocks which are the refinery’s or importer’s actual
importer) that produces gasoline or shifted among refiners prior to turning gasoline batches.
gasoline blendstock includes the them into finished gasoline would not Credits, in any amount, could be used
oxygenate in its own compliance be subject to the benzene standard. They to achieve compliance. As mentioned,
determination. We are proposing that would be included at the point they are we are also proposing to allow a deficit
this practice would continue under converted or blended to produce to be carried forward for one year.
today’s program. Transmix processors finished gasoline. Under these circumstances, in the next
would not be subject to the proposed We are proposing to exclude gasoline
compliance period, the refinery or
requirements for gasoline produced produced or imported for use in
importer would have to be in
from transmix, but gasoline produced California from this benzene
compliance, that is, the refinery or
from transmix to which other requirement. Although California’s
importer would have to, through
blendstocks were added would be benzene averaging standard is greater
production or import practices, and/or
subject to the proposed benzene than 0.62 vol%, California in-use
the use of credits, make up the deficit
standard. benzene levels are currently below the
We are proposing that all gasoline from the previous year and be in
level of the proposed standard.272 We
produced by foreign refineries for use in compliance with the proposed benzene
the United States would be included in 270 Often, the importer of record is the foreign
standard. This provision could be
the compliance and credit calculation of reiner. In these instances, the importer/foreign especially helpful to refiners in the first
the importer of record. Under the Anti- refiner has simply opted to achieve compliance via year of the program, until the
the applicable importer provisions. availability and need for credits was
dumping and MSAT1 rules, as well as 271 As stated earlier, both blending stock and
the gasoline sulfur requirements, established.
oxygenate would be included in the refinery’s or
In the RFG and Anti-dumping
additional requirements applicable to importer’s compliance determination. Conventional
gasoline refiners are required to have agreements programs, and MSAT1, by extension,
foreign refiners who chose to comply
with downstream oxygenate blenders to ensure that refiners and importers generally include
with those regulations separately from
the appropriate type and amount of oxygenate is oxygenate added downstream from the
any importer were included to ensure added to the gasoline blending stock, per 40 CFR
refinery or the import facility in their
that enforcement of the regulation at the 80.10(d). Absent such agreements, the refinery may
only include the gasoline blending stock in its compliance calculations.273 Refiners
foreign refinery would not be
compliance determination and the oxygenate is not
compromised. We are proposing similar included in any compliance determination. 273 As a result, oxygenate blenders would not be
provisions here. Specifically, we are 272 California Code of Regulations, Title 13 subject to the RFG, Anti-dumping or MSAT1
proposing to allow foreign refiners to Section 2262. Continued
and importers of RBOB are required to volume, come into existence and go out b. How Would Refinery Benzene
account for the oxygenate in their own of existence on a continual basis, Baselines Be Determined?
compliance. As mentioned earlier, making it difficult to assess the As mentioned above, a refiner would
refiners and importers of conventional appropriateness of both the baseline and submit a benzene baseline application
gasoline can include the oxygenate if any early credits. Thus, even though an to EPA for any of its refineries which
they have met the Anti-dumping importer may have had regular, planned to generate early credits. The
requirements for ensuring that the consistent import activity during the benzene baseline would be the volume-
amount and type of oxygenate was 2004–2005 baseline period, we are weighted average of the benzene levels
indeed added. We are not proposing any proposing that only refiners would be of the gasoline produced by the refinery
changes to these provisions for the
allowed to apply for a benzene baseline, during 2004–2005. Note that the
purposes of compliance with the
and if approved, to generate early gasoline would be the combination of
proposed benzene program. However,
benzene credits based on reductions in the refinery’s RFG and CG, if applicable,
average pool benzene levels are
future averaging period gasoline and would exclude California gasoline
expected to decrease as a result of
benzene levels. and other fuels exempted from the
increased ethanol use due to
requirements of the Energy Policy Act of As discussed above, one of the proposed standard. The benzene values
2005, and this would affect both early used in the benzene baseline calculation
purposes of allowing the early
and standard credit generation, as will should be the same as used in the RFG,
generation of benzene credits would be
be discussed below. However, we Anti-dumping and MSAT1 compliance
to promote reductions in benzene determinations. We are not proposing
request comment on how, if at all, through refinery processing changes. We
additional oxygenate use should be provisions for adjusting these benzene
are concerned that benzene reductions baselines based on circumstances
considered, and perhaps limited, in due to increased oxygenate use would
compliance determinations for the during the baseline years or otherwise.
result in reduced benzene Though we expect that most refineries
proposed program. concentrations. Oxygenate use (in the that apply for a benzene baseline would
2. Averaging, Banking and Trading form of ethanol) in CG is expected to have data for both 2004 and 2005, if a
Program increase as a result of the Energy Policy refinery was shut down for part of the
a. Early Credit Generation Act requirements.274 This additional 2004–2005 period, it could still be able
oxygenate will dilute gasoline benzene to establish a benzene baseline. Under
As discussed, early credit generation levels as well as extend the gasoline these circumstances, the refiner would
could occur as early as the averaging
pool. As a result, refinery average have to provide and justify, using
period beginning June 1, 2007, through
benzene levels would be likely to be refinery and engineering analyses, an
the averaging period ending December
lower during the early credit generation appropriate adjusted value that reflects
31, 2010, or ending December 31, 2014,
period than during the benzene baseline the likely average benzene
for small refiners. In order to generate
period (2004–2005) if there is an concentration for the refinery, had it
early benzene credits, a refinery would
increase in the amount of CG refiners been fully operational. A refinery that
first establish a benzene baseline which
send for downstream blending with was non-operational for the entire
is its average benzene concentration
over the period January 1, 2004, through ethanol (CBOB). We are concerned that period January 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2005. A refinery would be reductions in fuel benzene levels due to December 31, 2005 would not be able to
eligible to generate early credits when it oxygenate addition significantly beyond establish a benzene baseline and
reduced its annual average benzene the average levels of recent years could therefore not allowed to generate early
concentration by at least 10% compared result in windfall early credit generation credits.
to its benzene baseline. Credits would for some refineries. We request c. Credit Generation Beginning in 2011
then be calculated based on the entire comment on the likelihood of windfall Credits could be generated in any
reduction in benzene below the early credit generation, and if such a annual averaging period beginning
baseline. Generation of early credits for situation were to occur, whether it January 1, 2011, or for small refiners,
the first averaging period, June 1, 2007 would warrant limiting early benzene
through December 31, 2007, which is beginning January 1, 2015. These
credits by consideration of the average credits, also called standard benzene
less than a calendar year, would be oxygenate use during the baseline
based on the average benzene level of credits, could be generated by a refinery
period compared to the early credit or importer when the refinery’s or
the gasoline produced only during this
generation period or by adjusting the importer’s annual average benzene
period. Gasoline produced before June
early credit trigger point. We believe concentration was less than the
1, 2007, would not be included in the
credit generation determination. this would be less of an issue during the proposed standard of 0.62 vol%.
We are proposing to allow only standard credit generation period While the proposed benzene standard
refiners (and not importers) to generate beginning in 2011 (2015 for small is a 49-state standard due to the fact that
early benzene credits because it is at the refiners) because of the more stringent California would maintain its existing
refinery, or production level, where real requirements for generating standard benzene standard, we request comment
changes in the production of gasoline credits (getting below the 0.62 vol% on the appropriateness of allowing
can be made. Importers would simply standard) compared to the early credit California refineries to generate credits
seek out blending streams or gasoline generation requirements (achieving a that could be used to demonstrate
with lower benzene, but would not have minimum 10% reduction in baseline compliance outside of California.
to invest or take other action involving benzene levels). d. How Would Credits Be Used?
the production of the lower benzene
gasoline. Furthermore, many importer We are proposing that all gasoline
operations grow in volume, shrink in 274 Even though the Energy Policy Act of 2005 benzene credits that are properly
eliminated the oxygen mandate for RFG, oxygenate created may be used equally and
regulations except for gasoline to which they add use (in the form of ethanol) in RFG is expected to interchangeably. That is, once
other blendstocks in addition to the oxygenate. continue. generated, there would be no difference
between early credits and standard briefly addressed here. We are has both a toxics emissions requirement
credits, except for their credit life, as proposing that a refiner for any of its and a per-gallon benzene cap, already
discussed below. Under this proposal, refineries could seek temporary relief requires a benzene value to be
credits could be transferred to another from meeting the proposed benzene determined for every batch of gasoline.
refiner or importer, or they could be standard due to unusual circumstances, The Anti-dumping program, which has
banked by the refinery or importer that including those situations, such as a only a toxics emissions requirement,
created them for use or transfer in a later natural disaster, which would clearly be allows benzene values to be determined
compliance period. outside the control of the refiner. A from composite samples. See 40 CFR
As in past credit programs, we are refiner would have to apply to EPA for 80.101(i). Thus, the proposed sampling
proposing some limits on credit use. this temporary relief, and EPA could requirement would be a change from the
First, we are proposing to limit the deny the application or approve it for an current sampling methodology allowed
number of times a credit could be appropriate period of time. However, under the Anti-dumping provisions but
transferred. At the end of the allowable given the existence of a flexible ABT makes it consistent with the ongoing
number of transfers, the credit would program, EPA expects that, prior to Tier 2 sulfur program. However, unlike
have to be used by the last transferee requesting hardship relief, the refiner the gasoline sulfur requirements, this
before its expiration date. Second, we would have made best efforts to obtain every batch testing requirement for
are proposing that credits would have a credits in order to comply with the conventional gasoline benzene would
finite life whether or not transferred. We proposed benzene standard. In past not have to occur prior to the batch
are proposing that early credits, those rulemakings, for example the gasoline leaving the refinery. Additionally, the
generated prior to 2011, would have a sulfur rule, the hurdle for receiving a batch numbering system would be the
three-year credit life from the start of the hardship was very high, with very few same as that used for conventional
program in 2011. These credits would granted. While we are proposing these gasoline sulfur.
have to be used to achieve compliance provisions again here, the expectation is We are not proposing any changes to
with the proposed benzene standard in that the hurdle would be even higher. the benzene test methodology. See 40
2011, 2012, and/or 2013, or they would Given the existence and flexibility CFR 80.46(e). We are proposing sample
expire. In addition, we are proposing afforded by the ABT program and the retention requirements similar to those
that credits generated in 2011 and more limited cost of the benzene in the gasoline sulfur provisions. See 40
beyond (or early credits generated by standard, it is our expectation that as CFR 80.335.
small refiners during this period) would long as a viable credit market existed, it b. Recordkeeping/Reporting
have to be used within five years of the would be difficult to justify granting a
We are proposing to require that
year in which they were generated. We hardship. Furthermore, the form of any records be kept for each averaging
had considered requiring credits be relief we are proposing is in the form of period in order to accommodate the
used in order of their generation date, additional time to demonstrate proposed benzene standard and the
that is, credits generated earlier would compliance via credits as opposed to accompanying credit trading program.
have to be used before credits generated any waiver of the standards. These records would include: the
later. However, the finite credit life is benzene baseline calculation, if
b. Small Refiners
likely to ensure this usage, and thus we applicable; the number of early credits
are not proposing to regulate credit use As discussed earlier, we are proposing
generated, if applicable; the actual
in this manner. We are also proposing to allow small refiners to meet the
average benzene concentration of
that credit life could be extended by two proposed benzene standard beginning
gasoline produced or imported; the
years for any credits that are generated with the 2015 averaging period, which compliance benzene value; any deficit;
by or traded to approved small refiners. is four years later than non-small the number of credits generated; and
Under the proposed regulations, a refiners and importers. Small refiners records of any credit transfers to or from
refiner or importer would have to use all could also generate both early and the refinery or importer, including price
benzene credits in its possession before standard credits if they can meet the of the credits and dates of transactions.
being allowed to have deficit carryover, requirements of those programs. A All of this information, and any other
and would have to meet its own refiner would have to apply to EPA by information that EPA may require, such
compliance requirement before December 31, 2007 in order to be as information similar to that proposed
transferring any gasoline benzene considered a small refiner under this below for inclusion in the pre-
credits. In the case of invalid credits, or proposed rule even if the entity was or compliance reports, would be submitted
credits improperly created, all parties had been considered a small refiner in a refiner’s or importer’s annual report
would have to adjust their credit under other EPA rules. The to the Agency. Since we are proposing
records, reports, and compliance requirements for small refiners under that the regulatory provisions for the
calculations to reflect proper credit use. this rule are detailed in section VII.E. benzene control program would become
The transferor would first correct its the single regulatory mechanism
4. Administrative and Enforcement
own records and ensure its own covering RFG and Anti-dumping annual
Related Provisions
compliance, and then apply any average toxics requirements once the
remaining properly created credits to a. Sampling/Testing
benzene standard is in effect, and would
the transferee before trading or banking As under the Tier 2 program where a replace the MSAT1 requirements, we
those credits. See section X.A below for sulfur concentration must be expect to be able to streamline several
more discussion of these issues. determined for every batch of gasoline, of the current reporting forms once the
3. Hardship and Small Refiner we are proposing that a benzene proposed program is fully implemented
Provisions concentration value also be determined in 2015.

for every batch of gasoline produced or As mentioned, we are also proposing
a. Hardship imported. Thus, as gasoline samples are to require that refiners and importers
The hardship provisions and taken for sulfur measurement, they submit pre-compliance reports in order
requirements are extensively discussed would also be taken for benzene to provide information as to the likely
in section VII.E.2, and thus are only measurement. The RFG program, which number of benzene credits needed and
available, and how the refiner or toxics standards as unnecessary. The A. Why Are We Proposing an Emissions
importer plans to achieve compliance proposed benzene control program Control Program for Gas Cans?
with the proposed benzene would also replace the MSAT1 1. VOC Emissions
requirements. These reports would be requirements. However, we propose the
required annually each June 1 from RFG per gallon benzene cap of 1.3 vol% We are proposing standards to control
2001 through 2011 (or through 2015 for remain in effect; we are requesting VOCs as an ozone precursor and also to
small refiners). In addition to minimize exposure to VOC-based toxics
comment on the need to retain this
information regarding gasoline such as benzene and toluene. Gasoline
requirement for RFG. Note that
production and the number of credits is highly volatile and evaporates easily
compliance with the proposed benzene from containers that are not sealed or
expected to be used or produced, the
standard would ensure compliance with closed properly. Although an individual
pre-compliance reports would include
the aforementioned RFG, Anti-dumping gas can is a relatively modest emission
information regarding the benzene
reduction technology expected to be and MSAT1 requirements beginning source, the cumulative VOC emissions
used, any capital commitments, and with the 2011 averaging period, or the from gas cans are quite significant. We
information on the progress of the 2015 averaging period for small refiners. estimate that containers currently emit
installation of the technology. We are Thus, during the early credit generation about 315,000 tons of VOC annually
also proposing that these reports period, 2007 through 2010, all entities nationwide, which is equal to about 5
include price and quantity information would still be required to comply with percent of the nationwide mobile source
for any credits bought or sold. The their applicable RFG, Anti-dumping and inventory (see section V.A.). Left
reports would include updates from the MSAT1 requirements. In addition, from uncontrolled, a gas can’s evaporative
previous year’s estimates, and 2011 through 2014, small refiners would emissions are up to 60 times the VOC
comparison of previous year actual have to continue to meet their of a new Tier 2 vehicle evaporative
production to the projected values. applicable RFG, Anti-dumping and control system. Gas can emissions are
MSAT1 requirements. As discussed primarily of three types: evaporative
c. Attest Engagements, Violations,
earlier in section VII.E.2, we are also emissions from unsealed or open
Penalties
requesting comment on the option of containers; permeation emissions from
We are proposing to require attest allowing some refineries to meet the gasoline passing through the walls of
engagements for generation of both early the plastic containers; and evaporative
proposed benzene standard early, thus
and other credits, credit use, and emissions from gasoline spillage during
replacing the current RFG and Anti-
compliance with the proposed program, use.
using the usual procedures for attest dumping annual average toxics
As discussed in section IV. above,
engagements. The violation and penalty provisions and replacing MSAT1
ozone continues to be a significant air
provisions applicable to this proposed requirements for these refineries.
quality concern, and gas cans are
benzene program would be very similar VIII. Gas Cans currently an uncontrolled source of
to the provisions currently in effect in VOC emissions in many areas of the
other gasoline programs. We request Gas cans are consumer products country. Section 183(e) of the Clean Air
comment on the need for additional people use to refuel a wide variety of Act directs EPA to study, list, and
attest engagement, violation or penalty gasoline-powered equipment. Their regulate consumer and commercial
provisions specific to the proposed most frequent use is for refueling lawn products that are significant sources of
benzene program. and garden equipment such as lawn VOC emissions. In 1995, after
5. How Would Compliance With the mowers, trimmers, and chainsaws. They conducting a study and submitting a
Provisions of the Proposed Benzene are also routinely used for recreational Report to Congress on VOC emissions
Program Affect Compliance With Other equipment such as all-terrain vehicles from consumer and commercial
Gasoline Toxics Programs? and snowmobiles, and for passenger products, EPA published an initial list
vehicles which have run out of gas. The of product categories to be regulated
As discussed above, we expect that under section 183(e). Based on criteria
virtually all refineries will reduce gas cans are red, per ASTM
specifications, and about 95 percent of that we established pursuant to section
benzene from their current levels, and
them are made of plastic (high density 183(e)(2)(B), we listed for regulation
no refineries will increase it. This
polyethelene (HDPE)). There are those consumer and commercial
impact on benzene levels, combined
approximately 20 million gas cans sold products that we considered at the time
with the pre-existing gasoline controls
annually and about 80 million cans are to be significant contributors to the
in sulfur, RVP, and VOC performance,
ozone nonattainment problem, but we
means that compliance with the in use nationwide. The average lifetime
did not include gas can emissions.275
benzene content provisions is also of a gas can is about 5 years.
After analyzing the emissions inventory
expected to lead to compliance with the California has established an impacts of gas cans, EPA plans to
annual average requirements on emissions control program for gas cans publish a Federal Register notice that
benzene and toxics performance for which began in 2001. Since then, some would add portable gasoline containers
reformulated gasoline and the annual other states have adopted the California to the list of consumer products to be
average Anti-dumping toxics
requirements. Last year, California regulated and explain the rationale for
performance for conventional gasoline.
adopted a revised program which is this action in detail. EPA will afford
EPA is therefore proposing that upon
very similar to the one we are proposing interested persons the opportunity to
full implementation in 2011 the
in this rulemaking. Manufacturers are comment on the data underlying the
regulatory provisions for the benzene
required to meet the new requirements listing before taking final action on
control program would become the
in California by July 1, 2007 at the today’s proposal. In today’s notice, EPA
single regulatory mechanism used to
latest. State programs are discussed is proposing that the standards for
implement these RFG and Anti-
dumping annual average toxics further in section VIII.A.3., below.
275 60 FR 15264 ‘‘Consumer and Commercial
requirements, replacing the current RFG Products: Schedule for Regulation,’’ March 23,
and Anti-dumping annual average 1995.
portable gasoline containers represent density polyethylene (HDPE) through an causes a chemical reaction where
‘‘best available controls’’ as required by extruder with a screw. The parison is exposed hydrogen atoms are replaced by
section 183(e)(3)(A). Determination of then pinched in a mold and inflated larger fluorine atoms, creating a barrier
the ‘‘best available controls’’ requires with an inert gas. The HDPE plastics on the surface of the gas can. In this
EPA to determine the degree of used for gas cans allow gasoline process, a batch of gas cans is generally
reduction achievable through use of the molecules to permeate (i.e., pass processed post production by stacking
most effective control measures (which through) the walls of the container. This them in a steel container. The container
includes chemical reformulation, and contributes to overall emission losses is then voided of air and flooded with
other measures) after considering from the containers. There are several fluorine gas. By pulling a vacuum in the
technological and economic feasibility, effective permeation barriers that can be container, the fluorine gas is forced into
as well as health, energy, and incorporated into the can walls. Gas can every crevice in the gas can. As a result
environmental impacts.276 manufacturers have used several of of this process, both the inside and
these methods to meet California outside surfaces of the gas can would be
2. Technological Opportunities to program requirements. The technologies treated. As an alternative, gas cans can
Reduce Emissions From Gas Cans were initially developed to meet be fluorinated on the manufacturing line
Gas can manufacturers have already automotive evaporative emissions by exposing the inside surface of the gas
developed and applied emissions standards and are now also being used can to fluorine during the blow molding
controls in response to California for other types of fuel tanks. The process. However, this method may not
requirements. Traditional gas cans barriers are either incorporated as part prove as effective as off-line
typically have a spout for pouring fuel of the manufacturing process of the can fluorination, which treats the inside and
and a vent at the rear of the can to allow (either as a layer or by mixing the outside surfaces.
air to flow into the cans when in use. barrier materials with the plastics) or are Sulfonation is another surface
About 70 percent of emissions from gas applied to the cans after they are treatment technology. In this process,
cans are due to evaporative losses from manufactured. These barriers typically sulfur trioxide reacts with the exposed
caps being left off one or both of these achieve reductions of 85 percent or polyethylene to form sulfonic acid
openings. The primary way to reduce better compared to untreated cans. groups on the surface. Current practices
these emissions is to design cans that Some gas can manufacturers have for sulfonation are to place a gas can on
are not easily left open. To accomplish produced non-permeable plastic gas a small assembly line and expose the
this, gas can manufacturers have cans by blow molding a layer of inner surfaces to sulfur trioxide, then
developed spouts that incorporate a ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) or nylon rinse with a neutralizing agent.
spring mechanism to close cans between two layers of polyethylene. However, sulfonation can also be
automatically when not in use. Many This process is called coextrusion and performed using a batch method. Either
spout designs are opened by consumers requires at least five layers: The barrier of these processes can be used to reduce
pushing the spout against the layer, adhesive layers on either side of gasoline permeation by more than 95
equipment fuel tank. Some designs the barrier layer, and HDPE as the percent.
incorporate a button or trigger outside layers which make up most of
the thickness of the gas can walls. 3. State Experiences Regulating Gas
mechanism that the consumer pushes to Cans
start fuel flow and then releases when However, this blow-molding process
done refueling. Also, some cans are requires two additional extruder screws, California established an emissions
made without rear vents, incorporating which significantly increases its cost. control program for gas cans that began
venting into the spouts and thus An alternative to coextrusion is to in 2001.277 Twelve other states and the
blend a low-permeability resin with the District of Columbia have adopted the
eliminating one potential emission
HDPE and extrude it with a single screw California program in recent years.
point. The consumer still must remove
to create barrier platelets. The trade These states include Delaware, Maine,
the spout to refill the cans but would
name typically used for this permeation Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York,
replace the spout once the can is full in
control strategy is Selar. The low- Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
order to prevent spillage during
permeability resin, typically EVOH or Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia,
transport.
nylon, creates non-continuous platelets Washington, DC, and Texas.
The auto-closing spouts reduce
in the HDPE gas can which reduce Last year, California adopted a revised
spillage by giving consumers greater
permeation by creating long, tortuous program that is very similar to the one
control over the fuel flow. The spouts
pathways that the hydrocarbon we are proposing in this rulemaking.278
allow consumers to place the can in molecules must navigate to pass through
position before activating or opening the California’s new program goes into
the gas can walls. Although the barrier effect on July 1, 2007. California
cans. Once the receiving fuel tank is is not continuous, this strategy can still
full, consumers can easily release the addressed several deficiencies they
achieve greater than a 90-percent observed in their first program by
mechanism to stop the fuel flow. This reduction in permeation of gasoline.
reduces spillage during the positioning adding new enhanced diurnal
EVOH has much higher permeation standards, new testing requirements,
and removal of the can and reduces resistance to alcohol than nylon;
overall spillage by about half. and new certification requirements, and
therefore, it would be the preferred by removing automatic shut-off
Consumers generally appreciate the material to use for meeting our proposed
greater control over the refueling event. requirements that lead to designs that
standard (described at Section B., do not work well in the field.
Blow-molding is used to manufacture below), which is based on testing with
gas cans. Typically, blow-molding is a 10-percent ethanol fuel.
277 Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control

performed by creating a hollow tube, Another type of low permeation Regulations, Final Statement of Reasons, State of
known as a parison, by pushing high- technology for HDPE gas cans is treating California Environmental Protection Agency Air
the surfaces of plastic gas cans with a Resources Board, June 2000.
276 See section 183(e)(1); see also section 183(e)(4) 278 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to
providing broad authority to include ‘‘systems of

barrier layer. Two ways of achieving the Regulations for Portable Fuel Containers, Final
regulation’’ in controlling VOC emissions from this are known as fluorination and Statement of Reasons, California Air Resources
consumer products. sulfonation. The fluorination process Board, October 2005.
California’s original program contained simulates summertime ambient health impacts are discussed in section
several design specifications which temperature conditions and cycling the IV. Moreover, control of spillage from
limited manufacturer flexibility and cans through the 24-hour temperature gas cans may reduce fire hazards as well
resulted, in many cases, in products that profile (72–96° F), as discussed below. because cans would stay tightly closed
were difficult for consumers to use. The test procedures, which are if tipped over. We expect the energy
California has removed most of these described in more detail below, would impacts of gas can control to be positive,
design specifications from their revised ensure that gas cans meet the emission because the standards will reduce
program. standard over a range of in-use evaporative fuel losses.
California’s original program included conditions such as different 3. Emissions Performance vs. Design
an automatic shut-off requirement temperatures, different fuels, and taking Standard
intended to reduce spillage caused by into consideration factors affecting
overfilling the receiving fuel tank. The durability. We are proposing an emissions
spouts were required to be designed to performance standard rather than
stop fuel flow when the fuel reached the 2. Determination of Best Available mandating that gas cans be of any
tip of the spout, similar to how gas Control specified design. Rather than proposing
pumps shut off when refueling a The 0.3 g/gal/day emissions standard to require that gas cans only have one
vehicle. California specified a test and associated test procedures reflect opening, or other design-based
fixture, the height of the fuel in the the performance of the best available requirements, we believe that it is
receiving tank at which point the fuel control technologies discussed above, sufficient to require gas cans to meet an
flow must stop, and the minimum fuel including durable permeation barriers, emissions performance standard. A
flow rate. The gas cans were designed auto-closing spouts, and a can that is performance standard allows flexibility
by manufacturers to work well with the well-sealed to reduce evaporative losses. in can design while ensuring the overall
test fixture, but the automatic shut-off The standard is both economically and emissions performance of the cans. We
failed in use a significant amount of the technologically feasible. As discussed are reluctant to specify design standards
time. California found that the design of above, to comply with California’s for consumer products in order not to
the equipment fuel tank had a big program, gas can manufacturers have limit manufacturer (and ultimately
impact on the performance of the developed gas cans with low VOC consumer) choice. The market will
automatic shut-off. Due to the wide emissions at a reasonable cost (see encourage manufacturers to offer
variety of fuel tank designs, the section IX. for costs). Testing of cans products that work well for consumers,
automatic shut-off worked on a designed to meet CARB standards has and design-based requirements could
relatively small percentage of shown the proposed standards to be unnecessarily limit manufacturer design
equipment. In addition, many of the technologically feasible. When tested flexibility.
spout designs were not compatible with over cycles very similar to those we are 4. Automatic Shut-Off
passenger vehicles. This is especially proposing, emissions from these cans We are not requiring automatic shut-
critical because the cans are customarily have been in the range of 0.2–0.3 g/gal/ off as a design-based standard, or
used by consumers when their vehicles day.279 These cans have been produced considering it to be a ‘‘best available
run out of gas. with permeation barriers representing a control.’’ As described in section
These problems led to many high level of control (over 90 percent VIII.A.3. above, the automatic shut-off
consumer complaints to both the reductions) and with auto-closing has been shown to be problematic for
manufacturers and to the California Air spouts, which are technologies that consumers for several reasons, and we
Resources Board. It also led to increased represent best available controls for gas believe that including requirements for
spillage in many cases. It was also found cans. Establishing the standard at 0.3 g/ automatic shut-off would be
that many consumers did not gal/day would require the use of best counterproductive. Automatic shut-off
understand how the spouts were available technologies. We are is supposed to stop the flow of fuel
supposed to operate. Even in cases proposing a level at the upper end of the when the fuel reaches the top of the
where the spouts would have stopped tested performance range to account for receiving tank in order to prevent over-
the flow of fuel in time, consumers did product performance variability. In filling. However, due to a wide variety
not use the cans properly. Consumers addition, we believe that any of the of receiving fuel tank designs, the auto
are used to actively controlling the flow current best designs can achieve these shut off spouts do not work well with
of fuel. For these reasons, California levels, so we do not believe that the a variety of equipment types. In
removed the automatic shut-off proposed standard forecloses use of any California, this problem led to spillage
requirements from their program for all of the existing performing product and consumer dissatisfaction. We want
cans. designs. Our detailed feasibility analysis to avoid cases where spills occur even
is provided in the Regulatory Impact when consumers are using the products
B. What Emissions Standard Is EPA
Analysis. We request comment on the properly due to a mismatch between the
Proposing, and Why?
level of the standard and on its spout design and the design of the
1. Description of Emissions Standard feasibility. We request that commenters receiving fuel tank being filled.
We are proposing a performance- provide detail and data where possible. Excessive consumer difficulties in using
based standard of 0.3 grams per gallon In addition to considering new cans would likely lead to some
per day (g/gal/day) of HC to control technological and economic feasibility, consumers defeating the low emissions
evaporative and permeation losses. The section 183(e)(1)(A) requires us to features of the cans by removing the
standard would be measured based on consider ‘‘health, environmental, and spouts and using other means such as
the emissions from the can over a energy impacts’’ in assessing best funnels to refuel equipment. Any
diurnal test cycle. The cans would be available controls. Environmental and additional emissions reductions
tested as a system with their spouts 279 ‘‘Quantification of Permeation and
provided by automatic shut-off in cases
attached. Manufacturers would test the Evaporative Emissions From Portable Fuel
where it worked properly would likely
cans by placing them in an Container’’, California Air Resources Board, June be largely or completely offset by
environmental chamber which 2004. increased spillage due to cases where
consumers defeated the designs or the 6. Consideration of Diesel, Kerosene and 1, 2009 start of the program, allowing
designs failed to work properly. We Utility Containers the normal sell through of these cans to
believe that the automatic closing cans, We are requesting comment on but the retail level. Retailers would be able
even without automatic shut-off not proposing applying emissions to sell their stocks of gas cans through
requirements, will lead to reduced control requirements to diesel, kerosene, the course of normal business without
spillage. As discussed above, automatic and utility containers. Due to the low restriction. Gas cans are currently
closure keeps the cans closed when they volatility of diesel and kerosene, the stamped with their production date,
are not in use and provides more control evaporative losses from diesel and which would allow EPA to determine
to the consumer during use. kerosene cans would be minimal when which cans are required to meet the new
Some additional reduction in spillage standards.
used with the designated fuels.
is likely possible in some cases with We believe that the 2009 time frame
California has included diesel and
automatic shut-off, but may not be is feasible, but recognize that it could be
kerosene cans in their regulations
feasible across the wide array of gas can a challenge for manufacturers with high
usage. It is possible to design a spout largely due to the concern that they volume sales to ramp up production.
that works well on some equipment but would be purchased as substitutes for We request comment on the economic
not for all equipment. It might also be gasoline containers. California also feasibility of the proposed timing and
possible to cover more uses by having included utility containers in their also on whether or not a phase-in of the
multiple spouts, but we believe that portable fuel container program due to standards would ease the transition to a
having multiple spouts would lead to concerns that these containers would be national program. We encourage
confusion and would also require used for gasoline. We believe that commenters to provide detailed
consumers to have multiple cans manufacturers can minimize this rationale and data where possible to
depending on the types of equipment incentive by designing gasoline cans support their comments.
that they refuel. We request comment on and spouts that are easy to use and
beneficial to the consumer. However, D. What Test Procedures Would Be
automatic shut-off requirements and on
storing gasoline in diesel, kerosene, and Used?
ways to establish an automatic shut-off
requirement that would reduce spillage, utility containers would result in a loss As part of the proposed system of
be feasible for manufacturers, and be of emissions reductions and therefore regulations for gas cans, we are
practical for consumers. we are requesting comment on proposing test conditions designed to
including them in the program. The assure that the intended emission
5. Consideration of Retrofits of Existing costs for these containers would be reductions occur over a range of in-use
Gas Cans similar to the costs estimated for conditions such as operating at different
Clean Air Act section 183(e) provides gasoline containers. We request temperatures, with different fuels, and
authority to consider retrofitting comment on the potential for diesel, considering factors affecting durability.
gasoline containers as an approach for kerosene, and utility containers to be These proposed test procedures
controlling emissions. We do not used as a substitute for regulated gas implement section 183(e)(4), which
believe, however, that requiring the cans, and the cost and other authorizes EPA to develop appropriate
retrofit of existing gas cans would be a implications of including them in the standards relating to product use.
feasible approach for controlling gas can program. Emission testing on all gas cans that
emissions, either technically or manufacturers produce is not feasible
C. Timing of Standard
economically. This would likely entail due to the high volumes of gas cans
manufacturers first developing retrofit As an aspect of considering the produced every year and the cost and
systems (including spouts for various proposed standard’s technological time involved with emissions testing.
previous gas can designs), testing them feasibility, we are proposing to require Instead, we are proposing that before the
for emissions performance, and manufacturers to meet the standard gas cans are introduced into commerce,
certifying them with EPA. beginning January 1, 2009. EPA would need to certify gas cans to
Manufacturers would need time to Manufacturers have developed the the emissions standards based on
develop and certify systems and also to primary technologies to reduce manufacturers’ applications for
develop an implementation strategy, emissions from gas cans but will need certification. Manufacturers would
considering that there are millions of a few years of lead time to certify submit test data on a sample of gas cans
cans in use. Manufacturers would then products and ramp up production to a that are prototypes of the products
likely need to collect gas cans from national scale. The certification process manufacturers intend to produce.
consumers, recondition the cans, would take at least six months due to Manufacturers would also need to
permanently close vents, incorporate the required durability demonstrations certify that their production cans would
permeation barriers, and incorporate described below, and manufacturers not deviate in materials or design from
new spouts. We believe that this process would need time to procure and install the prototype gas cans that are tested.
would lead to costs that far exceed the the tooling needed to produce gas cans Manufacturers would need to obtain
cost of newly manufactured gas cans. In with permeation barriers for nationwide approval of their certification from EPA
addition, emissions reductions would sales. prior to introducing their products into
depend on consumer participation, The standards would apply to gas commerce. The proposed test
which would be highly uncertain given cans manufactured on or after the start procedures and certification
that gas cans are relatively low-cost date of the program and would not requirements are described in detail
consumer products. In fact, we believe affect cans produced before the start below.
that consumers who are concerned date. We propose that as of July 1, 2009, We are proposing that manufacturers
about emissions would be more likely to manufacturers and importers must not would test cans in their most likely
discard old gas cans and purchase new enter into U.S. commerce any products storage configuration. The key to
cans meeting emissions standards. For not meeting the emissions standards. reducing evaporative losses from gas
all these reasons, we do not believe that This provides manufacturers with a 6- cans is to ensure that there are no
a retrofitting approach makes sense for month period to clear any stocks of gas openings on the cans that could be left
gas cans. cans manufactured prior to the January open by the consumer. Traditional cans
have vent caps and spout caps that are The final result would be reported in durability tests described below. Within
easily lost or left off cans, which leads grams per gallon, where the grams are 8 hours of the end of the soak period
to very high evaporative emissions. We the mass of hydrocarbons escaping from contained in the durability cycle, the
expect manufacturers to meet the the gas can over 24 hours and the gas cans would be drained and refilled
evaporative standards by using gallons are the nominal gas can to 50 percent nominal capacity with
automatic closing spouts and by capacity. The daily emissions would fresh fuel, and then the spouts re-
removing other openings that then be averaged for each can to attached. When the gas can is drained,
consumers could leave open. However, demonstrate compliance with the it would have to be immediately refilled
if manufacturers choose to design cans standard. This test would capture to prevent it from drying out. The
with an opening that does not close hydrocarbons lost through permeation timing of these steps is needed to ensure
automatically, we are proposing to and any other evaporative losses from that the stabilized permeation emissions
require that containers be tested in their the gas can as a whole. We are levels are retained. The can will then be
open condition. If the gas cans have any proposing that the grams of weighed and placed in the
openings that consumers could leave hydrocarbons lost would be determined environmental chamber for the diurnal
open (for example, vents with caps), by either weighing the gas can before test. After each diurnal, the can would
these openings thus would need to be and after the diurnal test cycle or be re-weighed. In lieu of weighing the
left open during testing. This would measuring emissions directly using the gas cans, we propose that manufacturers
apply to any opening other than where SHED instrumentation. could opt to measure emissions from the
the spout attaches to the can. We believe Consistent with the automotive test SHED directly. For any in-use testing of
it is important to take this approach procedures, we are proposing that the gas cans, the durability procedures
because these openings could be a testing take place using 9 pounds per would not be run prior to testing.
significant source of in-use emissions square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure California’s test procedures are very
and there is a realistic possibility that (RVP) certification gasoline, which is similar to those described above.
these openings would be inadvertently the same fuel required by EPA to be However, the California procedure
left open in use. used in its other evaporative test contains a more severe temperature
We propose that spouts would be in programs. We are proposing for this profile of 65–105 °F. We propose to
place during testing because this would testing to use E10 fuel (10% ethanol allow manufacturers to use this
be the most likely storage configuration blended with the gasoline described temperature profile to test gas cans as
for the emissions compliant cans. above) in this testing to help ensure in- long as other parts of the EPA test
Spouts would still be removable so that use emission reductions on ethanol- procedures are followed, including the
consumers would be able to refill the gasoline blends, which tend to have durability provisions below. We request
cans, but we would expect the increased evaporative emissions with comment on these test procedures,
containers to be resealed by consumers certain permeation barrier materials. We including ways the procedures may be
after being refilled in order to prevent believe including ethanol in the test fuel further streamlined without impacting
spillage during transport. We do not will lead to the selection of materials by the overall emissions measurements and
believe that consumers would routinely manufacturers that are consistent with performance of the gas cans.
leave spouts off cans because spouts are ‘‘best available control’’ requirements
integral to the cans’ use and it is for all likely contained gasolines, and is 2. Preconditioning To Ensure Durable
obvious that they need to be sealed. clearly appropriate given the expected In-Use Control
increase over time of the use of ethanol a. Durability Cycles
1. Diurnal Test
blends of gasoline under the renewable
We are proposing a test procedure for fuel provisions of the Energy Policy Act To determine permeation emission
diurnal emissions testing where of 2005. Diurnal emissions are not only deterioration rates, we are specifying
manufacturers (or others conducting the a function of temperature and fuel three durability aging cycles: Slosh,
testing) place gas cans in an volatility, but of the size of the vapor pressure-vacuum cycling, and
environmental chamber or a Sealed space in the container as well. We are ultraviolet exposure. They represent
Housing for Evaporative Determination proposing that the fill level at the start conditions that are likely to occur in-use
(SHED), vary the temperature over a of the test be 50% of the nominal for gas cans, especially for those cans
prescribed temperature and time profile, capacity of the gas can. This would used for commercial purposes and
and measure the hydrocarbons escaping likely be the average fuel level of the gas carried on truck beds or trailers. The
from the gas can. We are proposing that can in-use. Nominal capacity of the gas purpose of these deterioration cycles is
gas cans would be tested over the same cans would be defined as the volume of to help ensure that the technology
72–96 °F (22.2–35.6 °C) temperature fuel, specified by the manufacturer, to chosen by manufacturers is durable in-
profile used for automotive which the gas can could be filled when use, representing best available control,
applications. This temperature profile sitting on level ground. The vapor space and the measured emissions are
represents a hot summer day when that normally occurs in a gas can, even representative of in-use permeation
ground level ozone emissions (formed when ‘‘full,’’ would not be considered rates. Fuel slosh, pressure cycling, and
from hydrocarbons and oxides of in the nominal capacity of the gas can. ultraviolet (UV) exposure each impact
nitrogen) would be highest. We propose All of these test requirements are the durability of certain permeation
that three containers would be tested, proposed to represent typical in-use barriers, and we believe these cycles are
each over a three-day test. We are storage conditions for gas cans, on needed to ensure long-term emissions
proposing that three cans would be which EPA can base its emissions control. Without these durability cycles,
tested for certification in order to standards. These provisions are manufacturers could choose to use
address variability in products or test proposed as a way to implement the materials that meet the certification
measurements. All three cans would standards effectively, which will lead to standard but have degraded
have to individually meet the proposed the use of best available technology at performance in-use, leading to higher
standard. As noted above, gas cans a reasonable cost. emissions. We do not expect these
would be tested in their most likely Before testing for certification, the gas procedures to adversely impact the
storage configuration. cans would be run through the feasibility of the standards, because
there are permeation barriers available would have to be collected under part of the emissions controls expected
at a reasonable cost that do not equivalent or more severe conditions as to be used to meet the proposed
deteriorate significantly under these those noted above. standards. If these spouts stick or
conditions (which permeation barriers deteriorate, in-use emissions could
b. Preconditioning Fuel Soak
are examples of best available controls). remain very high (essentially
As described above, we believe It takes time for fuel to permeate uncontrolled). We are interested in ways
including these cycles as part of the through the walls of containers. to ensure during the certification
certification test is preferable to a Permeation emissions will increase over procedures that the spouts also remain
design-based requirement. time as fuel slowly permeates through effective in use. California requires
For slosh and pressure cycling, we are the container wall, until the permeation manufacturers to actuate the spouts 200
proposing to use durability tests that are finally stabilizes when the saturation times prior to the soak period and 200
based on draft recommended SAE point is reached. We want to evaluate times near the conclusion of the soak
practice for evaluating permeation emissions performance once permeation period to simulate spout use. The
barriers.280 For slosh testing, the gas can emissions have stabilized, to ensure that spouts’ internal components would be
would be filled to 40 percent capacity the emissions standard is met in-use. required to be exposed to fuel by tipping
with E10 fuel and rocked for 1 million Therefore, we are proposing that prior to the can between each cycle. Spouts that
cycles. The pressure-vacuum testing testing the gas cans, the cans would stick open or leak during these cycles
contains 10,000 cycles from ¥0.5 to 2.0 need to be preconditioned by allowing would be considered failed. The total of
psi. The third durability test is intended the cans to sit with fuel in them until 400 spout actuations represents about
to assess potential impacts of ultraviolet the hydrocarbon permeation rate has 1.5 actuations per week on average over
(UV) sunlight (0.2 µm–0.4 µm) on the stabilized. Under this step, the gas can the average container life of 5 years. In
durability of a surface treatment. In this would be filled with a 10-percent the absence of data, we believe this
test, the gas cans must be exposed to a ethanol blend in gasoline (E10), sealed, number of actuations appears to
UV light of at least 0.40 Watt-hour/ and soaked for 20 weeks at a reasonably replicate the number that
meter2 /minute on the gas can surface temperature of 28 ± 5° C. As an can occur in-use for high end usage and
for 15 hours per day for 30 days. alternative, we are proposing that the will help ensure quality spout designs
Alternatively, gas cans could be exposed fuel soak could be performed for 10 that do not fail in-use. We also believe
to direct natural sunlight for an weeks at 43 ± 5°C to shorten the test that proposing requirements consistent
equivalent period of time. We have also time. During this fuel soak, the gas cans with California will help manufacturers
established these same durability would be sealed with the spout to avoid duplicate testing. We request
requirements as part of our program to attached. This is representative of how comment on the above approach for
control permeation emissions from the gas cans would be stored in-use. We demonstrating spout durability.
recreational vehicle fuel tanks.281 While have established these soak
there are obvious differences in the use temperatures and durations based on E. What Certification and In-Use
of gas cans compared to the use of protocols EPA has established to Compliance Provisions Is EPA
recreational vehicle fuel tanks, we measure permeation from fuel tanks Proposing?
believe the test procedures offer made of HDPE.282 These soak times 1. Certification
assurance that permeation controls used should be sufficient to achieve
by manufacturers will be robust and stabilized permeation emission rates. Section 183(e)(4) authorizes EPA to
will continue to perform as intended However, if a longer time period is adopt appropriate systems of regulations
when in use. We request comments on necessary to achieve a stabilized rate for to implement the program, including
the use of these procedures for gas cans a given gas can, we would expect the requirements ranging from registration
to help ensure permeation control in- manufacturer to use a longer soak and self-monitoring of products, to
use. period (and/or higher temperature) prohibitions, limitations, economic
We also propose to allow consistent with good engineering incentives and restrictions on product
manufacturers to do an engineering judgment. use. We are proposing a certification
evaluation, based on data from testing Durability testing that is performed mechanism pursuant to these
on their permeation barrier, to with fuel in the gas can may be authorities. Manufacturers would be
demonstrate that one or more of these considered part of the fuel soak required to go through the certification
factors (slosh, UV exposure, and provided that the gas can continuously process specified in the proposed
pressure cycle) do not impact the has fuel in it. This approach would regulations before entering their
permeation rates of their gas cans and shorten the total test time. For example, containers into commerce. To certify
therefore that the durability cycles are the length of the UV and slosh tests products, manufacturers would first
not needed. Manufacturers would use could be considered as part of the fuel define their emission families. This is
data collected previously on gas cans or soak provided that the gas can is not generally based on selecting groups of
other similar containers made with the drained between these tests and the products that have similar emissions.
same materials and processes to beginning of the fuel soak. For example, co-extruded gas cans of
demonstrate that the emissions various geometries could be grouped
c. Spout Actuation
performance of the materials does not together. The manufacturer would select
In its recently revised program for gas a worst-case configuration for testing,
degrade when exposed to slosh, UV, cans, California included a durability
and/or pressure cycling. The test data such as the thinnest-walled gas can.
demonstration for spouts. We are These determinations may be made
proposing a durability demonstration using good engineering judgment and
280 Draft SAE Information Report J1769, ‘‘Test
Protocol for Evaluation of Long Term Permeation consistent with California’s procedures. would be subject to EPA review. Testing
Barrier Durability on Non-Metallic Fuel Tanks,’’ Automatically closing spouts are a key with those products, as specified above,
(Docket A–2000–01, document IV–A–24). would need to show compliance with
281 Final Rule, ‘‘Control of Emissions from 282 Final Rule, ‘‘Control of Emissions from
Nonroad Large Spark-ignition engines, and Nonroad Large Spark-ignition engines, and
emission standards. The manufacturers
Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-based)’’, 67 Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-based)’’, 67 would then send us an application for
FR 68287, November 8, 2002. FR 68287, November 8, 2002. certification. We propose to define the
manufacturer as the entity that is in day- proposing to require that manufacturers gas cans as a consumer product. We
to-day control of the manufacturing submit a warranty and defect report believe, however, that by having the
process (either directly or through documenting successful warranty authority to test products in use, along
contracts with component suppliers) claims and the reason for the claim to with the possible repercussions of in-
and responsible for ensuring that EPA annually so that EPA may monitor use noncompliance, will encourage
components meet emissions-related the program. Unsuccessful claims manufacturers to develop robust
specifications. Importers would not be would not need to be submitted. We designs.
considered a manufacturer and thus believe that this warranty will
would not be certifying entities; the encourage designs that work well for 3. Labeling
manufacturers of the cans they import consumer and are durable. Although it Since the requirements will be
would have to certify the cans. does not fully cover the average life of effective based on the date of
Importers would only be able to import the product, it is not typical for very manufacture of the gas can, we propose
gas cans that are certified. long warranties to be offered with that the date of manufacture must be
After reviewing the information in the products and therefore we believe a one indelibly marked on the can. This is
application, we would issue a certificate year warranty is reasonable. Also, the consistent with current industry
of conformity allowing manufacturers to warranty period is more similar to the practices. This is needed so that we and
introduce into commerce the gas cans expected life of gas cans when used in others can recognize whether a unit is
from the certified emission family. EPA commercial operations, which would regulated or not. In addition, we
review would typically take about 90 need to be considered by the propose to require a label providing the
days or less, but could be longer if we manufacturers in their designs. We manufacturer name and contact
have questions regarding the request comment on the warranty information, a statement that the can is
application. The certificate of period. EPA certified, citation of EPA
conformity would be for a production EPA views this aspect of the proposal regulations, and a statement that it is
period of up to five years. as another part of the ‘‘system of warranted for one year from the date of
Manufacturers could carry over regulation’’ it is proposing to control purchase. The manufacturer name and
certification test data if no changes are VOC emissions from gas cans, which contact information is necessary to
made to their products that would affect system may include ‘‘requirements for verify certification. Indicating that a 1
emissions performance. Changes to the registration and labeling * * * use, or year warranty applies will ensure that
certified products that would affect consumption * * * of the product’’ consumers have knowledge of the
emissions would require reapplication pursuant to section 183(e)(4) the Act. A warranty and a way to contact the
for certification. Manufacturers wanting warranty will promote the objective of manufacturer. Enforcement of the
to make changes without doing testing the proposed rule by assuring that warranty is critical to the defect
would be required to present an manufacturers will ‘‘stand behind’’ their reporting system. In proposing this
engineering evaluation demonstrating product, thus improving product design labeling requirement, we further
that emissions are not affected by the and performance. Similarly, the believe, pursuant to section 183(e)(8),
change. proposed defect reporting requirement that these labeling requirements would
The certifying manufacturer accepts will promote product integrity by be useful in meeting the NAAQS for
the responsibility for meeting applicable allowing EPA to readily monitor in-use ozone. They provide necessary means of
emission standards. While we are performance by tracking successful implementing the various measures
proposing no requirement for warranty claims. described above which help ensure that
manufacturers to conduct production- Gas cans have a typical life of about VOC emission reductions from the
line testing, we may pursue EPA in-use five years on average before they are proposed standard will in fact occur in
testing of certified products to evaluate scrapped. We are proposing durability
use.
compliance with emission standards. If provisions as part of certification testing
we find that gas cans do not meet to help ensure containers perform well F. How Would State Programs Be
emissions standards in use, we would in use (a system of regulation for ‘‘use’’ Affected by EPA Standards?
consider the new information during of the product, pursuant to section As described in section VIII.A.3.
future product certification. Also, we 183(e)(4)). Under the proposal, we could above, several states have adopted
may require certification prior to the test gas cans within their five-year emissions control programs for gas cans.
end of the five-year production period useful life period to monitor in-use California implemented an emissions
otherwise allowed between performance and take steps to correct control program for gas cans in 2001.
certifications. The details of the in-use failures, including denying Thirteen other states, mostly in the
proposed certification process are certification, for container designs that
northeast, have adopted the California
provided in the proposed regulatory are consistently failing to meet
program in recent years.283 Last year,
text. We request comments on the emissions standards. (This proposed
California adopted a revised program,
certification process we are proposing. provision thus would work in tandem
which will go into effect on July 1, 2007.
with the warranty claim reporting
2. Emissions Warranty and In-Use The revised California program is very
provision proposed in the preceding
Compliance similar to the program we are proposing.
paragraph.)
We are proposing a warranty period of We are not proposing any recall We believe that although a few aspects
one year to be provided by the provisions for gas cans. Manufacturers of the program we are proposing are
manufacturer of the gas can to the do not have registration programs for different, manufacturers will be able to
consumer. The warranty would cover gas cans and implementing such a meet both EPA and CARB requirements
emissions-related materials defects and program for a low-cost consumer with the same gas can designs and
breakage under normal use. For product may be overly burdensome, and therefore sell a single product in all 50
example, the warranty would cover have a very low participation rate. Also, 283 Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
failures related to the proper operation we would not expect a high New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
of the auto-closing spout or defects with participation rate from consumers in a Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington DC,
the permeation barriers. We are also recall, in any event, due to the nature of and Texas.
states. In most cases, we believe are described below. For further believe would result from the proposed
manufacturers will take this approach. discussion of the Panel process, see program would average 0.13 cents per
By closely aligning with California section XII.C of this proposed rule and/ gallon of gasoline.
where possible, we will allow or the Final Panel Report. In this section we summarize the
manufacturers to minimize research and The Panel recommended that two methodology used to estimate the costs
development (R&D) and emissions types of hardship provisions be of benzene control, the scenarios we
testing, while potentially achieving extended to gas can manufacturers. evaluated, and our estimated costs for
better economies of scale. It may also These entities could, on a case-by-case the program. We also summarize the
reduce administrative burdens and basis, face hardship, and we are results of our analyses of other potential
market logistics from having to track the proposing these provisions to provide MSAT control programs. A detailed
sale of multiple can designs. We what could prove to be needed safety discussion of all of these analyses is
consider these to be important factor valves for these entities. Thus, the found in Chapter 9 of the RIA.
under CAA section 183(e) which propose hardship provisions are as
requires us to consider economic 1. Tools and Methodology
follows:
feasibility of controls. a. Linear Programming Cost Model
States that have adopted the original 1. First Type of Hardship Provision
We considered performing our cost
California program will likely choose to Gas can manufacturers would be able assessments for this proposed program
either adopt the new California program to petition EPA for limited additional using a linear programming (LP) cost
or eliminate their state program in favor lead-time to comply with the standards.
of the federal program. Because the model. LP cost models are based on a
A manufacturer would have to set of complex mathematical
programs are similar, we expect that demonstrate that it has taken all
most states will eventually choose the representations of refineries which, for
possible business, technical, and national analyses, are usually conducted
EPA program rather than continue their economic steps to comply but the
own program. We expect very little on a regional basis. This type of refining
burden of compliance costs or would cost model has been used by the
difference in the emissions reductions have a significant adverse effect on the
provided by the EPA and California government and the refining industry
company’s solvency. Hardship relief for many years for estimating the cost
programs in the long term. In addition, could include requirements for interim
if EPA’s program starts in 2009, as and other implications of changes to
emission reductions. fuel quality.
discussed above, this would be the same
timing states would likely target in their 2. Second Type of Hardship Provision The design of LP models lends itself
program revisions. to modeling situations where every
Gas can manufacturers would be
refinery in a region is expected to use
G. Provisions for Small Gas Can permitted to apply for hardship relief if
the same control strategy and/or has the
Manufacturers circumstances outside their control
same process capabilities. As we began
cause the failure to comply (i.e. supply
As discussed in previous sections, to develop a gasoline benzene control
contract broken by parts supplier), and
prior to issuing a proposal for this program with an ABT program, it
if failure to sell the subject containers
proposed rulemaking, we analyzed the became clear that LP modeling was not
would have a major impact on the
potential impacts of these regulations on well suited for evaluating such a
company’s solvency. The terms and
small entities. As a part of this analysis, program. Because refiners would be
timeframe of the relief would depend on
we convened a Small Business choosing a variety of technologies for
the specific circumstances of the
Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, controlling benzene, and because the
company and the situation involved.
or ‘‘the Panel’’). During the Panel program would be national and would
For both types of hardship provisions,
process, we gathered information and include an ABT program, we initiated
the length of the hardship relief would
recommendations from Small Entity development of a more appropriate cost
be established during the initial review
Representatives (SERs) on how to model, as described below. However,
for not more than one year and would
reduce the impact of the rule on small the LP model remained important for
be reviewed annually thereafter as
entities, and those comments are providing many of the inputs into the
needed. As part of its application, a
detailed in the Final Panel Report which new model, and for performing analyses
company would be required to provide
is located in the public record for this of other potential programs.
a compliance plan detailing when and
rulemaking (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
how it would achieve compliance with b. Refiner-by-Refinery Cost Model
2005–0036). Based upon these
the standards. In contrast to LP models, refinery-by-
comments, we propose to include
flexibility and hardship provisions for IX. What Are the Estimated Impacts of refinery cost models are useful when
gas can manufacturers. Since nearly all the Proposal? individual refineries would respond to
gas can manufacturers (3 of 5 program requirements in different ways
manufacturers as defined by SBA) are A. Refinery Costs of Gasoline Benzene and/or have significantly different
small entities and they account for Reduction process capabilities. Thus, in the case of
about 60 percent of sales, the Panel The proposed 0.62 volume percent today’s proposed gasoline benzene
recommended to extend the flexibility benzene standard would generally result control program, we needed a model
options and hardship provisions to all in many refiners investing in benzene that would accurately simulate the
gas can manufacturers. (Our proposal control hardware and changing the variety of decisions refiners would make
today is consistent with that operations in their refineries to reduce at different refineries, especially in the
recommendation.) Moreover, their gasoline benzene levels. The context of a nationwide ABT program.
implementation of the program would proposed ABT program would allow For this and other related reasons, we
be much simpler by doing so. The refiners to optimize their investments, developed a refinery-by-refinery cost
flexibility provisions are incorporated which we believe would maximize the model specifically to evaluate the
into the program requirements benzene reductions at the lowest proposed benzene control program.
described earlier in sections VIII.C possible cost. We have estimated that Our benzene cost model incorporates
through VIII.E. The hardship provisions the capital and operating costs that we the capacities of all the major units in
each refinery in the country, as reported refinery to individually choose the most modeling the costs requires a different
by the Energy Information cost-effective means of complying with modeling methodology. Refineries that
Administration and in the Oil and Gas the program. To model this the model estimates would have
Journal. Regarding operational phenomenon, we first establish an benzene levels above the max-avg
information, we know less about how estimated cost for the set of technologies standard are assumed to apply the most
the various units are used to produce required for each refinery to meet the cost-effective benzene reduction
gasoline and such factors as octane and standard. We then rank the refineries in technologies that the model shows
hydrogen costs for individual refineries. order from lowest to highest control cost would reduce benzene levels to below
We used the LP model to estimate these per gallon of gasoline. The model then the max-avg standard. The benzene
factors on a regional basis, and we follows this ranking, starting with the reductions associated with meeting the
applied the average regional result to lowest-cost refineries, and adds max-avg standard may or may not be
each refinery in that region (PADD). We refineries and their associated control sufficient for also meeting the average
calibrated the model for each individual technologies one by one until the standard, depending on how stringent
refinery based on 2003 gasoline volumes projected national average benzene level the max-avg standard is relative to the
and benzene levels, which was the most reaches 0.62 volume percent. This average standard. If the model indicates
recent year for which data was establishes which refineries we expect that additional benzene reduction
available, and found that the model to apply control technologies to comply, would be necessary, these additional
simulated the actual situation well. We as well as those that would generate benzene reductions are modeled in the
also compared cost estimates of similar credits and those that would use credits same way as the case of an average
benzene control cases from both the in lieu of investing in control. The sum standard only, as described above.
refinery-by-refinery model and the LP of the costs of the refineries expected to We also evaluated a limited number
model, and the results were in close invest in control provides the projected of cases that did not include an ABT
agreement. overall cost of the program. program. In such cases, the model
Refinery-by-refinery cost models have assumes that all the refineries with
been used in the past by both EPA and c. Price of Chemical Grade Benzene
benzene levels below the standard
the oil industry for such programs as the The price of chemical grade benzene would maintain the same benzene level,
highway and nonroad diesel fuel sulfur is critical to the proposed program while each refinery with benzene levels
standards, and they are a proven means because it defines the opportunity cost above the standard would take all the
for estimating the cost of compliance for for benzene removed using benzene necessary steps to reduce their benzene
fuel control programs. For the specific extraction and sold into the chemicals levels down to the standard. If the
benzene cost model, we have initiated a market. According to 2004 World model shows that capital investments
peer review process, and have received Benzene Analysis produced by are needed to achieve the necessary
some comments on the design of our Chemical Market Associates benzene reduction, we assume that the
model. Although we did not receive Incorporated (CMAI), during the
refiner installs a full sized unit to treat
these comments in time to respond to consecutive five year period ending
the entire stream and then operates the
them in this proposal, we plan to with 2004, the price of benzene
unit only to the extent necessary to meet
address all peer review comments in the averaged 24 dollars per barrel higher
the standard.
development of the final rule. (Based on than regular grade gasoline. During the
our initial assessment of these three consecutive year period ending 2. Summary of Costs
comments, we do not believe that the with 2004, the price of benzene a. Nationwide Costs of the Proposed
changes suggested would significantly averaged 28 dollars per barrel higher Program
affect the projected costs of the program. than regular grade gasoline. However,
See Chapter 9 of the RIA for our initial during the first part of 2004, the price We have used the refinery-by-refinery
responses to these peer-review of benzene relative to gasoline rose cost model to estimate the costs of the
comments.) steeply, primarily because of high proposed program, with an average
Based on our understanding of the energy prices adding to the cost of gasoline benzene content standard of
primary benzene control technologies extracting benzene. The projected 0.62 volume percent and the proposed
(see section VII.F above), the cost model benzene price for 2004 indicated that ABT program. In general, the cost model
assumes that four technologies would be the benzene price averaged 38 dollars indicates that among the four primary
used, as appropriate, for reducing per barrel higher than regular grade reformate-based technologies, benzene
benzene levels. All of these technologies gasoline. extraction would be the most cost
focus on addressing benzene in the For the future, CMAI projects that the effective. The next most cost effective
reformate stream. They are (1) routing price of benzene relative to gasoline will technologies are benzene precursor
the benzene precursors around the return to more historic levels or lower, rerouting, and rerouting coupled with
reformer; (2) routing benzene precursors in the range of $20 per barrel higher isomerization. The model indicates that
to an existing isomerization unit, if than regular grade gasoline. We have benzene saturation would be the least
available; (3) benzene extraction based our modeling on this value. cost-effective, but only marginally so in
(extractive distillation); and (4) benzene However, we have also examined the the larger refineries.
saturation. There are several restrictions sensitivity of the projected overall Our refinery-by-refinery model
on the use of these various technologies program costs for a case where the cost estimates that 92 refineries of the total
(such as the assumption that benzene of benzene control remains at $38 115 gasoline-producing refineries in the
extraction would only be expanded in higher than gasoline into the future. U.S. would have to put in new capital
areas with strong benzene chemical equipment or change their refining
markets) and these are incorporated into d. Applying the Cost Model to Special operations to reduce the benzene levels
the model. Cases in their gasoline. Of these refineries 25
For the proposed benzene control For the comparative cases we would use benzene precursor removal,
program, the associated nationwide modeled that involve a maximum- 32 refineries would use benzene
ABT program is intended to optimize average (max-avg) standard in addition precursor removal coupled with
benzene reduction by allowing each to an average benzene standard, isomerization, 24 would use extraction,
and 11 would use benzene saturation. volume percent would generate credits cost would be 0.19 cents per gallon.)
The analysis projects that 43 refineries for sale to other refineries. Finally, the This per-gallon cost would result from
would reduce their benzene levels to the model projects that there would be 6 an industry-wide investment in capital
proposed benzene standard or lower, refineries that would take no benzene equipment of $500 million to reduce
while 49 refineries would reduce their reduction action and comply with the gasoline benzene levels. This would
benzene levels but still would need to proposed program solely through the amount to an average of $5 million in
purchase credits to comply with the use of benzene credits. capital investment in each refinery that
average benzene standard. Including the The refinery model estimates that the adds such equipment.284
refineries with benzene levels currently proposed benzene standard would cost We also estimated annual aggregate
below 0.62, we project that there would 0.13 cents per gallon, averaged over the costs associated with the proposed new
be a total of 62 refineries producing entire U.S. gasoline pool. (When fuel standard. As shown in Table IX.A–
gasoline with benzene levels at 0.62 or averaged only over those refineries 1, these costs are projected to begin at
lower. The model assumes that those which are assumed to take steps to $186 million in 2011 and increase over
with benzene levels lower than 0.62 reduce their benzene levels, the average time as fuel demand increases.
TABLE IX.A–1.—ANNUAL AGGREGATE FUEL COSTS

2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2020
$185,533,000 ....................................................................... $191,873,000 $198,283,000 $204,212,000 $209,875,000 $212,606,000
Several observations can be made technology would take advantage of Many of the refineries producing fuel
from these results from our nationwide their economies of scale. for sale in PADDs 1 and 3 cannot reduce
analysis. First, significantly reducing their benzene levels further because
b. Regional Distribution of Costs
gasoline benzene levels to low levels, they are already extracting all the
coupled with the flexibility of an ABT The benzene reductions estimated by benzene that they can. Extraction is the
program, will incur fairly modest costs. the cost model and associated costs vary technology most used in PADDs 1 and
This is primarily because we expect that significantly by region. Table IX.A–2 3, resulting in a much lower average
refiners would optimize their benzene summarizes the initial benzene levels cost for reducing benzene in these
and the projected benzene levels after regions.
control strategies, resulting in large
refiners take anticipated steps to reduce
benzene reductions at a low overall For comparison, we also modeled a
the benzene in their gasoline and the
program cost. With high benzene prices program where the 0.62 vol% average
estimated per-gallon costs for complying
relative to those of gasoline projected to with the proposed benzene standard. standard was supplemented by a
continue (even if they drop from the Table IX.A–2 shows that under the maximum average benzene cap
recent very high levels), extraction proposed program the largest benzene standard, as described in section VII
would be a very low cost technology— reductions occur in the areas with the above. We did not propose such a
the primary reason why the cost of the highest benzene levels. This is expected maximum average standard because the
overall program is very low. Also, as many of these refineries are not doing main effect would simply be to shift
precursor rerouting, either with or anything to reduce their gasoline emission reductions from one region of
without isomerization in an existing benzene levels today and simple, low- the country to another with no change
unit, is a low-cost technology requiring cost technologies can be employed to in overall emission reductions. Table
little or no capital to realize. The model realize large reductions in their benzene IX.A–2 shows that a maximum average
concludes that even the higher-cost levels. In PADDs 1 and 3, which have standard would increase costs slightly
benzene saturation technology would be significant benzene control today to nationwide, but that PADD 2 benzene
fairly cost-effective overall because meet the RFG requirements, a more levels, already above the standard,
larger refineries that install this modest benzene reduction would occur. would rise while other areas improved.
TABLE IX.A–2.—CURRENT AND PROJECTED BENZENE LEVELS AND COSTS BY PADD

[$2002, 7% ROI before taxes]
PADD
U.S.
5
1 2 3 4 (w/o CA)
Current Benzene Level (vol%) ................................................................. 0.66 1.32 0.86 1.54 1.87 0.97
Projected Benzene Level (vol%) ............................................................. 0.51 0.73 0.55 0.95 1.04 0.62
Cost (c/gal) ............................................................................................... 0.05 0.25 0.05 0.40 0.72 0.125
Projected Benzene Level (vol%) (With 1.3 vol% Max-Avg Std) ............. 0.50 0.75 0.56 0.90 0.88 0.62
Cost (c/gal) ............................................................................................... 0.06 0.22 0.03 0.43 1.18 0.130
c. Cost Effects of Different Standards reduction levels, as summarized in

We also estimated the benzene Table IX.A–3. The cost model estimates
reduction costs for other benzene that a 0.52 volume percent benzene
284 The modeling does not separate out capital additional hydrogen, but rather includes these in the operating cost estimates. Therefore, actual
costs for the recovery of lost octane and supplying capital costs maybe somewhat greater.
standard with an ABT program 285 is the into the future. We estimate that at an cost 0.40 cents per gallon. Meeting a 7.0
maximum benzene reduction possible average benzene price of $38 dollars RVP standard is projected to cause U.S.
when each refinery employs the above that for gasoline, the program refiners to invest $184 million in new
maximum appropriate reformate would cost 0.08 cents per gallon less on capital to achieve this level of RVP
benzene control (that is, benzene average nationwide. control.
extraction whenever possible, and We have also evaluated the costs of
3. Economic Impacts of MSAT Control programs that would control total air
benzene saturation otherwise). Through Gasoline Sulfur and RVP toxics. These programs, the analyses of
Control and a Total Toxics Standard which are also found in Chapter 9 of the
TABLE IX.A–3.—COSTS OF VARIOUS
POTENTIAL BENZENE CONTROL As discussed above in section VII, we RIA, would all be more costly than the
have considered two approaches to fuel- proposed program.
STANDARDS
related MSAT control that would
[$2002, 7% ROI before taxes] involve increasing the stringency of two B. What Are the Vehicle Cost Impacts?
existing emission control programs, the In assessing the economic impact of
Average standard Cost setting cold temperature emission
(vol%) (cents/gallon) gasoline sulfur program and the gasoline
volatility program. We estimated the standards, we have made a best estimate
0.62 (Proposed Standard) .... 0.13 cost of programs that would further of the necessary vehicle modifications
0.65 ....................................... 0.09 reduce the sulfur content and Reid and their associated costs. In making
0.60 ....................................... 0.15 vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline. For our estimates we have relied on our own
0.52 ....................................... 0.36 these costs estimates, the LP refinery technology assessment, which includes
model was used to estimate the costs for information supplied by individual
The results in Table IX.A–3 indicate the year 2010, including the fuel manufacturers and our own in-house
that the cost for reducing benzene levels economy impacts. We summarize these testing. Estimated costs typically
is not very sensitive to the benzene costs here and provide detailed analyses include variable costs (for hardware and
standard in the range from 0.60 to 0.65 in Chapter 9 of the RIA. assembly time) and fixed costs (for
volume percent benzene. This is For sulfur control, we estimated the research and development, retooling,
because we project that standards in this costs of reducing U.S. gasoline sulfur and certification). All costs are
range would not require many of the levels down to 10 ppm from the 30 ppm presented in 2003 dollars. Full details of
smaller or otherwise higher-cost sulfur level required for Tier 2 sulfur our cost analysis can be found in
refineries to employ benzene saturation, control. The costs are based on Chapter 8 of the draft RIA.
which is the highest cost technology. revamping current hydrotreaters As described in section VI, we are not
Also, in this range of potential installed to meet the 30 ppm sulfur expecting hardware changes to Tier 2
standards, the ABT program would standard. We estimate that reducing vehicles in response to new cold
allow the refining industry to optimize gasoline sulfur down to 10 ppm would temperature standards. Tier 2 vehicles
the benzene control technologies they cost 0.51 cents per gallon, taking into are already being equipped with very
apply. The need for all refineries to use account the fuel economy effects. The sophisticated emissions control systems.
either benzene saturation or benzene analysis also estimates that U.S. refiners We expect manufacturers to use these
extraction to comply with a 0.52 vol% would invest $1.3 billion in new capital systems to minimize emissions at cold
standard explains the much higher cost to achieve this sulfur reduction. temperatures. We were able to
for a program with a standard that We also estimated costs for lowering demonstrate significant emissions
range. summertime gasoline RVP down to a reductions from a Tier 2 vehicle through
We also examined the effect of the maximum of 7.8 or 7.0 RVP from the recalibration alone. In addition, a
ABT program on cost. Without ABT, we current average for non-RVP controlled standard based on averaging allows
assume that the standard would be met gasoline of 9.0 RVP. The estimated some vehicles to be above the numeric
by all refineries. To achieve a national volume of gasoline required to meet an standard as long as those excess
average level of 0.62 vol% benzene additional low RVP requirement was emissions are offset by vehicles below
without an ABT program would require assumed to be equivalent to half of the the standard. Averaging would help
an absolute standard of 0.73 vol%. We volume of the reformulated gasoline manufacturers in cases where they are
estimate that such a program would sold within the PADD, applied to the not able to achieve the numeric
result in a nationwide average cost of conventional gasoline sold within the standard for a particular vehicle group,
0.25 cents per gallon, about double the PADD. This simple means of estimating thus helping manufacturers avoid costly
cost of the program with ABT. the volume of gasoline affected by hardware changes. The phase-in of
future additional RVP control programs standards and emissions credits
d. Effect on Cost Estimates of Higher
was used because the analysis of provisions also help manufacturers
Benzene Prices
possible new low RVP programs avoid situations where expensive
As described above, we also established for complying with the 8 vehicle modifications would be needed
performed a sensitivity analysis to hour ozone National Ambient Air to meet a new cold temperature NMHC
estimate the costs of the proposed Quality Standards (NAAQS) was not standard. Therefore, we are not
program if the recent very high prices completed when the cost analysis was projecting hardware costs or additional
for chemical grade benzene continue initiated. The per-gallon cost is not assembly costs associated with meeting
expected to vary much by the size of the new cold temperature NMHC emissions
285 The cost model projects that this standard
program. The cost analysis estimates standards.
would require an ABT program because many of the
that reducing RVP down to 7.8 RVP Manufacturers would incur research
refineries modeled would not be able to achieve

this standard. These refineries would have to rely would cost 0.23 cents per gallon. The and development (R&D) costs associated
on the purchase of credits from other refineries analysis also estimates that U.S. refiners with a new cold temperature standard,
which are already below this benzene level, or other would invest $121 million in new and some likely would need to upgrade
refineries which could install benzene control
technology to get their benzene levels below this
capital to achieve this level of RVP testing facilities to handle an increased
standard. This scenario assumes a fully utilized control. The cost analysis estimates that number of cold tests during vehicle
credit program. reducing RVP down to 7.0 RVP would development. We have estimated the
fixed costs associated with R&D and test with the new cold temperature codify the approach manufacturers have
facilities. We project that manufacturers standards would be less than $1 per already indicated they are taking for 50-
would recover R&D costs over a five- vehicle. state evaporative systems.
year period and their facilities costs We are not anticipating additional We also estimated annual aggregate
over a ten-year period. Long-term costs for the proposed new evaporative costs associated with the new cold
impacts on engine costs are expected to emissions standard. As discussed in temperature emissions standards. These
decrease as manufacturers fully section VI, we expect that costs are projected to increase with the
amortize their fixed costs. Because manufacturers will continue to produce phase-in of standards and peak in 2014
manufacturers recoup fixed costs over a 50-state evaporative systems that meet at about $13.4 million per year, then
large volume of vehicles, average per LEV II standards. Therefore, decrease as the fixed costs are fully
vehicle costs due to the new cold harmonizing with California’s LEV–II amortized. The projected aggregate costs
temperature NMHC standards are evaporative emission standards would are summarized below, with annual
expected to be low. We project that the streamline certification and be an ‘‘anti- estimates provided in Chapter 8 of the
average incremental costs associated backsliding’’ measure. It also would RIA.
TABLE IX.B–1.—ANNUAL AGGREGATE COSTS

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
$11,119,000 .......... $12,535,000 $13,406,000 $12,207,000 $10,682,000 $0
C. What Are the Gas Can Cost Impacts? manufacturers fully amortize their fixed
With current and projected estimates
For gas cans, we have made a best costs. We project that manufacturers
of gas can sales, we translate these costs
estimate of the necessary technologies will generally recover their fixed costs
into projected direct costs to the nation
and their associated costs. Estimated over a five-year period, so these costs
for the new emission standards in any
costs include variable costs (for disappear from the analysis after the
year. A summary of the annual aggregate
hardware and assembly time) and fixed fifth year of production. These estimates
costs to manufacturers is presented in
costs (for research and development, are based on the manufacturing cost
Table IX.C–2. The annual cost savings
retooling, and certification). The rather than predicted price increases.286
due to fuel savings start slowly, then
analysis also considers fuels savings The table also shows our projections of
increase as greater numbers of
associated with low emissions gas cans. average fuel savings over the life of the
compliant gas cans enter the market.
Cost estimates based on the projected gas can. Fuel savings can be estimated
Table IX.C–2 also presents a summary of
technologies represent an expected based on the VOC emissions reductions
the estimated annual fuel savings.
change in the cost of gas cans as they due to gas can controls.
Aggregate costs are projected to peak in
begin to comply with new emission
standards. All costs are presented in TABLE IX.C–1.—ESTIMATED AVERAGE 2013 at about $51 million and then drop
to about $29 million once fixed costs are
2003 dollars. Full details of our cost GAS CAN COSTS AND LIFETIME
recovered. The change in numbers
analysis, including fuel savings, can be FUEL SAVINGS beyond 2015 occurs due to projected
found in Chapter 10 of the Draft RIA.
Table IX.C–1 summarizes the Cost growth in gas can sales and population.
projected near-term and long-term per
unit average costs to meet the new Near-Term Costs .............................. $2.69
Long-Term Costs .............................. 1.52
emission standards. Long-term impacts Fuel Savings (NPV) .......................... 4.24
on gas cans are expected to decrease as
TABLE IX.C–2.—TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS AND FUEL SAVINGS

2009 2013 2015 2020
Costs ................................................................................................................ $49,112,000 $51,228,000 $28,772,000 $31,767,000

Fuel Saving ...................................................................................................... 14,381,000 76,037,000 92,686,000 98,861,000
D. Cost Per Ton of Emissions Reduced per ton estimates can be found in the the year 2030 using the annual costs and
draft RIA. We have calculated the costs emissions reductions in that year alone.
We have calculated the cost per ton of per ton using the net present value of This number represents the long-term
HC, benzene, total MSATs, and PM the annualized costs of the program, cost per ton of emissions reduced. For
emissions reductions associated with
including gas can fuel savings, from fuels, the cost per ton estimates include
the proposed fuel, vehicle, and gas can
2009 through 2030 and the net present costs and emission reductions that will
programs using the costs described
value of the annual emission reductions occur from all motor vehicles and
above and the emissions reductions
described in section V. More detail on through 2030. We have also calculated nonroad engines fueled with
the costs, emissions reductions, and cost the cost per ton of emissions reduced in gasoline.287
286 These cost numbers may not necessarily 287 The proposed standards do not apply to including that used in nonroad equipment.
reflect actual price increases as manufacturer nonroad engines, since section 202 (l) authorizes Therefore, we are including both the costs and the
production costs, perceived product enhancements, controls only for ‘‘motor vehicles,’’ which does not benzene emissions reductions associated with the
and other market impacts will affect actual prices include nonroad vehicles. CAA section 216 (2). fuel used in nonroad equipment.
to consumers. However, we are reducing benzene in all gasoline,
For vehicles and gas cans, we are associated costs, used to control the because the fuel savings from gas cans
proposing to establish NMHC and HC pollutants. Instead, we have calculated offsets the costs of gas can and vehicle
standards, respectively, which would costs per ton by assigning all costs to controls. The table presents these as $0
also reduce benzene and other VOC- each individual pollutant. If we per ton, rather than calculating a
based toxics. For vehicles, we are also apportioned costs among the pollutants, negative value that has no clear
expecting direct PM reductions due to the costs per ton presented here would meaning. For vehicles in 2030, the cost
the proposed NMHC standard.288 be proportionally lowered depending on per ton is $0 because by 2030 all fixed
Section V provides an overview of how what portion of costs were assigned to costs have been recovered and there are
we are estimating benzene and PM the various pollutants. no variable costs estimated for the
reductions resulting from the NMHC The results for HC for vehicles and proposed vehicle program.289
standards for vehicles and benzene gas cans are provided in Table IX.D–1 The cost per ton estimates for each
reductions resulting from the HC using both a three percent and a seven individual program are presented
standard for gas cans. We have not percent social discount rate. Again, this separately in the tables below, and are
attempted to apportion costs across analysis assumes that all costs are part of the justification for each of the
these various pollutants for purposes of assigned to HC control. The discounted programs. For informational purposes,
the cost per ton calculations since there cost per ton of HC reduced for the we also present the cost per ton for the
is no distinction in the technologies, or proposal as a whole would be $0 three programs combined.
TABLE IX.D–1.—HC AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON
[$2003]
Discounted Discounted Long-term cost

lifetime cost lifetime cost per ton in
per ton at 3% per ton at 7% 2030
Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... $14 $18 $0

Gas Cans (without fuel savings) ................................................................................................. 230 250 180
Gas Cans (with fuel savings) ...................................................................................................... 0 0 0
Combined (with fuel savings) ...................................................................................................... 0 0 0
The cost per ton of benzene cans are shown in Table IX.D–2 using for HC. The results are calculated by
reductions for fuels, vehicles, and gas the same methodology as noted above assigning all costs to benzene control.
TABLE IX.D–2.—BENZENE AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON
[$2003]

Fuels ............................................................................................................................................ $10,900 11,100 11,400

Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... 260 340 0
Gas Cans (without fuels savings) ................................................................................................ 27,800 30,900 21,600
Combined (with fuel savings) ...................................................................................................... 3,400 3,600 2,400
The cost per ton of overall MSAT the same methodology as noted above calculated by assigning all costs to
reductions for fuels, vehicles, and gas for HC and benzene. The results are MSAT control.
cans are shown in Table IX.D–3 using
TABLE IX.D–3.—MSAT AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON
[$2003]

Fuels ............................................................................................................................................ $10,900 $11,100 $11,400

Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... 40 53 0
Gas Cans (without fuel savings) ................................................................................................. 1,800 2,000 1,400
Combined (with fuel savings) ...................................................................................................... 710 780 450
288 Again, although gasoline PM is not a mobile 289 We note that in determining whether the the proposed controls for gas cans represent the best
source air toxic, the rule will result in emission proposed vehicle controls represent the greatest available control considering economic feasibility,
reductions of gasoline PM which reductions are emissions reductions achievable considering costs, we considered the proposed gas can standards
accounted for in our analysis. we have considered the proposed cold-start separately from any other proposed control
standards separately from any other proposed
program.
control program. Similarly, in considering whether
We have also calculated a cost per ton Again, this analysis assigns all related
for direct PM reductions for vehicles. costs to direct PM reductions.
TABLE IX.D–4.—DIRECT PM AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON
($2003)

Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... $620 $820 $0
E. Benefits detail why these benefits are not the ongoing update to the Section 812
This section presents our analysis of quantified. retrospective and prospective studies.291
the health and environmental benefits 1. Unquantified Health and We also do not estimate the
that can be expected to occur as a result Environmental Benefits monetized benefits of VOC controls in
of the proposed standards throughout this benefits analysis. Though VOCs
This benefit analysis estimates
the period from initial implementation would be demonstrably reduced as a
through 2030. In terms of emission improvements in health and human
result of the cold temperature vehicle
benefits, we expect to see significant welfare that can be expected as a result
of the proposed standards, and standards, we assume that these
reductions in mobile source air toxics emissions would not have a measurable
(MSATs) from the proposed vehicle, monetizes those benefits. The benefits
would come from reductions in impact on ozone formation since the
fuel and gas can standards, reductions standards seek to reduce VOC emissions
in VOCs (an ozone precursor) from the emissions of air toxics (including
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, at cold ambient temperatures and ozone
proposed cold temperature vehicle and formation is primarily a warm ambient
gas can standards, and reductions in acetaldehyde, acrolein, naphthalene,
and other air toxic pollutants discussed temperature issue. The gas can controls
direct PM2.5 from the proposed cold would likely result in ozone benefits,
temperature vehicle standards. When in Section III), ambient ozone (as a
result of VOC controls), and direct PM2.5 though we do not attempt to monetize
translating emission benefits to health those benefits. This is primarily due to
effects and monetized values, however, emissions.
While there will be benefits the magnitude of, and uncertainty
we only quantify the PM-related associated with, the estimated changes
benefits associated with the proposed associated with air toxic pollutant
reductions, notably with regard to in ambient ozone associated with the
cold temperature vehicle standards. proposed standards. In Section IV.C., we
The reductions in PM from the reductions in exposure and risk (see
Section IV, above), we do not attempt to discuss that the ozone modeling
proposed cold temperature vehicle conducted for the proposed gas can
standards would result in significant monetize those benefits. This is
primarily because available tools and standards results in a net reduction in
reductions in premature deaths and the population weighted ozone design
other serious human health effects, as methods to assess air toxics risk from
mobile sources at the national scale are value metric measured within the
well as other important public health modeled domain (37 Eastern states and
and welfare effects. We estimate that in not adequate for extrapolation to
incidence estimations or benefits the District of Columbia). The net
2030, the benefits we are able to
assessment. The best suite of tools and improvement is very small, however,
monetize are expected to be
methods currently available for and would likely lead to negligible
approximately $6.5 billion using a 3
assessment at the national scale are monetized benefits. Instead, we
percent discount rate and $5.9 billion
those used in the National Scale Air acknowledge that this analysis may
using a 7 percent discount rate. Total
Toxics Assessment (NATA; these tools underestimate the benefits associated
social costs of the entire proposal for the
are discussed in Section IV.A). The EPA with reductions in ozone precursor
same year (2030) are $205 million.
Science Advisory Board specifically emissions achieved by the various
Details on the costs of each of the
commented in their review of the 1996 proposed standards. We discuss these
proposed controls are in section IX.F.
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) benefits qualitatively within the
These estimates, and all monetized
benefits presented in this section, are in that these tools were not yet ready for Regulatory Impact Analysis.
year 2003 dollars. use in a national-scale benefits analysis, Table IX.E–1 lists each of the MSAT
We demonstrate that the proposed because they did not consider the full and ozone health and welfare effects
standards would reduce cancer and distribution of exposure and risk, or that remain unquantified because of
noncancer risk from reduced exposure address sub-chronic health effects.290 current limitations in the methods or
to MSATs (as described in Section IV of While EPA has since improved the available data. This table also includes
this preamble). However, we do not tools, there remain critical limitations the PM-related health and welfare
translate this risk reduction into for estimating incidence and assessing effects that also remain unquantified
benefits. We also do not quantify the benefits of reducing mobile source air due to current method and data
benefits related to ambient reductions in toxics. We continue to work to address limitations. Chapter 12 of the Regulatory
ozone due to the VOC emission these limitations, and we are exploring Impact Analysis for the proposed
reductions expected to occur as a result the feasibility of a quantitative benefits standards provides a qualitative
of the proposed standards. The assessment for air toxics as part of a case description of the health and welfare
following section describes in more study being done for benzene as part of effects not quantified in this analysis.
290 Science Advisory Board. 2001. NATA– Assessment for 1996—an SAB Advisory. http:// 291 The analytic blueprint for the Section 812
Evaluating the National-Scale Air Toxics www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html. benzene case study can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/air/sect812/appendixi51203.pdf.
TABLE IX.E–1.—UNQUANTIFIED AND NON-MONETIZED EFFECTS

Pollutant/effects Effects not included in primary estimates—changes in:
Ozone Health a .......................................................................... Premature mortality: short term exposures b.

Hospital admissions: respiratory.
Emergency room visits for asthma.
Minor restricted-activity days.
School loss days.
Asthma attacks.
Cardiovascular emergency room visits.
Acute respiratory symptoms.
Chronic respiratory damage.
Premature aging of the lungs.
Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits.
Exposure to UVb (+/¥) e.
Ozone Welfare .......................................................................... Decreased outdoor worker productivity.
Agricultural yields for
—commercial forests.
—some fruits and vegetables.
—non-commercial crops.
Damage to urban ornamental plants.
Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics.
Ecosystem functions.
PM Health c ................................................................................ Premature mortality—short term exposures d.
Low birth weight.
Pulmonary function.
Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis.
Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits.
PM Welfare ................................................................................ Visibility in many Class I areas.
Residential and recreational visibility in non-Class I areas.
Soiling and materials damage.
Damage to ecosystem functions.
MSAT Health ............................................................................. Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, naphthalene).
Anemia (benzene).
Disruption of production of blood components (benzene).
Reduction in the number of blood platelets (benzene).
Excessive bone marrow formation (benzene).
Depression of lymphocyte counts (benzene).
Reproductive and developmental effects (1,3-butadiene).
Irritation of eyes and mucus membranes (formaldehyde).
Respiratory irritation (formaldehyde).
Asthma attacks in asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Asthma-like symptoms in non-asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract (acetaldehyde).
Upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion (acrolein).
MSAT Welfare ........................................................................... Direct toxic effects to animals.
Bioaccumulation in the food chain.
Damage to ecosystem function.
Odor.
a In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with ozone health effects
including increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased
susceptibility to respiratory infection.
b EPA sponsored a series of meta-analyses of the ozone mortality epidemiology literature, published in the July 2005 volume of the journal Ep-
idemiology, which found that short-term exposures to ozone may have a significant effect on daily mortality rates, independent of exposure to
PM. EPA is currently considering how to include an estimate of ozone mortality in its primary benefits analyses.
c In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects in-
cluding morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly rep-
resented by our quantified endpoints.
d While some of the effects of short term exposures are likely to be captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to short
term exposure to PM not captured in the cohort study upon which the primary analysis is based.
e May result in benefits or disbenefits.
2. Quantified Human Health and transfer approach uses as its foundation proposal.292 For a given future year, we
Environmental Effects of the Proposed the relationship between emission first calculate the ratio between CAND
Cold Temperature Vehicle Standard reductions and ambient PM2.5 direct PM2.5 emission reductions and
In this section we discuss the PM2.5 concentrations modeled across the direct PM2.5 emission reductions
benefits of the proposed cold contiguous 48 states (and DC) for the associated with the proposed cold
temperature vehicle standard. To Clean Air Nonroad Diesel (CAND) temperature vehicle control standard
estimate PM2.5 benefits, we rely on a
benefits transfer technique. The benefits 292 See 68 FR 28327, May 23, 2003.
(proposed emission reductions/CAND apportioned benefits to reflect in approximately 910 fewer premature
emission reductions). We multiply this differences in emission reductions fatalities, 590 fewer cases of chronic
ratio by the percent that direct PM2.5 between the modeled CAND control bronchitis, 1,600 fewer non-fatal heart
contributes towards population- option and the proposed standards.293 attacks, and 940 fewer hospitalizations
weighted reductions in total PM2.5 due This benefits transfer method is (for respiratory and cardiovascular
to the CAND standards. This calculation consistent with the approach used in disease combined). In addition, we
results in a ‘‘benefits apportionment other recent mobile and stationary estimate that the emission controls
factor’’ for the relationship between source rules.294 would reduce days of restricted activity
direct PM emissions and primary PM2.5, Table IX.E–2 presents the primary due to respiratory illness by about
which is then applied to the BenMAP- estimates of reduced incidence of PM- 620,000 days and reduce work-loss days
based incidence and monetized benefits related health effects for the years 2020 by about 110,000 days. We also estimate
from the CAND proposal. In this way, and 2030 for the proposed cold substantial health improvements for
we apportion the results of the proposed temperature vehicle control children from reduced upper and lower
CAND analysis to its underlying direct strategies.295 In 2030, we estimate that respiratory illness, acute bronchitis, and
PM emission reductions and scale the PM-related annual benefits would result asthma attacks.
TABLE IX.E–2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
COLD TEMPERATURE VEHICLE STANDARD a
2020 Annual 2030 Annual
Health effect incidence incidence
reduction reduction
PM-Related Endpoints:
Premature Mortality b
Adult, age 30+ and Infant, age <1 year ........................................................................................................... 480 910
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) ..................................................................................................... 330 590
Non-fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and over) ................................................................................. 820 1,600
Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) c ................................................................................................... 260 540
Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (adults, age >18) d ................................................................................ 220 400
Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) .................................................................... 360 630
Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8–12) ............................................................................................................. 790 1,400
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) ........................................................................................... 9,400 17,000
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9–18) .......................................................................... 7,100 13,000
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18) ...................................................................................... 12,000 21,000
Work Loss Days ............................................................................................................................................... 63,000 110,000
Minor restricted activity days (adults age 18–65) ............................................................................................ 370,000 620,000
a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent benefits from the proposed rule nationwide, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.
b PM-related adult mortality based upon studies by Pope, et al 2002.296 PM-related infant mortality based upon studies by Woodruff, Grillo, and
Schoendorf,1997.297
c Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma.
d Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and heart
failure.
PM also has numerous documented 3. Monetized Benefits environmental benefits of the rule that
effects on environmental quality that Table IX.E–3 presents the estimated we are unable to quantify or monetize.
affect human welfare. These welfare monetary value of reductions in the These effects are additive to the estimate
effects include direct damages to incidence of those health effects we are of total benefits, and are related to the
property, either through impacts on able to monetize for the proposed cold following sources:
material structures or by soiling of temperature vehicle standard. Total • There are many human health and
surfaces, and indirect economic annual PM-related health benefits are welfare effects associated with PM,
damages through the loss in value of estimated to be approximately $6.5 or ozone, and toxic air pollutant
recreational visibility or the existence $5.9 billion in 2030 (3 percent and 7 reductions that remain unquantified
value of important resources. Additional percent discount rate, respectively). because of current limitations in the
information about these welfare effects These estimates account for growth in methods or available data. A listing of
can be found in Chapter 12 of the real gross domestic product (GDP) per
the benefit categories that could not be
Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared for capita between the present and 2030.
Table IX.E–3 indicates with a ‘‘B’’ quantified or monetized in our benefit
this proposal. estimates are provided in Table IX.E–1.
those additional health and
293 Note that while the proposed regulations also FR 55217, September 13, 2004); Final Reciprocating 296 Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E.
control VOCs, which contribute to PM formation, Internal Combustion Engines NESHAP (69 FR Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002.
the benefits transfer scaling approach only scales 33473, June 15, 2004); Final Clean Air Visibility ‘‘Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and
benefits based on NOX, SO2, and direct PM Rule (EPA–452/R–05–004, June 15, 2005); Ozone Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
emission reductions. PM benefits will likely be Implementation Rule (documentation forthcoming). Pollution.’’ Journal of American Medical
underestimated as a result, though we are unable 295 The ‘‘primary estimate’’ refers to the estimate Association 287:1132–1141.
to estimate the magnitude of the underestimation. of benefits that reflects the suite of endpoints and 297 Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf.
294 See: Clean Air Nonroad Diesel final rule (69 assumptions that EPA believes yields the expected 1997. ‘‘The Relationship Between Selected Causes
FR 38958, June 29, 2004); Nonroad Large Spark- value of air quality improvements related to the of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate
Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines proposed standards. The impact that alternative Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the
standards (67 FR 68241, November 8, 2002); Final endpoints and assumptions have on the benefit United States.’’ Environmental Health Perspectives
Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP (69 estimates are explored in appendixes to the RIA. 105(6):608–612.
• The PM benefits scaled transfer proposed regulations contribute to • The PM air quality model only
approach, derived from the Clean Air reductions in ambient PM2.5, this captures the benefits of air quality
Nonroad Diesel rule, does not account analysis does not capture the related improvements in the 48 states and DC;
for VOCs as precursors to ambient PM2.5 health and environmental benefits of PM benefits for Alaska and Hawaii are
formation. To the extent that VOC those changes. not reflected in the estimate of benefits.
emission reductions associated with the
TABLE IX.E–3.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL MONETARY VALUE OF REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
EFFECTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED COLD TEMPERATURE VEHICLE STANDARD
[Millions of 2003$] a b
2020 2030
Estimated Estimated
Health effect Pollutant value of value of
reductions reductions
PM-Related Premature mortality c, d:

Adult, 30+ years and Infant, <1 year.
3 percent discount rate ................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................. $3,100 $6,000
7 percent discount rate ................................................................... ........................................................... 2,800 5,400
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) ....................................................... PM2.5 ................................................. 150 270
Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions:
3 percent discount rate ................................................................... ........................................................... 80 150
7 percent discount rate ................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................. 77 150
Hospital admissions for respiratory causes .................................................. PM2.5 ................................................. 4.8 10
Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes ............................................ PM2.5 ................................................. 5.1 9.4
Emergency room visits for asthma ............................................................... PM2.5 ................................................. 0.12 0.21
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) ........................................................... PM2.5 ................................................. 0.32 0.58
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) ....................................... PM2.5 ................................................. 0.17 0.30
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, age 9–11) ........................................ PM2.5 ................................................. 0.20 0.37
Asthma exacerbations ................................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................. 0.57 1.0
Work loss days .............................................................................................. PM2.5 ................................................. 9.2 14
Minor restricted activity days (MRADs) ......................................................... PM2.5 ................................................. 21 36
Monetized Total e:
Base estimate.
3 percent discount rate ................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................. 3,400+ B 6,500+ B
7 percent discount rate ................................................................... ........................................................... 3,100+ B 5,900+ B
a Dollars are rounded to two significant digits. The PM estimates represent benefits from the proposed rule across the contiguous United
States.
b Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2020 or 2030).
c Valuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year segmented lag
structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005). Results show 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses (US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).298
d Adult mortality based upon studies by Pope et al. 2002. Infant mortality based upon studies by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, 1997.
e B represents the monetary value of health and welfare benefits not monetized. A detailed listing is provided in Table IX.E–1.
4. What Are the Significant Limitations associated with, the modeled changes in economic values even to those health
of the Benefit Analysis? ambient ozone associated with the and environmental outcomes which can
Perhaps the most significant proposed gas can standards, despite net be quantified. These general
limitation of this analysis is our benefits, when population weighted, in uncertainties in the underlying
inability to quantify a number of the ozone design value metric observed scientific and economics literature,
potentially significant benefit categories across the modeled domain (see Section which can cause the valuations to be
associated with improvements in air IV.C). higher or lower, are discussed in detail
quality that would result from the More generally, every benefit-cost in the RIA and its supporting references.
proposed standards. Most notably, we analysis examining the potential effects Key uncertainties that have a bearing on
are unable to estimate the benefits from of a change in environmental protection the results of the benefit-cost analysis of
reduced air toxics exposures because requirements is limited to some extent the proposed standards include the
the available tools and methods to by data gaps, limitations in model following:
assess mobile source air toxics risk at capabilities (such as geographic • The exclusion of potentially
the national scale are not adequate for coverage), and uncertainties in the significant and unquantified benefit
extrapolation to incidence estimations underlying scientific and economic categories (such as health, odor, and
or benefits assessment. We also do not studies used to configure the benefit and ecological benefits of reduction in air
quantify ozone benefits due to the cost models. Deficiencies in the toxics, ozone, and PM);
magnitude of, and uncertainty scientific literature often result in the • Errors in measurement and
inability to estimate quantitative projection for variables such as
298 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. changes in health and environmental population growth;
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. effects, such as potential increases in • Uncertainties in the estimation of
www.yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed/hsf/pages/ premature mortality associated with future year emissions inventories and
Guideline.html.
increased exposure to carbon monoxide. air quality;
Office of Management and Budget, The Executive
Office of the President, 2003. Circular A–4. http:// Deficiencies in the economics literature • Uncertainties associated with the
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars. often result in the inability to assign scaling of the PM results of the modeled
benefits analysis to the proposed meta-analyses of the ozone-mortality indicates that potential but
standards, especially regarding the epidemiology literature to inform a unquantifiable benefits may also arise
assumption of similarity in geographic determination on including this from ozone-related attenuation of UVb
distribution between emissions and important health endpoint. The studies radiation.306 EPA believes that we are
human populations and years of were peer-reviewed and printed in the unable to quantify any net climate-
analysis; journal Epidemiology in July related disbenefit or benefit associated
• Uncertainty in the estimated 2005.300 301 302 with the combined ozone and PM
relationships of health and welfare EPA is reviewing the body of reductions in this rule.
effects to changes in pollutant literature available on the association of
ozone exposure and premature 5. How Do the Benefits Compare to the
concentrations including the shape of Costs of the Proposed Standards?
the C–R function, the size of the effect mortality. EPA’s second external review
estimates, and the relative toxicity of the draft of the Criteria Document for ozone This proposed rule provides three
many components of the PM mixture; has concluded that there is strong separate provisions that reduce air
• Uncertainties in exposure evidence that exposure to ozone has toxics emissions from mobile sources:
estimation; and been associated with premature cold temperature vehicle controls, an
• Uncertainties associated with the mortality.303 We are exploring ways of emissions control program for gas cans,
effect of potential future actions to limit appropriately characterizing the and a control program limiting benzene
emissions. premature mortality benefits of reducing in gasoline. A full appreciation of the
Despite these uncertainties, we ozone and included an estimate in overall economic consequences of these
believe this benefit-cost analysis recent analyses of the Clear Skies provisions requires consideration of the
provides a conservative estimate of the legislation.304 We plan to include a benefits and costs expected to result
expected economic benefits of the quantification of ozone mortality from each standard, not just those that
proposed standards for cold temperature benefits in future air pollution could be expressed here in dollar terms.
vehicle control in future years because rulemakings. As noted above, due to limitations in
of the exclusion of potentially In contrast to the additional benefits data availability and analytical methods,
significant benefit categories. of the proposed standards discussed our benefits analysis only monetizes the
Acknowledging benefits omissions and above, it is also possible that this rule PM2.5-related benefits from direct PM
uncertainties, we present a best estimate will result in disbenefits in some areas emission reductions associated with the
of the total benefits based on our of the United States. The effects of cold temperature standards. There are a
interpretation of the best available ozone and PM on radiative transfer in number of health and environmental
scientific literature and methods the atmosphere can lead to effects of effects associated with the proposed
supported by EPA’s technical peer uncertain magnitude and direction on standards that we were unable to
review panel, the Science Advisory the penetration of ultraviolet light and quantify or monetize (see Table IX.E–1).
Board’s Health Effects Subcommittee climate. Ground level ozone makes up Table IX.E–4 contains the estimates of
(SAB–HES). EPA has also worked to a small percentage of total atmospheric monetized benefits of the proposed cold
address many of the comments made by ozone (including the stratospheric layer) temperature vehicle standards and
the National Academy of Sciences that attenuates penetration of estimated social welfare costs for each
(NAS) in a September 26, 2002 report on ultraviolet–b (UVb) radiation to the of the proposed control programs.307
its review of the Agency’s methodology ground. EPA’s past evaluation of the The annual social welfare costs of all
for analyzing the health benefits of information indicates that potential provisions of this proposed rule are
measures taken to reduce air pollution. disbenefits would be small, variable, described more fully in Section IX.F. It
EPA addressed many of these comments and with too many uncertainties to should be noted that the estimated
in the analysis of the final CAIR rule.299 attempt quantification of relatively social welfare costs for the vehicle
The analysis of the proposed rule small changes in average ozone levels program contained in this table are for
incorporates this most recent work. over the course of a year.305 EPA’s most 2019. The 2019 vehicle program costs
There is one category where new recent provisional assessment of the are included for comparison purposes
studies suggest the possibility of currently available information only and are therefore not included in
significant additional economic the total 2020 social costs. There are no
benefits. Over the past several years,
300 Levy, J.I, Chemerynski, S.M., Sarnat, J.A. 2005.
compliance costs associated with the
Ozone Exposure and Mortality: An Empirical Bayes vehicle program after 2019; as explained
EPA’s SAB has expressed the view that Meta-Regression Analysis. Epidemiology. 16:458–
there were not sufficient data to show a 468. elsewhere in this preamble, the vehicle
separate ozone mortality effect, in 301 Bell, M.L., Dominici, F., Samet, J.M. 2005. A compliance costs are primarily R&D and
essence saying that any ozone benefits Meta-Analysis of Time-Series Studies of Ozone and facilities costs that are expected to be
Mortality with Comparison to the National recovered by manufacturers over the
are captured in the PM-related mortality Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study.
benefit estimates. However, in their Epidemiology. 16:436–445.
first ten years of the program.
most recent advice, the SAB 302 Ito, K., DeLeon, S.F., Lippmann, M. 2005. The results in Table IX.E–4 suggest
recommended that EPA reconsider the Associations Between Ozone and Daily Mortality: that the 2020 monetized benefits of the
evidence on ozone-related mortality Analysis and Meta-Analysis. Epidemiology. 16:446– cold temperature vehicle standards are
457. greater than the expected social welfare
based on the publication of several 303 EPA, 2005. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
recent analyses that found statistically Related Photochemical Oxidants (Second External
costs of that program in 2019.
significant associations between ozone Review Draft). August. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/ Specifically, the annual benefits of the
and mortality. Based on these studies cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=137307
304 For technical details about Clear Skies multi- 306 EPA, 2005. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
and the recommendations from the pollutant analysis, see http://www.epa.gov/ Related Photochemical Oxidants (Second External
SAB, EPA sponsored three independent airmarkets/mp/bmresults/ Review Draft). August. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/
health_benefits_method.pdf cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=137307
299 See Chapter 4 of the Final Clean Air Interstate 305 EPA, 2005. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 307 Social costs represent the welfare costs of the
Rule RIA (www.epa.gov/cair) for a discussion of Related Photochemical Oxidants (First External rule to society. These social costs do not consider
EPA’s ongoing efforts to address the NAS Review Draft). January. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/ transfer payments (such as taxes) that are simply
recommendations in its regulatory analyses. cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=114523 redistributions of wealth.
program would be approximately $3,400 $6,500 + B million or $5,900 + B million program limiting benzene in gasoline.
+ B million or $3,100 + B million annually in 2030 (using a 3 percent and Though we are unable to present the
annually in 2020 (using a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the benefits benefits associated with these two
7 percent discount rate in the benefits analysis, respectively), even as the programs, we note for informational
analysis, respectively), compared to social welfare costs of that program fall purposes that the benefits associated
estimated social welfare costs of to zero. Table IX.E–4 also presents the with the proposed cold temperature
approximately $11 million in the last costs of the other proposed rule vehicle standards alone exceed the costs
year of the program (2019). These provisions: an emissions control of all three proposed rule provisions
benefits are expected to increase to program for gas cans and a control combined.
TABLE IX.E–4.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED COLD TEMPERATURE VEHICLE STANDARDS AND
COSTS OF ALL PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS a
[Millions of 2003 dollars]
Description 2020 2030
Estimated Social Welfare Costs b:

Proposed Cold Temperature Vehicle Standards .................................................................................................. $11 c ............ $0
Proposed Gasoline Container Standards ............................................................................................................. 32 ................ 39
Proposed Fuel Standards d ................................................................................................................................... 210 .............. 250
Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 240 .............. 290

Fuel Savings .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥73 ............. ¥82
Total Social Welfare Costs ............................................................................................................................ 170 .............. 205

Total PM2.5-Related Health Benefits of the Proposed Cold Temperature Vehicle Standards e:
3 percent discount rate ......................................................................................................................................... 3,400 + B f ... 6,500 + B f
7 percent discount rate ......................................................................................................................................... 3,100 + B f ... 5,900 + B f
a All estimates are rounded to two significant digits and represent annualized benefits and costs anticipated for the years 2020 and 2030, ex-
cept where noted. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
b Note that costs are the annual total costs of reducing all pollutants associated with each provision of the proposed MSAT control package.
Also note that while the cost analysis only utilizes a 7 percent discount rate to calculate annual costs, the benefits analysis uses both a 3 percent
and 7 percent discount rate to calculate annual benefits. Benefits reflect only direct PM reductions associated with the cold temperature vehicle
standards.
c These costs are for 2019; the vehicle program compliance costs terminate after 2019 and are included for illustrative purposes. They are not
included in the total social welfare cost sum for 2020.
d Our modeling for the total costs of the proposed gasoline benzene program included California gasoline, since it was completed before we
decided to propose that California gasoline not be covered by the program. California refineries comprise approximately 1 percent of these
2projected costs. For the final rule, we expect to exclude California refineries from the analysis.
e Valuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year segmented lag
structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005). Annual benefits analysis results reflect
the use of a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarctions, consistent with
EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses (US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).308
f Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and disbenefits.
Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized are listed in Table IX.E–1.
F. Economic Impact Analysis gasoline, gas can, and vehicle controls Detailed descriptions of the EIM, the
and the expected fuel savings from model inputs, modeling results, and
We prepared a draft Economic Impact better evaporative controls on gas cans. several sensitivity analyses can be found
Analysis (EIA) to estimate the economic The results of the economic impact in Chapter 13 of the Regulatory Impact
impacts of the proposed emission modeling performed for the gasoline Analysis prepared for this proposal.
control program on the gas can, gasoline fuel and gas can control programs
fuel, and light-duty vehicle markets. In suggest that the social costs of those two 1. What Is an Economic Impact
this section we briefly describe the programs are expected to be about Analysis?
Economic Impact Model (EIM) we $244.3 million in 2020 with consumers
developed to estimate both the market- An Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) is
of these products expected to bear about prepared to inform decision makers
level changes in price and outputs for 60 percent of these costs. We estimate
affected markets and the social costs of about the potential economic
fuel savings of about $72.8 million in
the program and their distribution consequences of a regulatory action. The
2020 that will accrue to consumers.
across affected economic sectors. We analysis consists of estimating the social
There are no social costs associated with
also present the results of our analysis. costs of a regulatory program and the
the vehicle program in 2020. These
We estimate the net social costs of the estimates, and all costs presented in this distribution of these costs across
proposed program to be about $171.5 section, are in year 2003 dollars. stakeholders. These estimated social
million in 2020. This estimate reflects With regard to market level impacts in costs can then be compared with
the estimated costs associated with the 2020, the maximum price increase for estimated social benefits (as presented
gasoline fuel is expected to be about 0.1 in Section IX.E). As defined in EPA’s
308 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. percent (0.2 cents per gallon) for PADD Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. 5. The price of gas cans is expected to Analyses, social costs are the value of
www.yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed/hsf/pages/ increase by about 1.8 percent ($0.20 per the goods and services lost by society
Guideline.html. resulting from (a) the use of resources to
Office of Management and Budget, The Executive
can) in areas that already have gas can
Office of the President, 2003. Circular A–4. http:// requirements and about 32.5 percent comply with and implement a
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars. ($1.52 per can) in areas that do not. regulation and (b) reductions in
output.309 In this analysis, social costs economic welfare analysis. We do this compliance costs include a small
are explored in two steps. In the market by adding the vehicle program compliance cost for California, and this
analysis, we estimate how prices and engineering compliance cost estimates cost would be a cost to society, it is
quantities of goods affected by the to the estimated social costs of the necessary to include those costs in the
proposed emission control program can gasoline and gas can programs. total economic welfare costs of the
be expected to change once the program With regard to the gasoline fuel and proposal. This is done by including the
goes into effect. In the economic welfare gas can markets, we consider only the estimated engineering compliance costs
analysis, we look at the total social costs impacts on residential users of these as a separate line item. Also, consistent
associated with the program and their products. This means that we focus the with the cost analysis, the economic
distribution across stakeholders. analysis on the use of these products for impact analysis does not distinguish
personal transportation (gasoline fuel) between reformulated and conventional
2. What Is the Economic Impact Model? or residential lawns and garden care or gasoline fuels.
The Economic Impact Model (EIM) is recreational uses (gas cans) and do not The EIM models the economic
a behavioral model developed for this consider how the costs of complying impacts on two gas can markets (states
proposal to estimate price and quantity with the proposed programs may affect that currently have requirements for gas
changes and total social costs associated the production of goods and services cans and those that do not), and four
with the emission controls under that use gasoline fuel or gas cans as gasoline fuel markets (PADDs 1+3,
consideration. The EIM simulates how production inputs. We believe this PADD 2, PADD 4, PADD 5). The markets
producers and consumers of affected approach is reasonable because the included in this EIA are described in
products can be expected to respond to commercial share of the end-user more detail in Chapter 13 of the RIA for
an increase in production costs as a markets for both gasoline fuel and gas this proposal.
result of the proposed emission control cans is relatively small.310 311 In In the EIM, the gasoline fuel and gas
program. In this EIM, compliance costs addition, for most commercial users the can markets are not linked (there is no
are directly borne by producers of share of the cost of these products to feedback mechanism between the gas
affected goods. Depending on the total production costs is also small (e.g., can and gasoline fuel model segments).
producers’ and consumers’ sensitivity to the cost of a gas can is only a very small This is because these two sectors
price changes, producers may be able to part of the total production costs for an represent different aspects of fuel
pass some or all of these compliance agricultural or construction firm). consumption (fuel storage and fuel
costs on to the consumers of these goods Therefore, a price increase of the production) and production and
in the form of higher prices. Consumers magnitude anticipated for this control consumption of one product is not
adjust their consumption of affected program is not expected to have a affected by the other. In other words, an
goods in response to these price noticeable impact on prices or increase in the price of gas cans is not
changes. This information is passed quantities of goods produced using expected to have an impact on the
back to the producers in the form of these inputs (e.g., agricultural product production and supply of gasoline, and
purchasing decisions. The EIM takes or buildings). vice versa. Production and consumption
these behavioral responses into account With regard to the gasoline fuel of each of these products are the result
to estimate new market equilibrium analysis, it should be noted that this of other factors that have little cross-
quantities and prices for all modeled Economic Impact Analysis does not over impacts (the need for fuel storage;
sectors and the resulting distribution of include California fuels in the market the need for personal transportation).
social costs across these stakeholders analysis. California fuels are only
(producers and consumers). 4. What Are the Key Features of the
included, as a separate line item, in the
Economic Impact Model?
3. What Economic Sectors Are Included economic welfare analysis. California
currently has state-level controls that A detailed description of the features
in This Economic Impact Analysis? of the EIM and the data used in the
address air toxics from gasoline. Any
There are three economic sectors actions that refiners may take to comply analysis is provided in Chapter 13 of the
affected by the control programs with the federal program are expected to RIA prepared for this rule. The model
described in this proposal: gas cans, be small and not affect market prices or methodology is firmly rooted in applied
gasoline fuel, and light-duty vehicles. In quantities in that state. However, microeconomic theory and was
this Economic Impact Analysis we because the estimated fuel program developed following the methodology
model only the impacts on the gas can set out in the OAQPS’s Economic
and gasoline fuel markets. We did not 310 The U.S Department of Energy estimates that Analysis Resource Document.312
model the impacts on the light-duty about 92 percent of gasoline used in the United The EIM is a computer model
vehicle market. This is because the States for transportation is used in light-duty comprised of a series of spreadsheet
compliance costs for the proposed vehicles. About 6 percent is used for commercial or
industrial transportation, and the remaining 2
modules that simulate the supply and
vehicle program are expected to be very percent is used in recreational marine vessels. See demand characteristics of the markets
small, less than $1 per vehicle and, even U.S Department of Energy, Energy Information under consideration. The initial market
if passed on entirely, are unlikely to Administration, 2004. ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook equilibrium conditions are shocked by
affect producer or consumer behavior. 2004 with projections to 2025.’’ Last updated June
2, 2004. Table A–2 and Supplemental Table 34.
applying the compliance costs for the
Therefore, we do not expect these http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeoref_tab.html. control program to the supply side of
proposed controls to affect the quantity 311 A recent study by CARB (1999) found that 94 the markets (this is done by shifting the
of vehicles produced or their prices. At percent of portable fuel containers in California relevant supply curves by the amount of
the same time, however, the light-duty were used by residential households California the compliance costs). The model
vehicle compliance costs are a cost to Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources
equations can be analytically solved for
Board (CARB) 1999. See ‘‘Hearing Notice and Staff

society and should be included in the Report, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed
Rule Making Public Hearing to Consider the 312 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
309 EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Adoption of Portable Fuel Container Spillage of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Innovative
Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, September 2000, p Control Regulation.’’ Sacrament, CA: California Strategies and Economics Group, OAQPS Economic
113. A copy of this document can be found at Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Analysis Resource Document, April 1999. A copy
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/ Board (CARB). A copy of this document is available of this document can be found at http://www.
Guidelines.html#download at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/spillcon/isor.pdf epa.gov/ttn/ecas/econdata/Rmanual2/
equilibrium prices and quantities for the detail in the industry profile prepared estimates, and market equilibrium
markets with the regulatory program for this proposal.315 quantities and prices.
and these new prices and quantities are With regard to the gas can market, the The EIM is a behavioral model. The
used to estimate the social costs of the small number of firms in the market is estimated social costs of this emission
model and how those costs are shared offset by several features of this market. control program are a function of the
among affected markets. Because gas cans are compact and ways in which producers and
consumers of the gas cans and gasoline
The EIM is a partial equilibrium, lightweight, they are easy to transport
fuel affected by the standards change
intermediate-run model that assumes far from their place of manufacture. This
their behavior in response to the costs
perfect competition in the relevant means that production is not limited to
incurred in complying with the
markets. As explained in EPA’s local producers. Although they vary by
standards. These behavioral responses
Guidelines for Preparing Economic size and material, consumers are likely
are incorporated in the EIM through the
Analyses, ‘‘partial equilibrium’’ means to view all gas cans as good substitutes
price elasticity of supply and demand
that the model considers markets in for one another. Because the products
(reflected in the slope of the supply and
isolation and that conditions in other are similar enough to be considered
demand curves), which measure the
markets are assumed either to be homogeneous (e.g., perfectly
price sensitivity of consumers and
unaffected by a policy or unimportant substitutable), consumers can shift their producers. The price elasticites used in
for social cost estimation.313 The use of purchases from one manufacturer to this analysis are described in Chapter 13
the intermediate run means that some another. There are only minimal of the RIA. The gasoline elasticites were
factors of production are fixed and some technical barriers to entry that would obtained from the literature and are
are variable. In very short analyses, all prevent new firms from freely entering ¥0.2 for demand and 0.2 for supply.
factors of production would be assumed the market, since manufacturing is This means that both the quantity
to be fixed, leaving the producers with based on well-known plastic processing supplied and demanded are expected to
no means to respond to the increased methods. In addition, there is significant be fairly insensitive to price changes
production costs associated with the excess capacity, enabling competitors to and that increases in prices are not
regulation (e.g., they cannot adjust labor respond quickly to changes in price. expected to cause sales to fall or
or capital inputs). Under this time Excess production capacity in the production to increase by very much.
horizon, the costs of the regulation fall general container manufacturing market Because we were unable to find
entirely on the producer. In the long also means that manufacturers could published supply and demand
run, all factors of production are potentially switch their product lines to elasticities for the gas can market, we
variable and producers can adjust compete in this segment of the market, estimated these parameters using the
production in response to cost changes often without a significant investment. procedures described in Chapter 13 of
imposed by the regulation (e.g., using a In addition, there is no evidence of high the RIA. This approach yielded a
different labor/capital mix). In the levels of strategic behavior in the price demand elasticity of ¥0.01 and a
intermediate run there is some resource and quantity decisions of the firms. supply elasticity of 1.5. The estimated
immobility which may cause producers Finally, it should be noted that demand elasticity is nearly perfectly
to suffer producer surplus losses, but contestable market theory asserts that inelastic (equal to zero), which means
they can also pass some of the oligopolies and even monopolies will that changes in price are expected to
compliance costs to consumers. behave very much like firms in a have very little effect on the quantity of
The perfect competition assumption competitive market if manufacturers gas cans demanded. However, supply is
is widely accepted economic practice have extra production capacity and this fairly elastic, meaning producers are
for this type of analysis, and only in rare capacity could allow them to enter the expected to respond to a change in
cases are other approaches used.314 It market costlessly (i.e., there are no sunk price. Therefore, consumers are
should be noted that the perfect costs associated with this kind of market expected to bear more of the burden of
competition assumption is not primarily entry or exit).316 As a result of these gas can regulatory control costs than
about the number of firms in a market. conditions, producers and consumers in producers.
It is about how the market operates: the the gas can market take the market price Initial market equilibrium conditions
nature of the competition among firms. as given when making their production are simulated using the same current
Indicators that allow us to assume and consumption choices. For all these year sales quantities and growth rates
perfect competition include absence of reasons, the market can be modeled as used in the engineering cost analysis.
barriers to entry, absence of strategic a competitive market even though the The initial equilibrium prices for gas
behavior among firms in the market, and number of producers is small. can and gasoline fuel were obtained
product differentiation. from industry sources and published
5. What Are the Key Model Inputs?
government data. The initial
With regard to the gasoline fuel equilibrium market conditions are
market, the Federal Trade Commission Key model inputs for the EIM are the
behavioral parameters, compliance costs shocked by applying the engineering
(FTC) has developed an approach to compliance cost estimates described in
ensure competitiveness in gasoline fuel earlier in this section. Although both the
315 Section 3 Industry Organization,
markets. It reviews oil company mergers gas can and gasoline fuel markets are
‘‘Characterizing Gasoline Markets: a Profile,’’ Final
and frequently requires divestiture of Report, prepared for EPA by RTI, August 2005. competitive markets, the model is
refineries, terminals, and gas stations to 316 A monopoly or firms in oligopoly may not
shocked by applying the sum of variable
maintain a minimum level of behave as neoclassical economic theories of the and fixed costs. Two sets of compliance
competition. This is discussed in more firm predict because they may be concerned about
costs are used in the gas can market
new entrants to the market. If super-normal profits

are earned, potential competitors may enter the analysis, reflecting states with existing
313 EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic
market. To respond to this treat, existing firm(s) in controls and states without existing
Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, September 2000, p. the market will keep prices and output at a level controls. The compliance costs used to
125–6. where only normal profits are made, setting price
314 See, for example, EPA Guidelines for and output levels at or close to the competitive
shock the gasoline fuel market are based
Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, price and output. See Chapter 13 of the RIA for on an average total cost (variable +
September 2000, p 126. more information, Section 13.2.3. fixed) analysis. An explanation for this
approach can be found in Section The EIM relies on the estimated estimated compliance costs due to
13.2.4.1 of the RIA prepared for this compliance costs for the gas can and amortization of fixed costs over the first
proposal. These gasoline fuel gasoline fuel programs described five years of the program. After 2013 the
compliance costs differ across PADDs elsewhere in this preamble. Thus, the compliance costs remain constant for all
but are the same across years. Because EIM reflects cost savings associated with future years.318
California already has existing gasoline ABT or other flexibility programs to the With regard to the gasoline fuel
fuel controls, fuel volumes for that state extent they are included in the program, the market impacts are
are not included in the market analysis. estimated compliance costs. expected to be small, on average. The
However, because it may be necessary
6. What Are the Results of the Economic price of gasoline fuel is expected to
for refiners to adjust their production to
Impact Modeling? increase by about 0.15 percent or less,
comply with the new federal standards,
Using the model and data described depending on PADD. The expected
California fuel controls are included in
above, we estimated the economic reduction in quantity of fuel produced
the economic welfare analysis.
Additional costs that need to be impacts of the proposed emission is expected to be less than 0.03 percent.
considered in the EIM are the savings control program. The results of our The market impacts for the gas can
associated with the gas can controls and analysis are summarized in this section. program are expected to be more
the costs of the light-duty vehicle Detailed results for all years are significant. In 2009, the first year of the
controls. The proposed gas can controls included in the appendices to Chapter gas can program, the model predicts a
are expected to reduce evaporative 13 of the RIA. Also included as an price increase of about 7 percent for gas
emissions from fuel storage, leading to appendix to that chapter are sensitivity cans in states that are currently have
fuel savings for users of these analyses for several key inputs. regulations for gas cans and about 57
containers. These fuel savings are not Market Impact Analysis. Market percent for those that do not. Even with
included in the market analysis for this impacts are the estimated changes in the these larger price increases, however,
economic impact analysis because these quantity of affected goods produced and the quantity produced is not expected to
savings are not expected to affect their prices. As explained above, we decrease by very much, less than 0.6
consumer decisions with respect to the estimated market impacts for only percent. These percent price increases
purchase of new containers. Fuel gasoline fuel and gas cans, and and quantity decreases much smaller
savings are included in the social cost California fuel is not included in the after the first five years. In 2015, the
analysis, however, because they are a market analysis for PADD 5. The estimated gas can price increase is
savings that accrues to society. The estimated market impacts are presented expected to be less than 2 percent for
estimated fuel savings are added to the in Table IX.F–1. In this table the market states that currently regulate gas cans
estimated social costs as a separate line results for gasoline are presented for and about 32.5 percent for states
item. As noted above, the economic only 2015 because the compliance costs without such regulations. The quantity
impacts of the light-duty vehicle for the gasoline fuel program are produced is expected to decrease by less
controls are not modeled in the EIM. constant for all years and therefore the than 0.4 percent. These changes are
Instead, the estimated engineering results of the market analysis are the expected to remain constant for future
compliance costs are used as a proxy, same for all years.317 The market results years, even though the absolute
and are also added into the estimated for gas cans are presented for 2009 and quantities produced are expected to
social costs as a separate line item. 2015, reflecting the changes in increase somewhat.
TABLE IX.F–1.—SUMMARY OF MARKET IMPACTS

Change in price Change in quantity
Engineering
Market cost per unit Absolute Percent Absolute Percent
2009
Gasoline Fuel:
PADD 1 & 3.
PADD 2 ..................................................................................... N/A (gasoline fuel control program begins in 2011)
PADD 4.
PADD 5 (w/out CA).
$/can Thousand Cans
Gas Cans:
States with existing programs .................................................. $0.77 ........... $0.76 ........... 6.9% ............ ¥6.8 ........... ¥0.07%
States without existing programs ............................................. $2.70 ........... $2.68 ........... 57.4% .......... ¥88.5 ......... ¥0.57%
2015
¢/gallon Million Gallons
Gasoline Fuel:
PADD 1 & 3 .............................................................................. 0.049¢ ......... 0.03¢ ........... 0.02% .......... ¥3.1 ........... ¥0.004%
PADD 2 ..................................................................................... 0.202¢ ......... 0.11¢ ........... 0.07% .......... ¥6.9 ........... ¥0.015%
317 The number of gallons of gasoline fuel same; this is due to the growth in fuel consumption 318 The number of gas cans produced is expected
produced is expected to decrease in future years, generally. to decrease in future years, but the percent decrease
but the percent decrease is expected to remain the is expected to remain the same; this is due to the
growth in gas can production generally.
TABLE IX.F–1.—SUMMARY OF MARKET IMPACTS—Continued

Change in price Change in quantity
Engineering
Market cost per unit Absolute Percent Absolute Percent
PADD 4 ..................................................................................... 0.358¢ ......... 0.19¢ ........... 0.12% .......... ¥1.4 ........... ¥0.025%
PADD 5 (w/out CA) .................................................................. 0.391¢ ......... 0.21¢ ........... 0.13% .......... ¥2.5 ........... ¥0.026%
$/can Thousand Cans
Gas Cans:
States with existing programs .................................................. $0.21 ........... $0.20 ........... 1.9% ............ ¥2.1 ........... ¥0.02%
States without existing programs ............................................. $1.53 ........... $1.52 ........... 32.5% .......... ¥56.4 ......... ¥0.32%
Economic Welfare Analysis. In the TABLE IX.F–2.—NET SOCIAL COSTS Table IX.F–3 contains more detailed
economic welfare analysis we look at ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED estimated social costs for 2009, when
the costs to society of the proposed PROGRAM the gas can program begins, 2011, when
program in terms of losses to consumer [2009 to 2035—2003$, $million] the gasoline fuel program begins, and
and producer surplus. These surplus 2015, when the gas can fixed costs are
losses are combined with the estimated Total social fully recovered. The vehicle program
vehicle compliance costs, fuel savings, Year costs applies from 2010 through 2019.
and government revenue losses to (includes fuel According to these results, consumers
savings)
estimate the net economic welfare are expected to bear approximately 99
impacts of the proposed program. 2009 ...................................... $38.4 percent of the cost of the gas can
Estimated annual net social costs for 2010 ...................................... 39.2 program. This reflects the inelastic price
selected years are presented in Table 2011 ...................................... 215.0 elasticity on the demand side of the
IX–F–2. Initially, the estimated social 2012 ...................................... 208.6 market and the elastic price elasticity on
2013 ...................................... 202.2
costs of the program are relatively small 2014 ...................................... 169.3 the supply side. The burden of the
and are attributable to the gas can 2015 ...................................... 171.6 gasoline fuel program is expected to be
program, which begins in 2009, and the 2016 ...................................... 173.6 shared more evenly, with 54.5 percent
vehicle program, which begins in 2010. 2017 ...................................... 175.5 expected to be borne by consumers and
For 2009 and 2010 the estimated social 2018 ...................................... 177.3 45.5 percent expected to be borne by
2019 ...................................... 179.7
costs are less than $40 million. In 2011 2020 ...................................... 171.5
producers. In all years, the estimated
the estimated social costs increase to 2021 ...................................... 174.2 loss to consumer welfare will be offset
$215 million, reflecting the beginning of 2022 ...................................... 176.9 somewhat by the fuel savings associated
the gasoline fuel program. In subsequent 2023 ...................................... 179.9 with gas cans. Beginning at about $11
years, estimated social costs increase 2024 ...................................... 183.3 million per year, these savings increase
due to growth. However, they decrease 2025 ...................................... 186.8 to about $70 million by 2015 as
2026 ...................................... 190.3
in 2014, to $169 million, when the gas 2027 ...................................... 193.9 compliant gas cans are phased in. These
can fixed costs are fully recovered and 2028 ...................................... 197.6 savings accrue for the life of the gas
in 2020, to $171.5 million, when the 2029 ...................................... 201.3 cans.
vehicle program compliance costs are 2030 ...................................... 205.2
terminated. 2031 ...................................... 209.1
2032 ...................................... 213.1
2033 ...................................... 217.2
2034 ...................................... 221.4
2035 ...................................... 225.7
NPV at 3% ............................ 2,937.3
NPV at 7% ............................ 1,633.0
TABLE IX.F–3.—SUMMARY OF NET SOCIAL COSTS ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH PRIMARY PROGRAM
[2009, 2011, and 2015—2003$, $million]
Change in Change in
Market consumer producer Total
surplus surplus
2009
Gasoline U.S.:
PADD 1 & 3
PADD 2 N/A (gasoline fuel control program begins in

2011)
PADD 4.
PADD 5 (w/out CA).
Gas Cans U.S. .................................................................................................................................... -$48.7 .......... -$0.3 ............ -$49.0
(99.3%) ........ (0.7%)
States with existing programs ............................................................................................................. -$7.5 ............ -$0.1.
TABLE IX.F–3.—SUMMARY OF NET SOCIAL COSTS ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH PRIMARY PROGRAM—Continued
[2009, 2011, and 2015—2003$, $million]
Change in Change in
Market consumer producer Total
surplus surplus
States without existing programs ........................................................................................................ -$41.2 .......... -$0.3.
Subtotal ................................................................................................................................. -48.7 ............ -0.3 .............. -$49.0

(99.3%) ........ (1%) ............
Fuel Savings ....................................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... $10.6

Vehicle Program ................................................................................................................................. ..................... ..................... $0
California fuel a .................................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... $0
Total ............................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... -$38.4
2011
Gasoline U.S. ...................................................................................................................................... -$100.3 ........ -$83.6 .......... -$183.9

PADD 1 & 3 ........................................................................................................................................ -$21.6 .......... -$18.0
PADD 2 ............................................................................................................................................... -$49.1 .......... -$40.9
PADD 4 ............................................................................................................................................... -$10.2 .......... -$8.5
PADD 5 9w/out CA) ............................................................................................................................ -$19.4 .......... -$16.2
Gas Cans U.S. .................................................................................................................................... -$50.7 .......... -$0.3 ............ -$51.0
(99.4%) ........ (0.7%)
States with existing programs ............................................................................................................. -$7.8 ............ -$0.1
States without existing programs ........................................................................................................ -$42.9 .......... -$0.3.
Subtotal ................................................................................................................................. -$150.9 ........ -$83.9 .......... -$234.8

(64.3%) ........ (35.7%)
Fuel Savings ....................................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... $33.3

Vehicle Program ................................................................................................................................. ..................... ..................... -$11.8
California fuel a .................................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... -$1.7
Total ............................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... $215.0
2015
Gasoline U.S. ...................................................................................................................................... -$107.1 ........ -$89.4 .......... -$196.5

(54.5%) ........ (45.5%)
PADD 1 & 3 ........................................................................................................................................ -$23.1 .......... -$19.3
PADD 2 ............................................................................................................................................... -$52.4 .......... -$43.7
PADD 4 ............................................................................................................................................... -$10.9 .......... -$9.1
PADD 5 (w/out CA) ............................................................................................................................. -$20.7 .......... -$17.3
Gas Cans U.S. .................................................................................................................................... -$28.5 .......... -$0.2 ............ -$28.7
(99.3%) ........ (0.7%)
States with existing programs ............................................................................................................. -$2.3 ............ $0.0
States without existing programs ........................................................................................................ -$26.3 .......... -$0.2
Subtotal ................................................................................................................................. -$135.7 ........ -$89.5 .......... -$225.2
(60.3%) ........ (39.7%)
Fuel Savings ....................................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... $68.3
Vehicle Program ................................................................................................................................. ..................... ..................... $12.9
California fuel a .................................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... -$1.8
Total ............................................................................................................................... ..................... ..................... $171.6
a California fuel costs are considered separately. See Section 13.1.3 of the RIA.
The present value of net social costs rate, the present value of the net social A. Fuels
(discounted back to 2005) of the costs through 2035 is estimated to be
proposed standards through 2035, $1.6 billion (2003$). We considered a wide range of control
contained in Table IX–F–2, is estimated strategies for gasoline to reduce toxic
X. Alternative Program Options emissions. Among the options
to be $2.9 billion (2003$). This present
value is calculated using a social considered are a toxics performance
We considered several options for
discount rate of 3 percent and the standard, varying levels of benzene
fuels, vehicles, and gas cans in
stream of economic welfare costs from control, approaches for controlling other
developing this proposal.
MSATs in addition to benzene, and
2009 through 2035. We also performed

an analysis using a 7 percent social lower sulfur and RVP for VOC control.
percent rate represents a demand-side approach and
discount rate.319 Using that discount reflects the time preference of consumption (the
The discussion of these options is
rate at which society is willing to trade current provided in section VII.
319 EPA has historically presented the present consumption for future consumption). The 7 In addition, we request comment on
value of cost and benefits estimates using both a 3 percent rate is a cost-side approach and reflects the
percent and a 7 percent social discount. The 3 shadow price of capital. the following specific concepts relating
to the proposed ABT and compliance • We propose that credits be limited circumstances, depress the market price
assurance provisions. in the number of trades that would be of credits and create less incentive for
allowed and are requesting comment on benzene reductions early in the
1. Alternative Compliance Assurance
the range from 2 to 4 trades. (We will program. EPA therefore requests
Provisions
establish an appropriate number of comment on whether the credit life
The design of the proposed ABT permissible trades in the final rule.) should be limited or whether unlimited
program is based on other recent fuel Such a limitation would be intended to banking should be encouraged through
programs (primarily gasoline and diesel allow EPA to have a reasonable chance having credits with unlimited life or
sulfur), but with fewer restrictions. The of verifying the validity of credits that longer life. We also seek comment on
proposed program includes nationwide are traded; how a program with unlimited credit
trading, does not include an upper limit • Both the buyer and seller of the life could be successfully enforced. For
on benzene, and combines all fuel into credits would be potentially liable example, EPA audits for refinery
a single pool for credit accounting should credits be found to be invalid, in compliance with fuel standard and
purposes. The compliance assurance order to allow EPA to maintain the credit requirements normally include
mechanisms for the proposed ABT environmental benefits of the program review of refinery production, testing
program are also based on previous should the credit seller no longer be in and business records. EPA seeks
recent fuel programs (including business; and comment on whether these audits could
reformulated gasoline and gasoline and • Purchasers of credits would need to be effectively conducted to review the
diesel sulfur) which in turn were be potential credit users, and so would validity of credits that were generated
developed based on the experiences in be refiners or importers. Our more than five years previously and
enforcing past fuel programs. At the experiences during the gasoline lead whether audits could be effectively
same time there are other programs with phase-down program in the 1980s, concluded during the first five years of
different ABT and corresponding where brokers and others were allowed a credit’s life.
compliance assurance provisions that to take title to lead credits, raised EPA also seeks comment on the
could serve as models for this benzene enforcement problems severe enough to appropriate consequences if EPA was
proposal, such as the Acid Rain call the program’s validity into question. unable to verify credit validity, the
Program. These problems have not arisen for criteria for identifying credits as being
An overarching concern that today’s more recent programs, where credit invalid, and whether EPA should have
proposal attempts to address, and that purchasers must be credit users. the burden of proving credits were
We request comment on these invalid or whether the credit generator
any alternative program also would
provisions as a whole and individually. (or the credit user) should have the
have to address, is that EPA does not
In addition, we note that the proposed burden of proving that credits were
have the resources to audit a substantial
benzene program is different from the valid. See Hazardous Waste Treatment
number of refineries each year, and
other recent fuel programs in several Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355, 367–68
certainly not every refinery. Thus, we
key respects that may provide (D.C. Cir. 1990) ( relating to
must devise a credit program whose
opportunities to design the ABT circumstances when the burden of proof
enforcement integrity does not depend
program and corresponding compliance may permissibly shift to a regulated
on EPA conducting annual audits of
assurance mechanisms differently. For entity). EPA also seeks comment on
many or most refiners to determine the
example, the proposed program would mechanisms that would allow
validity of credits generated, transferred,
not have an upper limit on the per- companies to verify the validity of
banked and used.
gallon benzene concentration that credits they generate without the need
The program as proposed would would otherwise force all refiners to for EPA audits. Thus, EPA seeks
provide a great deal of flexibility to ultimately comply with the standard comment on whether audits conducted
refiners in complying with the through actual physical refinery by independent auditors could be a
standards, but balances this flexibility changes. Since this proposed program reliable indicator of credit validity, and
with provisions to ensure the standard’s would allow some degree of variation in if so, the necessary qualifications of the
enforceability. This program would also benzene levels to continue indefinitely, auditor, the criteria for auditor
provide incentives for refiners and additional flexibility in how credits are independence, how these qualifications
importers to ensure the validity of any handled may be desirable. Thus, we and independence should be
credits they obtain, through the specifically request comment on the established, whether the audit should
provisions that hold the buyer of invalid following alternate ABT program review records of all company fuels
credits liable for any resulting violation elements. activities related to credit creation or
of the standard. We summarize the most As mentioned above, EPA could not, only a random portion of these records,
important of these provisions here: with its limited resources, conduct the appropriate timing requirements for
• Credit life would be limited to 5 annual audits of all refiners (and these audits, and the nature and timing
years. This is intended to provide possibly other parties, as discussed of reports. EPA seeks comment on the
reasonable assurance that EPA will have below). With regard to any potential enforcement implications of the Clean
the opportunity to review the alternative ABT program elements, Air Act’s five-year statute of limitations
appropriate records to verify including those discussed below, we if credits with a life longer than five
compliance, regardless of personnel request detailed ideas about a potential years were allowed.
changes, whether existing refiners and auditing process that would be
importers are bought, sold, merged, or Record Retention
sufficiently robust to assure the validity
go out of business, and whether new of credits generated, used, banked or We also seek comment on whether a
refiners and importers are created; traded, including how such audits program with unlimited credit life
• Records would be required to be might be self-funded. would need to require that the
retained for the life of the credits to associated records be retained
allow for EPA to enforce the benzene Credit Life indefinitely until a credit was used.
content standard through random EPA notes that a system that limits (The use of credits for which no records
audits; credit life may, under certain exist could result in their being declared
null and void since credit validity could the five year limit on credit life. EPA refiners and importers to obtain, hold,
not be established.) We seek comment seeks comment on whether and how and transfer them.
as to whether record-keeping and EPA such an extension might affect the EPA requests comment on any
audits involving activities occurring ability to enforce the benzene content specific benefits to regulated parties or
more than five years in the past could standard, including impacts from the to the credit market generally if non-
create any issues regarding statutes of statute of limitations. Such an exception refiners were allowed to take title to
limitations. Also, in general, we request might have important implications for credits. EPA also requests comments on
comment on provisions that could enforcement, record-keeping, and any situations that occurred under other
address the fact that the farther back in emissions, which would have to be motor vehicle fuels credit programs
time an event occurred, the more adequately addressed. EPA seeks where the absence of non-refiner credit
difficult it becomes for EPA to conduct comment on the nature of owners created difficulties or problems
an effective audit (due to factors such as documentation that would be required in regulated parties being able to
mergers, acquisitions, and turnover of in such a petition and criteria that might transfer or obtain credits. EPA seeks
personnel). EPA seeks comment on be used to make a determination comment on how the benzene credit
whether the Clean Air Act’s five-year regarding approval of such a petition. program could be reliably enforced if
statute of limitations would adversely EPA also seeks comment on the extent non-refiners were allowed to own
impact EPA’s ability to enforce a to which any such ABT flexibility credits. Thus, EPA seeks comment on
requirement to keep records longer than provisions would be used, and what the the qualifications that should be
five years. benzene content, enforcement, liquidity, required for a company to be a non-
and other implications might be. refiner credit owner, and how these
Number of Times Credits May Be qualifications should be established; on
Traded any registration, record keeping,
Ownership of Benzene Credits
As described earlier in this preamble, reporting, independent audit and
EPA is requesting comment on allowing The potential modifications of the independent attestation requirements
credits to be traded between 2 and 4 proposed program on which we request that should be imposed on non-refiner
times. In particular, EPA seeks comment comment may be able to be owners of credits; and on the nature of
on any specific benefits to regulated accomplished relatively easily within liability that should attach to non-
parties or to the credit market generally the bounds of the proposed program. refiner owners of credits that were
if a number of trades in this range were Another concept, allowing traders and found to have transferred invalid
allowed; on requirements that should be other entities to take title to credits, credits.
included to ensure the validity of might best be accomplished by moving We expect that such a program would
credits that have been transferred to an entirely different type of credit require that all refiners and importers
multiple times; on procedures for program, since it might require a set of have their credits (and therefore
identifying which credits have been other related changes in order to compliance) verified each year. Given
transferred if the credit transferor is function effectively. For example, it may the resource needs for EPA to undertake
found to have had in its possession both be possible to design the benzene such verifications, we would expect to
valid and invalid credits; and on trading program and related compliance require refiners to utilize independent
appropriate consequences to the assurance provisions in a manner that auditors, sufficient for the auditor to
generator and/or transferor of invalid would allow benzene credits to be make a verified audit finding that the
credits. In addition, EPA seeks comment traded on the open market like many company’s assertions regarding credit
on mechanisms that would allow other commodities and not unlike the creation are correct. We believe that
companies to establish the validity of way SO2 credits are traded under the verification of credits in this manner
credits they have purchased without the Acid Rain Program, or how carbon would require a complete audit of the
need for EPA audits. Thus, EPA requests credits are traded through the voluntary gasoline production and testing records
comment on whether companies that trading program established by the related to the benzene content and
obtain credits that have previously been Chicago Climate Exchange. We next volume of gasoline produced or
purchased should be required to discuss such an alternate credit imported, including reviews and
establish their validity through reports program. reconciliation of all batch information.
of independent audits of the credit- The audit also would also have to
creation activities of the company that The proposed restriction of benzene include sufficient review of records of
created the credits and of the credit credit use to refiners and importers does product sales to verify the completeness
activities of any intermediary entities to not provide an opportunity for other of the gasoline production records. The
which the credits had been transferred. entities to participate in this credit independent auditor performing such an
market by taking title to credits.320 The audit would have to be qualified to
Case-By-Case Relaxation of Compliance inability of traders to take actual title to understand and review the records of
Restrictions credits may reduce the ability of the gasoline production and testing
In addition to seeking comment on market to function in certain ways generated at a refinery, or the
general modifications discussed above including, for example, to hedge against importation and testing records
to the proposed provisions, we also risk effectively or to aggregate small associated with imported gasoline. To
request comment on allowing regulated holdings into larger blocks for sale. This the extent that gasoline testing was
entities to petition for case-by-case might be avoided if the program conducted by independent laboratories,
relaxation of specific provisions in provided for benzene credits to be the credit audit would have to include
special cases. For example, such a owned, and for entities other than the activities of the independent
provision might allow a refiner to laboratory to make an audit finding of

petition EPA to allow a specific group 320 In the proposed program non-refiners would
the validity of the laboratory test results.
of credits to be traded one or more be allowed to facilitate, or broker, credit EPA would then continue to have the
transactions between refiners or importers. Thus, a
additional times than the final rule refiner (or importer) that needed to purchase credits ability to perform spot audits.
ultimately allows. Petitioners might also could contract with a broker to identify refiners or EPA seeks comment on whether the
be allowed to request an extension of importers that have credits to sell. regulations should require that these
independent audits must be conducted credits from its compliance calculations. privately established trading program.
by an independent audit organization If this recalculation resulted in a The Chicago Climate Exchange provides
that is funded by an industry violation of the benzene standard, the a trading platform with a registry for
consortium, rather than by audit firms party would be subject to an credits and clearing facility. The NASD
individually retained by refiners/ enforcement action for this violation, provides market surveillance and
importers. The industry consortium regardless of whether the invalid credits verification of emission credits. EPA
would submit to EPA for approval: the were purchased in good faith (although seeks comment on how such an
consortium organization; the the party may be permitted to remedy independent organization could be
qualifications of the individual auditors; such violations through the subsequent established; what requirements should
the general audit plans, and any audit purchase of valid credits). This is EPA establish for the organization; what
plans that are specific to an individual intended to maintain the environmental reporting would be required by
company. The audit organization would benefits of the program and to companies to the organization; and what
submit audit reports to EPA and to the encourage self-policing by the industry reporting would be required by the
companies that were the subject of their of the validity of the credits they use for organization to EPA.
audits. compliance. However, in this situation We request comment on the
The refiners and importers would EPA would look first to the generator of appropriateness of such an alternative
then assign a unique serial number to the invalid credits to remedy the ABT program for the proposed benzene
each credit containing key information shortfall. If this generator could make control program and how it might work
including the entity’s registration up any credit deficit, EPA normally and be enforced.
number, the year, and the credit would defer enforcement against the
number. These entities would then user or intermediary transferor of B. Vehicles
report this information to EPA as a part invalid credits. For vehicles, we considered normal
of their annual compliance report. temperature standards more stringent
Credits properly generated under such a 2. Alternative ABT Options
than Tier 2 standards, which would
program could then be traded freely EPA seeks comment on whether the likely entail hardware changes to Tier 2
until they were used. If an audit regulations should create two options vehicles. This option is discussed in
determined that some credits were for benzene credits: one that is based on section VI. We did not consider a less
improperly generated, a mechanism the credit enforcement provisions stringent standard for cold temperature
would be required to decide which contained in the proposed fuels NMHC control because CAA sections
credits were considered to be valid and program, resulting in credits with more 202(a) and 202(l) require us to establish
which invalid. limited credit life that must be the most stringent standards achievable
Given EPA’s resource constraints, transferred from the credit generator to considering cost and other factors. We
EPA seeks comment on a mechanism the credit user; and ‘‘verified’’ benzene believe that the proposed cold NMHC
that would allow refiners and importers, credits that have a longer credit life and standards and phase-in for Tier 2
and non-refiner owners of credits (if that can be owned by companies other vehicles satisfy these CAA
allowed) to conduct this detailed than refiners/importers. Under this requirements, and a less stringent
tracking of individual credits, with approach, benzene credits could be standard would not.
reconciliation of the reports of all ‘‘verified’’ if certain conditions are met.
parties transferring, obtaining, or First, the credit generator would need to C. Gas Cans
holding credits. Thus, EPA seeks participate in an audit consortium (as For gas cans, as discussed in section
comment on whether the regulations described above) and the credits would VIII, we are proposing an emissions
should include an option whereby need to be verified through an audit performance standard we believe
companies that wish to sell, purchase or conducted by this organization. Second, reflects the performance of the best
hold verified credits would fund an the credit generator and any other available control technologies. We
independent organization that would company that took title to or used these considered but are not proposing
function as the clearinghouse of credits would need to participate in a options for design-based requirements,
benzene credits. EPA also seeks benzene credit clearing house (as including requirements for automatic
comment on how such an independent described above). In this way, shut-off spouts. We also considered but
organization option should be companies that wished to generate are not proposing retrofit requirements
structured: What would be the benzene credits with longer life and for gas cans. These options are
qualifications of the organization and broader ownership options could do so, discussed in sections VIII.B.3–VIII.B.5.
how would they be established; how but also would bear at least part of the
would the method of operations of the expense associated with establishing the XI. Public Participation
organization be established and validity and tracking the movements of We request comment on all aspects of
approved by EPA; what reporting by this class of credits. At the same time, this proposal. This section describes
companies to the organization would be companies that wished to generate and how you can participate in this process.
required, and what reporting to EPA by transfer credits in the traditional
the organization would be required; and manner, would not bear these extra A. How Do I Submit Comments?
how would the organization establish expenses. We are opening a formal comment
the validity of credits that are the EPA also seeks comment on an period by publishing this document. We
subject of reports from companies. approach that would allow refiners and will accept comments during the period
In addition, as in past programs, if importers, and non-refiner owners of indicated under DATES above. If you
credits were later found to be credits (if allowed), to establish a have an interest in the proposed
improperly created, the party that private clearing house to conduct the emission control program described in
generated the invalid credits and the detailed tracking of individual credits, this document, we encourage you to
party that used the invalid credits with reconciliation of the reports of all comment on any aspect of this
would be subject to EPA enforcement. parties transferring, obtaining, or rulemaking. We also request comment
The party using the invalid credits holding credits. The Chicago Climate on specific topics identified throughout
would be required to remove the invalid Exchange provides an example of a this proposal.
Your comments will be most useful if C. Will There Be a Public Hearing? identification number in the subject line
you include appropriate and detailed We will hold a public hearing on on the first page of your response. It
supporting rationale, data, and analysis. April 12, 2006 at the Sheraton Crystal would also be helpful if you provided
Commenters are especially encouraged City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis the name, date, and Federal Register
to provide specific suggestions for any Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202, citation related to your comments.
changes to any aspect of the regulations Telephone: (703) 486–1111. The hearing
that they believe need to be modified or XII. Statutory and Executive Order
will start at 10 a.m. local time and Reviews
improved. You should send all
continue until everyone has had a
comments, except those containing A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
chance to speak.
proprietary information, to our Air Planning and Review
If you would like to present testimony
Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the end
at the public hearing, we ask that you Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
of the comment period.
You may submit comments notify the contact person listed under 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
electronically, by mail, or through hand FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at must determine whether the regulatory
delivery/courier. To ensure proper least ten days before the hearing. You action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate should estimate the time you will need subject to Office of Management and
docket identification number in the for your presentation and identify any Budget (OMB) review and the
subject line on the first page of your needed audio/visual equipment. We requirements of the Executive Order.
comment. Please ensure that your suggest that you bring copies of your The Executive Order defines a
comments are submitted within the statement or other material for the EPA ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one
specified comment period. Comments panel and the audience. It would also be that is likely to result in a rule that may:
received after the close of the comment helpful if you send us a copy of your • Have an annual effect on the
period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not statement or other materials before the economy of $100 million or more or
required to consider these late hearing. adversely affect in a material way the
comments. If you wish to submit CBI or We will make a tentative schedule for economy, a sector of the economy,
information that is otherwise protected the order of testimony based on the productivity, competition, jobs, the
by statute, please follow the instructions notifications we receive. This schedule environment, public health or safety, or
in section XI.B. will be available on the morning of the State, Local, or Tribal governments or
hearing. In addition, we will reserve a communities;
B. How Should I Submit CBI to the block of time for anyone else in the • Create a serious inconsistency or
Agency? audience who wants to give testimony. otherwise interfere with an action taken
Do not submit information that you We will conduct the hearing or planned by another agency;
consider to be CBI electronically informally, and technical rules of • Materially alter the budgetary
through the electronic public docket, evidence won’t apply. We will arrange impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
www.regulations.gov, or by e-mail. Send for a written transcript of the hearing or loan programs, or the rights and
or deliver information identified as CBI and keep the official record of the obligations of recipients thereof; or
only to the following address: U.S. hearing open for 30 days to allow you • Raise novel legal or policy issues
Environmental Protection Agency, to submit supplementary information. arising out of legal mandates, the
Assessment and Standards Division, You may make arrangements for copies President’s priorities, or the principles
2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI of the transcript directly with the court set forth in the Executive Order.
48105, Attention Docket ID EPA–HQ– reporter. Pursuant to the terms of Executive
OAR–2005–0036. You may claim Order 12866, it has been determined
information that you submit to EPA as D. Comment Period that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory
CBI by marking any part or all of that The comment period for this rule will action’’ because estimated annual costs
information as CBI (if you submit CBI end on May 30, 2006. of this rulemaking are estimated to be
on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside over $100 million per year and it raises
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then novel legal or policy issues. A draft
My Comments for EPA?
identify electronically within the disk or Regulatory Impact Analysis has been
CD ROM the specific information that is You may find the following prepared and is available in the docket
CBI). Information so marked will not be suggestions helpful for preparing your for this rulemaking and at the docket
disclosed except in accordance with comments: internet address listed under ADDRESSES
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. • Explain your views as clearly as above. This action was submitted to the
In addition to one complete version of possible. Office of Management and Budget for
the comment that includes any • Describe any assumptions that you review under Executive Order 12866.
information claimed as CBI, a copy of used. Written comments from OMB and
the comment that does not contain the • Provide any technical information responses from EPA to OMB comments
information claimed as CBI must be and/or data you used that support your are in the public docket for this
submitted for inclusion in the public views. rulemaking.
docket. If you submit the copy that does • If you estimate potential burden or
not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, costs, explain how you arrived at your B. Paperwork Reduction Act
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM estimate. The information collection
clearly that it does not contain CBI. • Provide specific examples to requirements in this proposed rule have
Information not marked as CBI will be illustrate your concerns. been submitted for approval to the
included in the public docket without • Offer alternatives. Office of Management and Budget
prior notice. If you have any questions • Make sure to submit your (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
about CBI or the procedures for claiming comments by the comment period Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Agency
CBI, please consult the person identified deadline identified. proposes to collect information to
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION • To ensure proper receipt by EPA, ensure compliance with the provisions
CONTACT section. identify the appropriate docket in this rule. This includes a variety of
requirements, both for vehicle information meeting the requirements of the total time, effort, or financial
manufacturers, fuel producers, and section 208(c) of the Clean Air Act. For resources expended by persons to
portable gasoline container portable gasoline container standards, generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
manufacturers. Information-collection recordkeeping and reporting provide information to or for a Federal
requirements related to vehicle requirements for manufacturers would agency. This includes the time needed
manufacturers are in EPA ICR #0783.50 be pursuant to the authority of sections to review instructions; develop, acquire,
(OMB Control Number 2060–0104); 183(e) and 111 of the Clean Air Act. install, and utilize technology and
requirements related to fuel producers As shown in Table XII.B–1, the total systems for the purposes of collecting,
are in EPA ICR #1591.20 (OMB Control annual burden associated with this validating, and verifying information,
Number 2060–0277); requirements proposal is about 24,696 hours and processing and maintaining
related to portable gasoline container $2,771,309, based on a projection of 225 information, and disclosing and
manufacturers are in EPA ICR #2213.01. respondents. The estimated burden for providing information; adjust the
For vehicle and fuel standards, section vehicle manufacturers and fuel existing ways to comply with any
208(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that producers is a total estimate for both previously applicable instructions and
manufacturers provide information the new and existing reporting requirements; train personnel to be able
Administrator may reasonably require to requirements. The portable gasoline to respond to a collection of
determine compliance with the container requirements represent our information; search data sources;
regulations; submission of the first regulation of gas cans, so those complete and review the collection of
information is therefore mandatory. We burden estimates reflect only new information; and transmit or otherwise
will consider confidential all reporting requirements. Burden means disclose the information.
TABLE XII.B–1.—ESTIMATED BURDEN FOR REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

Number of Annual burden
Industry sector Annual costs
respondents hours
Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... 35 770 $80,900

Fuels ............................................................................................................................................ 185 23,710 2,677,410
Gas Cans ..................................................................................................................................... 5 216 12,999
Total ...................................................................................................................................... 225 24,696 2,771,309
An agency may not conduct or 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC other statute unless the agency certifies
sponsor, and a person is not required to 20503, ‘‘Attention: Desk Office for that the rule will not have a significant
respond to a collection of information EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any economic impact on a substantial
unless it displays a currently valid OMB correspondence. Since OMB is required number of small entities. Small entities
control number. The OMB control to make a decision concerning the ICR include small businesses, small
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed between 30 and 60 days after March 29, organizations, and small governmental
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 2006, a comment to OMB is best assured jurisdictions.
To comment on the Agency’s need for of having its full effect if OMB receives For purposes of assessing the impacts
this information, the accuracy of the it by April 28, 2006. The final rule will of today’s rule on small entities, small
provided burden estimates, and any respond to any OMB or public entity is defined as: (1) A small business
suggested methods for minimizing comments on the information collection as defined by the Small Business
respondent burden, including the use of requirements contained in this proposal. Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
automated collection techniques, EPA C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as CFR 121.201 (see table below); (2) a
has established a public docket for this Amended by the Small Business small governmental jurisdiction that is a
rule, which includes this ICR, under Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of government of a city, county, town,
Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR– 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. school district or special district with a
2005–0036. Submit any comments population of less than 50,000; and (3)
related to the ICR for this proposed rule 1. Overview a small organization that is any not-for-
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) profit enterprise which is independently
section at the beginning of this notice generally requires an agency to prepare owned and operated and is not
for where to submit comments to EPA. a regulatory flexibility analysis of any dominant in its field. The following
Send comments to OMB at the Office of rule subject to notice and comment table provides an overview of the
Information and Regulatory Affairs, rulemaking requirements under the primary SBA small business categories
Office of Management and Budget, 725 Administrative Procedure Act or any potentially affected by this regulation:
Industry Defined as small entity by SBA if less than or equal to NAICS codes a
Light-duty vehicles:
—Vehicle manufacturers (including small volume manufac- 1,000 employees ........................................................................ 336111
turers).
—Independent commercial importers .................................. $6 million annual sales .............................................................. 811111,

811112,
811198
—Alternative fuel vehicle converters ................................... 100 employees ........................................................................... 424720
1,000 employees ........................................................................ 335312
$6 million annual sales .............................................................. 811198
Gasoline fuel refiners .................................................................. 1500 employees b ...................................................................... 324110
Industry Defined as small entity by SBA if less than or equal to NAICS codes a
Portable fuel container manufacturers:

—Plastic container manufacturers ....................................... 500 employees ........................................................................... 326199
—Metal gas can manufacturers .......................................... 1,000 employees ........................................................................ 332431
Notes:
a North American Industrial Classification System.
b EPA has included in past fuels rulemakings a provision that, in order to qualify for EPA’s small refiner flexibilities, a refiner must also produce
no greater than 155,000 bpcd crude capacity.
2. Background is included in the docket for this status under an MSAT program could be
Mobile sources emit air toxics that proposed rule, and a summary of the much different than these initial
can cause cancer and other serious Panel process, and subsequent Panel estimates. Current data further indicates
health effects (Section III of this recommendations, is summarized that these refiners produce about 2.5
preamble and Chapter 1 of the below. percent of the total gasoline pool.
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for 3. Summary of Regulated Small Entities c. Portable Gasoline Container
this rule describe these compounds and Manufacturers
their health effects). Mobile sources The following section discusses the
contribute significantly to the small entities directly regulated by this EPA conducted a preliminary
nationwide risk from breathing outdoor proposed rule. industry profile to identify the
sources of air toxics. In today’s action manufacturers of portable gasoline
a. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles
we are proposing: standards to limit the containers (gas cans)—98 percent are
exhaust hydrocarbons from passenger In addition to the major vehicle plastic containers and 2 percent are
vehicles during cold temperature manufacturers, three distinct categories metal gas cans. Using this industry
operation; evaporative hydrocarbon of businesses relating to highway light- profile, EPA identified 4 domestic
emissions standards for passenger duty vehicles would be covered by the manufacturers and 1 foreign
vehicles; limiting the average annual new vehicle standards: small volume manufacturer. Of these 4 U.S.
benzene content of gasoline; and manufacturers (SVMs), independent manufacturers, 3 meet the SBA
hydrocarbon emissions standards for gas commercial importers (ICIs), and definition of a small entity. One small
cans that would reduce evaporation, alternative fuel vehicle converters. business accounted for over 50 percent
permeation, and spillage from these SVMs are companies that sell less than of the U.S. sales in 2002, and the other
containers. (Detailed discussion of each 15,000 vehicles per year, as defined in small entities comprised about 10
of these programs is in sections VI, VII, past EPA regulations, and this status percent of U.S. sales.
and VIII of the preamble and Chapters allows vehicle models to be certified
4. Potential Reporting, Record Keeping,
5, 6, and 7 of the RIA). We are proposing under a slightly simpler certification
and Compliance
the standards for vehicles and gasoline process. Independent commercial
under section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air importers are companies that hold a For highway light-duty vehicles, EPA
Act (CAA), which directs EPA to Certificate (or certificates) of Conformity is proposing to continue the reporting,
establish requirements to control permitting them to alter imported recordkeeping, and compliance
emissions of mobile source air toxics vehicles to meet U.S emission requirements prescribed for this
(MSATs) from new motor vehicles and standards. Alternative fuel vehicle category in 40 CFR 86. Key among these
fuels. Controls for gas cans are being converters are businesses that convert requirements are certification
pursued under CAA section 183(e), the gasoline or diesel vehicles to operate on requirements and provisions related to
provisions applying to consumer and alternative fuel, and converters must reporting of production, emissions
commercial products. seek a certificate for all of their vehicle information, flexibility use, etc.
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, models. Based on a preliminary For any fuel control program, EPA
EPA prepared an initial regulatory assessment, EPA identified about 14 must have assurance that fuel produced
flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines SVMs, 10 alternative fuel vehicle by refiners meets the applicable
the impact of the proposed rule on small converters, and 10 ICIs. Of these, EPA standard, and that the fuel continues to
entities along with regulatory believes 5 SVMs, 6 converters, and all meet the standard as it passes
alternatives that could reduce that 10 ICIs would meet the small-entity downstream through the distribution
impact. The IRFA, as summarized criteria as defined by SBA (no major system to the ultimate end user. EPA
below, is available for review in the vehicle manufacturers meet the small- expects that recordkeeping, reporting
docket and Chapter 14 of the RIA. entity criteria). EPA estimates that these and compliance provisions of the
As required by section 609(b) of the small entities comprise about 0.02 proposed rule will be fairly consistent
RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also percent of the total light-duty vehicle with those in place today for other fuel
conducted outreach to small entities sales in the U.S. for the year 2004. programs. For example, reporting would
and convened a Small Business likely involve requiring that refiners
b. Gasoline Refiners submit pre-compliance reports updating
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice
and recommendations of representatives EPA’s current assessment is that 15 EPA on their plans to meet the MSAT
of the small entities that potentially refiners meet SBA’s criterion of having standards.
would be subject to the rule’s 1,500 employees or less. It should be For gas cans, there currently are not
requirements. noted that because of the dynamics in federal emission control requirements,
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA the refining industry (i.e., mergers and and thus, EPA is proposing new
requirements, the Panel evaluated the acquisitions) and decisions by some reporting and record keeping
assembled materials and small-entity refiners to enter or leave the gasoline requirements for gas can manufacturers
comments on issues related to elements market, the actual number of refiners that would be subject to the proposed
of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report that ultimately qualify for small refiner standards. EPA is proposing
requirements that would be similar to businesses as a result of this rule. In general, SERs representing the gas
those in the California program, such as During the SBREFA Panel process, the can manufacturers industry raised
submitting emissions testing Panel sought out and received concerns on how the MSAT rule’s
information, reporting of certification comments on the regulatory options and requirements would be coordinated
families, and use of transition flexibilities that were presented to SERs with the California program and other
provisions. and Panel members. The major requirements, and that there should be
flexibilities and hardship relief adequate opportunity for sell through at
5. Relevant Federal Rules provisions that were recommended by the start of the program. The small
We are aware of a few other current the Panel are described below and are volume manufacturer, ICI, and vehicle
or proposed Federal rules that are also located in Section 9 of the SBREFA converter SERs that participated had
related to the upcoming proposed rule. Final Panel Report which is available in questions about the form of the new
The primary federal rules that are the public docket. standards for light-duty vehicles,
related to the proposed MSAT rule specifically testing and certification
b. Panel Process
under consideration are the first MSAT requirements. The gasoline refiner SERs
rule (Federal Register Vol. 66, p. 17230, As required by section 609(b) of the generally stated that they believed that
March 29, 2001), the Tier 2 Vehicle/ RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we also small refiners would face challenges in
Gasoline Sulfur rulemaking (Federal conducted outreach to small entities meeting a new standard. More
Register Vol. 65, p. 6698, February 10, and convened an SBAR Panel to obtain specifically, they raised the concern that
2000), the fuel sulfur rules for highway advice and recommendations of the rule could be very costly and
diesel (Federal Register Vol. 66, p. representatives of the small entities that dependence on credits may not be a
5002, January 18, 2001) and nonroad potentially would be subject to the comfortable situation; they were also
diesel (Federal Register Vol. 69, p. rule’s requirements. concerned about the timing of the
38958, June 29, 2004), and the Cold On September 7, 2005, EPA’s Small
standards for this rule, given other
Temperature Carbon Monoxide Business Advocacy Chairperson
upcoming fuel standards.
Rulemaking (Federal Register Vol. 57, convened a Panel under Section 609(b)
of the RFA. In addition to the Chair, the The Panel’s findings and discussions
p. 31888, July 17, 1992). were based on the information that was
In addition, the Evaporative Panel consisted of the Division Director
of the Assessment and Standards available during the term of the Panel
Emissions Streamlining Direct Final and issues that were raised by the SERs
Rulemaking was issued on December 8, Division of EPA’s Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, the during the outreach meetings and in
2005 (Federal Register Vol. 70, p. their comments. It was agreed that EPA
72917). For gas cans, OSHA has safety Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, and the should consider the issues raised by the
regulations for gasoline containers used SERs (and discussions had by the Panel
Administrator of the Office of
in workplace settings. Cans meeting itself) and that EPA should consider
Information and Regulatory Affairs
OSHA requirements, commonly called comments on flexibility alternatives that
within the Office of Management and
safety cans, are exempt from the would help to mitigate any negative
Budget. As part of the SBAR Panel
California program, and we are planning impacts on small businesses.
process, we conducted outreach with
to exempt them from the EPA program. Alternatives discussed throughout the
representatives from the various small
Section 1501 of the Energy Policy Act Panel process included those offered in
entities that would be affected by the
of 2005 requires the Agency to previous or current EPA rulemakings, as
proposed rulemaking. We met with
implement a Renewable Fuels Standard well as alternatives suggested by SERs
these Small Entity Representatives
(RFS) program. Beginning in 2006, this (SERs) to discuss the potential and Panel members, and the Panel
program will require increasing volumes rulemaking approaches and potential recommended that all be considered in
of renewable fuel to be used in gasoline, options to decrease the impact of the the development of the rule. Though
until a total of 7.5 billion gallons is rulemaking on their industries. We some of the flexibilities suggested may
required in 2012. The most prevalent distributed outreach materials to the be appropriate to apply to all entities
renewable fuel is expected to be SERs; these materials included affected by the rulemaking, the Panel’s
ethanol. There are a wide variety of background on the rulemaking, possible discussions and recommendations were
potential impacts of ethanol blending on regulatory approaches, and possible focused mainly on the impacts, and
MSAT emissions that will be evaluated rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met ways to mitigate adverse impacts, on
as part of the RFS rulemaking process. with SERs from the industries that will small businesses. A summary of these
In general, as ethanol use increases, be directly affected by the MSAT rule recommendations is detailed below, and
other sources of octane in gasoline can on September 27, 2005 (gasoline a full discussion of the regulatory
decrease. Depending on these changes, refiners) and September 29, 2005 (light- alternatives and hardship provisions
the impact on benzene emissions will duty vehicles and portable gasoline discussed and recommended by the
vary. The specific effects of ethanol on containers) to discuss the outreach Panel can be found in the SBREFA Final
benzene will be addressed in the materials and receive feedback on the Panel Report. A complete discussion of
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to this approaches and alternatives detailed in the transition and hardship provisions
rule and in future rulemakings, such as the outreach packet (the Panel also met that we are proposing in today’s action
the RFS rule. with SERs on July 19, 2005 for an initial can be found in Sections VI.E, VII.E, and
6. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process outreach meeting). The Panel received VIII (vehicle, fuels, and gas can sections)
and Panel Outreach written comments from the SERs of this preamble. Also, the Panel Report
following the meeting in response to includes all comments received from
a. Significant Panel Findings discussions had at the meeting and the SERs (Appendices D and E of the
The Small Business Advocacy Review questions posed to the SERs by the Report) and summaries of the two
Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel) Agency. The SERs were specifically outreach meetings that were held with
considered many regulatory options and asked to provide comment on regulatory the SERs (Appendices B and C). In
flexibilities that would help mitigate alternatives that could help to minimize accordance with the RFA/SBREFA
potential adverse effects on small the rule’s impact on small businesses. requirements, the Panel evaluated the
aforementioned materials and SER standards in 2011. For a 2010 The Panel was also in support of
comments on issues related to the Initial implementation date for heavy light- allowing refiners (small, as well as non-
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). duty trucks and medium-duty passenger small, refiners) to generate credits for
The following sections describe the vehicles, SVMs would need to comply reductions to their benzene emissions
Panel recommendations from the SBAR in 2012. levels, rather than credits only for
Panel Report. meeting the benzene standard that is set
(b) Highway Light-Duty Vehicle by the rule.
c. Small Business Flexibilities Hardships The Panel recommended a review of
The Panel recommended that EPA In addition, the Panel recommended the credit trading program and small
consider and seek comment on a wide that hardship flexibility provisions be refiner flexibility options one year after
range of regulatory alternatives to extended to SVMs for the cold the general program starts. Such a
mitigate the impacts of the rulemaking temperature VOC and evaporative review could take into account the
on small businesses, including those emission standards. The provisions that number of early credits generated, as
flexibility options described below. As the Panel recommended are: well as the number of credits generated
previously stated, the following SVMs would be allowed to apply and sold during the first year of the
discussion is a summary of the SBAR (EPA would need to review and approve program. Further, a review after the first
Panel recommendations; our proposals application) for up to an additional 2 year of the program would still provide
regarding these recommendations are years to meet the 100 percent phase-in small refiners with the three years that
located in earlier sections of this rule requirements for cold VOC and the it was suggested would be needed for
preamble. delayed requirement for evaporative these refiners to obtain financing and
emissions. Appeals for such hardship perform engineering and construction
i. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles for benzene reduction equipment.
relief must be made in writing, must be
(a) Highway Light-Duty Vehicle submitted before the earliest date of Should the review conclude that
Flexibilities noncompliance, must include evidence changes to either the program or the
that the noncompliance will occur small refiner provisions are necessary,
For certification purposes (and for the
despite the manufacturer’s best efforts to the Panel recommended that EPA also
sake of simplicity for Panel discussions
comply, and must include evidence that consider some of the suggestions
regarding flexibility options), SVMs
severe economic hardship will be faced provided by the small refiners (their
include ICIs and alternative fuel vehicle comments are located in Appendix E of
converters since they sell less than by the company if the relief is not
granted. the Final Panel Report), such as:
15,000 vehicles per year. Similar to the • The general MSAT program should
flexibility provisions implemented in ii. Gasoline Refiners require pre-compliance reporting
the Tier 2 rule, the Panel recommended (similar to EPA’s highway and nonroad
that we allow SVMs (includes all (a) Gasoline Refiner Flexibilities
diesel rules);
vehicle small entities that would be The Panel recommended that EPA • Following the review, EPA should
affected by this rule, which are the propose certain provisions to encourage revisit the small refiner provisions if it
majority of SVMs) the following early compliance with lower benzene is found that the credit trading market
flexibility options for meeting cold standards. The Panel recommended that does not exist, or if credits are only
temperature VOC standards and EPA propose that small refiners be available at a cost that would not allow
evaporative emission standards: afforded the following flexibility small refiners to purchase credits for
For cold VOC standards, the Panel options to help mitigate the impacts on compliance;
recommended that SVMs simply small refiners: • The review should offer ways either
comply with the standards with 100 Delay in Standards—The Panel to help the credit market, or help small
percent of their vehicles during the last recommended that a four-year delay refiners gain access to credits (e.g., EPA
year of the 4 year phase-in period. For period be proposed for small refiners. A could ‘‘create’’ credits to introduce to
example, if the standard for light-duty four-year delay would be needed in the market, EPA could impose
vehicles and light light-duty trucks (0 to order to allow for a review of the ABT additional requirements to encourage
6,000 pounds GVWR) were to begin in program, as discussed below, to occur trading with small refiners, etc.).
2010 and end in 2013 (25%, 50%, 75%, one year after implementation but still In addition, the Panel recommended
100% phase-in over 4 years), the SVM three years prior to the small refiner that EPA consider in this rulemaking
provision would be 100 percent in 2013. compliance deadline. It was noted by establishing an additional hardship
If the standard for heavy light-duty the small refiners that three years are provision to assist those small refiners
trucks and medium-duty passenger generally needed for small refiners to that cannot comply with the MSAT with
vehicles (greater than 6,000 pounds obtain financing and perform a viable credit market. (This suggested
GVWR) were to start in 2012 (25%, engineering and construction. The Panel hardship provision was also suggested
50%, 75%, 100% phase-in over 4 years), was also in support of allowing for by the small refiners in their comments,
the SVM provision would be 100 refinery expansion within the delay located in Appendix E of the Final
percent in 2015. option, and recommended that refinery Panel Report). This hardship provision
In regard to evaporative emission expansion be provided for in the rule. could address concerns that, for some
standards, the Panel recommended that Early ABT Credits—The Panel small refineries, compliance may be
since the evaporative emissions recommended that early credit technically feasible only through the
standards will not have phase-in years, generation be afforded to small refiners purchase of credits and it may not be
we allow SVMs to simply comply with that take some steps to meet the benzene economically feasible to purchase those
standards during the third year of the requirement prior to the effective date of credits. This flexibility could be
program (we have implemented similar the standard. Depending on the start provided to a small refiner on a case-by-
provisions in past rulemakings). For a date of the program, and coupled with case basis following the review and
2009 start date for light-duty vehicles the four-year delay option, a small based on a summary, by the refiner, of
and light light-duty trucks, SVMs would refiner could have a total credit technical or financial infeasibility (or
need to meet the evaporative emission generation period of five to seven years. some other type of similar situation that
would render its compliance with the manufacturer would submit adequate Permit small manufacturers to apply
standard difficult). This hardship engineering and other information about for hardship relief if circumstances
provision might include further delays its individual design such that EPA outside their control cause the failure to
and/or a slightly relaxed standard on an could determine that the emissions comply (i.e. supply contract broken by
individual refinery basis for a duration performance of their individual design parts supplier) and if failure to sell the
of two years; in addition, provision would not be negatively impacted by subject containers would have a major
might allow the refinery to request, and slosh, UV exposure, and/or pressure impact on the company’s solvency. The
EPA grant, multiple extensions of the cycling (whichever tests the terms and timeframe of the relief would
flexibility until the refinery’s material manufacturer is proposing to not run depend on the specific circumstances of
situation changes. The Panel also stated prior to emissions testing). the company and the situation involved.
that it understood that EPA may need to Broaden Certification Families—This As part of its application, a company
modify or rescind this provision, should approach would relax the criteria used would be required to provide a
it be implemented, based on the results to determine what constitutes a compliance plan detailing when and
of the program review. certification family. It would allow how it would achieve compliance with
small businesses to limit their the standards under both types of
(b) Gasoline Refiner Hardships certification families (and therefore their hardship relief.
During the Panel process, we stated certification testing burden), rather than We invite comments on all aspects of
that we intended to propose the extreme testing all of the various size containers the proposal and its impacts on small
unforeseen circumstances hardship and in a manufacturer’s product line. Some entities.
extreme hardship provisions (for all small entities may be able to put all of
gasoline refiners and importers), similar their various size containers into a D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
to those in prior fuels programs. A single certification family. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
hardship based on extreme unforeseen Manufacturers would then certify their Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
circumstances is intended to provide containers using the ‘‘worst case’’ Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
short term relief due to unanticipated configuration within the family. To be Federal agencies to assess the effects of
circumstances beyond the control of the grouped together, containers would their regulatory actions on State, local,
refiner, such as a natural disaster or a need to be manufactured using the same and tribal governments and the private
refinery fire; an extreme hardship is materials and processes even though sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
intended to provide short-term relief they are of different sizes. EPA generally must prepare a written
based on extreme circumstances (e.g., Additional Lead-time—Since it may
statement, including a cost-benefit
extreme financial problems, extreme take additional time for the gas can
analysis, for proposed and final rules
operational or technical problems, etc.) SERs to gather information to fully
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
that impose extreme hardship and thus evaluate whether or not additional lead-
result in expenditures to State, local,
significantly affect a refiner’s ability to time is needed beyond the 2009 start
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
comply with the program requirements date, the Panel recommended that we
or to the private sector, of $100 million
by the applicable dates. The Panel discuss lead-time in the proposal and
or more in any one year. Before
agreed with the proposal of such request comments on the need for
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
provisions and recommended that we additional lead-time to allow
written statement is needed, section 205
include them in the MSAT rulemaking. manufacturers to ramp up to a
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
nationwide program.
iii. Portable Gasoline Containers Product Sell-through—As with past identify and consider a reasonable
rulemakings for other source sectors, the number of regulatory alternatives and
(a) Portable Gasoline Container adopt the least costly, most cost-
Flexibilities Panel recommended that EPA propose
to allow normal sell through of gas cans effective, or least burdensome
Since nearly all gas can manufacturers as long as manufacturers do not create alternative that achieves the objectives
are small entities and they account for stockpiles of noncomplying gas cans of the rule. The provisions of section
about 60 percent of sales, the Panel prior to the start of the program. 205 do not apply when they are
planned to extend the flexibility options inconsistent with applicable law.
to all gas can manufacturers. Moreover, (b) Portable Gasoline Container Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
implementation of the program would Hardships adopt an alternative other than the least
be much simpler by doing so. The The Panel recommended that EPA costly, most cost-effective, or least
recommended flexibilities are the propose two types of hardship programs burdensome alternative if the
following: for small gas can manufacturers. These Administrator publishes with the final
Design Certification—The Panel provisions are: rule an explanation of why that
recommended that we propose to permit Allow small manufacturers to petition alternative was not adopted.
gas can manufacturers to use design EPA for limited additional lead-time to Before EPA establishes any regulatory
certification in lieu of running any or all comply with the standards. A requirements that may significantly or
of the durability aging cycles. manufacturer would have to make the uniquely affect small governments,
Manufacturers could demonstrate the case that it has taken all possible including tribal governments, it must
durability of their gas cans based in part business, technical, and economic steps have developed under section 203 of the
on emissions test data from designs to comply but the burden of compliance UMRA a small government agency plan.
using the same permeation barriers and costs would have a significant adverse The plan must provide for notifying
materials. Under a design-based effect on the company’s solvency. potentially affected small governments,
certification program a manufacturer Hardship relief could include enabling officials of affected small
would provide evidence in the requirements for interim emission governments to have meaningful and
application for certification that their reductions. The length of the hardship timely input in the development of EPA
container would meet the applicable relief would be established during the regulatory proposals with significant
standards based on its design (e.g., use initial review and would likely need to federal intergovernmental mandates,
of a particular permeation barrier). The be reviewed annually thereafter. and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Exposure to a number of the
the regulatory requirements. and Coordination With Indian Tribal compounds addressed in this rule may
This rule contains no federal Governments have a disproportionate effect on
mandates for state, local, or tribal Executive Order 13175, entitled children. First, exposure to carcinogens
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with that cause cancer through a mutagenic
governments as defined by the
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR mode of action during childhood
provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA development may have an
rule imposes no enforceable duties on incrementally disproportionate impact.
any of these governmental entities. to develop an accountable process to
Because of their small size, increased
Nothing in the rule would significantly ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
activity, and increased ventilation rates
or uniquely affect small governments. tribal officials in the development of
compared to adults, children may have
EPA has determined that this rule regulatory policies that have tribal
greater exposure to these compounds in
contains federal mandates that may implications.’’
the ambient air, on a unit body weight
result in expenditures of more than This proposed rule does not have
basis. Moreover, for PM, because
tribal implications as specified in
$100 million to the private sector in any children’s breathing rates are higher,
Executive Order 13175. This rule will be
single year. EPA believes that the their exposures may be higher and
implemented at the Federal level and
proposal represents the least costly, because their respiratory systems are
impose compliance costs only on
most cost-effective approach to achieve still developing, children may be more
vehicle manufacturers (includes
the statutory requirements of the rule. susceptible to problems from exposure
alternative fuel vehicle converters and
The costs and benefits associated with to respiratory irritants. The public is
ICIs), fuel producers, and portable
the proposal are discussed above and in invited to submit or identify peer-
gasoline container manufacturers. Tribal reviewed studies and data, of which
the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, as governments will be affected only to the
required by the UMRA. EPA may not be aware, that assessed
extent they purchase and use regulated results of early life exposure to the
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism vehicles, fuels, and portable gasoline pollutants addressed by this rule.
containers. Thus, Executive Order
Executive Order 13132, entitled 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, specifically solicits additional comment Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
1999), requires EPA to develop an on this proposed rule from tribal Distribution, or Use
accountable process to ensure officials. This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of action’’ as defined in Executive Order
and local officials in the development of Children From Environmental Health 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
regulatory policies that have federalism and Safety Risks That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to
federalism implications’’ is defined in
Children from Environmental Health have a significant adverse effect on the
the Executive Order to include Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct supply, distribution, or use of energy. If
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that promulgated, the gasoline benzene
effects on the States, on the relationship (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically
between the national government and provisions of the proposed rule would
significant’’ as defined under Executive shift about 22,000 barrels per day of
the States, or on the distribution of Order 12866, and (2) concerns an benzene from the gasoline market to the
power and responsibilities among the environmental health or safety risk that petrochemical market. This volume
various levels of government.’’ EPA has reason to believe may have a represents about 0.2 percent of
This proposed rule does not have disproportionate effect on children. If nationwide gasoline production. The
federalism implications. It will not have the regulatory action meets both criteria, actual impact of the rule on the gasoline
substantial direct effects on the States, section 5–501 of the Order directs the market, however, is likely to be less due
on the relationship between the national Agency to evaluate the environmental to offsetting changes in the production
government and the States, or on the health or safety effects of the planned of petrochemicals, as well as expected
distribution of power and rule on children, and explain why the growth in the petrochemical market
responsibilities among the various planned regulation is preferable to other absent this rule. The major sources of
levels of government, as specified in potentially effective and reasonably benzene for the petrochemical market
Executive Order 13132. feasible alternatives considered by the other than reformate from gasoline
Agency. production are also derived from
Although section 6 of Executive Order This proposed rule is subject to the gasoline components or gasoline
13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA Executive Order because it is an feedstocks. Consequently, the expected
did consult with representatives of economically significant regulatory shift toward more benzene production
various State and local governments in action as defined by Executive Order from reformate due to this proposed rule
developing this rule. EPA has also 12866, and we believe that by would be offset by less benzene
consulted representatives from addressing the environmental health or produced from other gasoline
STAPPA/ALAPCO, which represents safety risk, this action may have a feedstocks.
state and local air pollution officials. disproportionate beneficial effect on The rule would require refiners to use
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, children. Accordingly, we have a small additional amount of energy in
evaluated the potential environmental processing gasoline to reduce benzene
and consistent with EPA policy to

health or safety effects of VOC and levels, primarily due to the increased
promote communications between EPA
toxics emissions from gasoline-fueled energy used for benzene extraction. Our
and State and local governments, EPA
mobile sources and gas cans on modeling of increased energy use
specifically solicits comment on this
children. The results of this evaluation indicates that the process energy used
proposed rule from State and local are described below and contained in by refiners to produce gasoline would
officials. section IV. increase by about one percent. Overall,
we believe that the proposed rule would temperature CO test procedures and the and 301(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
result in no significant adverse energy measurement standards for gasoline fuel sections 7414(a) and 7601(a).
impacts. parameters have served the Agency’s Statutory authority for the vehicle
The proposed gasoline benzene emissions control goals well since their controls proposed in this document can
provisions would not affect the current implementation and have been well be found in sections 202, 206, 207, 208,
gasoline distribution practices. accepted by industry. For gas cans, EPA and 301 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. sections
We discuss our analysis of the energy is proposing new procedures for 7521, 7525, 7541, 7542 and 7601.
and supply effects of the proposed measuring hydrocarbon emissions. Statutory authority for the portable
gasoline benzene standard further in EPA welcomes comments on this gasoline container controls proposed in
section IX of this preamble and in aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
Chapter 9 of the Regulatory Impact today’s document can be found in
specifically, invites the public to sections 183(e) and 111, 42 U.S.C.
Analysis. identify potentially-applicable
The fuel supply and energy effects sections 7511b(e) and 7411.
voluntary consensus standards and to
described above would be offset explain why such standards should be List of Subjects
substantially by the positive effects on used in this regulation.
gasoline supply and energy use of the 40 CFR Part 59
proposed gas can standards also J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Environmental protection,
proposed in today’s action. These Actions To Address Environmental Administrative practice and procedure,
proposed provisions would greatly Justice in Minority Populations and Confidential business information,
reduce the gasoline lost to evaporation Low-Income Populations Incorporation by reference, Labeling,
from gas cans. This would in turn Consumer or Commercial Products
Executive Order 12898 directs Federal
reduce the demand for gasoline, pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
agencies to ‘‘determine whether their
increasing the gasoline supply and recordkeeping requirements.
programs, policies, and activities have
reducing the energy used in producing
disproportionately high adverse human 40 CFR Part 80
gasoline.
health or environmental effects on
I. National Technology Transfer minority populations’ (sections 3–301 Environmental protection, Air
Advancement Act and 3–302). In developing this proposed pollution control, Fuel additives,
Section 12(d) of the National rule, EPA assessed environmental Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by
Technology Transfer and Advancement justice issues that may be relevant to reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. this proposal (see section IV of this pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) proposed rule and chapter 3 of the Draft recordkeeping requirements.
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus Regulatory Impact Analysis). 40 CFR Part 85
standards in its regulatory activities The proposed rule would reduce VOC
unless to do so would be inconsistent and toxics emissions from gasoline- Environmental protection,
with applicable law or otherwise fueled mobile sources (particularly Administrative practice and procedure,
impractical. Voluntary consensus highway light-duty vehicles) and gas Confidential business information,
standards are technical standards (e.g., cans, and thus, it would decrease the Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
materials specifications, test methods, amount of air pollution to which the pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
sampling procedures, and business entire population is exposed. EPA recordkeeping requirements, Research,
practices) that are developed or adopted evaluated the population residing close Warranties.
by voluntary consensus standards to high traffic density (near roadways), 40 CFR Part 86
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to and we found that this population has
provide Congress, through OMB, demographic differences from the Environmental protection,
explanations when the Agency decides general population, including a greater Administrative practice and procedure,
not to use available and applicable fraction of lower income and minority Confidential business information,
voluntary consensus standards. residents. Since the proposed rule Incorporation by reference, Labeling,
The proposed rulemaking involves would reduce emissions from roadways, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties,
technical standards. Therefore, the those living nearby (more likely to be Reporting and recordkeeping
Agency conducted a search to identify lower income and minority residents) requirements.
potentially applicable voluntary are likely to have a disproportionate Dated: February 28, 2006.
consensus standards. However, we benefit from the proposed rule. Thus, Stephen L. Johnson,
identified no such standards. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have a Administrator.
for the cold temperature NMHC disproportionately high adverse human
standards, EPA proposes to use the health or environmental effect on For the reasons set forth in the
existing EPA cold temperature CO test minority populations. preamble, parts 59, 80, 85 and 86 of title
procedures (manufacturers currently 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal are proposed to be amended as follows:
measure hydrocarbon emissions with
Authority
current cold CO test procedures), which PART 59—NATIONAL VOLATILE
were adopted in a previous EPA Statutory authority for the fuels ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION
rulemaking (1992). The fuel standards controls proposed in today’s document STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER AND
referenced in today’s proposed rule can be found in sections 202 and 211(c) COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
involve the measurement of gasoline of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended,
fuel parameters. The measurement 42 U.S.C. sections 7521 and 7545(c). 1. The authority citation for part 59
standards for gasoline fuel parameters Additional support for the procedural continues to read as follows:
referenced in today’s proposal are and enforcement-related aspects of the
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).
government-unique standards that were fuel controls in today’s proposal,
developed by the Agency through including the proposed recordkeeping 2. Subpart F is added to part 59 to
previous rulemakings. Both the cold requirements, come from sections 114(a) read as follows:
Subpart F—Control of Evaporative 59.697 State actions. may sell, offer for sale, or distribute any
Emissions From New and In-Use 59.698 May EPA enter my facilities for portable gasoline container that is
inspections? subject to the emissions standards of
Portable Gasoline Containers 59.699 How do I request a hearing?
this subpart and is manufactured after
Sec. December 31, 2008 unless it is covered
Subpart F—Control of Evaporative
Overview and Applicability Emissions From New and In-Use by a valid certificate of conformity and
59.600 Does this subpart apply for my Portable Gasoline Containers is labeled as required. After December
products? 31, 2009, no wholesale distributor may
59.601 Do the requirements of this subpart Overview and Applicability sell, offer for sale, or distribute any
apply to me? portable gasoline container that was
59.602 What are the general prohibitions § 59.600 Does this subpart apply for my
products? manufactured prior to January 1, 2009.
and requirements of this subpart? After December 31, 2009, all new
59.603 How must manufacturers apply (a) Except as provided in § 59.605 and
portable gasoline containers shall be
good engineering judgment? paragraph (b) and (c) of this section, the
59.605 What portable gasoline containers deemed to be manufactured after
regulations in this subpart F apply for
are excluded from this subpart’s all portable gasoline containers (defined December 31, 2008 unless they are in
requirements? in § 59.680) beginning January 1, 2009. retail inventory.
59.607 Submission of information.
(b) See § 59.602(a) and (b) to (c) Reporting and recordkeeping. (1)
Emission Standards and Related determine how to apply the provisions You must keep the records and submit
Requirements of this subpart for containers that were the reports specified in § 59.628.
manufactured before January 1, 2009. Records must be retained for at least 5
59.611 What evaporative emission
requirements apply under this subpart? years from the date of manufacture or
59.612 What emission-related warranty § 59.601 Do the requirements of this importation and must be supplied to
requirements apply to me? subpart apply to me? EPA upon request.
59.613 What operation and maintenance (a) Unless specified otherwise in this (2) No person may alter, destroy, or
instructions must I give to buyers? subpart, the requirements and falsify any record or report required by
59.615 How must I label and identify the prohibitions of this subpart apply to all this subpart.
portable gasoline containers I produce? manufacturers and importers of portable (d) Testing and access to facilities.
Certifying Emission Families gasoline containers. Certain prohibitions You may not keep us from entering your
59.621 Who may apply for a certificate of in § 59.602 apply to all other persons. facility to test inspect if we are
conformity? (b) New portable gasoline containers authorized to do so. Also, you must
59.622 What are the general requirements that are subject to the emissions perform the tests we require (or have the
for obtaining a certificate of conformity standards of this part must be covered tests done for you). Failure to perform
and producing portable gasoline by a certificate of conformity that is this testing is prohibited.
containers under it? issued to the manufacturer of the (e) Warranty. You may not fail to
59.623 What must I include in my container. If more than one person offer, provide notice of, or honor the
application? meets the definition of manufacturer for emissions warranty required under this
59.624 How do I amend my application for subpart.
a portable gasoline container, see
certification?
59.625 How do I select emission families? § 59.621 to determine if you are the (f) Replacement components. No
59.626 What emission testing must I manufacturer who may apply for and person may sell, offer for sale, introduce
perform for my application for a receive a certificate of conformity. or deliver for introduction into
certificate of conformity? (c) Unless specifically noted commerce in the United States, import,
59.627 How do I demonstrate that my otherwise, the term ‘‘you’’ means or install any replacement component
emission family complies with manufacturers, as defined in § 59.680. for portable gasoline containers subject
evaporative emission standards? to the standards of this subpart where
59.628 What records must I keep and what § 59.602 What are the general prohibitions
the component has the effect of
reports must I send to EPA? and requirements of this subpart?
disabling, bypassing, or rendering
59.629 What decisions may EPA make (a) General prohibition for
regarding my certificate of conformity? inoperative the emissions controls of the
manufacturers and importers. No containers.
59.630 EPA testing. manufacturer or importer may sell, offer
59.650 General testing provisions. (g) Violations. If a person violates any
59.652 Other procedures.
for sale, introduce or deliver for prohibition or requirement of this
59.653 How do I test portable gasoline introduction into commerce in the subpart or the Act concerning portable
containers? United States, or import any new gasoline containers, it shall be
portable gasoline container that is considered a separate violation for each
Special Compliance Provisions
subject to the emissions standards of portable gasoline container.
59.660 Exemption from the standards. this subpart and is manufactured after
59.662 What temporary provisions address (h) Assessment of penalties and
December 31, 2008 unless it is covered injunctions. We may assess
hardship due to unusual circumstances?
59.663 What are the provisions for
by a valid certificate of conformity, it is administrative penalties, bring a civil
extending compliance deadlines for labeled as required, and it complies action to assess and recover civil
manufacturers under hardship? with all of the applicable requirements penalties, bring a civil action to enjoin
59.664 What are the requirements for of this subpart, including complies with and restrain violations, or bring criminal
importing portable gasoline containers the emissions standards for its useful action as provided by the Clean Air Act.
into the United States? life. After June 30, 2009, no
manufacturer or importer may sell, offer § 59.603 How must manufacturers apply
Definitions and Other Reference Information

for sale, introduce into commerce in the good engineering judgment?
59.680 What definitions apply to this
subpart? United States, or import any new (a) In addition to other requirements
59.685 What symbols, acronyms, and portable gasoline container that was and prohibitions set forth in this
abbreviations does this subpart use? manufactured prior to January 1, 2009. subpart, you must use good engineering
59.695 What provisions apply to (b) General prohibition for wholesale judgment for decisions related to any
confidential information? distributors. No wholesale distributor requirements under this subpart. This
includes your applications for 1926.150 through 1926.152) are adjusted anywhere within the
certification, any testing you do to show excluded. Such cans generally have a physically adjustable range. You may
that your portable gasoline containers flash-arresting screens, spring-closing not equip your portable gasoline
comply with requirements that apply to lids and spout covers and have been containers with a defeat device, or
them, and how you select, categorize, approved by a nationally recognized intentionally produce your containers to
determine, and apply these testing laboratory such as Factory enable the use of a defeat device. A
requirements. Mutual Engineering Corp., defeat device is an element of design
(b) Upon request, you must provide Underwriters’ Laboratories, Inc., or (either original or replacement) that is
EPA a written description of the Federal agencies such as Bureau of not approved in advance by EPA and
engineering judgment in question. Such Mines, or U.S. Coast Guard. that reduces the effectiveness of
information must be provided within 15 (b) Containers with a nominal emission controls under conditions that
working days unless EPA specifies a capacity of less than 0.25 gallons or the portable gasoline containers may
different period of time to respond. more than 10.0 gallons are excluded. reasonably be expected to encounter
(c) We may reject your decision if it (c) Containers designed and marketed during normal use.
is not based on good engineering solely to deliver fuel directly to nonroad (2) Leaks. You must design and
judgment or is otherwise inconsistent engines during engine operation, such manufacture your containers to be free
with the requirements that apply, and as containers with a connection for a of leaks. This requirement applies when
we may: fuel line and a reserve fuel area, are your container is upright, partially
(1) Suspend, revoke, or void a considered to be nonroad fuel tanks, inverted, or completely inverted.
certificate of conformity if we determine and are thus excluded.
(3) Refueling. You are required to
you used incorrect or incomplete design your portable gasoline containers
§ 59.607 Submission of information.
information or failed to consider to minimize spillage during refueling to
relevant information, or that your (a) You are responsible for all
statements you make to us related to the extent practical. This requires that
decision was not based on good you use good engineering judgment to
engineering judgment; or this subpart F, including information
not required during certification. You avoid designs that will make it difficult
(2) Notify you that we believe any
are required to provide truthful and to refuel typical vehicle and equipment
aspect of your application or other
complete information. This subpart designs without spillage.
information submission may be
incorrect or invalid due to lack of good describes the consequences of failing to (d) Portable gasoline containers must
engineering judgment or other cause. meet this obligation. The consequences meet the standards and requirements
Unless a different period of time is also may include prosecution under 18 specified in this subpart throughout the
specified, you will have 30 days to U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 7431(c)(2). useful life of the container. The useful
respond to our notice and specifically (b) We may require an officer or life of the container is five years
address our concerns. After considering authorized representative of your beginning on the date of sale to the
your information, we will notify company with knowledge of the other ultimate purchaser.
regarding our finding, which may information contained in the submittal
§ 59.612 What emission-related warranty
include the actions provided in to approve and sign any submission of
requirements apply to me?
paragraph (c)(1) of this section. information to us, and to certify that all
of the information submitted is accurate (a) General requirements. You must
(d) If you disagree with our warrant to the ultimate purchaser that
conclusions under paragraph (c) of this and complete.
the new portable gasoline container,
section, you may file a request for a Emission Standards and Related including all parts of its evaporative
hearing with the Designated Compliance Requirements emission-control system, is:
Officer as described in § 59.699. In your
request, you must specifically state your § 59.611 What evaporative emission (1) Designed, built, and equipped so
objections, and include relevant data or requirements apply under this subpart? it conforms at the time of sale to the
supporting analysis. The request must (a) Emissions from portable gasoline ultimate purchaser with the
be signed by your authorized containers may not exceed 0.30 grams requirements of this subpart.
representative. If we agree that your per gallon per day when measured with (2) Is free from defects in materials
request raises a substantial factual issue, the test procedures in §§ 59.650 through and workmanship that may keep it from
we will hold the hearing according to 59.653. This procedure measures meeting these requirements.
§ 59.699. diurnal venting emissions and (b) Warranty notice and period. Your
permeation emissions. emission-related warranty must be valid
§ 59.605 What portable gasoline (b) For the purpose of this section, for a minimum of one year from the date
containers are excluded from this subpart’s portable gasoline containers include of sale to the ultimate purchaser.
requirements? spouts, caps, gaskets, and other parts (c) Notice. You must provide a
This section describes exclusions that provided with the container. warranty notice with each container.
apply to certain portable gasoline (c) The following general
containers. The prohibitions and requirements also apply for all portable § 59.613 What operation and maintenance
requirements of this subpart do not gasoline containers subject to the instructions must I give to buyers?
apply for containers excluded under standards of this subpart: You must provide the ultimate
this section. Exclusions under this (1) Prohibited controls. You may not purchaser of the new portable gasoline
section are based on inherent design your emission-control systems so container written instructions for
characteristics of the containers. See that they cause or contribute to an properly maintaining and using the
§ 59.660 for exemptions that apply unreasonable risk to public health, emission-control system.
based on special circumstances. welfare, or safety while operating. You
(a) Containers approved as safety cans may not design your portable gasoline § 59.615 How must I label and identify the
consistent with the requirements of containers to have adjustable parameters portable gasoline containers I produce?
Title 29, part 1926, subpart F, of the unless the containers will meet all the This section describes how you must
Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR requirements of this subpart when label your portable gasoline containers.
(a) At the time of manufacture, Certifying Emission Families (h) If we approve your application, we
indelibly mark the month and year of will issue a certificate that will allow
§ 59.621 Who may apply for a certificate of
manufacture on each container. you to produce the containers that you
conformity?
(b) Mold into or affix a legible label described in your application for a
A certificate of conformity may only specified production period. Certificates
identifying each portable gasoline
be issued to the manufacturer that do not allow you to produce containers
container. The label must be:
completes the construction of the that were not described in your
(1) Attached so it is not easily portable gasoline container. In unusual
removable. application, unless we approve the
circumstances, upon a petition by a additional containers under § 59.624.
(2) Secured to a part of the container manufacturer, we may allow another
that can be easily viewed when the can manufacturer of the container to hold § 59.623 What must I include in my
is in use, not on the bottom of the the certificate of conformity. However, application?
container. in order to hold the certificate, the This section specifies the information
(3) Written in English. manufacturer must demonstrate day-to- that must be in your application, unless
(c) The label must include: day ability to ensure that containers we ask you to include less information
(1) The heading ‘‘EMISSION produced under the certificate will under § 59.622(c). We may require you
CONTROL INFORMATION’’. comply with the requirements of this to provide additional information to
(2) Your full corporate name and subpart. evaluate your application.
trademark. (a) Describe the emission family’s
§ 59.622 What are the general
(3) A standardized identifier such as requirements for obtaining a certificate of specifications and other basic
EPA’s standardized designation for the conformity and producing portable gasoline parameters of the emission controls. List
emission families, the model number, or containers under it? each distinguishable configuration in
the part number. (a) You must send us a separate the emission family. Include
(4) This statement: ‘‘THIS application for a certificate of descriptions and part numbers for all
CONTAINER COMPLIES WITH U.S. conformity for each emission family. A detachable components such as spouts
EPA EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR certificate of conformity for containers and caps.
PORTABLE GASOLINE is valid from the indicated effective date (b) Describe and explain the method
CONTAINERS.’’. until the end of the production period of emission control.
(d) You may add information to the for which it is issued. EPA may require (c) Describe the products you selected
emission control information label to new certification prior to the end of the for testing and the reasons for selecting
identify other emission standards that production period if EPA finds that them.
the container meets or does not meet containers are not meeting the standards (d) Describe the test equipment and
(such as California standards). You may in use during their useful life. procedures that you used, including any
also add other information to ensure (b) The application must be written in special or alternate test procedures you
that the portable gasoline container will English and contain all the information used (see § 59.650).
be properly maintained and used. required by this subpart and must not (e) List the specifications of the test
(e) You may request EPA to approve include false or incomplete statements fuel to show that it falls within the
modified labeling requirements in this or information (see § 59.629). required ranges specified in § 59.650 of
subpart F if you show that it is (c) We may ask you to include less this subpart.
necessary or appropriate. We will information than we specify in this (f) Include the maintenance and use
approve your request if your alternate subpart, as long as you maintain all the instructions and warranty information
label is consistent with the requirements information required by § 59.628. you will give to the ultimate purchaser
of this subpart. (d) You must use good engineering of each new portable gasoline container
(f) You may identify the name and judgment for all decisions related to (see § 59.613).
your application (see § 59.603). (g) Describe your emission control
trademark of another company instead
(e) An authorized representative of information label (see § 59.615).
of their own on your emission control
your company must approve and sign (h) State that your product was tested
information label, subject to the
the application. as described in the application
following provisions: (f) See § 59.629 for provisions (including the test procedures, test
(1) You must have a contractual describing how we will process your parameters, and test fuels) to show you
agreement with the other company that application. meet the requirements of this subpart.
obligates that company to take the (g) You may ask us to modify specific (i) Present emission data to show your
following steps: provisions for demonstrating products meet the applicable emission
(i) Meet the emission warranty compliance with the requirements of standards. Where applicable, §§ 59.626
requirements that apply under § 59.612. this subpart if they cannot be met for and 59.627 may allow you to submit an
This may involve a separate agreement your portable gasoline container. We application in certain cases without new
involving reimbursement of warranty- may approve your request if we emission data.
related expenses. determine that such a change is (j) Report all test results, including
(ii) Report all warranty-related consistent with the intent of this those from invalid tests or from any
information to the certificate holder. subpart. We will not approve your other tests, whether or not they were
(2) In your application for request if it might lead to less effective conducted according to the test
certification, identify the company emission control or prevent us from procedures of §§ 59.650 through 59.653.
whose trademark you will use and ensuring compliance with the We may ask you to send other
describe the arrangements you have requirements of this subpart. To make a information to confirm that your tests
made to meet your requirements under request, describe in writing which were valid under the requirements of
this section. provision you are unable to meet, why this subpart.
(3) You remain responsible for you are unable to meet it, and how the (k) Unconditionally certify that all the
meeting all the requirements of this provision should be modified to address products in the emission family comply
subpart. your concern. with the requirements of this subpart,
other referenced parts of the CFR, and show compliance for the new or the expected emission characteristics
the Clean Air Act. modified configuration, include new are different.
(l) Include estimates of U.S.-directed test data showing that the new or (d) You may group containers that are
production volumes. modified configuration meets the not identical with respect to the things
(m) Include the information required requirements of this subpart. listed in paragraph (b) of this section in
by other sections of this subpart. (c) We may ask for more test data or the same emission family if you show
(n) Include other relevant engineering evaluations. You must give that their emission characteristics will
information, including any additional us these within 30 days after we request be similar throughout their useful life.
information requested by EPA. them.
(o) Name an agent for service of (d) For emission families already § 59.626 What emission testing must I
process located in the United States. covered by a certificate of conformity, perform for my application for a certificate
of conformity?
Service on this agent constitutes service we will determine whether the existing
on you or any of your officers or certificate of conformity covers your This section describes the emission
employees for any action by EPA or new or modified configuration. You testing you must perform to show
otherwise by the United States related to may ask for a hearing if we deny your compliance with the emission standards
the requirements of this subpart. request (see § 59.699). in § 59.611.
(e) For emission families already (a) Test your products using the
§ 59.624 How do I amend my application procedures and equipment specified in
covered by a certificate of conformity
for certification? §§ 59.650 through 59.653.
and you send us a request to amend
Before we issue you a certificate of your application, you may sell and (b) Select an emission-data unit from
conformity, you may amend your distribute the new or modified each emission family for testing. You
application to include new or modified configuration before we make a decision must test a production sample or a
configurations, subject to the provisions under paragraph (d) of this section, preproduction product that will
of this section. After we have issued subject to the provisions of this represent actual production. Select the
your certificate of conformity, you may paragraph. If we determine that the configuration that is most likely to
send us an amended application affected configurations do not meet exceed (or have emissions nearest to)
requesting that we include new or applicable requirements, we will notify the applicable emission standard. For
modified configurations within the you to cease production of the example, for a family of multilayer
scope of the certificate, subject to the configurations and any containers from portable gasoline containers, test the
provisions of this section. You must the new or modified configuration will container with the thinnest barrier layer.
amend your application if any changes not be considered covered by the Test 3 identical containers.
occur with respect to any information certificate. In addition, we may require (c) We may measure emissions from
included in your application. you to recall any affected containers that any of your products from the emission
(a) You must amend your application you have already distributed, including family. You must supply your products
before you take either of the following those sold to the ultimate purchasers. to us if we choose to perform
actions: Choosing to produce containers under confirmatory testing.
(1) Add a configuration to an emission this paragraph (e) is deemed to be (d) You may ask to use emission data
family. In this case, the configuration consent to recall all containers that we from a previous production period
added must be consistent with other determine do not meet applicable (carryover) instead of doing new tests,
configurations in the emission family emission standards or other but only if the emission-data from the
with respect to the criteria listed in requirements and to remedy the previous production period remains the
§ 59.625. nonconformity at no expense to the appropriate emission-data unit under
(2) Change a configuration already paragraph (b) of this section. For
owner. If you do not provide
included in an emission family in a way example, you may not carryover
information required under paragraph
that may affect emissions, or change any emission data for your family of
(c) of this section within 30 days, you
of the components you described in containers if you have added a thinner-
must stop producing the new or
your application for certification. This walled container than was tested
modified containers.
includes production and design changes previously.
that may affect emissions any time § 59.625 How do I select emission (e) We may require you to test a
during the portable gasoline containers’ families? second unit of the same or different
lifetime. (a) Divide your product line into configuration in addition to the unit
(b) To amend your application for families of portable gasoline containers tested under paragraph (b) of this
certification, send the Designated that are expected to have similar section.
Compliance Officer the following emission characteristics throughout the (f) If you use an alternate test
information: useful life. procedure under § 59.652 and later
(1) Describe in detail the addition or (b) Group containers in the same testing shows that such testing does not
change in the configuration you intend emission family if they are the same in produce results that are equivalent to
to make. all the following aspects: the procedures specified in this subpart,
(2) Include engineering evaluations or (1) Type of material (including we may reject data you generated using
data showing that the amended pigments, plasticizers, UV inhibitors, or the alternate procedure and base our
emission family complies with all other additives). compliance determination on the later
applicable requirements. You may do (2) Production method. testing.
this by showing that the original (3) Spout design.
emission data are still appropriate with (4) Gasket material/design. § 59.627 How do I demonstrate that my
respect to showing compliance of the (5) Emission control strategy. emission family complies with evaporative
amended family with all applicable (c) You may subdivide a group of emission standards?
requirements. containers that is identical under (a) For purposes of certification, your
(3) If the original emission data for the paragraph (b) of this section into emission family is considered in
emission family are not appropriate to different emission families if you show compliance with an evaporative
emission standard in § 59.611(a) if the (d) Send us copies of any production samples to us for
test results from all portable gasoline maintenance instructions or verification testing. These samples will
containers in the family that have been explanations if we ask for them. generally be tested using the full test
tested show measured emissions levels (e) Send us an annual warranty report procedure of § 59.653.
that are at or below the applicable summarizing by emissions family (b) In-use testing. We may test in-use
standard. successful warranty claims under containers using the test procedure of
(b) Your emissions family is deemed § 59.612, including the reason for the § 59.653 without preconditioning.
not to comply if any container claim. You must submit the report by
representing that family has test results § 59.650 General testing provisions.
July 1 for the preceding calendar year.
showing an official emission level above (a) The test procedures of this subpart
the standard. § 59.629 What decisions may EPA make are addressed to you as a manufacturer,
(c) Round the measured emission regarding my certificate of conformity? but they apply equally to anyone who
level to the same number of decimal (a) If we determine your application is does testing for you.
places as the emission standard. complete and shows that the emission (b) Unless we specify otherwise, the
Compare the rounded emission levels to family meets all the requirements of this terms ‘‘procedures’’ and ‘‘test
the emission standard. subpart and the Act, we will issue a procedures’’ in this subpart include all
certificate of conformity for your aspects of testing, including the
§ 59.628 What records must I keep and emission family for the specified equipment specifications, calibrations,
what reports must I send to EPA?
production period. We may make the calculations, and other protocols and
(a) Organize and maintain the approval subject to additional procedural specifications needed to
following records: conditions. measure emissions.
(1) A copy of all applications and any (b) We may deny your application for (c) The specification for gasoline to be
summary information you send us. certification if we determine that your used for testing is given in 40 CFR
(2) Any of the information we specify
emission family fails to comply with 1065.210. Use the grade of gasoline
in § 59.623 that you were not required
emission standards or other specified for general testing. Blend this
to include in your application.
(3) A detailed history of each requirements of this subpart or the Act. grade of gasoline with reagent grade
emission-data unit. For each emission Our decision may be based on a review ethanol in a volumetric ratio of 90.0
data unit, include all of the following: of all information available to us. If we percent gasoline to 10.0 percent ethanol.
(i) The emission-data unit’s deny your application, we will explain You may use ethanol that is less pure if
construction, including its origin and why in writing. you can demonstrate that it will not
buildup, steps you took to ensure that (c) In addition, we may deny your affect your ability to demonstrate
it represents production containers, any application or suspend, revoke, or void compliance with the applicable
components you built specially for it, your certificate if you do any of the emission standards.
and all the components you include in following: (d) Accuracy and precision of all
your application for certification. (1) Refuse to comply with any testing temperature measurements must be ±2.2
(ii) All your emission tests, including or reporting requirements. °C or better.
documentation on routine and standard (2) Submit false or incomplete (e) Accuracy and precision of mass
tests, as specified in §§ 59.650 through information. balances must be sufficient to ensure
59.653, and the date and purpose of (3) Render inaccurate any test data. accuracy and precision of two percent
each test. (4) Deny us from completing or better for emission measurements for
(iii) All tests to diagnose emission- authorized activities despite our products at the maximum level allowed
control performance, giving the date and presenting a warrant or court order (see by the standard. The readability of the
time of each and the reasons for the test. § 59.698). This includes a failure to display may not be coarser than half of
(iv) Any other relevant events or provide reasonable assistance. the required accuracy and precision.
information. (5) Produce portable gasoline
(4) Production figures for each containers for importation into the § 59.652 Other procedures.
emission family divided by assembly United States at a location where local (a) Your testing. The procedures in
plant. law prohibits us from carrying out this subpart apply for all testing you do
(5) If you identify your portable authorized activities. to show compliance with emission
gasoline containers by lot number or (6) Fail to supply requested standards, with certain exceptions listed
other identification numbers, keep a information or amend your application in this section.
record of these numbers for all the to include all portable gasoline (b) Our testing. These procedures
containers you produce under each containers being produced. generally apply for testing that we do to
certificate of conformity. (7) Take any action that otherwise determine if your portable gasoline
(b) Keep data from routine emission circumvents the intent of the Act or this containers complies with applicable
tests (such as test cell temperatures and subpart. emission standards. We may perform
relative humidity readings) for one year (d) If we deny your application or other testing as allowed by the Act.
after we issue the associated certificate suspend, revoke, or void your (c) Exceptions. We may allow or
of conformity. Keep all other certificate, you may ask for a hearing require you to use procedures other than
information specified in paragraph (a) of (see § 59.699). those specified in this subpart in the
this section for five years after we issue following cases.
your certificate. § 59.630 EPA testing. (1) You may request to use special
(c) Store these records in any format We may test any portable gasoline procedures if your portable gasoline
and on any media, as long as you can container subject to the standards of this containers cannot be tested using the
promptly send us organized, written subpart. specified procedures. We will approve
records in English if we ask for them. (a) Certification and production your request if we determine that it
You must keep these records readily sample testing. Upon our request, a would produce emission measurements
available. We may review them at any manufacturer must supply a prototype that represent in-use operation and we
time. container or a reasonable number of determine that it can be used to show
compliance with the requirements of the steps at the end on the slosh testing, and (1) Obtain a second tank that is
standard-setting section. at the end of the preconditioning soak. identical to the test tank. You may not
(2) You may ask to use emission data (i) Perform one complete actuation/ use a tank that has previously contained
collected using other procedures, such inversion cycle per day for ten days. fuel or any other contents that might
as those of the California Air Resources (ii) One actuation/inversion cycle affect the stability of its mass.
Board. We will approve this only if you consists of the following steps:
(A) Remove and replace the spout to (2) Fill the reference tank with enough
show us that using these other
simulate filling the container. dry sand (or other inert material) so that
procedures do not affect your ability to
(B) Slowly invert the container and the mass of the reference tank is
show compliance with the applicable
keep it inverted for at least 5 seconds to approximately the same as the test tank
emission standards. This generally
requires emission levels to be far ensure that the spout and mechanisms when filled with fuel. Use good
enough below the applicable emission become saturated with fuel. Any fuel engineering judgment to determine how
standards so that any test differences do leaking from any part of the container similar the mass of the reference tank
not affect your ability to state will denote a leak and will be reported needs to be to the mass of the test tank
unconditionally that your containers as part of certification. Once completed, considering the performance
will meet all applicable emission place the container on a flat surface in characteristics of your balance.
standards when tested using the the upright position.
(3) Ensure that the sand (or other inert
specified test procedures. (C) Actuate the spout by fully opening
and closing without dispensing fuel. material) is dry. This may require
(3) You may request to use alternate heating the tank or applying a vacuum
The spout must return to the closed
procedures that are equivalent to to it.
position without the aid of the operator
allowed procedures, or more accurate or
(e.g., pushing or pulling the spout (4) Seal the tank.
more precise than allowed procedures.
closed). Repeat for a total of 10 (d) Diurnal test run. To run the test,
(d) You may not use other procedures actuations. If at any point the spout fails
under paragraph (c) of this section until take the steps specified in this
to return to the closed position, the paragraph (d) for a portable gasoline
we approve your request. container fails the test. container that was preconditioned as
§ 59.653 How do I test portable gasoline (D) Repeat the step contained in
specified in paragraph (a) of this
containers? paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B) of this section
(i.e., the inversion step). section.
You must test the portable gasoline
(E) Repeat the steps contained in (1) Stabilize the fuel temperature
container as described in your
paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) of this section within the portable gasoline container at
application, with the applicable spout
and cap attached. Tighten fittings in a
(i.e., ten actuations). 22.2 °C. Vent the container at this point
(b) Preconditioning fuel soak. to relieve any positive or negative
manner representative of how they
Complete the following steps before a pressure that may have developed
would be tightened by a typical user.
diurnal emission test: (1) Fill the during stabilization.
(a) Preconditioning for durability. portable gasoline container with the
Complete the following steps at the start specified fuel to its nominal capacity, (2) Weigh the sealed reference
of testing, unless we determine that seal it using the spout, and allow it to container and record the weight. Place
omission of one or more of these soak at 28 ±5 °C for at least 20 weeks. the reference on the balance and tare it
durability steps will not affect the You are not required to soak the so that it reads zero. Place the sealed
emissions from your container. container for more than 20 weeks unless test portable gasoline container on the
(1) Pressure cycling. Perform a it has been determined that a longer balance and record the difference
pressure test by sealing the container soak period is needed to achieve a between the test container and the
and cycling it between +13.8 and ¥1.7 stabilized emissions rate. Alternatively, reference container. This value is Minitial
kPa (+2.0 and ¥0.5 psig) and back to the container may be soaked for a Take this measurement within 8 hours
+13.8 kPa for 10,000 cycles at a rate of shorter period of time at a higher of filling the test container with fuel as
60 seconds per cycle. temperature if you can show that the specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
(2) UV exposure. Perform a sunlight- hydrocarbon permeation rate has section.
exposure test by exposing the container stabilized. You may count the time of
to an ultraviolet light of at least 24 W/ (2) Immediately place the portable
the slosh testing as part of the 20 weeks. gasoline container within a well
m2 (0.40 W-hr/m2/min) on the container (2) Pour the fuel out of the container
surface for at least 450 hours. ventilated, temperature-controlled room
and immediately refill to 50 percent of
Alternatively, the container may be or enclosure. Do not spill or add any
nominal capacity. Be careful to not spill
exposed to direct natural sunlight for an fuel.
any fuel on the container. Wipe the
equivalent period of time, as long as you outside of the container as needed to (3) Close the room or enclosure.
ensure that the container is exposed to remove any liquid fuel that may have (4) Follow the temperature profile in
at least 450 daylight hours. spilled on it. the following table for all portable
(3) Slosh testing. Perform a slosh test (3) Seal the container using the spout gasoline containers. Use good
by filling the portable gasoline container and cap assemblies that will used to seal engineering judgment to follow this
to 40 percent of its capacity with the the openings in a production container. profile as closely as possible. You may
fuel specified in paragraph (e) of this Leave other openings on the container
section and rocking it at a rate of 15 use linearly interpolated temperatures
(such as vents) open unless they are
cycles per minute until you reach one or a spline fit for temperatures between
automatically closing and unlikely for
million total cycles. Use an angle the hourly setpoints.

the user to leave open during typical
deviation of +15° to ¥15° from level. storage.
This test must be performed at a (c) Reference container. A reference
temperature of 28 °C ± 5°C. tank is required to correct for buoyancy
(4) Spout actuation. Perform the effects that may occur during testing.
following spout actuation and inversion Prepare the reference tank as follows:
TABLE 1 OF § 59.653.—DIURNAL TEM- container durability cycles (i.e., the (e) EPA may impose reasonable
PERATURE PROFILE FOR PORTABLE pressure cycling, UV exposure, and conditions on any exemption, including
GASOLINE CONTAINERS slosh testing) specified in this section. a limit on the number of containers that
For other containers, you may are covered by an exemption.
Ambient Tem- demonstrate compliance without
perature (C) performing the durability cycles § 59.662 What temporary provisions
Profile for address hardship due to unusual
Time (hours) specified in this section only if we circumstances?
Portable
Gasoline approve it after you have presented data
clearly demonstrating that the cycle or (a) After considering the
Containers
cycles do not negatively impact the circumstances, we may permit you to
0 ............................................ 22.2 permeation rate of the materials used in introduce into commerce exempt you
1 ............................................ 22.5 the containers. from the evaporative emission standards
2 ............................................ 24.2 and requirements of § 59.611 of this
3 ............................................ 26.8 Special Compliance Provisions subpart and the prohibitions and
4 ............................................ 29.6 requirements of § 59.602 for specified
5 ............................................ 31.9 § 59.660 Exemption from the standards.
portable gasoline containers that do not
6 ............................................ 33.9 In certain circumstances, we may comply with emission standards if all
7 ............................................ 35.1 exempt portable gasoline containers
8 ............................................ 35.4 the following conditions apply:
from the evaporative emission standards (1) Unusual circumstances that are
9 ............................................ 35.6 and requirements of § 59.611 and the
10 .......................................... 35.3 clearly outside your control and that
11 .......................................... 34.5
prohibitions and requirements of could not have been avoided with
12 .......................................... 33.2 § 59.602. You do not need an exemption reasonable discretion prevent you from
13 .......................................... 31.4 for any containers that you own but do meeting requirements from this subpart.
14 .......................................... 29.7 not sell, offer for sale, introduce or
(2) You exercised prudent planning
15 .......................................... 28.2 deliver for introduction into U.S.
16 .......................................... 27.2 and were not able to avoid the violation;
commerce, or import into the United
17 .......................................... 26.1 you have taken all reasonable steps to
States. Submit your request for an
18 .......................................... 25.1 minimize the extent of the
exemption to the Designated
19 .......................................... 24.3 nonconformity.
20 .......................................... 23.7
Compliance Officer.
(3) Not having the exemption will
21 .......................................... 23.3 (a) Portable gasoline containers that
jeopardize the solvency of your
22 .......................................... 22.9 are intended for export only and are in
company.
23 .......................................... 22.6 fact exported are exempt provided they
24 .......................................... 22.2 are clearly labeled as being for export (4) No other allowances are available
only. Keep records for five years of all under the regulations in this chapter to
(5) At the end of the diurnal period, portable gasoline containers that you avoid the impending violation.
retare the balance using the reference manufacture for export. Any (b) To apply for an exemption, you
container and weigh the portable introduction into U.S. commerce for any must send the Designated Officer a
gasoline container. Record the purpose other than export is considered written request as soon as possible
difference in mass between the to be a violation of § 59.602 by the before you are in violation. In your
reference container and the test. This manufacturer. You do not need to request, show that you meet all the
value is Mfinal request this exemption. conditions and requirements in
(6) Subtract Mfinal from Minitial; and (b) You may ask us to exempt portable paragraph (a) of this section.
divide the difference by the nominal gasoline containers that you will (c) Include in your request a plan
capacity of the container (using at least purchase, sell, or distribute for the sole showing how you will meet all the
three significant figures) to calculate the purpose of testing them. applicable requirements as quickly as
g/gallon/day emission rate: (c) You may ask us to exempt portable possible.
Emission rate = (Minitial¥Mfinal)/ gasoline containers for the purpose of (d) You must give us other relevant
(nominal capacity)/(one day) national security, as long as your information if we ask for it.
(7) Round your result to the same request is endorsed by an agency of the (e) We may include reasonable
number of decimal places as the federal government responsible for additional conditions on an approval
emission standard. national defense. In your request, granted under this section, including
(8) Instead of determining emissions explain why you need the exemption. provisions to recover or otherwise
by weighing the container before and (d) You may ask us to exempt address the lost environmental benefit
after the diurnal temperature cycle, you containers that are designed and or paying fees to offset any economic
may place the container in a SHED marketed solely for rapidly refueling gain resulting from the exemption.
meeting the specifications of 40 CFR racing applications which are designed (f) We may approve extensions of up
86.107–96(a)(1) and measure emissions to create a leak proof seal with the target to one year. We may review and revise
directly. Immediately following the tank or are designed to connect with a an extension as reasonable under the
stabilization in paragraph (d)(1) of this receiver installed on the target tank. circumstances.
section, purge the SHED and follow the This exemption is generally intended (g) Add a legible label, written in
temperature profile from paragraph for containers used to rapidly refuel a block letters in English, to a readily
(d)(4) of this section. Start measuring race car during a pit stop and similar visible part of each container exempted
emissions when you start the containers. In your request, explain how under this section. This label must
temperature profile. why these containers are unlikely to be prominently include at least the
(e) For metal containers, you may used for nonracing applications. We following items:
demonstrate for certification that your may limit these exemptions to those (1) Your corporate name and
portable gasoline containers comply applications that are allowed to use trademark.
with the evaporative emission standards gasoline exempted under 40 CFR (2) The statement ‘‘EXEMPT UNDER
without performing the pre-soak or 80.200. 40 CFR 59.662.’’.
§ 59.663 What are the provisions for under this section, including provisions responsible for compliance with the
extending compliance deadlines for to recover or otherwise address the lost requirements of this subpart and the
manufacturers under hardship? environmental benefit. For example, we Clean Air Act. No bond is required
(a) After considering the may require that you meet a less under this section if either you or the
circumstances, we may extend the stringent emission standard. certificate holder meet the conditions in
compliance deadline for you to meet (i) We may approve extensions of up paragraph (a) of this section. Otherwise,
new emission standards, as long as you to one year. We may review and revise the importer must comply with the
meet all the conditions and an extension as reasonable under the bond requirements of this section.
requirements in this section. circumstances.
(b) To apply for an extension, you (j) Add a permanent, legible label, Definitions and Other Reference
must send the Designated Compliance written in block letters in English, to a Information
Officer a written request. In your readily visible part of each container § 59.680 What definitions apply to this
request, show that all the following exempted under this section. This label subpart?
conditions and requirements apply: must prominently include at least the The following definitions apply to
(1) You have taken all possible following items: this subpart. The definitions apply to all
business, technical, and economic steps (1) Your corporate name and subparts unless we note otherwise. All
to comply. trademark. undefined terms have the meaning the
(2) Show that the burden of (2) The statement ‘‘EXEMPT UNDER Act gives to them. The definitions
compliance costs prevents you from 40 CFR 59.663.’’. follow:
meeting the requirements of this subpart
§ 59.664 What are the requirements for Act means the Clean Air Act, as
by the required compliance date.
importing portable gasoline containers into amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.
(3) Not having the exemption will
the United States? Adjustable parameter means any
jeopardize the solvency of your
As specified in this section, we may device, system, or element of design that
company.
(4) No other allowances are available require you to post a bond if you import someone can adjust and that, if
under the regulations in this subpart to into the U.S. containers that are subject adjusted, may affect emissions. You may
avoid the impending violation. to the standards of this subpart. See ask us to exclude a parameter if you
(c) In describing the steps you have paragraph (f) of this section for the show us that it will not be adjusted in
taken to comply under paragraph (b)(1) requirements related to importing use in a way that affects emissions.
of this section, include at least the containers that have been certified by Certification means the process of
following information: someone else. obtaining a certificate of conformity for
(1) Describe your business plan, (a) Prior to importing containers into an emission family that complies with
showing the range of projects active or the U.S., we may require you to post a the emission standards and
under consideration. bond to cover any potential enforcement requirements in this subpart.
(2) Describe your current and actions under the Clean Air Act if you Certified emission level means the
projected financial standing, with and cannot demonstrate to us that you have highest official emission level in an
without the burden of complying in full assets of an appropriate liquidity readily emission family.
with the applicable regulations in this available in the United States with a Configuration means a unique
subpart by the required compliance value equal to the retail value of the combination of hardware (material,
date. containers that you will import during geometry, and size) and calibration
(3) Describe your efforts to raise the calendar year. within an emission family. Units within
capital to comply with regulations in (b) We may set the value of the bond a single configuration differ only with
this subpart. up to five dollars per container. respect to normal production variability.
(4) Identify the engineering and (c) You may meet the bond Container means portable gasoline
technical steps you have taken or plan requirements of this section by container.
to take to comply with regulations in obtaining a bond from a third-party Designated Compliance Officer means
this subpart. surety that is cited in the U.S. the Manager, Engine Programs Group
(5) Identify the level of compliance Department of Treasury Circular 570, (6405–J), U.S. Environmental Protection
you can achieve. For example, you may ‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
be able to produce containers that meet Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Washington, DC 20460.
a somewhat less stringent emission Federal Bonds and as Acceptable Designated Enforcement Officer
standard than the regulations in this Reinsuring Companies’’ (http:// means the Director, Air Enforcement
subpart require. www.fms.treas.gov/c570/ Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental
(d) Include in your request a plan c570.html#certified). Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
showing how you will meet all the (d) If you forfeit some or all of your Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460.
applicable requirements as quickly as bond in an enforcement action, you Emission-control system means any
possible. must post any appropriate bond for device, system, or element of design that
(e) You must give us other relevant continuing importation within 90 days controls or reduces the regulated
information if we ask for it. after you forfeit the bond amount. evaporative emissions from.
(f) An authorized representative of (e) You will forfeit the proceeds of the Emission-data unit means a portable
your company must sign the request and bond posted under this section if you gasoline container that is tested for
include the statement: ‘‘All the need to satisfy any United States certification. This includes components
information in this request is true and administrative final order or judicial tested by EPA.
accurate, to the best of my knowledge.’’. judgment against you arising from your Emission-related maintenance means
(g) Send your request for this conduct in violation of this subpart. maintenance that substantially affects
extension at least nine months before (f) This paragraph (f) applies if you emissions or is likely to substantially
the relevant deadline. import for resale containers that have affect emission deterioration.
(h) We may include reasonable been certified by someone else. You and Emission family has the meaning
requirements on an approval granted the certificate holder are each given in § 59.625.
Evaporative means relating to fuel family unless we reinstate the certificate NIST National Institute of Standards and
emissions that result from permeation of or approve a new one. If we suspend an Technology.
fuel through the portable gasoline exemption, you may not introduce into THC total hydrocarbon.
container materials and from ventilation commerce containers that were U.S.C. United States Code.
of the container. previously covered by the exemption
Good engineering judgment means unless we reinstate the exemption. § 59.695 What provisions apply to
confidential information?
judgments made consistent with Test sample means the collection of
generally accepted scientific and portable gasoline containers selected (a) Clearly show what you consider
engineering principles and all available from the population of an emission confidential by marking, circling,
relevant information. See § 59.603 for family for emission testing. This may bracketing, stamping, or some other
the administrative process we use to include testing for certification, method.
evaluate good engineering judgment. production-line testing, or in-use (b) We will store your confidential
Hydrocarbon (HC) means total testing. information as described in 40 CFR part
hydrocarbon (THC). Test unit means a portable gasoline 2. Also, we will disclose it only as
Manufacture means the physical and container in a test sample. specified in 40 CFR part 2. This applies
engineering process of designing and/or Total hydrocarbon means the both to any information you send us and
constructing a portable gasoline combined mass of organic compounds to any information we collect from
container. measured by the specified procedure for inspections, audits, or other site visits.
Manufacturer means any person who measuring total hydrocarbon, expressed (c) If you send us a second copy
manufactures a portable gasoline as a hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to- without the confidential information,
container for sale in the United States. carbon mass ratio of 1.85:1. we will assume it contains nothing
Nominal capacity means the expected Ultimate purchaser means, with confidential whenever we need to
volumetric working capacity of a respect to any portable gasoline release information from it.
container. container, the first person who in good (d) If you send us information without
Official emission result means the faith purchases such a container for claiming it is confidential, we may make
measured emission rate for an emission- purposes other than resale. it available to the public without further
data unit. Ultraviolet light means notice to you, as described in 40 CFR
Portable gasoline container means electromagnetic radiation with a 2.204.
any reusable container designed and wavelength between 300 and 400
marketed (or otherwise intended) for nanometers. § 59.697 State actions.
use by consumers for receiving, United States means the States, the The provisions in this subpart do not
transporting, storing, and dispensing District of Columbia, the preclude any State or any political
gasoline. For the purpose of this Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the subdivision of a State from:
subpart, all portable fuel containers that Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana (a) Adopting and enforcing any
are red in color are deemed to be Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and emission standard or limitation
portable gasoline containers, regardless the U.S. Virgin Islands. applicable to anyone subject to the
of how they are labeled or marketed. U.S.-directed production volume provisions of this part; or
Portable fuel containers that are not red means the amount of portable gasoline (b) Requiring the regulated entity to
in color and are clearly and containers, subject to the requirements obtain permits, licenses, or approvals
permanently labeled for diesel fuel or of this subpart, produced by a prior to initiating construction,
kerosene only and not for use with manufacturer for which the modification, or operation of a facility
gasoline are not portable gasoline manufacturer has a reasonable for manufacturing a consumer product.
containers. assurance that sale was or will be made
Production period means the period § 59.698 May EPA enter my facilities for
to ultimate purchasers in the United inspections?
in which a portable gasoline container States.
will be produced under a certificate of Useful life means the period during (a) We may inspect your portable
conformity. The maximum production which a portable gasoline container is gasoline containers, testing,
period is five years. required to comply with all applicable manufacturing processes, storage
Revoke means to terminate the emission standards. See § 59.611. facilities (including port facilities for
certificate or an exemption for an Void means to invalidate a certificate imported containers or other relevant
emission family. If we revoke a or an exemption ab initio (i.e. facilities), or records, as authorized by
certificate or exemption, you must apply retroactively). Portable gasoline the Act, to enforce the provisions of this
for a new certificate or exemption before containers introduced into U.S. subpart. Inspectors will have
continuing to introduce the affected commerce under the voided certificate authorizing credentials and will limit
containers into commerce. This does not or exemption is a violation of this inspections to reasonable times—
apply to containers you no longer subpart, whether or not they were usually, normal operating hours.
possess. introduced before the certificate or (b) If we come to inspect, we may or
Round has the meaning given in 40 exemption was voided. may not have a warrant or court order.
CFR 1065.1001. We (us, our) means the Administrator (1) If we do not have a warrant or
Sealed means lacking openings that of the Environmental Protection Agency court order, you may deny us entry.
would allow liquid or vapor to escape and any authorized representatives. (2) If we have a warrant or court
to the atmosphere under normal order, you must allow us to enter the
operating pressures. § 59.685 What symbols, acronyms, and facility and carry out the activities it
Suspend means to temporarily abbreviations does this subpart use? describes.

discontinue the certificate or an The following symbols, acronyms, (c) We may seek a warrant or court
exemption for an emission family. If we and abbreviations apply to this subpart: order authorizing an inspection
suspend a certificate, you may not CFR Code of Federal Regulations. described in this section, whether or not
introduce into commerce portable EPA Environmental Protection Agency. we first tried to get your permission to
gasoline containers from that emission HC hydrocarbon. inspect.
(d) We may select any facility to do Subpart D—[Amended] emissions standard section shall no
any of the following: longer apply.
(1) Inspect and monitor any aspect of 4. Section 80.41 is amended by * * * * *
portable gasoline container redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph
manufacturing, assembly, storage, or (e)(1), redesignating paragraph (f) as Subpart F—[Amended]
other procedures, and any facilities paragraph (f)(1), and adding paragraphs
(e)(2) and (f)(2) to read as follows: 6. Section 80.128 is amended by
where you do them. revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(2) Inspect and monitor any aspect of § 80.41 Standards and requirements for
test procedures or test-related activities, compliance. § 80.128 Agreed upon procedures for
including test container selection, refiners and importers.
* * * * *
preparation, durability cycles, and (e) * * * * * * * *
maintenance and verification of your (a) Read the refiner’s or importer’s
(2) Beginning January 1, 2011, or
test equipment’s calibration. reports filed with EPA for the previous
January 1, 2015 for approved small
(3) Inspect and copy records or year as required by §§ 80.75, 80.83(g),
refiners under § 80.1340, the toxic air
documents related to assembling, 80.105, 80.990 and 80.1354.
pollutants emissions performance
storing, selecting, and testing a reduction and benzene content specified * * * * *
container. in paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall
(4) Inspect and photograph any part or Subpart J—[Amended]
apply only to reformulated gasoline that
aspect of containers or components use is not subject to the benzene standard of 7. Section 80.815 is amended by
for assembly. § 80.1230, pursuant to the provisions of redesignating paragraph (d)(1) as
(e) You must give us reasonable help § 80.1235. Beginning January 1, 2007, or paragraph (d)(1)(i) and adding
without charge during an inspection January 1, 2008 for approved small paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
authorized by the Act. For example, you refiners under § 80.235, the NOX
may need to help us arrange an § 80.815 What are the gasoline toxics
emissions performance reduction performance requirements for refiners and
inspection with the facility’s managers, specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this importers?
including clerical support, copying, and section shall no longer apply.
translation. You may also need to show * * * * *
(f) * * * (d) * * *
us how the facility operates and answer (2) Beginning January 1, 2011, or (1) * * *
other questions. If we ask in writing to January 1, 2015 for approved small (ii) Beginning January 1, 2011, or
see a particular employee at the refiners under § 80.1340, the toxic air January 1, 2015 for approved small
inspection, you must ensure that he or pollutants emissions performance refiners under § 80.1340, the gasoline
she is present (legal counsel may reduction and benzene content specified toxics performance requirements of this
accompany the employee). in paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall subpart shall apply only to gasoline that
(f) If you have facilities in other apply only to reformulated gasoline that is not subject to the benzene standard of
countries, we expect you to locate them is not subject to the benzene standard of § 80.1230, pursuant to the provisions of
in places where local law does not keep § 80.1230, pursuant to the provisions of § 80.1235.
us from inspecting as described in this § 80.1235. Beginning January 1, 2007, or
section. We will not try to inspect if we * * * * *
January 1, 2008 for approved small 8. Section 80.1035 is amended by
learn that local law prohibits it, but we refiners under § 80.235, the NOX adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
may suspend your certificate if we are emissions performance reduction
not allowed to inspect. specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this § 80.1035 What are the attest engagement
section shall no longer apply. requirements for gasoline toxics
§ 59.699 How do I request a hearing? compliance applicable to refiners and
(a) You may request a hearing under * * * * * importers?
certain circumstances, as described Subpart E—[Amended] * * * * *
elsewhere in this subpart. To do this, (h) Beginning January 1, 2011, or
you must file a written request with the 5. Section 80.101 is amended by January 1, 2015 for approved small
Designated Compliance Officer, revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as refiners per § 80.1340, the requirements
including a description of your follows: of this section shall apply only to
objection and any supporting data, gasoline that is not subject to the
within 30 days after we make a § 80.101 Standards applicable to refiners benzene standard of § 80.1230, pursuant
and importers.
decision. to the provisions of § 80.1235.
(b) For a hearing you request under * * * * * 9. Subpart L is added to read as
the provisions of this subpart, we will (c) * * * follows:
approve your request if we find that (2) Beginning January 1, 1998, each Subpart L—Gasoline Benzene
your request raises a substantial factual refiner and importer shall be subject to
the Complex Model standards for each Sec.
issue. 80.1200—80.1219 [Reserved]
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we averaging period. However beginning
January 1, 2011, or January 1, 2015 for General Information
will use the procedures specified in 40
CFR part 1068, subpart G. approved small refiners under 80.1220 What are the implementation dates
§ 80.1340, such annual average exhaust for the gasoline benzene program?
PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS toxics standard shall apply only to 80.1225 Who must register with EPA under
AND FUEL ADDITIVES conventional gasoline that is not subject the gasoline benzene program?
to the benzene standard of § 80.1230, Gasoline Benzene Requirements
3. The authority citation for part 80 is pursuant to the provisions of § 80.1235. 80.1230 What are the gasoline benzene
revised to read as follows: Beginning January 1, 2007, or January 1, requirements for refiners and importers?
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(1), 7545 2008 for approved small refiners under 80.1235 What gasoline is subject to the
and 7601(a). § 80.235, the annual average NOX benzene requirements of this subpart?
80.1236 What requirements apply to 80.1415 What penalties apply under the later than three months in advance of
California gasoline? gasoline benzene program? the first date that such person produces
80.1238 How is a refinery’s or importer’s or imports gasoline, whichever is later.
annual average benzene concentration Foreign Refiners
determined? 80.1420 What are the additional
(c) Refiners that plan to generate early
80.1240 How is a refinery’s or importer’s requirements under this subpart for credits under § 80.1275 and that are not
compliance with the gasoline benzene gasoline produced at foreign refineries? registered by EPA under § 80.76,
requirements of this subpart determined? § 80.103, § 80.190, or § 80.810 must
Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT)
Subpart L—Gasoline Benzene provide to EPA the information required
Program in § 80.76 not later than 60 days prior
§§ 80.1200–80.1219 [Reserved] to the end of the first year of credit
80.1270 Who may generate benzene credits
under the ABT program? General Information generation.
80.1275 How are early benzene credits Gasoline Benzene Requirements
§ 80.1220 What are the implementation
generated?
dates for the gasoline benzene program?
80.1280 How are refinery benzene baselines § 80.1230 What are the gasoline benzene
calculated? (a) Benzene standard. (1) Effective requirements for refiners and importers?
80.1285 How does a refiner apply for a with the annual averaging period (a)(1) Except as specified in paragraph
benzene baseline? beginning January 1, 2011, gasoline
80.1290 How are benzene credits generated (b) of this section, a refinery’s or
produced by a refiner at each refinery, importer’s average gasoline benzene
in 2011 and beyond? or imported into an import facility, must
80.1295 How are gasoline benzene credits concentration in any averaging period
used?
meet the benzene standard specified in shall not exceed 0.62 percent by volume
§ 80.1230, except as otherwise using conventional rounding
Hardship Provisions specifically provided for in this subpart. methodology.
80.1335 Can a refiner seek temporary relief (2) Approved small refiners under
from the requirements of this subpart?
(2) Compliance with the standard
§ 80.1340 may defer meeting the
80.1336 What if a refiner or importer cannot specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
benzene standard specified in § 80.1230
produce gasoline conforming to the section, or creation of a deficit in
until January 1, 2015 as described in
requirements of this subpart? accordance with paragraph (b) of this
§ 80.1342.
section, is determined in accordance
Small Refiner Provisions (b) Early credit generation. (1)
with § 80.1240.
80.1338 What is the definition of a small Beginning June 1, 2007, each refinery
(3) The averaging period for achieving
refiner for the purpose of the gasoline which has an approved benzene
benzene requirements of this subpart?
compliance with the requirement of
baseline per § 80.1285 may generate
80.1339 Who is not eligible for the paragraph (a)(1) of this section is
early benzene credits in accordance
provisions for small refiners? January 1 through December 31 of each
with the provisions of § 80.1275.
80.1340 How does a refiner obtain approval calendar year, beginning January 1,
(2) Early benzene credits may be
as a small refiner? 2011, or beginning January 1, 2015 for
80.1342 What compliance options are generated through the end of the
approved small refiners under
available to small refiners under this averaging period ending December 31,
§ 80.1340.
subpart? 2010.
80.1344 What provisions are available to a (3) Early benzene credits may be (4) Refinery grouping per § 80.101(h)
large refiner that acquires one or more of generated through the end of the does not apply to compliance with the
a small refiner’s refineries? averaging period ending December 31, gasoline benzene requirement specified
2014 for approved small refiners under in this paragraph (a).
Sampling, Testing and Retention
§ 80.1340. (5) Gasoline produced at foreign
Requirements
(c) Standard credit generation. (1) refineries that is subject to the gasoline
80.1347 What are the sampling and testing benzene requirements per § 80.1235
requirements for refiners and importers? Effective with the annual averaging
80.1348 What gasoline sample retention period beginning January 1, 2011, a shall be included in the importer’s
requirements apply to refiners and refiner for any of its refineries or an compliance determination, except as
importers? importer for its imported gasoline, may provided in § 80.1420.
generate benzene credits in accordance (b) Deficit carry-forward. (1) A
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
with the provisions of § 80.1290. refinery or importer creates a benzene
80.1350 What records must be kept? deficit for a given averaging period
80.1352 What are the pre-compliance (2) Effective with the annual
averaging period beginning January 1, when its compliance benzene value, per
reporting requirements for the gasoline
benzene program? 2015, an approved small refiner under § 80.1240, is greater than the benzene
80.1354 What are the reporting § 80.1340, for any of its refineries, may standard specified in paragraph (a) of
requirements for the gasoline benzene generate benzene credits in accordance this section.
program? with the provisions of § 80.1290. (2) A refinery or importer may carry
Attest Engagements
the benzene deficit forward to the
§ 80.1225 Who must register with EPA calendar year following the year the
80.1375 What are the attest engagement under the gasoline benzene program? benzene deficit is created but only if no
requirements for gasoline benzene
compliance? (a) Refiners and importers that are deficit had been previously carried
registered by EPA under § 80.76, forward a deficit to the year the deficit
Violations and Penalties § 80.103, § 80.190, or § 80.810 are is created. If a refinery or importer
80.1400 What acts are prohibited under the deemed to be registered for purposes of carries forward, the following
gasoline benzene program? this subpart. provisions apply in the second year:
80.1405 What evidence may be used to (b) Refiners and importers subject to (i) The refinery or importer must
determine compliance with the
prohibitions and requirements of this
the requirements in § 80.1230 that are achieve compliance with the benzene
subpart and liability for violations of this not registered by EPA under § 80.76, standard specified in paragraph (a) of
subpart? § 80.103, § 80.190 or § 80.810 shall this section.
80.1410 Who is liable for violations under provide to EPA the information required (ii) The refinery or importer must
the gasoline benzene program? in § 80.76 by September 30, 2010, or not achieve further reductions in its
gasoline benzene concentrations (3) The gasoline is not made available n

sufficient to offset the benzene deficit of for use as motor vehicle gasoline, or ∑(V × B ) i i
the previous year. dispensed for use in motor vehicles, Bavg = i =1
n
(iii) Benzene credits may be used, per except for motor vehicles used only in
§ 80.1295, to meet the requirements of sanctioned racing events. ∑V
i =1
i
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this (b) California gasoline, as defined in
section. § 80.1236. Where:
(3) In the case of an approved Bavg = Annual average benzene
hardship under § 80.1335 or § 80.1336, (c) Gasoline that is exported for sale
outside the U.S. concentration (volume percent
EPA may allow a briefly extended benzene).
period of deficit carry-forward. (d) Gasoline used for research, i = Individual batch of gasoline
(c) Oxygenate blenders, butane development or testing purposes if it is produced at the refinery or
blenders and refiners that produce exempted for these purposes under the imported.
gasoline from transmix. (1)(i) Refiners reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping n = Total number of batches of gasoline
and oxygenate blenders that only blend programs, as applicable. produced at the refinery or
butane or oxygenate into gasoline (e) Gasoline produced pursuant to imported during the applicable
downstream of the refinery that § 80.1230(c)(1). annual averaging period.
produced the gasoline or the import
Vi = Volume of gasoline in batch i
facility where the gasoline was § 80.1236 What requirements apply to
(gallons).
imported, are not subject to the California gasoline?
Bi = Benzene concentration of batch i
requirements of § 80.1230 for such (a) Definition. For purposes of this (volume percent benzene), per
gasoline.
subpart, California gasoline means any § 80.46(e).
(ii) Refiners that produce gasoline by gasoline designated by the refiner or
separating gasoline from transmix are (b) All input batch benzene
importer as for use only in California concentration values used in paragraph
not subject to the requirements of and that is actually used in California.
§ 80.1230 for this gasoline. (a) of this section shall be expressed to
(2) Any refiner under paragraph (c)(1) (b) California gasoline exemption. two decimal places.
of this section that adds any blendstock California gasoline that complies with (c) Annual average benzene
or feedstock other than, or in addition all the requirements of this section is concentration values calculated under
to, oxygenate and/or butane into exempt from the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section shall be
gasoline downstream of the refinery that § 80.1230. expressed to two decimal places using
produced the gasoline or the import (c) Requirements for California conventional rounding methodology.
facility where the gasoline was gasoline. The following requirements (d) A refiner or importer may include
imported, or into transmix, or into apply to California gasoline: the volume of oxygenate added
gasoline produced from transmix, is downstream from the refinery or import
(1) Each batch of California gasoline facility in the calculation specified in
subject to the requirements of § 80.1230 must be designated as such by its refiner
for this blendstock or feedstock. paragraph (a) of this section, provided
or importer. the following requirements are met:
§ 80.1235 What gasoline is subject to the (2) Designated California gasoline (1) For oxygenate added to
benzene requirements of this subpart? must be kept segregated from gasoline conventional gasoline, the refiner or
For the purposes of determining that is not California gasoline at all importer must comply with the
compliance with the requirements of points in the distribution system. requirements of § 80.101(d)(4)(ii) and
§ 80.1230, all reformulated gasoline, (3) Designated California gasoline (g)(3).
RBOB, and conventional gasoline or must ultimately be used in the State of (2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the
gasoline blending stock per § 80.101(d) California and not used elsewhere in the refiner or importer must comply with
are collectively ‘‘gasoline.’’ Unless United States. the requirements of § 80.69(a).
otherwise specified, all of a refinery’s or (e) Refiners and importers must
importer’s gasoline is subject to the (4) In the case of California gasoline
produced outside the State of California, exclude from the calculation specified
standards and requirements of in paragraph (a) of this section all of the
§ 80.1230, with the following the transferors and transferees must
meet the product transfer document following:
exceptions: (1) Gasoline that was not produced at
(a) Gasoline that is used to fuel requirements under § 80.81(g).
the refinery or imported by the
aircraft, racing vehicles or racing boats (5) Gasoline that is ultimately used in importer.
that are used only in sanctioned racing any part of the United States outside of (2) Except as provided in paragraph
events, provided that: the State of California must comply with (c) of this section, any blendstocks or
(1) Product transfer documents the requirements specified in § 80.1230, unfinished gasoline transferred to
associated with such gasoline, and any regardless of any designation as others.
pump stand from which such gasoline California gasoline. (3) Gasoline that has been included in
is dispensed, identify the gasoline either the compliance calculations for another
as gasoline that is restricted for use in § 80.1238 How is a refinery’s or importer’s
annual average benzene concentration refinery or importer.
aircraft, or as gasoline that is restricted (4) Gasoline exempted from the
determined?
for use in racing motor vehicles or
standards under § 80.1235.

racing boats that are used only in (a) The annual average benzene
sanctioned events; concentration of gasoline produced at a § 80.1240 How is a refinery’s or importer’s
(2) The gasoline is completely refinery or imported by an importer for compliance with the gasoline benzene
segregated from all other gasoline the applicable averaging period is requirements of this subpart determined?
throughout production, distribution and calculated according to the following (a)(1) The compliance benzene value
EP29MR06.008</MATH>
sale to the ultimate consumer; and equation: for a refinery or importer is:
 Bavg  not eligible to generate standard credits (2) Refiners shall not move gasoline or
CBVy = Vy ×   + D y −1 − BC − RC under § 80.1290. gasoline blending stocks from one
 100  § 80.1275 How are early benzene credits
refinery to another for the purpose of
generating early credits.
Where: generated? (h) An importer may not generate
CBVy = Compliance benzene value (a) Early benzene credits may be early credits.
(gallons benzene) for year y. generated only if a refinery’s annual (i) A foreign refiner with an approved
Vy = Gasoline volume produced or average gasoline benzene concentration baseline may generate early credits
imported in year y (gallons). is at least 10% lower than the refinery’s subject to the provisions of § 80.1420.
Bavg = Annual average benzene approved baseline benzene
concentration per § 80.1280. § 80.1280 How are refinery benzene
concentration (volume percent baselines calculated?
benzene), per § 80.1238. (b) [Reserved]
(c) The early credit annual averaging (a) A refinery’s benzene baseline is
Dy-1 = Benzene deficit from the previous
periods are as follows: based on the refinery’s 2004–2005
reporting period, per § 80.1230(b)
(1) For 2007, the seven-month period average gasoline benzene concentration,
(gallons benzene). calculated according to the following
BC = Banked benzene credits used to from June 1, 2007, through December
31, 2007, inclusive. equation:
show compliance (gallons benzene).
RC = Benzene credits received by the (2) For 2008, 2009 and 2010, the 12- n
refinery or importer, per
§ 80.1295(c), used to show
month calendar year.
(3) For 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, ∑(V × B ) i i
compliance (gallons benzene). which apply only to approved small BBase = i =1

n
(2) If CBVy ≤ Vy x (0.62)/100, then

refiners per § 80.1340, the 12-month
calendar year.
∑V
i =1
i
compliance is achieved for calendar
(d) The number of early benzene
year y. Where:
credits shall be calculated annually for
(b)(1) A deficit is created when CBVy BBase = Benzene baseline concentration
each applicable averaging period as
> Vy x (0.62)/100. (volume percent benzene).
follows:
(2) The deficit value to be included in i = Individual batch of gasoline
(1) Proceed to paragraph (d)(2) of this
the following year’s compliance produced at the refinery from
section under the following condition.
calculation per paragraph (a) of this January 1, 2004 through December
Bavg ≤ BBase × 0.90
section, is calculated as follows: 31, 2005.
Where: n = Total number of batches of gasoline
 0.62  Bavg = Annual average benzene produced at the refinery from
D y −1 = Vy ×   − CBVy concentration (volume percent January 1, 2004 through December
 100  benzene) of gasoline produced at 31, 2005 (or the total number of
the refinery, per § 80.1238. batches of gasoline pursuant to
Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT)
BBase = Baseline benzene concentration § 80.1285(d)).
Program Vi = Volume of gasoline in batch i
(volume percent benzene) of the
§ 80.1270 Who may generate benzene refinery, per § 80.1280(b). (gallons).
credits under the ABT program? Bi = Benzene content of batch i (volume
(2) Calculate the number of early
(a) Early credits. (1) Early credits may percent benzene).
credits generated by the refinery for the
be generated under § 80.1275 by a averaging period as follows: (b) All input batch benzene
refiner for a refinery with an approved concentration values used in paragraph
benzene baseline under § 80.1285. (a) of this section shall be expressed to
 BBase − Bavg  two decimal places.
(2) Early credits may be generated EC y =   × Ve
100 (c) Baseline benzene concentration
under § 80.1275 only by refiners that  
produce gasoline by processing crude values calculated under paragraph (a) of
oil through refinery processing units. Where: this section shall be expressed to two
(3)(i) A refinery that was shut down ECy = Early credits generated in year y decimal places using conventional
during the entire 2004–2005 benzene (gallons benzene). rounding methodology.
Bavg = Annual average benzene (d) Any refiner that, under § 80.69 or
baseline period is not eligible to
concentration (volume percent § 80.101(d)(4), included oxygenate
generate early credits under § 80.1275.
benzene) of gasoline produced at blended downstream in compliance
(ii) A refinery not in full production,
calculations for RFG or conventional
EP29MR06.012</MATH>
excluding normal refinery downtime, or the refinery, per § 80.1238 that
satisfies the condition of paragraph gasoline for calendar years 2004 or 2005
not showing consistent or regular
(d)(1) of this section. for a refinery must include the volume
gasoline production activity during
Ve = Total volume of gasoline (gallons) and benzene concentration of this
2004–2005 may be eligible to generate
produced during the annual oxygenate in the baseline calculations
early benzene credits under § 80.1275
for gasoline benzene content for that
EP29MR06.011</MATH>
upon petition to and approval by EPA, averaging period at the refinery.

refinery under paragraph (a) of this
under § 80.1285. (e) All input benzene concentration section.
(b) Standard Credits. (1) Standard values used in paragraph (d) of this
credits may be generated under section shall be expressed to two § 80.1285 How does a refiner apply for a
§ 80.1290 by refineries and importers for decimal places. benzene baseline?
EP29MR06.010</MATH>
gasoline produced or imported for use (f) Early benzene credits calculated (a) A refiner must submit an
in the U.S., excluding gasoline exempt under paragraph (d) of this section shall application to EPA which includes the
from the benzene standard under the be expressed to the nearest gallon using information specified in paragraph (c) of
provisions of § 80.1235. conventional rounding methodology. this section at least 60 days before the
(2) Oxygenate blenders, butane (g)(1) Early benzene credits shall be refinery plans to begin generating early
EP29MR06.009</MATH>
blenders, and transmix producers are calculated separately for each refinery. credits.
(b) The benzene baseline application period specified in paragraph (b) of this another refinery or importer outside of
shall be sent to: U.S. EPA, Attn: Early section: the company.
Gasoline Benzene Credits (6406J), 1200 (1) A refiner, at any of its refineries (b) Credit banking. Gasoline benzene
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, that produce gasoline for use in the U.S. credits generated by a refinery or
DC 20460. For commercial delivery: (excluding gasoline under § 80.1235 that importer may be banked for use in a
U.S. EPA Attn: Early Gasoline Benzene is exempt from the requirements of this later compliance period, or may be
Credits (6406J), 501 3rd Street, NW., subpart). Credits are generated transferred to another refiner, refinery,
Washington, DC 20001. separately by each refinery; or importer for use as provided in
(c) A benzene baseline application (2) Importers, for all of their imported paragraph (c) of this section.
must be submitted for each refinery that gasoline (excluding gasoline under (c) Credit transfers. (1) Gasoline
plans to generate early credits under § 80.1235 that is exempt from the benzene credits obtained from another
§ 80.1275 and must include the requirements of this subpart); refinery or importer may be used to
following information: (b) The standard credit averaging comply with the gasoline benzene
(1) A listing of the names and periods are the calendar years beginning content requirement of § 80.1230
addresses of all refineries owned by the with 2011, or beginning with 2015 for provided the following conditions are
company. approved small refiners. met:
(2) The benzene baseline for gasoline (c) [Reserved] (i) The credits are generated and
produced in 2004–2005 at the refinery, (d)(1) The number of standard credits reported according to the requirements
calculated in accordance with generated by a refinery or importer shall of this subpart, and the transferred
§ 80.1280(b). be calculated annually according to the credit has not expired, per paragraph (d)
(3) Copies of the annual reports following equation: of this section.
(ii) Any credit transfer takes place no
required under § 80.75 for RFG and
§ 80.105 for conventional gasoline.  0.62 − Bavg  later than the last day of February
(4) A letter signed by the president,
SC y =   × Vy following the calendar year averaging
chief operating officer, or chief  100  period when the credits are used.
(iii) The credit has not been
executive officer, of the company, or Where: transferred more than twice. The first
his/her designee, stating that the SCy = Standard credits generated in year transfer by the refinery or importer that
information contained in the benzene y (gallons benzene). generated the credit may only be made
baseline determination is true to the Bavg = Annual average benzene to a refiner or importer that intends to
best of his/her knowledge. concentration for year y (volume use the credit; if the transferee cannot
(5) Name, address, phone number, percent benzene), per § 80.1238. use the credit, it may make the second,
facsimile number and e-mail address of Vy = Total volume of gasoline produced and final, transfer only to a refinery or
a corporate contact person. or imported in year y (gallons). importer that intends to use or terminate
(d) A refiner, for a refinery that (2) No credits shall be generated the credit. In no case may a credit be
qualifies for generating early credits unless the value SCy is positive. transferred more than twice before being
under § 80.1270(a)(3)(ii) may submit to (e) All input benzene concentration used or terminated.
EPA a benzene baseline application per values used in paragraph (d) of this (iv) The credit transferor has applied
the requirements of this section. The section shall be expressed to two any gasoline benzene credits necessary
refiner must also submit information decimal places. to meet its own annual compliance
regarding the nature and cause of the (f) Standard benzene credits requirements (and any deficit carry-
inconsistent production, how it affects calculated under paragraph (d) of this forward, if applicable) before
the baseline and benzene concentration, section shall be expressed to the nearest transferring any gasoline benzene
and whether an alternative calculation gallon using conventional rounding credits to any other refiner or importer.
to the calculation specified in § 80.1280 methodology. (v) The credit transferor would not
produces a more representative benzene (g) Foreign refiners may not generate create a deficit as a result of a credit
baseline value. EPA, upon consideration credits under this section. transfer.
of the submitted information, may (vi) The transferor supplies to the
approve a benzene baseline for such a § 80.1295 How are gasoline benzene transferee records indicating the year
refinery. credits used? the gasoline benzene credits were
(e) Within 60 days of receipt of an (a) Credit use. (1) Gasoline benzene generated, the identity of the refiner
application under this section, except credits generated under §§ 80.1275 and (and refinery) or importer that generated
for applications submitted in 80.1290 may be used to comply with the the gasoline benzene credits and the
accordance with paragraph (d) of this gasoline benzene content requirement of identity of the transferring entity if not
section, EPA will notify the refiner of § 80.1230 provided that: the same entity that generated the
approval of the refinery’s baseline or (i) The gasoline benzene credits were gasoline benzene credits.
any deficiencies in the application. generated and reported according to the (2) In the case of gasoline benzene
(f) If at any time the baseline requirements of this subpart; and credits that have been calculated or
submitted in accordance with the (ii) The conditions of this section created improperly, or have otherwise
requirements of this section is § 80.1295 are met. been determined to be invalid, the
determined to be incorrect, EPA will (2) Gasoline benzene credits generated following provisions apply:
notify the refiner of the corrected under §§ 80.1275 and 80.1290 may be (i) Invalid gasoline benzene credits
baseline. used by a refiner or importer to comply cannot be used to achieve compliance
with the gasoline benzene content with the gasoline benzene content
§ 80.1290 How are benzene credits standard of § 80.1230, may be banked by requirement of § 80.1230 regardless of
generated in 2011 and beyond? a refiner or importer for future use or the transferee’s good faith belief that the
(a) Gasoline benzene standard credits transfer, may be transferred to another gasoline benzene credits were valid.
may be generated by the following refinery or importer within a company (ii) The refiner or importer that used
EP29MR06.013</GPH>
parties during any applicable averaging (intracompany), or may be transferred to the gasoline benzene credits and any
transferor of the gasoline benzene EPA determines is appropriate, but shall requirements under § 80.1230(b) for a
credits must adjust their credit records, not extend beyond December 31, 2014. brief period (e.g., where appropriate,
reports, and compliance calculations as (2) EPA reserves the right to deny EPA may allow one or more additional
necessary to reflect the proper gasoline applications for appropriate reasons, weeks after the last day of February to
benzene credits. including unacceptable environmental purchase credits), provided the refinery
(iii) Any properly created gasoline impact. or importer meets all the criteria,
benzene credits existing in the (c)(1) Applications must include a requirements and conditions contained
transferor’s credit balance following the plan demonstrating how the refiner will in § 80.73(a) through (e).
corrections and adjustments specified in comply with the requirements of this
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section and subpart as expeditiously as possible. Small Refiner Provisions
after the transferor applies gasoline The plan shall include a showing that § 80.1338 What is the definition of a small
benzene credits as needed to meet its contracts are or will be in place for refiner for the purpose of the gasoline
own compliance requirements at the engineering and construction of benzene benzene requirements of this subpart?
end of the compliance period, must first reduction technology, a plan for (a) A small refiner is defined as any
be applied to correct the invalid applying for and obtaining any permits person, as defined by 42 U.S.C. 7602(e),
transfers to the transferee, before the necessary for construction, a description that—
transferor uses, trades or banks the of plans to obtain necessary capital, and (1) Produced gasoline at a refinery by
gasoline benzene credits. a detailed estimate of when the processing crude oil through refinery
(d) Credit life. (1) Early credits, per requirements of this subpart will be met. processing units from January 1, 2005,
§ 80.1275, may be used for compliance (2) Applications must include a through December 31, 2005; and
purposes under § 80.1240 for any detailed description of the refinery (2) Employed an average of no more
calendar year averaging period prior to configuration and operations including, than 1,500 people, based on the average
the 2014 averaging period. at minimum, the following information: number of employees for all pay periods
(2) Standard credits, per § 80.1290, (i) The refinery’s total reformer unit from January 1, 2005 through December
shall have a credit life of 5 calendar year throughput capacity; 31, 2005; and
averaging periods after the year in (ii) The refinery’s total crude capacity; (3) Had a corporate average crude oil
which they were generated. Example: (iii) Total crude capacity of any other capacity less than or equal to 155,000
Standard credits generated during 2014 refineries owned by the same entity; barrels per calendar day (bpcd) for 2005;
may be used to achieve compliance (iv) Total volume of gasoline or
under § 80.1240 for any calendar year production at the refinery; (4) Has been approved by EPA as a
averaging period prior to the 2020 (v) Total volume of other refinery small refiner under § 80.1340.
averaging period. products; and (b) For the purpose of determining the
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(1) (vi) Geographic location(s) where the number of employees and the crude oil
and (d)(2) of this section, credits traded refinery’s gasoline will be sold. capacity under paragraph (a) of this
to or used by approved small refiners (3) Applications must include, at a section, the following determinations
per § 80.1340, have an additional credit minimum, the following information: shall be observed:
life of two calendar year averaging (i) Detailed descriptions of efforts to
periods. (1) The refiner shall include the
obtain capital for refinery investments;
(e) General limitations on credit use. employees and crude oil capacity of any
(ii) Detailed descriptions of efforts to
A refiner or importer possessing subsidiary companies, any parent
obtain credits;
gasoline benzene credits must use all company and subsidiaries of the parent
(iii) Bond rating of entity that owns
gasoline benzene credits in its company in which the parent has a
the refinery; and
possession prior to applying the credit controlling interest, and any joint
(iv) Estimated capital investment
deficit provisions of § 80.1230(b). venture partners.
needed to comply with the requirements
(2) For any refiner owned by a
Hardship Provisions of this subpart
governmental entity, the number of
(4) Applicants must also provide any
employees and total crude oil capacity
§ 80.1335 Can a refiner seek temporary other relevant information requested by
relief from the requirements of this as specified in paragraph (a) of this
EPA.
subpart? (d) EPA may impose any reasonable section shall include all employees and
(a) EPA may permit a refinery to have conditions on waivers granted under crude oil production of the government
an extended period of deficit carry- this section, including the condition to which the governmental entity is a
forward, for the shortest period that if more credits are available than part.
practicable, per § 80.1230(b), if the was anticipated at the time of the (3) Any refiner owned and controlled
refiner demonstrates that: hardship approval, the extended period by an Alaska Regional or Village
(1) Unusual circumstances exist that of deficit carry-forward may be Corporation organized pursuant to the
impose extreme hardship and shortened. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
significantly affect the ability to comply U.S.C. 1601) is not considered an
by the applicable date; and § 80.1336 What if a refiner or importer affiliate of such entity, or with other
(2) It has made best efforts to comply cannot produce gasoline conforming to the concerns owned by such entity, solely
with the requirements of this subpart, requirements of this subpart? because of their common ownership.
including making all possible efforts to In extreme and unusual (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of
obtain sufficient credits to meet the circumstances (e.g., natural disaster or paragraph (a) of this section, a refiner
standard. Act of God) which are clearly outside that reactivates a refinery, which it
(b) Applications must be submitted to the control of the refiner or importer previously operated, and that was shut
EPA by September 1, 2009. and which could not have been avoided down or non-operational for the entire
(1) Approval of a hardship under this by the exercise of prudence, diligence, period between January 1, 2005, and
section shall be in the form an extended and due care, EPA may permit a refinery December 31, 2005, may apply for small
period of deficit carry-forward, per or importer to extend the deadline for refiner status in accordance with the
§ 80.1230(b), for such period of time as meeting the deficit carry-forward provisions of § 80.1340.
§ 80.1339 Who is not eligible for the non-small refiners by notifying EPA in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), for
provisions for small refiners? writing no later than November 15 prior the period January 1, 2005, through
(a) The following are not eligible for to the year that the change will occur. December 31, 2005.
the hardship provisions for small Any refiner whose status changes under (ii) The information submitted to EIA
refiners: this paragraph (b)(2) shall meet the is presumed to be correct. In cases
(1) Refiners with refineries built after requirements for non-small refiners where a company disagrees with this
December 31, 2005; under § 80.1230 beginning with the first information, the company may petition
(2) Refiners that exceed the employee averaging period subsequent to the EPA with appropriate data to correct the
or crude oil capacity criteria under status change. record when the company submits its
§ 80.1338 but that meet these criteria application for small refiner status.
after December 31, 2005, regardless of § 80.1340 How does a refiner obtain (3) The type of business activity
whether the reduction in employees or approval as a small refiner? carried out at each location.
crude capacity is due to operational (a) Applications for small refiner (4) For each refinery, an indication of
changes at the refinery or a company status must be submitted to EPA by the small refiner option(s) intended to
sale or reorganization. December 31, 2007. be utilized at the refinery.
(3) Importers. (b) Applications for small refiner (5) A letter signed by the president,
(4) Refiners that produce gasoline status must be sent to: U.S. EPA, Attn: chief operating or chief executive officer
other than by processing crude oil MSAT2 Benzene (6406J), 1200 of the company, or his/her designee,
through refinery processing units. Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, stating that the information contained in
(b)(1)(i) Refiners that qualify as small DC 20460. For commercial delivery: the application is true to the best of his/
under § 80.1338 and subsequently cease U.S. EPA Attn: MSAT2 Benzene (6406J), her knowledge, and that the company
production of gasoline from processing 501 3rd Street, NW., Washington, DC owned the refinery as of January 1,
crude oil through refinery processing 20001. 2006.
units, employ more than 1,500 people or (c) The small refiner status (6) Name, address, phone number,
exceed the 155,000 bpcd crude oil application must contain the following facsimile number, and E-mail address of
capacity limit after December 31, 2005, information for the company seeking a corporate contact person.
as a result of merger with or acquisition small refiner status, and for all (d) Approval of a small refiner status
of or by another entity, are disqualified subsidiary companies, all parent application will be based on all
as small refiners, except this shall not companies, all subsidiaries of the parent information submitted under paragraph
apply in the case of a merger between companies, and all joint venture (c) of this section and any other relevant
two previously approved small refiners. partners: information.
If disqualification occurs, the refiner (1) Employees. (i) A listing of the (e) EPA will notify a refiner of
shall notify EPA in writing no later than names and addresses of each location approval or disapproval of small refiner
20 days following this disqualifying where any employee worked during the status by letter.
event. 12 months preceding January 1, 2006; (1) If approved, all refineries of the
(ii) Except as provided under (ii) The average number of employees refiner may defer meeting the standard
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, any at each location based upon the number specified in § 80.1230 until the annual
refiner whose status changes under this of employees for each pay period for the averaging period beginning January 1,
paragraph (b) shall meet the applicable 12 months preceding January 1, 2006; 2015.
standards of § 80.1230 within a period (2) If disapproved, all refineries of the
and
of up to 30 months of the disqualifying (iii) The type of business activities refiner must meet the standard specified
event for all of its refineries. However, carried out at each location. in § 80.1230 beginning with the annual
such period shall not extend beyond (iv) In the case of a refiner that averaging period beginning January 1,
December 31, 2014. reactivates a refinery that it previously 2011.
(iii) A refiner may apply to EPA for (f) If EPA finds that a refiner provided
owned and operated and that was shut
an additional six months to comply false or inaccurate information on its
down or non-operational between
with the standards of § 80.1230 if more application for small refiner status,
January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2006,
than 30 months will be required for the upon notice from EPA, the refiner’s
include the following:
necessary engineering, permitting, (A) A listing of the name and address small refiner status will be void ab
construction, and start-up work to be of each location where any employee of initio.
(g) Prior to January 1, 2014, and upon
completed. Such applications must the refiner worked since the refiner
notification to EPA, an approved small
include detailed technical information acquired or reactivated the refinery;
refiner per this section may withdraw
supporting the need for additional time. (B) The average number of employees
its status as a small refiner. Effective on
EPA will base its decision to approve at any such reactivated refinery during
January 1 of the year following such
additional time on the information each calendar year since the refiner
notification, the small refiner will
provided by the refiner and on other reactivated the refinery; and
(C) The type of business activities become subject to the standards at
relevant information. In no case will
carried out at each location. § 80.1230.
EPA extend the compliance date beyond
December 31, 2014. (vi) For joint ventures, the total § 80.1342 What compliance options are
(iv) During the period of time of up to number of employees includes the available to small refiners under this
30 months provided under paragraph combined employee count of all subpart?
(b)(1)(ii) of this section, and any corporate entities in the venture. (a) A refiner that has been approved
extension provided under paragraph (vii) For government-owned refiners, as a small refiner under § 80.1340 may—
(b)(1)(iii) of this section, the refiner may the total employee count includes all (1) Defer meeting the standard
not generate gasoline benzene credits government employees. specified in section § 80.1230 until the
under § 80.1275 or § 80.1290. (2) Crude oil capacity. (i) The total annual averaging period January 1,
(2) An approved small refiner per corporate crude oil capacity of each 2015; or
§ 80.1340 may elect to meet the refinery as reported to the Energy (2) Meet the standard specified in
requirements of § 80.1230 applicable to Information Administration (EIA) of the § 80.1230 beginning January 1 of any of
the following annual averaging periods: § 80.1348 What gasoline sample retention (9) The number of credits that expired
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, requirements apply to refiners and at the end of the averaging period,
2013, and 2014. importers? separately by generating facility and
(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of The gasoline sample retention year of generation;
this section shall apply separately for requirements specified in subpart H of (10) The number of credits that will
each of an approved small refiner’s this part for the gasoline sulfur be carried over into the subsequent
refineries. provisions apply for the purpose of averaging period, separately by
complying with the requirements of this generating facility and year of
§ 80.1344 What provisions are available to subpart, except that in addition to generation;
a large refiner that acquires one or more of (11) Contracts or other commercial
a small refiner’s refineries?
including the sulfur test result as
provided by § 80.335(a)(4)(ii), the documents that establish each transfer
(a) In the case of a refiner without refiner, importer, or independent of credits from the transferor to the
approved small refiner status that laboratory shall also include with the transferee; and
acquires a refinery from an approved retained sample the test result for (12) A copy of all reports submitted to
small refiner per § 80.1340, the small benzene as conducted pursuant to EPA under §§ 80.1352 and 80.1354,
refiner provisions of the gasoline § 80.46(e). however, duplicate records are not
benzene program of this subpart may required.
continue to apply to the acquired Recordkeeping and Reporting (c) Length of time records shall be
refinery for a period of up to 30 months Requirements kept. The records required by this
from the date of acquisition of the section shall be kept for five years from
§ 80.1350 What records must be kept?
refinery. In no case shall this period the end of the annual averaging period
extend beyond December 31, 2014. (a) General requirements. The during which they were created, or
(b) A refiner may apply to EPA for up recordkeeping requirements specified in seven years for records pertaining to
to an additional six months to comply § 80.74 and § 80.104, as applicable, credits traded to a small refiner in
with the standards of § 80.1230 for the apply for the purpose of complying with accordance with § 80.1295(d)(3), except
acquired refinery if more than 30 the requirements of this subpart, where longer record retention is
months would be required for the however, duplicate records are not required elsewhere in this subpart.
necessary engineering, permitting, required. (d) Make records available to EPA. On
construction, and start-up work to be (b) Additional records that refiners request by EPA, the records specified in
completed. Such applications must and importers shall keep. Beginning this section shall be provided to the
include detailed technical information January 1, 2007, any refiner for each of Administrator. For records that are
supporting the need for additional time. its refineries, and any importer for the electronically generated or maintained,
EPA will base a decision to approve gasoline it imports, shall keep records the equipment and software necessary
additional time on information provided that include the following information to read the records shall be made
by the refiner and on other relevant (including any supporting calculations available, or upon approval by EPA,
information. In no case shall this period as applicable): electronic records shall be converted to
extend beyond December 31, 2014. (1) Its compliance benzene value per paper documents which shall be
(c) A refiner that acquires a refinery § 80.1240, and the calculations used to provided to the Administrator.
from an approved small refiner per obtain that value.
(2) Its benzene baseline value, per § 80.1352 What are the pre-compliance
§ 80.1340 shall notify EPA in writing no reporting requirements for the gasoline
later than 20 days following the § 80.1280, if the refinery or importer benzene program?
acquisition. submitted a benzene baseline
application to EPA per § 80.1285; (a) Except as provided in paragraph
Sampling, Testing and Retention (3) The number of early benzene (c) of this section, a refiner for each of
Requirements its refineries shall submit the following
credits generated under § 80.1275,
information to EPA beginning June 1,
§ 80.1347 What are the sampling and separately by year of generation;
2008, and annually thereafter through
testing requirements for refiners and (4) The number of early benzene
June 1, 2011, or through June 1, 2015,
importers? credits obtained, separately by
for small refiners:
(a) Sample and test each batch of generating refinery and year of (1) Changes to the information
gasoline. Refiners and importers shall generation; submitted in the company’s registration;
collect a representative sample from (5) The number of valid credits in (2) Changes to the information
each batch of gasoline produced or possession of the refinery or importer at submitted for any refinery or import
imported. Each sample shall be tested in the beginning of each averaging period, facility registration;
accordance the methodology specified separately by generating facility and (3) Gasoline production. (i) An
at § 80.46(e) to determine its benzene year of generation; estimate of the average daily volume (in
concentration for compliance with the (6) The number of standard credits gallons) of gasoline produced at each
requirements of this subpart. generated by the refinery or importer refinery. This estimate shall include
(b) Batch numbering. The batch under § 80.1290, separately by transferor RFG, RBOB, conventional gasoline and
numbering convention of § 80.365(b)(2) (if applicable), and by year of conventional gasoline blendstock that
shall apply to batches of conventional generation; becomes finished gasoline solely upon
gasoline. (7) The number of credits used, the addition of oxygenate but shall
(c) The requirements of this section separately by generating facility and exclude gasoline exempted pursuant to
apply to any refiner or importer subject year of generation; § 80.1235;
to the requirements of this subpart, (8) If any credits were obtained from, (ii) These volume estimates must be
including those generating early credits or transferred to, other parties, for each provided for the periods of June 1, 2007,
per § 80.1275, all non-small refiners and other party, its name, its EPA refinery or through December 31, 2007, and
importers beginning January 1, 2011, importer registration number, and the calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
and small refiners beginning January 1, number of credits obtained from, or (4) Benzene concentration. An
2015. transferred to, the other party; estimate of the average gasoline benzene
concentration corresponding to the time (1) Benzene volume percent and and batch reports filed with EPA for
periods specified in paragraph (a)(3) of volume of any RFG, RBOB, and 2004 and 2005 which contain gasoline
this section. conventional gasoline, separately by benzene and gasoline volume
(5) ABT Participation. If the refinery batch, produced by the refinery or information.
is expecting to participate in the credit imported, and the sum of the volumes (2) Agree the yearly volumes of
trading program under § 80.1275 and/or and the volume-weighted benzene gasoline and benzene concentration, in
§ 80.1290, the actual or estimated, as concentration, in volume percent; volume percent and benzene gallons,
applicable, numbers of early credits and (2) The annual average benzene reported to EPA in the reports specified
standard credits expected to be concentration, per § 80.1240, § 80.1275 in paragraph (a)(1) of this section with
generated and/or used each year or § 80.1290, as applicable; the inventory reconciliation analysis
through 2015. (3) Any benzene deficit from the under § 80.128.
(6) Information on any project previous reporting period, per (3) Verify that the information in the
schedule by quarter of known or § 80.1230(b); refinery’s or importer’s batch reports
projected completion date by the stage (4) The number of banked benzene filed with EPA under §§ 80.75 and
of the project, for example, following credits from the previous reporting 80.105, and any laboratory test results,
the five project phases described in period; agree with the information contained in
EPA’s June 2002 Highway Diesel (5) The number of benzene credits the reports specified in paragraph (a)(1)
Progress Review report (EPA420–R–02– generated under § 80.1275, if applicable; of this section.
016, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ (6) The number of benzene credits
generated under § 80.1290, if applicable; (4) Calculate the average benzene
hd2007/420r02016.pdf): Strategic concentration for all of the refinery’s or
planning, Planning and front-end (7) The number of benzene credits
transferred to the refinery or importer, importer’s gasoline volume over 2004
engineering, Detailed engineering and and 2005 and verify that those values
permitting, Procurement and per § 80.1295(c), and the cost of the
credits, if applicable; agree with the values reported to EPA
Construction, and Commissioning and per § 80.1285.
startup; (8) The number of benzene credits
transferred from the refinery or (b) Baseline for early credit
(7) Basic information regarding the
importer, per § 80.1295(c), and the price generation. For the first attest reporting
selected technology pathway for
of the credits, if applicable; period following approval of a benzene
compliance (e.g., precursor re-routing or
(9) The number of benzene credits baseline:
other technologies, revamp vs.
grassroots, etc.); terminated or expired; (1) Obtain the EPA benzene baseline
(8) Whether capital commitments (10) The compliance benzene value approval letter for the refinery to
have been made or are projected to be specified in § 80.1240; determine the refinery’s applicable
made. (11) The number of banked benzene benzene baseline under § 80.1285.
(b) The pre-compliance reports due in credits; (2) Obtain a written representation
2008 and succeeding years must provide (12) Projected credit generation from the company representative stating
an update of the progress in each of through compliance year 2015; and the benzene value used as the refinery’s
these areas and actual values where (13) Projected credit use through baseline and agree that number to
available. compliance year 2015. paragraph (b)(1) of this section and to
(c) The pre-compliance reporting (d) EPA may require submission of the reports to EPA.
requirements of this section do not additional information to verify (c) Early credit generation. The
apply to refineries exempted under the compliance with the requirements of following procedures shall be
provisions of § 80.1230(c)(1). this subpart. completed for a refinery or importer that
(e) The report required by paragraph generates early benzene credits per
§ 80.1354 What are the reporting (a) of this section shall be: § 80.1275:
requirements for the gasoline benzene (1) Submitted on forms and following
program? (1) Obtain the baseline benzene
procedures specified by the
concentration and gasoline volume from
(a) Beginning with the 2011 annual Administrator of EPA;
paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
averaging period, or the 2015 annual (2) Submitted to EPA by the last day
averaging period for small refiners, and of February each year for the prior (2) Obtain the annual benzene report
continuing for each averaging period calendar year averaging period; and per § 80.1354.
thereafter, every refiner, for each of its (3) Signed and certified as correct by (3) If the benzene value under
refineries, and every importer shall the owner or a responsible corporate paragraph (c)(2) of this section is at least
submit to EPA the information required officer of the refiner or importer. 10 percent less than value in paragraph
in this section, and such other (c)(1) of this section, compute and
Attest Engagements report as a finding the difference
information as EPA may require.
(b) Beginning with the 2007 annual § 80.1375 What are the attest engagement according to § 80.1275.
averaging period for refiners generating requirements for gasoline benzene (4) Compute and report as a finding
early credits pursuant to § 80.1275 or compliance? the total number of benzene credits
§ 80.1290(b) for approved small refiners, In addition to the requirements for generated by multiplying the value
every refiner for each of its refineries attest engagements that apply to refiners calculated in paragraph (c)(3) of this
shall submit to EPA the information and importers under §§ 80.125 through section by the volume of gasoline listed
required in this section, and such other 80.130, 80.410, and 80.1030, the attest in the report specified in paragraph
information as EPA may require. engagements for refiners and importers (c)(2) of this section, and agree this
(c) Refiner and importer annual must include the following procedures number with the number reported to
reports. Any refiner, for each of its and requirements each year. EPA.
refineries, and any importer for the (a) EPA early credit generation (d) Standard credit generation. The
gasoline it imports, shall submit a baseline years’ reports. following procedures shall be
Gasoline Benzene Report containing the (1) Obtain and read a copy of the completed for a refinery or importer that
following information: refinery’s or importer’s annual reports generates benzene credits per § 80.1290:
(1) Obtain the annual average benzene (1) Obtain the credits remaining or the and may include, but is not limited to,
value from the annual benzene report credit deficit from the previous year test results using methods other than
per § 80.1285. from the refiner’s or importer’s report to those specified in § 80.46(e), business
(2) If the annual average benzene EPA for the previous year. records and commercial documents.
value under paragraph (d)(1) of this (2) Compute and report as a finding (b) Determinations of compliance
section is less than 0.62 percent by the net credits remaining at the with the requirements of this subpart
volume, compute and report as a finding conclusion of the year being reviewed other than the benzene standard, and
the difference according to § 80.1290. by totaling: determinations of liability for any
(3) Compute and report as a finding (i) Credits remaining from the violation of this subpart, may be based
the total number of benzene credits previous year; plus on information from any source or
generated by multiplying the value (ii) Credits generated under location. Such information may include,
calculated in paragraph (d)(2) of this paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; but is not limited to, business records
section by the volume of gasoline listed plus and commercial documents.
in the report specified in paragraph (iii) Credits purchased under
(d)(1) of this section, and agree this § 80.1410 Who is liable for violations
paragraph (f) of this section; minus
number with the number reported to under the gasoline benzene program?
(iv) Credits sold under paragraph (f) of
EPA. this section; minus (a) Persons liable for violations of
(e) Credits required. The following (v) Credits used under paragraphs (e) prohibited acts.
attest procedures shall be completed for of this section; minus (1) Averaging violation. Any refiner or
refineries and importers: (vi) Credits expired; minus importer that violates § 80.1400(a) is
(1) Obtain the annual average benzene (vii) Credit deficit from the previous liable for a violation of § 80.1400(a).
concentration and volume from the year. (2) Causing an averaging violation.
annual benzene report per § 80.1285. (3) Agree the credits remaining or the Any person that causes another party to
(2) If the value in paragraph (e)(1) of credit deficit at the conclusion of the violate § 80.1400(a) is liable for a
this section is greater than 0.62 percent year being reviewed with the report to violation of § 80.1400(b).
by volume, compute and report as a EPA. (3) Parent corporation liability. Any
finding the difference between 0.62 (4) If the refinery or importer had a parent corporation is liable for any
percent by volume and the value in credit deficit for both the previous year violations of this subpart that are
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. and the year being reviewed, report this committed by any of its wholly-owned
(3) Compute and report as a finding fact as a finding. subsidiaries.
the total benzene credits required by (4) Joint venture and joint owner
multiplying the value in paragraph Violations and Penalties liability. Each partner to a joint venture,
(e)(2) of this section times the volume of § 80.1400 What acts are prohibited under or each owner of a facility owned by
gasoline in paragraph (e)(1) of this the gasoline benzene program? two or more owners, is jointly and
section, and agree with the report to No person shall: severally liable for any violation of this
EPA. (a) Averaging violation. Produce or subpart that occurs at the joint venture
(4) Obtain the refiner’s or importer’s import gasoline subject to this subpart facility or facility that is owned by the
representation as to the portion of the that does not comply with the joint owners, or that is committed by the
deficit under paragraph (e)(3) of this applicable benzene average standard joint venture operation or any of the
section that was resolved with credits, requirement under § 80.1230. joint owners of the facility.
or that was carried forward as a deficit (b) Causing an averaging violation. (b) Persons liable for failure to meet
under § 80.1230(b), and agree with the Cause another person to commit an act other provisions of this subpart.
report to EPA. in violation of paragraph (a) of this (1) Any person that fails to meet a
(f) Credit purchases and sales. The section. provision of this subpart not addressed
following attest procedures shall be (c) Fail to meet the recordkeeping and in paragraph (a) of this section is liable
completed for a refinery or importer that reporting requirements, or any other for a violation of that provision.
is a transferor or transferee of credits requirements of this subpart. (2) Any person that caused another
during an averaging period: person to fail to meet a requirement of
(1) Obtain contracts or other § 80.1405 What evidence may be used to this subpart not addressed in paragraph
documents for all credits transferred to determine compliance with the prohibitions (a) of this section, is liable for causing
another refinery or importer during the and requirements of this subpart and a violation of that provision.
year being reviewed; compute and liability for violations of this subpart?
report as a finding the number and year (a) Compliance with the benzene § 80.1415 What penalties apply under the
of creation of credits represented in standard of this subpart shall be gasoline benzene program?
these documents as being transferred; determined based on the benzene (a) Any person liable for a violation
and agree with the report to EPA. concentration of the gasoline, measured under § 80.1410 is subject to civil
(2) Obtain contracts or other using the methodologies specified in penalties as specified in sections 205
documents for all credits received § 80.46(e). Any evidence or information, and 211(d) of the Clean Air Act for
during the year being reviewed; including the exclusive use of such every day of each such violation and the
compute and report as a finding the evidence or information, may be used to amount of economic benefit or savings
number and year of creation of credits establish the benzene concentration of resulting from each violation.
represented in these documents as being the gasoline if the evidence or (b) Any person liable under
received; and agree with the report to information is relevant to whether the § 80.1400(a) for a violation of the
EPA. benzene concentration of the gasoline applicable benzene average standard or

(g) Credit reconciliation. The would have been in compliance with causing another person to violate the
following attest procedures shall be the standard if the appropriate sampling requirement during any averaging
completed each year credits were in the and testing methodologies had been period, is subject to a separate day of
refiner’s or importer’s possession at any correctly performed. Such evidence may violation for each and every day in the
time during the year: be obtained from any source or location averaging period. Any person liable
under § 80.1410(b) for a failure to fulfill (b) Baseline for early credits. For any (ii) Any foreign refiner that has been
any requirement of credit generation, foreign refiner to obtain approval under approved to produce gasoline subject to
transfer, use, banking, or deficit carry- the benzene foreign refiner program of the benzene foreign refiner program for
forward correction is subject to a this subpart for any refinery in order to a foreign refinery under this subpart
separate violation for each and every generate early credits under § 80.1275, it may elect to classify no gasoline
day in the averaging period in which must apply for approval under the imported into the United States as
invalid credits are generated, banked, applicable provisions of this subpart. Benzene-FRGAS provided the foreign
transferred or used. (1) The refiner shall follow the refiner notifies EPA of the election no
(c) Any person liable under procedures, applicable to volume later than November 1 preceding the
§ 80.1410(b) for failure to meet, or baselines in §§ 80.91 through 80.93 to beginning of the next compliance
causing a failure to meet, a provision of establish the volume of gasoline that period.
this subpart is liable for a separate day was produced at the refinery and (iii) An election under paragraph
of violation for each and every day such imported into the United States during (c)(3)(ii) of this section shall be for a 12
provision remains unfulfilled. the applicable years for purposes of month compliance period and apply to
establishing a baseline under § 80.1280 all gasoline that is produced by the
Foreign Refiners
for applicable fuels produced for use in foreign refinery that is imported into the
§ 80.1420 What are the additional the United States. United States, and shall remain in effect
requirements under this subpart for (2) In making determinations for for each succeeding year unless and
gasoline produced at foreign refineries? foreign refinery baselines EPA will until the foreign refiner notifies EPA of
(a) Definitions. (1) A foreign refinery consider all information supplied by a the termination of the election. The
is a refinery that is located outside the foreign refiner, and in addition may rely change in election shall take effect at the
United States, the Commonwealth of on any and all appropriate assumptions beginning of the next annual
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, necessary to make such determinations. compliance period.
American Samoa, and the (3) Where a foreign refiner submits a (d) Designation, product transfer
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana petition that is incomplete or documents, and foreign refiner
Islands (collectively referred to in this inadequate to establish an accurate certification. (1) Any foreign refiner of a
section as ‘‘the United States’’). baseline, and the refiner fails to correct foreign refinery that has been approved
(2) A foreign refiner is a person that this deficiency after a request for more by EPA to produce gasoline subject to
meets the definition of refiner under information, EPA will not assign an the benzene foreign refiner program
§ 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery. individual refinery baseline. must designate each batch of Benzene-
(3) Benzene-FRGAS means gasoline (c) General requirements for Benzene- FRGAS as such at the time the gasoline
produced at a foreign refinery that has FRGAS foreign refiners. A foreign is produced, unless the refiner has
been assigned an individual refinery refiner of a refinery that is approved elected to classify no gasoline exported
benzene baseline under § 80.1285, has under the benzene foreign refiner to the United States as Benzene-FRGAS
been approved as a small refiner under program of this subpart must designate under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
§ 80.1340, or has been granted each batch of gasoline produced at the (2) On each occasion when any
temporary relief under § 80.1335, and foreign refinery that is exported to the person transfers custody or title to any
that is imported into the United States. United States as either Certified Benzene-FRGAS prior to its being
(4) Non-Benzene-FRGAS means Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-Certified imported into the United States, it must
(i) Gasoline meeting any of the Benzene-FRGAS, except as provided in include the following information as
conditions specified in paragraph (a)(3) paragraph (c)(3) of this section. part of the product transfer document
of this section that is not imported into (1) In the case of Certified Benzene- information:
the United States. FRGAS, the foreign refiner must meet (i) Designation of the gasoline as
(ii) Gasoline meeting any of the all requirements that apply to refiners Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-
conditions specified in paragraph (a)(3) under this subpart. Certified Benzene-FRGAS; and
of this section during a year when the (2) In the case of Non-Certified (ii) The name and EPA refinery
foreign refiner has opted to not Benzene-FRGAS, the foreign refiner registration number of the refinery
participate in the Benzene-FRGAS shall meet all the following where the Benzene-FRGAS was
program under paragraph (c)(3) of this requirements: produced.
section. (i) The designation requirements in (3) On each occasion when Benzene-
(iii) Gasoline produced at a foreign this section; FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or other
refinery that has not been assigned an (ii) The recordkeeping requirements transportation mode for transport to the
individual refinery benzene baseline in this section and in § 80.1350; United States, the foreign refiner shall
under § 80.1285, or that has not been (iii) The reporting requirements in prepare a certification for each batch of
approved as a small refiner under this section and in §§ 80.1352 and the Benzene-FRGAS that meets the
§ 80.1340, or that has not been granted 80.1354; following requirements.
temporary relief under § 80.1335. (iv) The product transfer document (i) The certification shall include the
(5) Certified Benzene-FRGAS means requirements in this section; report of the independent third party
Benzene-FRGAS the foreign refiner (v) The prohibitions in this section under paragraph (f) of this section, and
intends to include in the foreign and in § 80.1400; and the following additional information:
refinery’s benzene compliance (vi) The independent audit (A) The name and EPA registration
calculations under § 80.1240 or credit requirements in this section and in number of the refinery that produced
calculations under § 80.1275 and does § 80.1375. the Benzene-FRGAS;

include in these calculations when (3)(i) Any foreign refiner that (B) The identification of the gasoline
reported to EPA. generates early benzene credits under as Certified Benzene-FRGAS or Non-
(7) Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS § 80.1275 shall designate all Benzene- Certified Benzene-FRGAS;
means Benzene-FRGAS that is not FRGAS as Certified Benzene-FRGAS for (C) The volume of Benzene-FRGAS
Certified Benzene-FRGAS. any year that such credits are generated. being transported, in gallons;
(D) In the case of Certified Benzene- methodology as specified in § 80.46(e) paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met
FRGAS: by one of the following: at the first United States port of entry,
(1) The benzene content as (A) The third party analyzing each the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of
determined under paragraph (f) of this sample; or this section do not apply at subsequent
section, and the applicable designations (B) The third party observing the ports of entry if the United States
stated in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this foreign refiner analyze the sample; importer obtains a certification from the
section; and (iii) Review original documents that vessel owner that meets the
(2) A declaration that the Benzene- reflect movement and storage of the requirements of paragraph(s) of this
FRGAS is being included in the Certified Benzene-FRGAS from the section, that the vessel has not loaded
applicable compliance calculations refinery to the load port, and from this any gasoline or blendstock between the
required by EPA under this subpart. review determine: first United States port of entry and the
(ii) The certification shall be made (A) The refinery at which the subsequent port of entry.
part of the product transfer documents Benzene-FRGAS was produced; and (2)(i) The requirements of this
for the Benzene-FRGAS. (B) That the Benzene-FRGAS paragraph (g)(2) apply if—
(e) Transfers of Benzene-FRGAS to remained segregated from: (A) The temperature-corrected
non-United States markets. The foreign (1) Non-Benzene-FRGAS and Non- volumes determined at the port of entry
refiner is responsible to ensure that all Certified Benzene-FRGAS; and and at the load port differ by more than
gasoline classified as Benzene-FRGAS is (2) Other Certified Benzene-FRGAS one percent; or
imported into the United States. A produced at a different refinery. (B) The benzene content value
foreign refiner may remove the Benzene- (3) The independent third party shall determined at the port of entry is higher
FRGAS classification, and the gasoline submit a report: than the benzene content value
need not be imported into the United (i) To the foreign refiner containing determined at the load port, and the
States, but only if: the information required under amount of this difference is greater than
(1) The foreign refiner excludes: paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this the reproducibility amount specified for
(i) The volume of gasoline from the section, to accompany the product the port of entry test result by the
refinery’s compliance report under transfer documents for the vessel; and American Society of Testing and
§ 80.1354; and (ii) To the Administrator containing Materials (ASTM) for the test method
(ii) In the case of Certified Benzene- the information required under specified at § 80.46(e).
FRGAS, the volume of the gasoline from paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this (ii) The United States importer and
the compliance report under § 80.1354. section, within thirty days following the the foreign refiner shall treat the
(2) The foreign refiner obtains date of the independent third party’s gasoline as Non-Certified Benzene-
sufficient evidence in the form of inspection. This report shall include a FRGAS, and the foreign refiner shall
documentation that the gasoline was not description of the method used to exclude the gasoline volume from its
imported into the United States. determine the identity of the refinery at gasoline volumes calculations and
(f) Load port independent sampling, benzene standard designations under
which the gasoline was produced,
testing and refinery identification. (1) this subpart.
assurance that the gasoline remained
On each occasion that Benzene-FRGAS (h) Attest requirements. Refiners, for
segregated as specified in paragraph
is loaded onto a vessel for transport to each annual compliance period, must
(n)(1) of this section, and a description
the United States a foreign refiner shall arrange to have an attest engagement
of the gasoline’s movement and storage
have an independent third party: performed of the underlying
(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading between production at the source
refinery and vessel loading. documentation that forms the basis of
and determine the volume of any tank
(4) The independent third party must: any report required under this subpart.
bottoms;
(ii) Determine the volume of Benzene- (i) Be approved in advance by EPA, The attest engagement must comply
FRGAS loaded onto the vessel based on a demonstration of ability to with the procedures and requirements
(exclusive of any tank bottoms before perform the procedures required in this that apply to refiners under §§ 80.125
loading); paragraph (f); through 80.130, or other applicable
(iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned (ii) Be independent under the criteria attest engagement provisions, and must
registration number of the foreign specified in § 80.65(e)(2)(iii); and be submitted to the Administrator of
refinery; (iii) Sign a commitment that contains EPA by August 31 of each year for the
(iv) Determine the name and country the provisions specified in paragraph (i) prior annual compliance period. The
of registration of the vessel used to of this section with regard to activities, following additional procedures shall be
transport the Benzene-FRGAS to the facilities and documents relevant to carried out for any foreign refiner of
United States; and compliance with the requirements of Benzene-FRGAS.
(v) Determine the date and time the this paragraph (f). (1) The inventory reconciliation
vessel departs the port serving the (g) Comparison of load port and port analysis under § 80.128(b) and the
foreign refinery. of entry testing. (1)(i) Any foreign refiner tender analysis under § 80.128(c) shall
(2) On each occasion that Certified and any United States importer of include Non-Benzene-FRGAS.
Benzene-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel Certified Benzene-FRGAS shall compare (2) Obtain separate listings of all
for transport to the United States a the results from the load port testing tenders of Certified Benzene-FRGAS
foreign refiner shall have an under paragraph (f) of this section, with and of Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS,
independent third party: the port of entry testing as reported and obtain separate listings of Certified
(i) Collect a representative sample of under paragraph (o) of this section, for Benzene-FRGAS based on whether it is
the Certified Benzene-FRGAS from each the volume of gasoline and the benzene small refiner gasoline, gasoline
vessel compartment subsequent to content value; except as specified in produced through the use of credits, or
loading on the vessel and prior to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section. other applicable designation under this
departure of the vessel from the port (ii) Where a vessel transporting subpart. Agree the total volume of
serving the foreign refinery; Certified Benzene-FRGAS off loads this tenders from the listings to the gasoline
(ii) Determine the benzene content gasoline at more than one United States inventory reconciliation analysis in
value for each compartment using the port of entry, and the conditions of § 80.128(b), and to the volumes
determined by the third party under independent third party and United and the United States, including storage
paragraph (f)(1) of this section. States importer reports to the tanks, vessels and pipelines.
(3) For each tender under paragraph information contained in the (iii) Inspections and audits may be by
(h)(2) of this section, where the gasoline commercial document. EPA employees or contractors to EPA.
is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as (6) Obtain separate listings of all (iv) Any documents requested that are
a finding the name and country of tenders of Non-Benzene-FRGAS, and related to matters covered by
registration of each vessel, and the perform the following: inspections and audits must be
volumes of Benzene-FRGAS loaded onto (i) Agree the total volume and provided to an EPA inspector or auditor
each vessel. benzene content of tenders from the on request.
(4) Select a sample from the list of listings to the gasoline inventory (v) Inspections and audits by EPA
vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of reconciliation analysis in § 80.128(b). may include review and copying of any
this section used to transport Certified (ii) Obtain a separate listing of the documents related to:
Benzene-FRGAS, in accordance with the tenders under this paragraph (h)(6) (A) Refinery baseline establishment, if
guidelines in § 80.127, and for each where the gasoline is loaded onto a applicable, including the volume and
vessel selected perform the following: marine vessel. Select a sample from this benzene content of gasoline; transfers of
(i) Obtain the report of the listing in accordance with the title or custody of any gasoline or
independent third party, under guidelines in § 80.127, and obtain a blendstocks whether Benzene-FRGAS or
paragraph (f) of this section, and of the commercial document of general Non-Benzene-FRGAS, produced at the
United States importer under paragraph circulation that lists vessel arrivals and foreign refinery during the period
(o) of this section. departures, and that includes the port January 1, 2004 through December 31,
(A) Agree the information in these and date of departure and the ports and 2005, and any work papers related to
reports with regard to vessel dates where the gasoline was off loaded refinery baseline establishment;
identification, gasoline volumes and for the selected vessels. Determine and (B) The volume and benzene content
benzene content test results. report as a finding the country where of Benzene-FRGAS;
(B) Identify, and report as a finding, the gasoline was off loaded for each (C) The proper classification of
each occasion the load port and port of vessel selected. gasoline as being Benzene-FRGAS or as
entry benzene content and volume (7) In order to complete the not being Benzene-FRGAS, or as
results differ by more than the amounts requirements of this paragraph (h) an Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-
allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, auditor shall: Certified Benzene-FRGAS, and all other
and determine whether the foreign (i) Be independent of the foreign relevant designations under this
refiner adjusted its refinery calculations refiner; subpart;
as required in paragraph (g) of this (ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public (D) Transfers of title or custody to
section. Accountant in the United States and a Benzene-FRGAS;
(ii) Obtain the documents used by the citizen of the United States, or be (E) Sampling and testing of Benzene-
independent third party to determine approved in advance by EPA based on FRGAS;
transportation and storage of the a demonstration of ability to perform the (F) Work performed and reports
Certified Benzene-FRGAS from the procedures required in §§ 80.125 prepared by independent third parties
refinery to the load port, under through 80.130 and this paragraph (h); and by independent auditors under the
paragraph (f) of this section. Obtain tank and requirements of this section, including
activity records for any storage tank (iii) Sign a commitment that contains work papers; and
where the Certified Benzene-FRGAS is the provisions specified in paragraph (i) (G) Reports prepared for submission
stored, and pipeline activity records for of this section with regard to activities to EPA, and any work papers related to
any pipeline used to transport the and documents relevant to compliance such reports.
Certified Benzene-FRGAS, prior to being with the requirements of §§ 80.125 (vi) Inspections and audits by EPA
loaded onto the vessel. Use these through 80.130 and this paragraph (h). may include taking samples of gasoline,
records to determine whether the (i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any gasoline additives or blendstock, and
Certified Benzene-FRGAS was produced foreign refiner shall commit to and interviewing employees.
at the refinery that is the subject of the comply with the provisions contained (vii) Any employee of the foreign
attest engagement, and whether the in this paragraph (i) as a condition to refiner must be made available for
Certified Benzene-FRGAS was mixed being approved for as a foreign refiner interview by the EPA inspector or
with any Non-Certified Benzene- under this subpart. auditor, on request, within a reasonable
FRGAS, Non-Benzene-FRGAS, or any (1) Any United States Environmental time period.
Certified Benzene-FRGAS produced at a Protection Agency inspector or auditor (viii) English language translations of
different refinery. must be given full, complete and any documents must be provided to an
(5) Select a sample from the list of immediate access to conduct EPA inspector or auditor, on request,
vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of inspections and audits of the foreign within 10 working days.
this section used to transport Certified refinery. (ix) English language interpreters
and Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, in (i) Inspections and audits may be must be provided to accompany EPA
accordance with the guidelines in either announced in advance by EPA, or inspectors and auditors, on request.
§ 80.127, and for each vessel selected unannounced. (2) An agent for service of process
perform the following: (ii) Access will be provided to any located in the District of Columbia shall
(i) Obtain a commercial document of location where: be named, and service on this agent
general circulation that lists vessel (A) Gasoline is produced; constitutes service on the foreign refiner
arrivals and departures, and that (B) Documents related to refinery or any employee of the foreign refiner
includes the port and date of departure operations are kept; for any action by EPA or otherwise by
of the vessel, and the port of entry and (C) Gasoline or blendstock samples the United States related to the
date of arrival of the vessel. are tested or stored; and requirements of this subpart.
(ii) Agree the vessel’s departure and (D) Benzene-FRGAS is stored or (3) The forum for any civil or criminal
arrival locations and dates from the transported between the foreign refinery enforcement action related to the
provisions of this section for violations refiner, and its agents and employees, 1001) and section 113(c)(2) of the Clean
of the Clean Air Act or regulations without exception, become subject to Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7413);
promulgated thereunder shall be the full operation of the administrative (ii) Be provided by a corporate surety
governed by the Clean Air Act, and judicial enforcement powers and that is listed in the United States
including the EPA administrative forum provisions of the United States without Department of Treasury Circular 570
where allowed under the Clean Air Act. limitation based on sovereign immunity, ‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of
(4) United States substantive and with respect to actions instituted against Authority as Acceptable Sureties on
procedural laws shall apply to any civil the foreign refiner, its agents and Federal Bonds’’; and
or criminal enforcement action against employees in any court or other tribunal (iii) Include a commitment that the
the foreign refiner or any employee of in the United States for conduct that bond will remain in effect for at least
the foreign refiner related to the violates the requirements applicable to five years following the end of latest
provisions of this section. the foreign refiner under this subpart, annual reporting period that the foreign
(5) Submitting a petition for including conduct that violates the refiner produces gasoline pursuant to
participation in the benzene foreign False Statements Accountability Act of the requirements of this subpart.
refiner program or producing and 1996 (18 U.S.C. 1001) and section (4) On any occasion a foreign refiner
exporting gasoline under any such 113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. bond is used to satisfy any judgment,
program, and all other actions to comply 7413). the foreign refiner shall increase the
with the requirements of this subpart (k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner bond to cover the amount used within
relating to participation in any benzene shall meet the requirements of this 90 days of the date the bond is used.
foreign refiner program, or to establish paragraph (k) as a condition to approval (5) If the bond amount for a foreign
an individual refinery gasoline benzene as benzene foreign refiner under this refiner increases, the foreign refiner
baseline under this subpart constitute subpart. shall increase the bond to cover the
actions or activities covered by and (1) The foreign refiner shall post a shortfall within 90 days of the date the
within the meaning of the provisions of bond of the amount calculated using the bond amount changes. If the bond
28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2), but solely with following equation: amount decreases, the foreign refiner
respect to actions instituted against the Bond = G × $ 0.01 may reduce the amount of the bond
foreign refiner, its agents and employees beginning 90 days after the date the
in any court or other tribunal in the Where: bond amount changes.
United States for conduct that violates Bond = amount of the bond in U.S. (l) [Reserved]
the requirements applicable to the dollars (m) English language reports. Any
foreign refiner under this subpart, G = the largest volume of gasoline report or other document submitted to
including conduct that violates the produced at the foreign refinery and EPA by a foreign refiner shall be in
False Statements Accountability Act of exported to the United States, in English language, or shall include an
1996 (18 U.S.C. 1001) and section gallons, during a single calendar English language translation.
113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. year among the most recent of the (n) Prohibitions. (1) No person may
7413). following calendar years, up to a combine Certified Benzene-FRGAS with
(6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or maximum of five calendar years: any Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS or
employees, will not seek to detain or to the calendar year immediately Non-Benzene-FRGAS, and no person
impose civil or criminal remedies preceding the date the refinery’s may combine Certified Benzene-FRGAS
against EPA inspectors or auditors, baseline petition is submitted, the with any Certified Benzene-FRGAS
whether EPA employees or EPA calendar year the baseline petition produced at a different refinery, until
contractors, for actions performed is submitted, and each succeeding the importer has met all the
within the scope of EPA employment calendar year. requirements of paragraph (o) of this
related to the provisions of this section. (2) Bonds shall be posted by: section, except as provided in paragraph
(7) The commitment required by this (i) Paying the amount of the bond to (e) of this section.
paragraph (i) shall be signed by the the Treasurer of the United States; (2) No foreign refiner or other person
owner or president of the foreign refiner (ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper may cause another person to commit an
business. amount from a third party surety agent action prohibited in paragraph (n)(1) of
(8) In any case where Benzene-FRGAS that is payable to satisfy United States this section, or that otherwise violates
produced at a foreign refinery is stored administrative or judicial judgments the requirements of this section.
or transported by another company against the foreign refiner, provided (o) United States importer
between the refinery and the vessel that EPA agrees in advance as to the third requirements. Any United States
transports the Benzene-FRGAS to the party and the nature of the surety importer shall meet the following
United States, the foreign refiner shall agreement; or requirements:
obtain from each such other company a (iii) An alternative commitment that (1) Each batch of imported gasoline
commitment that meets the results in assets of an appropriate shall be classified by the importer as
requirements specified in paragraphs liquidity and value being readily being Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-
(i)(1) through (7) of this section, and available to the United States, provided Benzene-FRGAS, and each batch
these commitments shall be included in EPA agrees in advance as to the classified as Benzene-FRGAS shall be
the foreign refiner’s petition to alternative commitment. further classified as Certified Benzene-
participate in any benzene foreign (3) Bonds posted under this paragraph FRGAS or as Non-Certified Benzene-
refiner program. (k) shall— FRGAS.
(j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting (i) Be used to satisfy any judicial (2) Gasoline shall be classified as
a petition for participation in any judgment that results from an Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-
benzene foreign refiner program under administrative or judicial enforcement Certified Benzene-FRGAS according to
this subpart (and baseline, if applicable) action for conduct in violation of this the designation by the foreign refiner if
under this section, or by producing and subpart, including where such conduct this designation is supported by product
exporting gasoline to the United States violates the False Statements transfer documents prepared by the
under any such program, the foreign Accountability Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. foreign refiner as required in paragraph
(d) of this section, unless the gasoline is (ii) Load port and port of entry (r) Early use of a foreign refiner
classified as Non-Certified Benzene- sampling and testing under paragraphs benzene baseline. (1) A foreign refiner
FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this (f) and (g) of this section; may begin using an individual refinery
section. Additionally, the importer shall (iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this benzene baseline under this subpart
comply with all requirements of this section; and before EPA has approved the baseline,
subpart applicable to importers. (iv) Importer testing under paragraph provided that:
(3) For each gasoline batch classified (o)(3) of this section. (i) A baseline petition has been
as Benzene-FRGAS, any United States (2) These alternative procedures must submitted as required in paragraph (b)
importer shall perform the following ensure Certified Benzene-FRGAS of this section;
procedures. remains segregated from Non-Certified (ii) EPA has made a provisional
(i) In the case of both Certified and Benzene-FRGAS and from Non- finding that the baseline petition is
Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, have an Benzene-FRGAS until it is imported complete;
independent third party: into the United States. The petition will (iii) The foreign refiner has made the
(A) Determine the volume of gasoline be evaluated based on whether it commitments required in paragraph (i)
in the vessel; adequately addresses the following: of this section;
(B) Use the foreign refiner’s Benzene- (i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline (iv) The persons that will meet the
FRGAS certification to determine the shipments, if applicable, from the independent third party and
name and EPA-assigned registration refinery, that ensure segregation of independent attest requirements for the
number of the foreign refinery that Certified Benzene-FRGAS from that foreign refinery have made the
produced the Benzene-FRGAS; refinery from all other gasoline; commitments required in paragraphs
(C) Determine the name and country (ii) Contracts with any terminals and/ (f)(3)(iii) and (h)(7)(iii) of this section;
of registration of the vessel used to or pipelines that receive and/or and
transport the Benzene-FRGAS to the transport Certified Benzene-FRGAS, that (v) The foreign refiner has met the
United States; and prohibit the commingling of Certified bond requirements of paragraph (k) of
(D) Determine the date and time the Benzene-FRGAS with any of the this section.
vessel arrives at the United States port following: (2) In any case where a foreign refiner
of entry. (A) Other Certified Benzene-FRGAS
uses an individual refinery baseline
(ii) In the case of Certified Benzene- from other refineries.
FRGAS, have an independent third (B) All Non-Certified Benzene- before final approval under paragraph
party: FRGAS. (r)(1) of this section, and the foreign
(A) Collect a representative sample (C) All Non-Benzene-FRGAS; refinery baseline values that ultimately
from each vessel compartment (iii) Procedures for obtaining and are approved by EPA are more stringent
subsequent to the vessel’s arrival at the reviewing truck loading records and than the early baseline values used by
United States port of entry and prior to United States import documents for the foreign refiner, the foreign refiner
off loading any gasoline from the vessel; Certified Benzene-FRGAS to ensure that shall recalculate its compliance, ab
(B) Obtain the compartment samples; such gasoline is only loaded into trucks initio, using the baseline values
and making deliveries to the United States; approved by the EPA, and the foreign
(C) Determine the benzene content (iv) Attest procedures to be conducted refiner shall be liable for any resulting
value of each compartment sample annually by an independent third party violation of the requirements of this
using the methodology specified at that review loading records and import subpart.
80.46(e) by the third party analyzing the documents based on volume (s) Additional requirements for
sample or by the third party observing reconciliation, or other criteria, to petitions, reports and certificates. Any
the importer analyze the sample. confirm that all Certified Benzene- petition for approval to produce
(4) Any importer shall submit reports FRGAS remains segregated throughout gasoline subject to the benzene foreign
within 30 days following the date any the distribution system and is only refiner program, any alternative
vessel transporting Benzene-FRGAS loaded into trucks for import into the procedures under paragraph (p) of this
arrives at the United States port of entry: United States. section, any report or other submission
(i) To the Administrator containing (3) The petition required by this required by paragraph (c), (f)(2), or (i) of
the information determined under section must be submitted to EPA along this section, and any certification under
paragraph (o)(3) of this section; and with the application for temporary paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall
(ii) To the foreign refiner containing refiner relief individual refinery be—
the information determined under benzene standard under this subpart. (1) Submitted in accordance with
paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section, and (q) Withdrawal or suspension of procedures specified by the
including identification of the port at foreign refiner status. EPA may Administrator, including use of any
which the product was offloaded. withdraw or suspend a foreign refiner’s forms that may be specified by the
(5) Any United States importer shall benzene baseline or standard approval Administrator.
meet all other requirements of this for a foreign refinery where— (2) Be signed by the president or
subpart, for any imported gasoline that (1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any owner of the foreign refiner company, or
is not classified as Certified Benzene- requirement of this section; by that person’s immediate designee,
FRGAS under paragraph (o)(2) of this (2) A foreign government fails to and shall contain the following
section. allow EPA inspections as provided in declaration:
(p) Truck imports of Certified paragraph (i)(1) of this section;
Benzene-FRGAS produced at a foreign (3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, I hereby certify: (1) That I have actual
authority to sign on behalf of and to bind
refinery. (1) Any refiner whose Certified or a right to claim, sovereign immunity
[insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to

Benzene-FRGAS is transported into the in an action to enforce the requirements all statements contained herein; (2) that I am
United States by truck may petition EPA in this subpart; or aware that the information contained herein
to use alternative procedures to meet the (4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil is being Certified, or submitted to the United
following requirements: or criminal penalty that is not satisfied States Environmental Protection Agency,
(i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5) using the foreign refiner bond specified under the requirements of 40 CFR part 80,
of this section; in paragraph (k) of this section. subpart L, and that the information is
material for determining compliance under (8)(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs average standards specified in
these regulations; and (3) that I have read and originally manufactured in OP years paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this
understand the information being Certified or 2010 and later must meet the cold section must monitor their imports so
submitted, and this information is true, temperature NHMC emission standards that they do not import more vehicles
complete and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief after I have taken
in Table S10–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811– certified to such family emission levels
reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the 10(g). than their available credits can cover.
accuracy thereof. I affirm that I have read and (ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and ICIs must not have a credit deficit at the
understand the provisions of 40 CFR part 80, MDPVs originally manufactured in OP end of a model year and are not
subpart L, including 40 CFR 80.1420 apply years 2012 and later must meet the cold permitted to use the deficit carryforward
to [insert name of foreign refiner]. Pursuant temperature NHMC emission standards provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1864–
to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and 18 U.S.C. in Table S10–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811– 10.
1001, the penalty for furnishing false, 10(g). (vii) The Administrator may condition
incomplete or misleading information in this (iii) ICIs, which qualify as small
certification or submission is a fine of up to
the certificates of conformity issued to
volume manufacturers, are exempt from ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles
$10,000 U.S., and/or imprisonment for up to the cold temperature NMHC phase-in
five years. subject to this paragraph (c)(8) comply
intermediate percentage requirements with the applicable cold temperature
PART 85—CONTROL OF AIR described in 40 CFR 86.1811–10(g)(3). NMHC fleet average standard for each
POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES See 40 CFR 86.1811–04(k)(5)(vi) and model year.
(vii).
10. The authority citation for part 85 (iv) As an alternative to the * * * * *
continues to read as follows: requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and
PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
(ii) of this section, ICIs may elect to
FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY
meet a cold temperature NMHC family
VEHICLES AND ENGINES
Subpart P—[Amended] emission level below the cold
temperature NMHC fleet average 12. The authority citation for part 86
11. Section 85.1515 is amended by standards specified in Table S10–1 of 40 continues to read as follows:
adding paragraphs (c)(2)(vii), (c)(2)(viii), CFR 86.1811–10 and bank or sell credits
and (c)(8) to read as follows. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864–10. An
ICI may not meet a higher cold Subpart H—[Amended]
§ 85.1515 Emission standards and test
procedures applicable to imported
temperature NMHC family emission
nonconforming motor vehicles and motor level than the fleet average standards in 13. Section 86.701–94 is amended by
vehicle engines. Table S10–1 of 40 CFR 86.1811–10 as revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii)
* * * * * § 86.701–94 General applicability.
of this section, unless it demonstrates to
(c) * * *
the Administrator at the time of (a) The provisions of this subpart
(2) * * *
certification that it has obtained apply to: 1994 through 2003 model year
(vii) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs appropriate and sufficient NMHC Otto-cycle and diesel light-duty
originally manufactured in OP years credits from another manufacturer, or vehicles; 1994 through 2003 model year
2009 and later must meet the has generated them in a previous model Otto-cycle and diesel light-duty trucks;
evaporative emission standards in Table year or in the current model year and and 1994 and later model year Otto-
S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e). not traded them to another cycle and diesel heavy-duty engines;
However, LDV/LLDTs originally manufacturer or used them to address and 2001 and later model year Otto-
manufactured in OP years 2009 and other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR cycle heavy-duty vehicles and engines
2010 and imported by ICIs who qualify 86.1864–10. certified under the provisions of subpart
as small volume manufacturers as (v) Where an ICI desires to obtain a S of this part. The provisions of subpart
defined in 40 CFR 86.1838–01 are certificate of conformity using a higher B of this part apply to this subpart. The
exempt from the LDV/LLDT evaporative cold temperature NMHC family provisions of § 86.1811–04(a)(5) and (p)
emission standards in Table S09–1 in 40 emission level than specified in apply to 2004 and later model year
CFR 86.1811–09(e), but must comply paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks,
with the Tier 2 evaporative emission section, but does not have sufficient and medium duty passenger vehicles.
standards in Table S04–3 in 40 CFR credits to cover vehicles imported under
86.1811–04(e). * * * * *
such certificate, the Administrator may
(viii) Nonconforming HLDTs and issue such certificate if the ICI has also Subpart S—[Amended]
MDPVs originally manufactured in OP obtained a certificate of conformity for
years 2010 and later must meet the vehicles certified using a cold 14. Section 86.1803–01 is amended by
evaporative emission standards in Table temperature NMHC family emission revising the definition of ‘‘Banking’’ and
S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e). level lower than that required under adding the definition for ‘‘Fleet average
However, HLDTs and MDPVs originally paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this cold temperature NMHC standard’’ to
manufactured in OP years 2010 and section. The ICI may then import read as follows:
2011 and imported by ICIs, who qualify vehicles to the higher cold temperature
as small volume manufacturers as § 86.1803–01 Definitions.
NMHC family emission level only to the
defined in 40 CFR 86.1838–01, are extent that it has generated sufficient * * * * *
exempt from the HLDTs and MDPVs credits from vehicles certified to a Banking means one of the following:
evaporative emission standards in Table family emission level lower than the (1) The retention of NOX emission
S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e), but cold temperature NMHC fleet average credits for complete heavy-duty vehicles
must comply with the Tier 2 standard during the same model year. by the manufacturer generating the
evaporative emission standards in Table (vi) ICIs using cold temperature emission credits, for use in future model
S04–3 in 40 CFR 86.1811–04(e). NMHC family emission levels higher year certification programs as permitted
* * * * * than the cold temperature NMHC fleet by regulation.
(2) The retention of cold temperature for CO emission congruity across the (ii) For purposes of investigations of
non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) intermediate temperature range is the possible cold temperature CO or cold
emission credits for light-duty vehicles, linear interpolation between the CO temperature NMHC defeat devices
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty standard applicable at 25 °F (4 °C) and under this paragraph (d), the
passenger vehicles by the manufacturer the CO standard applicable at 68 °F (20 manufacturer shall provide an
generating the emission credits, for use °C). The guideline for NMHC emission explanation which must show, to the
in future model year certification congruity across the intermediate satisfaction of the Administrator, that
programs as permitted by regulation. temperature range is the linear CO emissions and NMHC emissions are
* * * * * interpolation between the NMHC FEL reasonably controlled in reference to the
Fleet average cold temperature NMHC applicable at 25 °F (4 °C) and the Tier linear guideline across the intermediate
standard means, for light-duty vehicles, 2 NMOG standard to which the vehicle temperature range.
light-duty trucks and medium-duty was certified at 68 °F (20 °C), where the (e) For each test group of Tier 2 LDV/
passenger vehicles, an NMHC cold intermediate temperature NMHC level is LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs and interim
temperature standard imposed over an rounded to the nearest hundredth for non-Tier 2 LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/
individual manufacturer’s total 50-State comparison to the interpolated line. For MDPVs the manufacturer must submit,
U.S. sales (or a fraction of total U.S. vehicles that exceed this CO emissions with the Part II certification application,
sales during phase-in years), as ‘‘U.S. guideline or this NMHC emissions an engineering evaluation
sales’’ is defined to include all national guideline upon intermediate demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
sales, including points-of-first sale in temperature cold testing: Administrator that a discontinuity in
California, of a given model year. (1) If the CO emission level is greater emissions of non-methane organic gases,
Manufacturers determine their than the 20 °F (7 °C) emission standard, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen
compliance with such a standard by the vehicle will automatically be and formaldehyde measured on the
averaging, on a sales-weighted basis, the considered to be equipped with a defeat
Federal Test Procedure (subpart B of
individual NMHC ‘‘Family Emission device without further investigation. If
this part) does not occur in the
Limits’’ (FEL—as defined in this the intermediate temperature NMHC
temperature range of 20 to 86 degrees F.
subpart) to which light-duty vehicles, emission level, rounded to the nearest
For diesel vehicles, the engineering
light-duty trucks and medium-duty hundredth, is greater than the 20 °F (7
evaluation must also include particulate
passenger vehicles were certified and °C) FEL, the vehicle will automatically
emissions.
sold for that model year. be considered to be equipped with a
defeat device without further 17. A new § 86.1810–09 is added to
* * * * * investigation. Subpart S to read as follows:
15. Section 86.1805–04 is amended by (2) If the CO emission level does not
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: § 86.1810–09 General standards; increase
exceed the 20 °F emission standard, the in emissions; unsafe condition; waivers.
§ 86.1805–04 Useful life. Administrator may investigate the
vehicle design for the presence of a Section 86.1810–09 includes text that
* * * * * specifies requirements that differ from
(g) Where cold temperature NMHC defeat device under paragraph (d) of this
section. If the intermediate temperature § 86.1810–01. Where a paragraph in
standards are applicable, the useful life § 86.1810–01 is identical and applicable
requirement for compliance with the NMHC emission level, rounded to the
nearest hundredth, does not exceed the to § 86.1810–09, this may be indicated
cold temperature NMHC standard only by specifying the corresponding
is as follows: 20 °F FEL, the Administrator may
investigate the vehicle design for the paragraph and the statement
(1) For LDV/LLDTs, 10 years or ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see
120,000 miles, whichever occurs first. presence of a defeat device under
paragraph (d) of this section. § 86.1810–01.’’ Where a corresponding
(2) For HLDT/MDPVs, 11 years or
(d) For vehicle designs designated by paragraph of § 86.1810–01 is not
120,000 miles, whichever occurs first.
16. A new § 86.1809–10 is added to the Administrator to be investigated for applicable, this is indicated by the
Subpart S to read as follows: possible defeat devices: statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’ This section
(1) The manufacturer must show to applies to model year 2009 and later
§ 86.1809–10 Prohibition of defeat devices. the satisfaction of the Administrator that light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks
(a) No new light-duty vehicle, light- the vehicle design does not incorporate fueled by gasoline, diesel, methanol,
duty truck, medium-duty passenger strategies that unnecessarily reduce ethanol, natural gas and liquefied
vehicle, or complete heavy-duty vehicle emission control effectiveness exhibited petroleum gas fuels. This section also
shall be equipped with a defeat device. during the Federal or Supplemental applies to MDPVs and complete heavy-
(b) The Administrator may test or Federal emissions test procedures (FTP duty vehicles certified according to the
require testing on any vehicle at a or SFTP) when the vehicle is operated provisions of this subpart. Multi-fueled
designated location, using driving under conditions which may reasonably vehicles (including dual-fueled and
cycles and conditions which may be expected to be encountered in flexible-fueled vehicles) shall comply
reasonably be expected to be normal operation and use. with all requirements established for
encountered in normal operation and (2) The following information each consumed fuel (or blend of fuels in
use, for the purposes of investigating a requirements apply: the case of flexible fueled vehicles). The
potential defeat device. (i) Upon request by the Administrator, standards of this subpart apply to both
(c) For cold temperature CO and cold the manufacturer will provide an certification and in-use vehicles unless
temperature NMHC emission control, explanation containing detailed otherwise indicated. This section also
the Administrator will use a guideline information regarding test programs, applies to hybrid electric vehicles and
to determine the appropriateness of the engineering evaluations, design zero emission vehicles. Unless
CO and NMHC emission control at specifications, calibrations, on-board otherwise specified, requirements and
ambient temperatures between 25 °F (4 computer algorithms, and design provisions of this subpart applicable to
°C) (the upper bound of the cold test strategies incorporated for operation methanol fueled vehicles are also
range) and 68 °F (20 °C) (the lower both during and outside of the Federal applicable to Tier 2 and interim non-
bound of the FTP range). The guideline emission test procedure. Tier 2 ethanol fueled vehicles.
(a) through (e) [Reserved]. For evaporative emission standards in Table to § 86.1811–09, this may be indicated
guidance see § 86.1810–01. S04–3 in paragraph (e)(1) of this section by specifying the corresponding
(f) Altitude requirements. (1) All for model years 2010 and 2011. paragraph and the statement
emission standards apply at low altitude (vi) Small volume manufacturers, as ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see
conditions and at high altitude defined in § 86.1838–01, are exempt § 86.1811–04.’’ Where a corresponding
conditions, except for supplemental from the LDV/LLDT cold temperature paragraph of § 86.1811–04 is not
exhaust emission standards, cold NMHC phase-in requirements in Table applicable, this is indicated by the
temperature NMHC emission standards, S10–1 of § 86.1811–10(g) for model statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’
and the evaporative emission standards years 2010, 2011, and 2012, but must (a) Applicability. (1) This section
as described in § 86.1811–09(e). comply with the 100% requirement for contains regulations implementing
Supplemental exhaust emission 2013 and later model years for cold emission standards for all LDVs, LDTs
standards, as described in § 86.1811– temperature NMHC standards and MDPVs. This section applies to
04(f), apply only at low altitude (vii) Small volume manufacturers, as 2009 and later model year LDVs, LDTs
conditions. Cold temperature NMHC defined in § 86.1838–01, are exempt and MDPVs fueled by gasoline, diesel,
emission standards, as described in from the HLDT/MDPV cold temperature methanol, ethanol, natural gas and
§ 86.1811–10(g), apply only at low NMHC phase-in requirements in Table liquefied petroleum gas fuels, except as
altitude conditions. Tier 2 evaporative S10–1 of § 86.1811–10(g) for model noted. Additionally, this section applies
emission standards apply at high years 2012, 2013, and 2014, but must to hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and
altitude conditions as specified in comply with the 100% requirement for zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). Unless
§ 86.1810–01(f) and (j), and § 86.1811– 2015 and later model years for cold otherwise specified, multi-fueled
04(e). temperature NMHC standards. vehicles must comply with all
(2) For vehicles that comply with the * * * * * requirements established for each
cold temperature NMHC standards, (q) * * * consumed fuel.
manufacturers shall submit an (1) * * *
(vi) Defer compliance with the LDV/ (2) through (4) [Reserved]. For
engineering evaluation indicating that
LLDT evaporative emissions standards guidance see § 86.1811–04.
common calibration approaches are
utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation in Table S09–1 of § 86.1811–09(e) until (5) The exhaust emission standards
from low altitude emission control 2013, and defer compliance with the and evaporative emission standards of
practices shall be included in the LDV/LLDT evaporative emissions this section apply equally to
auxiliary emission control device standards in Table S09–2 of § 86.1811– certification and in-use LDVs, LDTs and
(AECD) descriptions submitted at 09(e) until 2014. (The hardship relief MDPVs, unless otherwise specified. See
certification. Any AECD specific to high may be extended one additional model paragraph (t) of this section for interim
altitude shall require engineering year—2 model years total.) evaporative emission in-use standards
emission data for EPA evaluation to (vii) Defer compliance with the that are different than the certification
quantify any emission impact and HLDT/MDPV evaporative emissions evaporative emission standards
validity of the AECD. standards in Table S09–1 of § 86.1811– specified in paragraph (e) of this
(g) through (p) [Reserved]. For 09(e) until 2014, and defer compliance section.
guidance see § 86.1810–01. with the HLDT/MDPV evaporative (b) through (d) [Reserved]. For
18. Section 86.1811–04 is amended by emissions standards in Table S09–2 of guidance see § 86.1811–04.
adding paragraphs (k)(5)(iv) through § 86.1811–09(e) until 2015. (The (e) Evaporative emission standards.
(vii) and (q)(1)(vi) through (ix) to read as hardship relief may be extended one Evaporative emissions from gasoline-
follows: additional model year—2 model years fueled, natural gas-fueled, liquefied
total.) petroleum gas-fueled, ethanol-fueled
§ 86.1811–04 Emission standards for light- (viii) Defer 100% compliance with the
duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and and methanol-fueled vehicles must not
LDV/LLDT cold temperature NMHC exceed the standards in this paragraph
medium-duty passenger vehicles.
standards in Table S10–X of § 86.1811– (e). The standards apply equally to
* * * * * 10(g) until 2015. (The hardship relief
(k) * * * certification and in-use vehicles.
may be extended one additional model
(5) * * * year—2 model years total.) (1) Diurnal-plus-hot soak evaporative
(iv) Vehicles produced by small (ix) Defer 100% compliance with the hydrocarbon standards. (i)
volume manufacturers, as defined in HLDT/MDPV cold temperature NMHC Hydrocarbons for LDV/LLDTs, HLDTs
§ 86.1838–01, are exempt from the LDV/ standards in Table S10–X of § 86.1811– and MDPVs that are gasoline-fueled,
LLDT evaporative emissions standards 10(g) until 2017. (The hardship relief dedicated natural gas-fueled, dedicated
in Table S09–1 of § 86.1811–09(e) for may be extended one additional model liquefied petroleum gas-fueled,
model years 2009 and 2010, but must year—2 model years total.) dedicated ethanol-fueled, dedicated
comply with the Tier 2 evaporative methanol-fueled and multi-fueled
* * * * * vehicles when operating on gasoline
emission standards in Table S04–3 in 19. A new § 86.1811–09 is added to
paragraph (e)(1) of this section for must not exceed the diurnal plus hot
Subpart S to read as follows:
model years 2009 and 2010. soak standards shown in Table S09–1
(v) Vehicles produced by small § 86.1811–09 Emission standards for light- for the full three diurnal test sequence
volume manufacturers, as defined in duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and and for the supplemental two diurnal
§ 86.1838–01, are exempt from the medium-duty passenger vehicles. test sequence. The standards apply
HLDT/MDPV evaporative emissions Section 86.1811–09 includes text that equally to certification and in-use
standards in Table S09–1 of § 86.1811– specifies requirements that differ from vehicles, except as otherwise specified
09(e) for model years 2010 and 2011, § 86.1811–04. Where a paragraph in in paragraph (t) of this section. Table
but must comply with the Tier 2 § 86.1811–04 is identical and applicable S09–1 follows:
TABLE S09–1.—LIGHT-DUTY DIURNAL PLUS HOT SOAK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

[Grams per test]
Supplemental
3 day 2 day
Vehicle category Model year diurnal+hot diurnal+hot
soak soak
LDVs ............................................................................................................................................ 2009 0.50 0.65

LLDTs .......................................................................................................................................... 2009 0.65 0.85
HLDTs .......................................................................................................................................... 2010 0.90 1.15
MDPVs ......................................................................................................................................... 2010 1.00 1.25
(ii) Hydrocarbons for LDV/LLDTs, soak standards shown in Table S09–2 equally to certification and in-use
HLDTs and MDPVs that are multi-fueled for the full three diurnal test sequence vehicles except as otherwise specified
vehicles operating on non-gasoline fuel and for the supplemental two diurnal in paragraph (t) of this section. Table
must not exceed the diurnal plus hot test sequence. The standards apply S09–2 follows:
TABLE S09–2.—LIGHT-DUTY DIURNAL PLUS HOT SOAK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS: NON-GASOLINE PORTION
OF MULTI-FUELED VEHICLES
[Grams per test]
Supplemental
3 day 2 day
Vehicle category Model year diurnal+hot diurnal+hot
soak soak
LDVs ............................................................................................................................................ 2012 0.50 0.65

LLDTs .......................................................................................................................................... 2012 0.65 0.85
HLDTs .......................................................................................................................................... 2013 0.90 1.15
MDPVs ......................................................................................................................................... 2013 1.00 1.25
(2) through (6) [Reserved]. For HLDT/MDPV standards in Table S09–1 (g) Cold temperature exhaust
guidance see § 86.1811–04. in the 2012 model year shall meet the emission standards. (1) Cold
(f) through (s) [Reserved]. For Tier 2 HLDT/MDPV evaporative temperature CO standards. These cold
guidance see § 86.1811–04. emission standards (Table S04–3) in-use temperature CO standards are
(t) Evaporative emission in-use for 2012, 2013, and 2014 model year applicable only to gasoline fueled LDV/
standards. (1) For LDVs and LLDTs vehicles (applying Tier 2 standards in- Ts and MDPVs. For the following cold
certified prior to the 2012 model year, use is limited to the first three years temperature CO exhaust emission
the Tier 2 LDV/LLDT evaporative after introduction of a vehicle). standards, a useful life of 50,000 miles
emissions standards in Table S04–3 of 20. A new § 86.1811–10 is added to or 5 years (whichever occurs first)
§ 86.1811–04(e) shall apply to in-use Subpart S to read as follows: applies:
vehicles for only the first three model (i) For LDVs and LDT1s, the standard
years after an evaporative family is first § 86.1811–10 Emission standards for light- is 10.0 grams per mile CO.
certified to the LDV/LLDT evaporative duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and (ii) For LDT2s, LDT3s and LDT4s, and
medium-duty passenger vehicles.
emission standards in Table S09–1 of MDPVs the standard is 12.5 grams per
paragraph (e) of this section. For Section 86.1811–10 includes text that mile CO.
example, evaporative families first specifies requirements that differ from (iii) These standards do not apply to
certified to the LDV/LLDT standards in § 86.1811–04 and § 86.1811–09. Where a interim non-Tier 2 MDPVs.
Table S09–1 in the 2011 model year paragraph in § 86.1811–04 or § 86.1811– (2) Cold temperature NMHC
shall meet the Tier 2 LDV/LLDT 09 is identical and applicable to standards. Full useful life fleet average
evaporative emission standards (Table § 86.1811–10, this may be indicated by cold temperature NMHC standards are
S04–3) in-use for 2011, 2012, and 2013 specifying the corresponding paragraph applicable only to gasoline fueled LDV/
model year vehicles (applying Tier 2 and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs, and apply
standards in-use is limited to the first guidance see § 86.1811–04’’ or equally to certification and in-use
three years after introduction of a ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see except as otherwise specified in
vehicle). § 86.1811–09.’’ Where a corresponding paragraph (u) of this section for in-use
(2) For HLDTs and MDPVs certified paragraph of § 86.1811–04 or § 86.1811– standards for applicable phase-in
prior to the 2013 model year, the Tier 09 is not applicable, this is indicated by models. Testing with other fuels such as
2 HLDT/MDPV evaporative emissions the statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’ E85, or testing on diesel vehicles, is not
standards in Table S04–3 of § 86.1811– (a) [Reserved]. For guidance see required. Multi-fuel, bi-fuel or dual-fuel
04(e) shall apply to in-use vehicles for § 86.1811–09. vehicles must comply with
only the first three model years after an (b) through (d) [Reserved]. For requirements using gasoline only. For
evaporative family is first certified to guidance see § 86.1811–04. LDV/LLDTs, the useful life is 120,000
the HLDT/MDPV evaporative emission (e) [Reserved]. For guidance see miles or 10 years, whichever comes
standards in Table S09–1 of paragraph § 86.1811–09. first. For HLDT/MDPVs, the useful life
(e) of this section. For example, (f) [Reserved]. For guidance see is 120,000 miles or 11 years, whichever
evaporative families first certified to the § 86.1811–04. comes first. There is not an intermediate
useful life standard for cold temperature TABLE S10–2.—PHASE-IN PERCENT- products is at least 100% for model
NMHC standards. AGES FOR LDV/LLDT COLD TEM- years 2010 and earlier for LDV/LLDTs,
(i) The standards are shown in Table PERATURE NMHC REQUIREMENTS and 2012 and earlier for HLDT/MDPVs.
S10–1, which follows: For example, a phase-in schedule for
Percentage of LDV/LLDTs of 5/10/10/45/80/100 that
TABLE S10–1.—FLEET AVERAGE Model year LDV/LLDTs begins in 2008 would calculate as (6 ×
COLD TEMPERATURE NMHC FULL that must meet 5%) + (5 × 10%) + (4 × 10%) = 120%
requirement and would be acceptable for 2008–2010.
USEFUL LIFE EXHAUST EMISSION
STANDARDS 2010 .................................. 25
The full phase-in would calculate as (6
2011 .................................. 50 × 5%) + (5 × 10%) + (4 × 10%) + (3 ×
Cold temperature 2012 .................................. 75 45%) + (2 × 80%) + (1 × 100%) = 515%
NMHC sales- 2013 and subsequent ....... 100 and would be acceptable for 2008–2013.
Vehicle weight category weighted fleet (iii) Under an alternate phase-in
average standard schedule, the projected phase-in
(grams/mile) TABLE S10–3.—PHASE-IN PERCENT- percentage is not binding for a given
LDVs & LLDTs (≤ 6,000 AGES FOR HLDT/MDPV COLD TEM- model year, provided the sums of the
lbs GVWR) .................... 0.3 PERATURE NMHC REQUIREMENTS actual phase-in percentages that occur
HLDTs (>6,000–8,500 lbs meet the appropriate total sums as
GVWR) & ...................... 0.5 Percentage of required in the equations of paragraph
MDPVs (>8,500 10,000 HLDT/MDPVs (g)(4)(i) of this section, and provided
Model year
lbs GVWR) .................... ............................ that must meet
requirement that 100% actual compliance is reached
for the appropriate model year, either
(ii) The manufacturer must calculate 2012 ...................................... 25 2013 for LDV/LLDTs or 2015 for HLDT/
its fleet average cold temperature NMHC 2013 ...................................... 50 MDPVs.
emission level(s) as described in 2014 ...................................... 75 (5) Manufacturers must determine
§ 86.1864–10(m). 2015 and subsequent ........... 100 compliance with required phase-in
(iii) During a phase-in year, the schedules as follows:
manufacturer must comply with the (4) Alternate phase-in schedules for (i) Manufacturers must submit
fleet average standards for the required cold temperature NMHC standards. (i) information showing compliance with
phase-in percentage for that year as Manufacturers may apply for alternative all phase-in requirements of this section
specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this phase-in schedules that would still with their Part I applications as required
section, or for the alternate phase-in result in 100% phase-in by 2013 and by § 86.1844(d)(13).
percentage as permitted under 2015, respectively, for LDV/LLDTs and (ii) A manufacturer electing to use any
paragraph (g)(4) of this section. HLDT/MDPVs. An alternate phase-in alternate phase-in schedule permitted
(iv) For model years prior to 2010 schedule submitted by a manufacturer is under this section must provide in its
(LDV/LLDTs) and 2012 (HLDT/MDPVs), subject to EPA approval. The alternative Application for Certification for the first
where the manufacturer desires to bank phase-in will not be used to delay full year in which it intends to use such a
early NMHC credits as permitted under implementation past the last year of the schedule, and in each succeeding year
§ 86.1864–10(o)(5), the manufacturer primary phase-in schedule (2013 for during the phase-in, the intended phase-
must achieve a fleet average standard LDV/LLDTs, 2015 for HLDT/MDPVs). in percentages for that model year and
below 0.3 grams per mile for LDV/ An alternative phase-in schedule will be the remaining phase-in years along with
LLDTs and below 0.5 grams per mile for acceptable if it satisfies the following the intended final sum of those
HLDT/MDPVs. Manufacturers must equations: percentages as described in paragraph
determine compliance with the cold (g)(4)(i) of this section. This information
LDV/LLDTs:
temperature NMHC fleet average may be included with the information
standard according to § 86.1864–10(o). (6×API2008) + (5×API2009) + (4×API2010) + required under § 86.1844–01(d)(13). In
(3) Phase-in of the cold temperature (3×API2011) + (2×API2012) + (1×API2013) its year end annual reports, as required
NMHC standards. Except as permitted ≥500% under § 86.1844–01(e)(4), the
in § 86.1811–04(k)(5)(vi) and (vii) HLDT/MDPVs: manufacturer must include sufficient
regarding small volume manufacturers, (6×API2010) + (5×API2011) + (4×API2012) + information so that the Administrator
manufacturers must comply with the (3×API2013) + (2×API2014) + (1×API2015) can verify compliance with the
phase-in requirements in Tables S10–2 ≥500% alternative phase-in schedule
and S10–3 of this paragraph. Separate established under paragraph (g)(4)(i) of
phase-in schedules are provided for Where:
this section.
LDV/LLDTs and for HLDT/MDPVs. API = anticipated phase-in percentage (6)(i) Sales percentages for the
These requirements specify the for the referenced model year purpose of determining compliance
minimum percentage of the (ii) If the sum of products is greater with the phase-in of the cold
manufacturer’s LDV/LLDT and HLDT/ than or equal to 500%, which is the sum temperature NMHC requirements must
MDPV 50-State sales, by model year, of products from the primary phase-in be based upon projected 50-State sales
that must meet the fleet average cold schedule (4 × 25% + 3 × 50% + 2 × 75% of LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs of the
temperature NMHC standard for their + 1 × 100% = 500%), then the applicable model year by the
full useful lives. LDVs and LLDTs must alternative phase-in schedule is manufacturer to the point of first sale.
be grouped together to determine acceptable, except as prohibited in Such sales percentages must be rounded
compliance with these phase-in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (iii) of this to the nearest one tenth of a percent.
requirements, and HLDTs and MDPVs section. In addition, manufacturers (ii) Alternatively, the manufacturer
must also be grouped together to electing to use an alternate phase-in may petition the Administrator to allow
determine compliance with these phase- schedule for compliance with the cold actual volume produced for U.S. sales to
in requirements. Tables S10–2 and S10– temperature NMHC exhaust emission be used in lieu of projected U.S. sales
3 follow: standards must ensure that the sum of for purposes of determining compliance
with the phase-in percentage actual sales volume of LDV/LLDTs and to which each test group is newly
requirements under this section. The HLDT/MDPVs sold in all 50 U.S. States. certified, and applies to that test group
manufacturer must submit its petition (f) through (s) [Reserved]. For only for the model years shown in
within 30 days of the end of the model guidance see § 86.1811–04. Tables S10–4 and S10–5. Otherwise, the
year to the Compliance and Innovative (t) [Reserved]. For guidance see in-use standard is the certification
Strategies Division. For EPA to approve § 86.1811–09. standard from paragraph (g)(2) of this
the use of actual volume produced for (u) Cold temperature NMHC exhaust section. The standards apply for
U.S. sales, the manufacturer must emission in-use standards for applicable purposes of in-use testing only and does
establish to the satisfaction of the phase-in models. An interim full useful not apply to certification or Selective
Administrator, that actual production life in-use compliance standard is Enforcement Auditing. Tables S10–4
volume is functionally equivalent to calculated by adding 0.1 g/mi to the FEL and S10–5 follow:
TABLE S10–4.—IN-USE STANDARD FOR APPLICABLE PHASE-IN LDV/LLDTS

Models years that the interim in-use standard is available ............................................. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2011 2012 2013
TABLE S10–5.—IN-USE STANDARDS FOR APPLICABLE PHASE-IN HLDT/MDPVS

Models years that the interim in-use standard is available ............................................. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2013 2014 2015
21. Section 86.1823–01 is amended by or air conditioning (SC03) test data to by specifying the corresponding
revising paragraph (a)(3)(i)(C) to read as determine compliance with the SFTP paragraph and the statement
follows: emission standards. ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see
* * * * * § 86.1828–01.’’ Where a corresponding
§ 86.1823–01 Durability demonstration paragraph of § 86.1828–01 is not
procedures for exhaust emissions. 22. Section 86.1827–01 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as applicable, this is indicated by the
* * * * * statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’
follows:
(a) * * * (a) through (f) [Reserved]. For
(3) * * * § 86.1827–01 Test group determination. guidance see § 86.1828–01.
(i) * * * * * * * * (g) Cold temperature NMHC testing.
(C) The DF calculated by these (a) * * * For cold temperature NMHC exhaust
procedures will be used for determining (5) Subject to the same emission emission compliance for each durability
compliance with FTP exhaust emission standards (or FEL in the case of cold group, the vehicle expected to emit the
standards, SFTP exhaust emission temperature NMHC standards), except highest NMHC emissions at 20 degrees
standards, cold temperature NMHC that a manufacturer may request to F on candidate in-use vehicles shall be
emission standards, and cold CO group vehicles into the same test group selected from the test vehicles specified
emission standards. At the as vehicles subject to more stringent in § 86.1828–01(a). When the expected
manufacturer’s option and using standards, so long as all the vehicles worst-case cold temperature NMHC
procedures approved by the within the test group are certified to the vehicle is also the expected worst-case
Administrator, a separate DF may be most stringent standards applicable to cold CO vehicle as selected in paragraph
calculated exclusively using cold CO any vehicle within that test group. (c) of this section, then cold testing is
test data to determine compliance with Light-duty trucks which are subject to required only for that vehicle;
cold CO emission standards. Similarly, the same emission standards as light- otherwise, testing is required for both
at the manufacturer’s option and using duty vehicles with the exception of the the worst-case cold CO vehicle and the
procedures approved by the light-duty truck idle CO standard and/ worst-case cold temperature NMHC
Administrator, a separate DF may be or total HC standard may be included in vehicle.
calculated exclusively using cold the same test group. 24. Section 86.1829–01 is amended by
temperature NMHC test data to * * * * * revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
determine compliance with cold 23. A new § 86.1828–10 is added to follows:
temperature NMHC emission standards. Subpart S to read as follows:
For determining compliance with full § 86.1829–01 Durability and emission
useful life cold NMHC emission § 86.1828–10 Emission data vehicle testing requirements; waivers.
standards, the 68–86 degree F 120,000 selection. * * * * *

mile full useful life NMOG DF may be Section 86.1828–10 includes text that (b) * * *
used. Also at the manufacturer’s option specifies requirements that differ from (3) Cold temperature CO and cold
and using procedures approved by the § 86.1828–01. Where a paragraph in temperature NMHC Testing. One EDV in
Administrator, a separate DF may be § 86.1828–01 is identical and applicable each durability group shall be tested for
calculated exclusively using US06 and/ to § 86.1828–10, this may be indicated cold temperature CO and cold
temperature NMHC exhaust emission (2) The manufacturer must comply of this prohibition will not be covered
compliance in accordance with the test with all certification and in-use by the certificate(s).
procedures in subpart C of this part or emission standards contained in (iii) Failure to comply fully with the
with alternative procedures requested subparts S and H of this part both phase-in requirements of § 86.1811–04,
by the manufacturer and approved in during and after model year production. will be considered to be a failure to
advance by the Administrator. The (3) The manufacturer must comply satisfy the terms and conditions upon
selection of which EDV and test group with all implementation schedules sales which the certificate(s) was (were)
within the durability group will be percentages as required in § 86.1810 or issued and the vehicles sold which do
tested for cold temperature CO and cold elsewhere in this part. Failure to meet not comply with Tier 2 or interim non-
temperature NMHC compliance will be a required implementation schedule Tier 2 requirements, up to the number
determined under the provisions of sales percentage will be considered to needed to comply, will not be covered
§ 86.1828–10(c) and (g). be a failure to satisfy a condition upon by the certificate(s).
* * * * * which the certificate was issued and any (iv) For paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through
25. Section 86.1844–01 is amended by vehicles or trucks sold in violation of (iii) of this section:
the implementation schedule shall not (A) The manufacturer must bear the
revising paragraph (d)(11) to read as
be covered by the certificate. burden of establishing to the satisfaction
follows:
(4) For incomplete light-duty trucks of the Administrator that the terms and
§ 86.1844–01 Information requirements: and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles, a conditions upon which the certificate(s)
Application for certification and submittal of certificate covers only those new motor was (were) issued were satisfied.
information upon request.
vehicles which, when completed by (B) For recall and warranty purposes,
* * * * * having the primary load-carrying device vehicles not covered by a certificate of
(d) * * * or container attached, conform to the conformity will continue to be held to
(11) A list of all auxiliary emission maximum curb weight and frontal area the standards stated or referenced in the
control devices (AECD) installed on any limitations described in the application certificate that otherwise would have
applicable vehicles, including a for certification as required in applied to the vehicles.
justification for each AECD, the § 86.1844–01. (8) For LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/
parameters they sense and control, a MDPVs, all certificates of conformity
(5) The manufacturer must meet the
detailed justification of each AECD issued are conditional upon compliance
in-use testing and reporting
which results in a reduction in with all provisions of §§ 86.1811–10 and
requirements contained in §§ 86.1845–
effectiveness of the emission control 86.1864–10 both during and after model
01, 86.1846–01, and 86.1847–01, as
system, and rationale for why the AECD year production.
applicable. Failure to meet the in-use
is not a defeat device as defined under (i) Failure to meet the fleet average
testing or reporting requirements shall
§§ 86.1809–01 and 86.1809–10. For any cold temperature NMHC requirements
be considered a failure to satisfy a
AECD uniquely used at high altitudes, will be considered a failure to satisfy the
condition upon which the certificate
EPA may request engineering emission terms and conditions upon which the
was issued. A vehicle or truck will be
data to quantify any emission impact certificate(s) was (were) issued and the
considered to be covered by the
and validity of the AECD. For any AECD vehicles sold in violation of the fleet
certificate only if the manufacturer
uniquely used on multi-fuel vehicles average NMHC standard will not be
fulfills this condition upon which the
when operated on fuels other than covered by the certificate(s).
certificate was issued. (ii) Failure to comply fully with the
gasoline, EPA may request engineering (6) Vehicles are covered by a prohibition against selling credits that
emission data to quantify any emission certificate of conformity only if they are are not generated or that are not
impact and validity of the AECD. in all material respects as described in available, as specified in § 86.1864–10,
* * * * * the manufacturer’s application for will be considered a failure to satisfy the
26. A new § 86.1848–10 is added to certification (Part I and Part II). terms and conditions upon which the
Subpart S to read as follows: (7) For Tier 2 and interim non-Tier 2 certificate(s) was (were) issued and the
vehicles, all certificates of conformity vehicles sold in violation of this
§ 86.1848–10 Certification. issued are conditional upon compliance prohibition will not be covered by the
Section 86.1848–10 includes text that with all provisions of §§ 86.1811–04, certificate(s).
specifies requirements that differ from 86.1860–04, 86.1861–04 and 86.1862–04 (iii) Failure to comply fully with the
§ 86.1848–01. Where a paragraph in both during and after model year phase-in requirements of § 86.1811–10
§ 86.1848–01 is identical and applicable production. will be considered a failure to satisfy the
to § 86.1848–10, this may be indicated (i) Failure to meet the fleet average terms and conditions upon which the
by specifying the corresponding NOX requirements of 0.07g/mi, 0.30 g/ certificate(s) was (were) issued and the
paragraph and the statement mi or 0.20 g/mi, as applicable, will be vehicles sold that do not comply with
‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see considered to be a failure to satisfy the cold temperature NMHC requirements,
§ 86.1848–01.’’ Where a corresponding terms and conditions upon which the up to the number needed to comply,
paragraph of § 86.1848–01 is not certificate(s) was (were) issued and the will not be covered by the certificate(s).
applicable, this is indicated by the vehicles sold in violation of the fleet (iv) For paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through
statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’ average NOX standard will not be (iii) of this section:
(a) through (b) [Reserved]. For covered by the certificate(s). (A) The manufacturer bears the
guidance see § 86.1848–01. (ii) Failure to comply fully with the burden of establishing to the satisfaction
(c) All certificates are conditional prohibition against selling credits that it of the Administrator that the terms and
upon the following conditions being has not generated or that are not conditions upon which the certificate(s)
met: available, as specified in § 86.1861–04, was (were) issued were satisfied.
(1) The manufacturer must supply all will be considered to be a failure to (B) For recall and warranty purposes,
required information according to the satisfy the terms and conditions upon vehicles not covered by a certificate of
provisions of §§ 86.1843–01 and which the certificate(s) was (were) conformity will continue to be held to
86.1844–01. issued and the vehicles sold in violation the standards stated or referenced in the
certificate that otherwise would have temperature NMHC emission standards, (m) Calculating the fleet average cold
applied to the vehicles. the 68–86 degree F, 120,000 mile full temperature NMHC standard.
(d) through (i) [Reserved]. For useful life NMOG DF may be used. Manufacturers will compute separate
guidance see § 86.1848–01. (k) Vehicle test procedure. (1) The test sales-weighted fleet average cold
27. A new § 86.1864–10 is added to procedure for demonstrating temperature NMHC emissions at the end
Subpart S to read as follows: compliance with cold temperature of the model year for LDV/LLDTs and
NMHC standards is contained in HLDT/MDPVs, using actual sales, and
§ 86.1864–10 How to comply with the fleet
average cold temperature NMHC standards. subpart C of this part. With prior EPA certifying test groups to FELs, as defined
approval, alternative testing procedures in § 86.1803–01. The FEL becomes the
(a) Applicability. Cold temperature standard for each test group, and every
may be used, as specified in § 86.106–
NMHC exhaust emission standards test group can have a different FEL. The
96(a), provided cold temperature NMHC
apply to the following vehicles, subject certification resolution for the FEL will
emissions do not decrease as a result of
to the phase-in requirements in be one decimal point. LDVs and LLDTs
an alternative testing procedure.
§ 86.1811–10(g)(3) and (4): must be grouped together when
(2) Testing of all LDVs, LDTs and
(1) 2010 and later model year LDV/ calculating the fleet average, and HLDTs
MDPVs to determine compliance with
LLDTs. and MDPVs must also be grouped
(2) 2012 and later model year HLDT/ cold temperature NMHC exhaust
emission standards set forth in this together to determine the fleet average.
MDPVs.
section must be on a loaded vehicle Manufacturers must compute the sales-
(3) Aftermarket conversion systems as
weight (LVW) basis, as defined in weighted cold temperature NMHC fleet
defined in 40 CFR 85.502, including
§ 86.1803–01. averages using the following equation,
conversion of MDPVs.
(3) Testing for the purpose of rounded to the nearest tenth:
(4) Vehicles imported by ICIs as
defined in 40 CFR 85.1502. providing certification data is required Fleet average cold temperature NMHC
(b) Useful life requirements. Full only at low altitude conditions and only exhaust emissions =
useful life requirements for cold for vehicles that can operate on
gasoline, except as requested in S(N × FEL) ÷ Total number of vehicles
temperature NMHC standards are sold of the applicable weight category
defined in § 86.1805–04(g). There is not §§ 86.1810–09(f) and 86.1844–01(d)(11).
If hardware and software emission (i.e., either LDV + LLDTs, or HLDT +
an intermediate useful life standard for MDPVs)
cold temperature NMHC standards. control strategies used during low
(c) Altitude. Altitude requirements for altitude condition testing are not used Where:
cold temperature NMHC standards are similarly in-use across all altitudes, the N = The number of LDVs and LLDTs, or
provided in § 86.1810–09(f). manufacturer will include a statement HLDTs and MDPVs, sold within the
(d) Small volume manufacturer in the application for certification, in applicable FEL, based on vehicles
certification procedures. Certification accordance with §§ 86.1844–01(d)(11) counted to the point of first sale.
procedures for small volume and § 86.1810–09(f), stating what the
FEL = Family Emission Limit.
manufacturers are provided in different strategies are and why they are
§ 86.1838–01. used. If hardware and software emission (n) Certification compliance and
(e) Cold temperature NMHC control strategies used during testing enforcement requirements for cold
standards. Fleet average cold with gasoline are not used similarly temperature NMHC standards. (1) In
temperature NMHC standards are with all fuels that can be used in multi- addition to the compliance and
provided in § 86.1811–10(g)(2). fuel vehicles, the manufacturer will enforcement requirements provided
(f) Phase-in. Phase-in of the cold include a statement in the application throughout § 86.1864–10, additional
temperature NMHC standards are for certification, in accordance with conditions are included in the
provided in § 86.1811–10(g)(3) and (4). §§ 86.1844–01(d)(11) and 86.1810–09(f), provisions of § 86.1848–10(c)(8).
(g) Phase-in flexibilities for small stating what the different strategies are (2) The certificate issued for each test
volume manufacturers. Phase-in and why they are used. For example, group requires all vehicles within that
flexibilities for small volume unless a manufacturer states otherwise, test group to meet the emission standard
manufacturer compliance with the cold air pumps used to control emissions on or FEL to which the vehicles were
temperature NMHC standards are dedicated gasoline vehicles or multi- certified.
provided in § 86.1811–04(k)(5). fuel vehicles during low altitude (3) Each manufacturer must comply
(h) Hardship provisions for small conditions must also be used to control with the applicable cold temperature
volume manufacturers. Hardship emissions at high altitude conditions, NMHC fleet average standard on a sales-
provisions for small volume and software used to control emissions weighted average basis, at the end of
manufacturers related to the cold or closed loop operation must also each model year, using the procedure
temperature NMHC standards are operate similarly at low and high described in paragraph (m) of this
provided in § 86.1811–04(q)(1). altitude conditions and similarly when section.
(i) In-use standards for applicable multi-fueled vehicles are operated on (4) During a phase-in year, the
phase-in models. In-use cold gasoline and alternate fuels. These manufacturer must comply with the
temperature NMHC standards for examples are for illustrative purposes applicable cold temperature NMHC fleet
applicable phase-in models are only; similar strategies would apply to average standard for the required phase-
provided in § 86.1811–10(u). other currently used emission control in percentage for that year as specified
(j) Durability procedures and method technologies and/or emerging or future in § 86.1811–10(g)(3) or (4).
of determining deterioration factors technologies. (5) Manufacturers must compute
(DFs). The durability data vehicle (l) Emission data vehicle (EDV) separate cold temperature NMHC fleet
selection procedures of § 86.1822–01 selection. Provisions for selecting the averages for LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/
and the durability demonstration appropriate EDV for the cold MDPVs. The sales-weighted cold
procedures of § 86.1823–06 apply for temperature NMHC standards are temperature NMHC fleet averages must
cold NMHC standards. For determining provided in §§ 86.1828–10(g) and be compared with the applicable fleet
compliance with full useful life cold 86.1829–01(b)(3). average standard.
(6) Each manufacturer must comply calculation in paragraph (o)(4) of this (ii) This process is referred to as
on an annual basis with the fleet average section to determine the size of its ‘‘early banking’’ and the resultant
standards as follows: NMHC credit deficit. A manufacturer credits are referred to as ‘‘early credits.’’
(i) Manufacturers must report in their whose cold temperature NMHC fleet In order to bank early credits, a
annual reports to the Agency that they average emissions are less than the 0.3 manufacturer must comply with all
met the relevant corporate average g/mile standard for LDV/LLDTs, or less exhaust emission standards and
standard by showing that their sales- than 0.5 g/mi for HLDT/MDPVs, must requirements applicable to LDV/LLDTs
weighted average cold temperature complete the calculation in paragraph and/or HLDT/MDPVs. To generate early
NMHC emissions of LDV/LLDTs and (o)(4) of this section if it desires to credits, a manufacturer must separately
HLDT/MDPVs, as applicable, are at or generate NMHC credits. compute the sales-weighted cold
below the applicable fleet average (2) There are no property rights temperature NMHC average of the LDV/
standard; associated with NMHC credits generated LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs it certifies to
(ii) If the sales-weighted average is under this subpart. Credits are a limited the exhaust requirements and separately
above the applicable fleet average authorization to emit the designated compute credits using the calculations
standard, manufacturers must obtain amount of emissions. Nothing in this in paragraph (o)(4) of this section. Early
and apply sufficient NMHC credits, as part or any other provision of law HLDT/MDPV credits may not be applied
appropriate, and as permitted under should be construed to limit EPA’s to LDV/LLDTs before the 2010 model
paragraph (o)(8) of this section. A authority to terminate or limit this year. Early LDV/LLDT credits may not
manufacturer must show via the use of authorization through a rulemaking. be applied to HLDT/ MDPV before the
credits that they have offset any (3) Each manufacturer must comply 2012 model year.
exceedence of the corporate average with the reporting and recordkeeping (6) NMHC credits are not subject to
standard. Manufacturers shall also requirements of paragraph (p) of this any discount or expiration date except
report their credit balances or deficits. section for NMHC credits, including as required under the deficit
(iii) If a manufacturer fails to meet the early credits. The averaging, banking carryforward provisions of paragraph
corporate average cold temperature and trading program shall be enforced (o)(8) of this section. There shall be no
NMHC standard for two consecutive discounting of unused credits. NMHC
through the certificate of conformity
years, as required in paragraph (o)(8) of credits shall have unlimited lives,
that allows the manufacturer to
this section, the vehicles causing the subject to the limitations of paragraph
introduce any regulated vehicles into
corporate average exceedence will be (o)(2) of this section.
commerce.
considered not covered by the certificate (7) Credits may be used as follows:
(4) Credits are earned on the last day
of conformity. A manufacturer will be (i) Credits generated and calculated
of the model year. Manufacturers must
subject to penalties on an individual- according to the method in paragraph
calculate, for a given model year, the
vehicle basis for sale of vehicles not (o)(4) of this section may only be used
number of credits or debits it has
covered by a certificate. to offset deficits accrued with respect to
(iv) EPA will review each generated according to the following the standard in § 86.1811–10(g)(2).
manufacturer’s sales to designate the equation, rounded to the nearest tenth: Credits may be banked and used in a
vehicles that caused the exceedence of NMHC Credits or Debits = (Cold future model year in which a
the corporate average standard. EPA Temperature NMHC manufacturer’s average cold
will designate as nonconforming those Standard¥Manufacturer’s Sales- temperature NMHC level exceeds the
vehicles in test groups with the highest Weighted Fleet Average Cold 0.3 or 0.5 g/mi standard for LDV/LLDTs
certification emission values first, Temperature NMHC Emissions) × and HLDT/MDPVs, respectively. Credits
continuing until a number of vehicles (Total Number of Vehicles Sold) may be exchanged between the LDT/
equal to the calculated number of Where: LLDT and HLDT/MDPV fleets of a given
noncomplying vehicles as determined manufacturer. Credits may also be
Cold Temperature NMHC Standard =
above is reached. In a group where only traded to another manufacturer
0.3 g/mi for LDV/LLDTs or 0.5 g/mi
a portion of vehicles would be deemed according to the provisions in paragraph
for HLDT/MDPV, per § 86.1811–
nonconforming, EPA will determine the (o)(9) of this section. Before trading or
10(g)(2).
actual nonconforming vehicles by carrying over credits to the next model
counting backwards from the last Manufacturer’s Sales-Weighted Fleet year, a manufacturer must apply
vehicle produced in that test group. Average Cold Temperature NMHC available credits to offset any credit
Manufacturers will be liable for Emissions = average calculated deficit, where the deadline to offset that
penalties for each vehicle sold that is according to paragraph (m) of this credit deficit has not yet passed.
not covered by a certificate. section. (ii) The use of credits shall not be
(o) How does the cold temperature Total Number of Vehicles Sold = Total permitted to address Selective
NMHC averaging, banking and trading 50-State sales based on the point of Enforcement Auditing or in-use testing
(ABT) program work? (1) Manufacturers first sale. failures. The enforcement of the
shall average the cold temperature (5) The following provisions apply for averaging standard shall occur through
NMHC emissions of their vehicles and early banking: the vehicle’s certificate of conformity. A
comply with the cold temperature (i) Manufacturers may certify LDV/ manufacturer’s certificate of conformity
NMHC fleet average corporate standard. LLDTs to the cold temperature NMHC shall be conditioned upon compliance
Credits may be generated during and exhaust standards in § 86.1811–10(g)(2) with the averaging provisions. The
after the phase-in period. Credits may for model years 2008–2009 in order to certificate shall be void ab initio if a
also be generated prior to the phase-in bank credits for use in the 2010 and manufacturer fails to meet the corporate
periods as described in paragraph (5) of later model years. Manufacturers may average standard and does not obtain
this section. A manufacturer whose cold certify HLDT/MDPVs to the cold appropriate credits to cover its shortfalls
temperature NMHC fleet average temperature NMHC exhaust standards in that model year or in the subsequent
emissions exceed the 0.3 g/mile in § 86.1811–10(g)(2) for model years model year (see deficit carryforward
standard for LDV/LLDTs, or 0.5 g/mi for 2010–2011 in order to bank credits for provision in paragraph (o)(8) of this
HLDT/MDPVs, must complete the use in the 2012 and later model years. section). Manufacturers shall track their
certification levels and sales unless they the required time period. Any failure to following information in adequately
produce only vehicles certified to cold offset the debits will be considered a organized and indexed records for each
temperature NMHC levels below the violation of paragraph (o)(8)(i) of this LDV/T or MDPV subject to this subpart:
standard and do not plan to bank section and may subject the (A) Model year.
credits. manufacturer to an enforcement action (B) Applicable fleet average cold
(8) The following provisions apply if for sale of vehicles not covered by a temperature NMHC standard.
debits are accrued: certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (C) EPA test group.
(i) If a manufacturer calculates that it (o)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this section. (D) Assembly plant.
has negative credits (also called (v) For purposes of calculating the (E) Vehicle identification number.
‘‘debits’’ or a ‘‘credit deficit’’) for a given statute of limitations, a violation of the (F) Cold temperature NMHC FEL to
model year, it shall be allowed to carry requirements of paragraph (o)(8)(i) of which the LDV/T or MDPV is certified.
that deficit forward into the next model this section, a failure to satisfy the (G) Information on the point of first
year. Such a carry-forward may only conditions upon which a certificate(s) sale, including the purchaser, city, and
occur after the manufacturer exhausts was issued and hence a sale of vehicles state.
any supply of banked credits. At the end not covered by the certificate, all occur (iii) Manufacturers must retain all
of that next model year, the deficit must upon the expiration of the deadline for records required to be maintained under
be covered with an appropriate number offsetting debits specified in paragraph this section for a period of eight years
of credits that the manufacturer (o)(8)(i) of this section. from the due date for the annual report.
generates or purchases. Any remaining (9) The following provisions apply to Records may be stored in any format
deficit shall be subject to an NMHC credit trading: and on any media, as long as
enforcement action, as described in this (i) EPA may reject NMHC credit manufacturers can promptly send EPA
paragraph (o)(8). Manufacturers are not trades if the involved manufacturers fail organized, written records in English if
permitted to run a deficit for two to submit the credit trade notification in we ask for them. Manufacturers must
consecutive years. the annual report. A manufacturer may keep records readily available as EPA
(ii) If debits are not offset within the not sell credits that are not available for may review them at any time.
specified time period, the number of sale pursuant to the provisions in (iv) Nothing in this section limits the
vehicles not meeting the fleet average paragraphs (o)(7)(i) of this section. Administrator’s discretion to require the
cold temperature NMHC standards and (ii) In the event of a negative credit manufacturer to retain additional
not covered by the certificate must be balance resulting from a transaction that records or submit information not
calculated by dividing the total amount a manufacturer could not cover by the specifically required by this section.
of debits for the model year by the fleet reporting deadline for the model year in (v) Pursuant to a request made by the
average cold temperature NMHC which the trade occurred, both the Administrator, the manufacturer must
standard applicable for the model year buyer and seller are liable, except in submit to the Administrator the
in which the debits were first incurred. cases involving fraud. EPA may void ab information that the manufacturer is
(iii) EPA will determine the number initio the certificates of conformity of all required to retain.
of vehicles for which the condition on engine families participating in such a (vi) EPA may void ab initio a
the certificate was not satisfied by trade. certificate of conformity for vehicles
designating vehicles in those test groups (iii) A manufacturer may only trade certified to emission standards as set
with the highest certification cold credits that it has generated pursuant to forth or otherwise referenced in this
temperature NMHC emission values paragraph (o)(4) of this section or subpart for which the manufacturer fails
first and continuing until a number of acquired from another party. to retain the records required in this
vehicles equal to the calculated number (p) Maintenance of records and section or to provide such information
of noncomplying vehicles as determined submittal of information relevant to to the Administrator upon request.
above is reached. If this calculation compliance with fleet average cold (2) Reporting. (i) Each covered
determines that only a portion of temperature NMHC standards—(1) manufacturer must submit an annual
vehicles in a test group contribute to the Maintenance of records. (i) report. The annual report must contain
debit situation, then EPA will designate Manufacturers producing any light-duty for each applicable cold temperature
actual vehicles in that test group as not vehicles, light-duty trucks, or medium- NMHC standard, the fleet average cold
covered by the certificate, starting with duty passenger vehicles subject to the temperature NMHC value achieved, all
the last vehicle produced and counting provisions in this subpart must values required to calculate the cold
backwards. establish, maintain, and retain all the temperature NMHC emissions value, the
(iv)(A) If a manufacturer ceases following information in adequately number of credits generated or debits
production of LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/ organized and indexed records for each incurred, all the values required to
MDPVs, the manufacturer continues to model year: calculate the credits or debits, the
be responsible for offsetting any debits (A) Model year. resulting balance of credits or debits,
outstanding within the required time (B) Applicable fleet average cold and sufficient information to show
period. Any failure to offset the debits temperature NMHC standard: 0.3g/mi compliance with all phase-in or
will be considered a violation of for LDV/LLDTs; 0.5 g/mi for HLDT/ alternative phase-in requirements.
paragraph (o)(8)(i) of this section and MDPVs. (ii) For each applicable fleet average
may subject the manufacturer to an (C) Fleet average cold temperature cold temperature NMHC standard, the
enforcement action for sale of vehicles NMHC value achieved. annual report must also include
not covered by a certificate, pursuant to (D) All values used in calculating the documentation on all credit transactions
paragraphs (o)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this fleet average cold temperature NMHC the manufacturer has engaged in since
section. value achieved. those included in the last report.

(B) If a manufacturer is purchased by, (ii) Manufacturers producing any Information for each transaction must
merges with, or otherwise combines light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, or include all of the following:
with another manufacturer, the medium-duty passenger vehicles subject (A) Name of credit provider.
controlling entity is responsible for to the provisions in this subpart must (B) Name of credit recipient.
offsetting any debits outstanding within establish, maintain, and retain all the (C) Date the trade occurred.
(D) Quantity of credits traded. Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan erroneous credits, EPA must adjust the
(E) Model year in which the credits 48105. selling manufacturer’s credit or debit
were earned. (iv) Failure by a manufacturer to balance to reflect the sale of such credits
submit the annual report in the and any resulting generation of debits.
(iii) Unless a manufacturer reports the specified time period for all vehicles
data required by this section in the (3) Notice of opportunity for hearing.
subject to the provisions in this section Any voiding of the certificate under
annual production report required is a violation of section 203(a)(1) of the
under § 86.1844–01(e), a manufacturer paragraph (p)(1)(vi) of this section will
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522) for each be made only after EPA has offered the
must submit an annual report for each applicable vehicle produced by that
model year after production ends for all affected manufacturer an opportunity
manufacturer. for a hearing conducted in accordance
affected vehicles produced by the (v) If EPA or the manufacturer
with § 86.614–84 for light-duty vehicles
manufacturer subject to the provisions determines that a reporting error
or § 86.1014–84 for light-duty trucks
of this subpart and no later than May 1 occurred on an annual report previously
and, if a manufacturer requests such a
of the calendar year following the given submitted to EPA, the manufacturer’s
hearing, will be made only after an
model year. Annual reports must be credit or debit calculations will be
initial decision by the Presiding Officer.
submitted to: Director, Compliance and recalculated. EPA may void erroneous
Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. credits, unless traded, and must adjust [FR Doc. 06–2315 Filed 3–28–06; 8:45 am]
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 erroneous debits. In the case of traded BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Proposed Rule: Air Pollution Control: Benzene and Other Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduction Gasoline, Passenger Vehicles, and Portable Gasoline Containers Controls

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Proposed Rule: Air Pollution Control: Benzene and Other Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduction Gasoline, Passenger Vehicles, and Portable Gasoline Containers Controls

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Wednesday,

March 29, 2006

Industry ................................................................................................ 336111 3711 Motor vehicle manufacturers.

Proposed Controls Commercial Importers (ICIs) Small Refiners?

Provisions of the Proposed Benzene F. Economic Impact Analysis

emission factors for nonroad sources;

exhaust organic gases.

Housing Survey web page. [Online at http://

TABLE III.B–1.—COMPOUNDS EMITTED BY MOBILE SOURCES THAT ARE LISTED IN IRIS*

risk greater than ten in one million or ard quotient > 1.

TABLE III.C–2.—MOBILE SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO 1999 NATA RISK DRIVERS

10 NATA does not include a quantitative estimate

of cancer risk for diesel particulate matter and

the Office of Health and Environmental

methods and evaluation. Prepared for Colorado

areas, these tracts can be very small, on the order

All MSATs .................................................................................... 4.0×10¥6 1.9×10¥5 5.9×10¥5 3.6×10¥6 1.3×10¥5 4.4×10¥5

Allocation of onroad mobile emissions to road 2005–0036.

101 Sabin, L.D.; Behrentz, E.; Winer, A.M.; et al.

Conference. Paper 98–A504.

1999 2007 2010 2015 2020

Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles ................................................................... 54 41 37 31 27

Lawn and Garden .................................................................................... 26 18 17 21 25

Category 1999 2010 2015 2020

Category 1999 2010 2015 2020

Category 1999 2010 2015 2020

reformulated gasoline, fuel benzene The anti-dumping regulations were

has controlled summertime gasoline and PM emissions.

dumping requirements for conventional gasoline on Subpart E). www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.html.

1999 2015 2020 2030

VOC Without Rule (tons) ................................................................................. 4,899,891 2,625,076 2,556,751 2,899,269

Benzene Without Rule (tons) .......................................................................... 171,154 101,355 106,071 124,897

MSATs Without Rule (tons) ............................................................................. 1,341,572 707,877 724,840 844,366

c. PM2.5 relationship with temperature, with these findings, direct PM emissions at

177 Table IV.A–1 lists the MSATs included in this

b. Toxics trimethylpentane, and MTBE. We include effects of the proposed fuel

Gasoline On-road Mobile

Gasoline On-road Mobile

VOC Without Rule (tons) ............................................................................................................. 2,922,003 2,875,135 3,261,984

F. How Would This Proposal Reduce

Without Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 2.57×10¥6 3.64×10¥6 1.96×10¥6

median 95th median 95th median 95th

Current Controls ....................................... 5.73×10¥6 1.38×10¥5 5.61×10¥6 1.35×10¥5 5.75×10¥6 1.41×10¥5

179 69 FR 39276, June 29, 2004.

proportional reductions in hydrocarbon

that are using secondary air at 20° F,

190 Memo to docket ‘‘Discussions Regarding

Fuel Transport Mechanisms into the Cylinder of a

TABLE VI.B–2.—PROPOSED PHASE-IN SCHEDULE FOR 20 °F NMHC STANDARD BY MODEL YEAR

occur if a manufacturer delayed

vehicle models. manufacturers a benefit from certifying Section 1961(b)(2).

TABLE VI.B–3.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE STANDARDS FOR LDVS/LLDTS

2011 2012 2013

TABLE VI.B–4.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE STANDARDS FOR HLDVS/MDPVS

and fuel tanks (non-fuel and fuel

TABLE VI.C–1.—PROPOSED EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

LDVs .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.50 0.65

201 DaimlerChrysler, Letter from Reginald R.

Final Statement of Reasons, September 1999.

Fuel volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure in psi) ....................................................................................................... 9 ....................... 7.

233 EPA, Study of Unique Gasoline Fuel Blends

Aromatics are a relatively valuable

TABLE VII.C–1.—OTHER GASOLINE BENZENE CONTROL PROGRAMS