[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 151 (Friday, August 4, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48058-48105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18640]



[[Page 48057]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Parts 80 and 86



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 151 / Friday, August 4, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 48058]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 80 and 86

[AMS-FRL-6839-2]


Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile 
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A range of compounds known as hazardous air pollutants are 
emitted from motor vehicles and fuels and are known or suspected to 
have serious health impacts. This document describes EPA's program to 
address emissions of hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources. In 
this document, we develop a framework to construct a national mobile 
source air toxics program and propose additional controls on gasoline 
to prevent increases in emissions of benzene. We also describe a plan 
to continue to conduct research and analysis on mobile source air 
toxics and make a commitment to revisit the issue of mobile source air 
toxics controls in a 2004 rulemaking.
    More specifically, we look at the various compounds that are 
emitted by motor vehicles and identify those compounds that should be 
considered Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). Our list of 21 MSATs 
includes various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as well as metal 
compounds and diesel exhaust. We then evaluate the effectiveness of 
current controls in reducing on-highway emissions of these MSATs. Our 
analysis shows that the programs we currently have in place or have 
recently proposed are expected to yield significant reductions of 
mobile source air toxics. Between 1990 and 2020, these programs are 
expected to reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-
butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 75 percent or more. In addition, we 
expect to see on-highway diesel PM emission reductions of over 90 
percent.
    We then consider whether there are additional air toxics controls 
that should be put in place at this time to further reduce on-highway 
MSAT inventories. With regard to fuels-based controls, we are proposing 
a gasoline benzene control program that requires refiners to maintain 
the current levels of over-compliance with RFG and anti-dumping toxics 
requirements. Because the proposed standard for each refinery is the 
same as the 1998-1999 average gasoline benzene level for that refinery, 
EPA currently anticipates that the proposed standards would impose only 
negligible costs, if any. With regard to additional vehicle-based 
controls, we conclude that it is not appropriate at this time to 
propose more stringent standards than the technology forcing standards 
found in our recently adopted Tier 2 and recently proposed HD2007 rule 
standards.
    Finally, because of our concern about the potential future health 
impacts of exposure to the public of air toxics from the remaining 
emissions from mobile sources in the future, including emissions from 
nonroad equipment and fuels, we propose to continue our toxics-related 
research activities, in conjunction with other activities currently 
being conducted by the Agency. These include our National Air Toxics 
Activities (NATA) and the National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated 
Urban Strategy (UATS). Under this strategy, EPA will continue to 
improve our understanding of emissions inventories, assessments of 
exposure, and the need for and appropriateness of additional mobile 
source air toxics controls for on-highway and nonroad sources. Based on 
the information developed through this research, EPA is proposing to 
conduct a future rulemaking to evaluate whether such additional mobile 
source air toxic controls should be adopted. This rulemaking would be 
completed no later than 2004.

DATES: Comments: We must receive your written comments on this document 
by September 20, 2000.
    Hearings: We will hold a public hearing on August 21, 2000, in 
Romulus, Michigan. The hearing will begin at 10 am and will continue 
until all testifiers have spoken.

ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form and/or 
by e-mail. We must receive them by the date indicated under DATES 
above. Send paper and/or e-mail copies of written comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to the contact person listed below.
    Docket: EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking 
available for review in Public Docket No. A-2000-12 at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), 
Room M-1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air 
Docket by telephone at (202) 260-7548, and by facsimile (202) 260-4400. 
We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as 
provided in 40 CFR part 2.
    Hearings: We will hold a public hearing at the Crowne Plaza 
Detroit-Metro Airport Hotel, 8000 Merriman Road, Romulus, Michigan 
48174. We request that parties who want to testify at a hearing notify 
the contact person listed below ten days before the date of the 
hearing. Please see section IX, ``Public Participation'' below for more 
information on the comment procedure and public hearings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Connell, U.S. EPA, National 
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 
48105; Telephone (734) 214-4349; FAX: (734) 214-4816; E-mail: 
[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    This proposed action would affect you if you produce new motor 
vehicles, alter individual imported motor vehicles to address U.S. 
regulation, or convert motor vehicles to use alternative fuels. It 
would also affect you if you produce, distribute, or sell gasoline 
motor fuel.
    The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to 
follow the proposed regulations. But because these are only examples, 
you should carefully examine the proposed and existing regulations in 
40 CFR parts 80 and 86. If you have questions, call the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Examples of potentially regulated
               Category                  NAICS codes \1\    SIC codes \2\                 entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..............................             336111             3711  Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.
                                                   336112
                                                   336120
Industry..............................             336311             3592  Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters.
                                                   336312             3714
                                                   422720             5172
                                                   454312             5984
                                                   811198             7549

[[Page 48059]]

 
                                                   541514             8742
                                                   541690             8931
Industry..............................             811112             7533  Commercial Importers of Vehicles and
                                                                             Vehicle Components.
                                                   811198             7549
                                                   541514             8742
Industry..............................             324110             2911  Petroleum Refiners.
Industry..............................             422710             5171  Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.
                                                   422720             5172
Industry..............................             484220             4212  Gasoline Carriers.
                                                   484230            4213
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    Access to Rulemaking Documents through the Internet: Today's 
document is available electronically on the day of publication from the 
Office of the Federal Register Internet Web site listed below. 
Electronic copies of the preamble, regulatory language and other 
documents associated with today's proposal are available from the EPA 
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site listed below shortly 
after the rule is signed by the Administrator. This service is free of 
charge, except any cost that you already incur for Internet 
connectivity.
    Federal Register Web Site:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/epa-air/
(Either select a desired date or use the Search feature)

    Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) Web Site:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq
(Look in ``What's New'' or under the specific rulemaking topic)

    Please note that due to differences between the software used to 
develop the document and the software into which the document may be 
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.

    Outline of this Preamble
I. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. Brief Overview of Air Toxics
    C. Basic Components of Today's Proposal
    1. Identification of Mobile Source Air Toxics
    2. Assessment of Emission Benefits from Current Standards
    3. Consideration of Additional Controls at This Time
    4. Technical Analysis Plan and Future Rulemaking
    5. Nonroad Air Toxics
    D. EPA's Statutory Authority for Proposing Today's Action
    E. Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Studies
    F. Other Air Toxics Activities
    1. Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
    2. National Air Toxics Assessment
II. What Are the Mobile Source Air Toxics?
    A. Introduction
    B. The Methodology Used to Identify Our List of Mobile Source 
Air Toxics
    1. Identifying Pollutants Emitted From Mobile Sources
    2. Using IRIS to Identify Pollutants With Potential Adverse 
Health Effects
    C. List of Mobile Source Air Toxics
    D. How Our List of MSATs Compares to Other Lists or Sources of 
Data on Toxics
    E. Diesel Health Assessment Document
    F. Diesel Exhaust and Diesel Particulate Matter
III. How Are Motor Vehicle Emission Control Programs Reducing MSAT 
Emissions?
    A. Baseline Inventories
    B. Impacts of Motor Vehicle Emission Controls on Emissions 
Inventories
    1. Description of Emission Control Programs
    2. Emission Reductions From Control Programs
    C. Summary
IV. Evaluation of Additional Motor Vehicle-based Controls
    A. MSATs and Motor Vehicle-based Controls
    B. EPA's Motor Vehicle-based Emission Control Program
    1. Light-duty Vehicles
    2. Heavy-duty Vehicles
    C. Feasibility of More Stringent Vehicle-based Standards to 
Reduce MSATs
    1. Light-duty Vehicles
    2. Heavy-duty Vehicles
    3. Conclusion
V. Evaluation of Additional Fuel-based Controls
    A. What Current Gasoline Programs Control Toxics Emissions?
    B. Why Is EPA Focusing on Benzene?
    C. Given the Existing Over-compliance, Why Is EPA Considering 
Additional Gasoline Benzene Controls?
    D. What Type of Gasoline Control Program Is EPA Proposing Today?
    E. Will the Proposed Benzene Standards Pre-Empt State Benzene 
Controls?
    F. What Are the Expected Impacts of EPA's Proposed Program?
    G. Determination of the Need for Future Controls Deferred to 
Technical Analysis Plan and Future Rulemaking
    H. What Are the Details of Today's Proposed Program?
    1. Standards and Dates
    2. Entities Subject to the Proposed Regulation
    3. California Gasoline
    4. Proposed Baseline Development and Submittal Requirements
    5. Flexibility Provisions
    6. Downstream Standards
    7. Sampling and Testing
    8. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    9. Exemptions for Research, Development, and Testing
    10. Liability and Penalty Provisions for Noncompliance
    I. Toxics Performance Standard
VI. Nonroad Sources of MSAT Emissions
    A. Nonroad MSAT Baseline Inventories
    B. Impacts of Current Nonroad Mobile Source Emission Control 
Strategies
    1. Description of the Emission Control Programs
    2. Emission Reductions From Current Programs
    C. Gaps in Nonroad Mobile Source Data
    D. Summary
VII. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data Gaps and Reopening of 
Rulemaking
    A. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data Gaps
    B. Commitment for Further Rulemaking
VIII. Public Participation
    A. Comments and the Public Docket
    B. Public Hearings
IX. Administrative Requirements
    A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Intergovernmental Relations
    1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    2. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    3. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    F. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Introduction

A. Background

    The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments provide a key part of the 
foundation for our current national air toxics program. The Act 
provides a statutory framework designed to characterize, prioritize, 
and address the serious impacts of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) on 
the public health and the environment through a strategic combination 
of regulatory approaches, partnerships, ongoing research and 
assessments, risk initiatives, and education and outreach.

[[Page 48060]]

    Since 1990, our national air toxics control program for stationary 
sources has consisted primarily of technology-based emissions standards 
to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from major stationary 
sources, as required in section 112(d) of the Act. These actions have 
resulted, or are projected to result, in substantial reductions in HAP 
emissions.
    Mobile source regulatory actions have also resulted in significant 
reductions of air toxics since 1990. In general, these mobile source 
air toxic reductions have been achieved through the implementation of 
controls put in place primarily to achieve attainment of the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter 
(PM), and carbon monoxide (CO). For example, hydrocarbon controls for 
motor vehicles to reduce ozone formation also reduce emissions of 
gaseous air toxics such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde. 
Mobile source PM controls on diesel engines have considerably reduced 
diesel exhaust emissions as well. Additional toxics reductions have 
been achieved through fuel controls, including the federal reformulated 
gasoline (RFG) program, and through refiner over-compliance with toxics 
requirements of our RFG and conventional gasoline programs.
    Today's proposal takes our mobile source toxics control program a 
step further by considering more specifically the contribution mobile 
sources make to national inventories of specific air toxics and by 
evaluating the appropriateness of setting additional standards to 
reduce contributions from on-highway vehicles. In performing our 
analysis of additional controls, we will follow the requirements 
specified in section 202(l)(2) of the Act: these motor vehicle or motor 
fuel standards must ``reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction 
achievable through the application of technology which will be 
available, taking into consideration the standards established under 
[section 202(a)], the availability and costs of the technology, and 
noise, energy, and safety factors, and lead time.'' Our program is also 
consistent with the National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban 
Strategy (also called the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, or UATS) published 
July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38706).
    With this background, we now turn to an overview of today's 
proposal. Section I of this preamble will give you a brief overview of 
our proposal and the rationale for proposing it. Subsequent sections 
expand on the identification of mobile source air toxics (MSATs), the 
impact of current and proposed motor vehicle emission control programs 
on MSAT emissions, and the evaluation of additional control programs 
for motor vehicles and their fuels. Additional sections deal with the 
contribution of nonroad engines to MSAT inventories and our plan to 
continue to evaluate MSAT emissions and evaluate the appropriateness of 
setting additional air toxics control standards in the future. The 
final sections deal with several subjects, including opportunities for 
public participation.

B. Brief Overview of Air Toxics

    Before proceeding to a summary of today's action, we want to 
provide a brief overview of air toxics: what they are, their general 
health and environmental effects, and their sources. Today's action 
addressing motor vehicle air toxics occurs in the context of extensive 
earlier air toxics work, primarily relating to stationary sources of 
these pollutants. These topics are discussed in more detail later in 
this proposal and in the draft TSD.
     What are air toxics?
    Air toxics, which are also known as ``hazardous air pollutants'' or 
HAPs, are those pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other 
serious health or environmental effects. They include pollutants like 
benzene found in gasoline, perchloroethylene emitted from dry cleaners, 
methylene chloride used as an industrial solvent, heavy metals like 
mercury and lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and some 
pesticides. While the harmful effects of air toxics are of particular 
concern in areas closest to where they are emitted, they can also be 
transported and affect other geographic areas. Some can persist for 
considerable time in the environment and/or bioaccumulate in the food 
chain.
     What are the sources of air toxics?
    There are literally millions of sources of air toxics, including: 
major stationary sources \1\ such as large industrial complexes like 
chemical plants, oil refineries and steel mills; small (area) 
stationary sources \2\ such as dry cleaners, gas stations, and small 
manufacturers; and mobile sources such as cars, trucks, buses, and 
nonroad vehicles such as construction and farm equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Major stationary sources are sources that emit, or have the 
potential to emit, 10 tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25 
tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs.
    \2\ Area sources are those stationary sources that are not major 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What health and environmental effects do air toxics cause?
    Hazardous air pollutants can cause many ill health effects. Many of 
these substances are known or suspected to be human carcinogens. Some 
of these chemicals are known to have negative effects on people's 
respiratory, neurological, immune, or reproductive systems. Some 
chemicals pose particular hazards to people with preexisting illnesses, 
or those of a certain age or stage in life, such as children or the 
elderly.
     What are mobile source air toxics?
    We use the term ``mobile source air toxics,'' or ``MSATs,'' to 
signify those air toxics are emitted by nonroad engines and motor 
vehicles. Section 202(l) of the Act, which addresses controls for 
hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels, 
does not specify which pollutants are to be evaluated as air toxics, 
other than benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene. As a result, the 
first thing a mobile source air toxics control program must do is 
develop a list of compounds to be addressed. Using the methodology 
described in section II of this proposal, we have identified 21 mobile 
source air toxics (MSATs), listed in Table I-1 below.
    Of our 21 MSATs, thirteen (those marked with an asterisk in Table 
I-2) are also included on the list of urban HAPs for the Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy (see below). Of the remainder, all but one are 
specifically identified in the CAA section 112(b) HAP list. Diesel 
exhaust is not included in these other two lists because this pollutant 
was not included by Congress in the section 112(b) HAP list and, 
consequently, was not included in the group of pollutants that were 
considered for inclusion in the urban HAP list. It is, however, a 
pollutant that we identified in the UATS as a concern in urban areas.

          Table I-1.--List of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde a..............  Diesel Exhaust......  MTBE.
Acrolein a..................  Ethylbenzene........  Naphthalene.
Arsenic compounds a.........  Formaldehyde a......  Nickel compounds. a
Benzene a...................  n-Hexane............  POM (Sum of 7 PAHs)a

[[Page 48061]]

 
1,3-Butadiene a.............  Lead compounds a....  Styrene.
Chromium compounds a........  Manganese compounds   Toluene.
                               a.
Dioxin/Furans a.............  Mercury compounds a.  Xylene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Also on the list of urban HAPs for the Urban Air Toxics Strategy.

     How are air toxics from mobile sources formed?
    Mobile source air toxics come from four sources. First, some air 
toxics are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when it 
evaporates or passes through the engine as unburned fuel. Benzene, for 
example, is a component of gasoline. Cars emit small quantities of 
benzene in unburned fuel, or as vapor when gasoline evaporates. Second, 
mobile source air toxics are formed through engine combustion 
processes. A significant amount of automotive benzene comes from the 
incomplete combustion of compounds in gasoline such as toluene and 
xylene that are chemically very similar to benzene. Like benzene 
itself, these compounds occur naturally in petroleum and become more 
concentrated when petroleum is refined to produce high octane gasoline. 
Diesel exhaust emissions, as well as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 
1,3-butadiene, are also by-products of incomplete combustion. Third, 
some compounds, like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, are also formed 
through a secondary process when other mobile source pollutants undergo 
chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Finally, metal air toxics result 
from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. They can also 
be present in fuel additives.
     What are the Urban HAPs?
    The urban HAPs are the 33 compounds that have been identified by 
the Agency in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (UATS) \3\ as those HAPs 
posing the greatest threat to human health in the largest number of 
urban areas. These compounds are a subset of the 188 compounds listed 
in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act. The 33 urban HAPs are as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban Strategy; 
Notice (64 FR 38706-38740 (19 July 1999)).

    Table I-2.--List of Urban HAPs for the Urban Air Toxics Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Acetaldehyde           Coke oven emissions    Mercury compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein....................  1,2-dibromomethane..  Methylene chloride
                                                     (dichloromethane).
Acrylonitrile...............  1,2-dichloropropane   Nickel compounds.
                               (propylene
                               dichloride).
Arsenic compounds...........  1,3-dichloropropene.  Polychlorinated
                                                     biphenyls (PCBs).
Benzene.....................  Ethyl dichloride      Polycyclic organic
                               (1,2-                 matter (POM).
                               dichloroethane).
Beryllium compounds.........  Ethylene oxide......  Quinoline.
1,3-Butadiene...............  Formaldehyde........  1,2,7,8-
                                                     tetrachlorodibenzo-
                                                     p-dioxine (and
                                                     cogeners and TCDF
                                                     cogeners).
Cadmium compounds...........  Hexachlorobenzene...  1,2,2,2-
                                                     tetrachloroethane.
Carbon tetrachloride........  Hydrazine...........  Tetrachloroethylene
                                                     (perchloroethylene)
                                                     .
Chloroform..................  Lead compounds......  Trichloroethylene.
Chromium compounds..........  Manganese compounds.  Vinyl chloride.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Basic Components of Today's Proposal

    Many motor vehicle and fuel emission control programs of the past 
have reduced air toxics. EPA has recently created or proposed several 
programs that further reduce air toxics emissions from a wide variety 
of mobile sources. These include our reformulated gasoline (RFG) 
program, which has substantially reduced mobile source air toxics in 
certain areas of the country, our national low emission vehicle (NLEV) 
program, our Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline 
sulfur control requirements, and our recently proposed heavy-duty 
engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control 
requirements. In addition, certain other mobile source control programs 
have been specifically aimed at reducing toxics emissions (i.e., our 
lead phase-out programs).
    While these mobile source standards were put in place primarily to 
reduce ozone and particulate matter inventories through VOC and diesel 
PM controls, and thereby to help states and localities come into 
attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 
they have reduced and will continue to reduce on-highway emissions of 
gaseous air toxics very significantly.\4\ By 2020, these programs are 
expected to reduce 1990 levels of on-highway emissions of benzene by 75 
percent, formaldehyde by 87 percent, 1,3-butadiene by 75 percent, and 
acetaldehyde by 82 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Included among the numerous chemicals that make up total VOC 
emissions--that thus are reduced when VOCs are reduced--are several 
gaseous toxics (e.g., benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and 
acetaldehyde).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we have issued or proposed regulations to control 
diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions from mobile sources, 
including the recent light- and heavy-duty vehicle programs mentioned 
above. By 2020, we expect to see on-highway diesel PM emission 
reductions of 94 percent from 1990 levels.
    Nevertheless, there is a continuing public health concern about the 
ambient levels of several key air toxics. Today's proposal therefore 
contains a plan to address mobile sources of these air toxics. We begin 
by considering the different kinds of emissions from motor vehicles and 
identifying a list of compounds that should be considered Mobile Source 
Air Toxics (MSATs). We then evaluate the effectiveness of current and 
proposed controls in reducing on-highway emissions of these MSATs. We 
then consider whether there are additional air toxics controls that 
should be put in place at this time to reduce on-highway MSAT 
inventories even more. Based on this assessment, we are proposing 
standards that will require individual refiners to maintain their 
current gasoline benzene content levels. Finally, we describe a

[[Page 48062]]

process to conduct research and analysis to continue to assess the need 
for and feasibility of additional mobile source air toxics controls. We 
are proposing to conduct another rulemaking to be completed by December 
2004, based on the additional research and analysis we conduct and any 
additional information that becomes available in that timeframe. That 
future rulemaking would re-evaluate the various decisions on motor 
vehicle and fuel air toxics controls made in this rulemaking.
1. Identification of Mobile Source Air Toxics
    There are hundreds of different compounds and elements that are 
known to be emitted from passenger cars, on-highway trucks, and various 
types of nonroad equipment. Today's action identifies a list of 
pollutants known to be emitted from motor vehicles or their fuels and 
considered by EPA to pose potential adverse human health risks. This 
list is not intended to be a fixed one; additional compounds may be 
added to the list, in a future rulemaking, as we learn more about the 
pollutants emitted from mobile sources and the health effects of those 
pollutants. Similarly, compounds may be removed from the list if new 
information on the pollutants emitted by mobile sources or their health 
effects supports a different conclusion. Based on the available data, 
we are proposing a list of 21 mobile source air toxics (MSATs). We are 
requesting comment both on the list we have developed and on our 
approach to developing that list.
2. Assessment of Emission Benefits From Current Standards
    Once we identified the MSATs, we were able to assess the impact 
that current and future mobile source controls will have on national 
emissions inventories of these pollutants. Today's action describes how 
our current mobile source emission control programs are expected to 
reduce these emissions. The very good news is that, by 2020, we expect 
existing programs like the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, 
national low emission vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier 2 motor vehicle 
emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements (Tier 2), 
and our recently proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and 
on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements (HD2007 rule), to 
significantly reduce on-highway emissions of key air toxics. Between 
1990 and 2020, these programs are expected to reduce on-highway 
emissions of benzene by 75 percent, formaldehyde by 87 percent, 1,3-
butadiene by 75 percent, and acetaldehyde by 82 percent. In addition, 
we expect to see on-highway diesel PM emission reductions of 94 
percent.
3. Consideration of Additional Controls at This Time
    Although we anticipate substantial reductions in emissions of key 
toxic pollutants by 2020, the serious health effects associated with 
many of these compounds lead us to evaluate whether additional controls 
are appropriate at this time. For the purpose of our analysis, we 
divide potential control measures into two broad categories: vehicle-
based controls and fuel-based controls. Vehicle-based controls include 
programs that would reduce evaporative and exhaust emissions from 
vehicles and engines. Fuel-based controls explore how changing fuel 
formulation can reduce air toxic emissions.
    The only toxics control program we are proposing today is fuel-
based. Specifically, we are proposing to require refiners and importers 
to maintain the gasoline benzene content of the fuel they produce or 
import at the current benzene levels of such gasoline for the 
foreseeable future. We are also seeking comment on whether additional 
volumes of gasoline produced above the volumes produced in a baseline 
year should be subject to a different benzene standard. The overall 
goal of this program is to ensure that benzene emissions due to 
gasoline fuel benzene do not increase above current emission levels. 
The details of this program are discussed in section V below, as well 
as the various vehicle and fuel controls EPA has considered.
    With regard to vehicle-based air toxics controls, EPA believes that 
it is not appropriate at this time to propose additional motor vehicle 
or fuel based controls under section 202(l)(2), beyond the controls 
currently adopted or proposed by the Agency. This is based on 
consideration of the technical feasibility, cost, and other factors 
relevant to a proposal of further controls at this time. EPA is also 
proposing a regulatory provision providing for a future rulemaking that 
would determine, based on the information available at that time, 
whether additional motor vehicle or fuel controls would be appropriate 
under section 202 (l)(2) to control emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants from motor vehicles and their fuels. Finally, the rulemaking 
would consider the contribution of nonroad engines to emissions of air 
toxics and whether controls that reduce these emissions along with 
motor vehicle emissions are appropriate under the Act.
4. Technical Analysis Plan and Future Rulemaking
    We believe our evaluation to date of the need for, and 
appropriateness of, additional mobile source toxics control measures 
provides adequate support for today's proposal. At this time, EPA is 
also engaged in other toxics-related research activities through the 
NATA activities and the UATS described below. This emerging information 
will help us in further evaluating potential additional mobile source 
air toxics controls in the future.
    In light of this ongoing work, we are proposing to conduct a 
Technical Analysis Plan as described in section VII below. This Plan 
would coordinate work within the Agency in several key areas, including 
development of emission factors for nonroad sources, analysis of toxics 
exposures in microenvironments, and examination of additional fuel- and 
vehicle-based air toxics controls for both motor vehicles and engines 
and nonroad engines. This work would be fully coordinated with the new 
work with NATA and the UATS. This will allow us to take full advantage 
of what is collectively learned and provide a solid basis for future 
rulemaking. The results of this research and analysis would form the 
basis of a future rulemaking, as discussed below.
5. Nonroad Air Toxics
    While section 202(l)(2) of the Act specifies that we set standards 
to control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle fuels, we believe it is also necessary to discuss nonroad 
sources in today's proposal, making it a comprehensive mobile source 
air toxics program, for two important reasons. First, today's proposal 
is intended to be a companion piece to EPA's Urban Air Toxics Strategy. 
As described above, the Urban Air Toxics Strategy is intended to 
address air toxics inventories in urban areas. Because both on-highway 
and nonroad engines contribute to those inventories, it is important to 
address both categories in a comprehensive strategy to reduce urban air 
toxics. Second, currently available data suggests that nonroad sources 
contribute approximately the same amount to national inventories of key 
air toxics as on-highway sources. Therefore, a comprehensive control 
strategy must include nonroad sources. Section 213 of the Act allows us 
to control emissions from those classes or categories of new nonroad 
engines that cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably 
be anticipated to endanger

[[Page 48063]]

public health or welfare. To the extent emissions of MSAT from these 
engines is found to cause or contribute to air pollution problems, EPA 
may decide to adopt further nonroad controls in the future, as 
specified in section 213 of the Act.
    At the same time, while we are including nonroad sources in our 
discussions of inventory impacts and expected reductions from current 
nonroad emission control strategies, we are not proposing new emission 
control standards for these engines in this proposal. This is because 
we are lacking relevant data that are required to assess the 
appropriateness of additional MSAT controls. These include speciation 
data for some categories of nonroad engines, geographic dispersion of 
emissions, and information, including cost information, about 
technologies that can reduce these emissions further. Our Technical 
Analysis Plan, described below, would help us obtain the data we need 
to consider and in the future evaluate whether additional nonroad air 
toxics controls are needed and appropriate.

D. EPA's Statutory Authority for Proposing Today's Action

    We are proposing today's action under the authority of section 
202(l) of the Clean Air Act. The gasoline benzene standards in today's 
action are proposed under section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act.
    Section 202(l) of the Act consists of two parts. Section 202(l)(1) 
calls on EPA to study the need for and feasibility of controlling toxic 
air pollutants associated with motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels. 
That study is to focus on those categories of emissions that pose the 
greatest risk to human health or about which significant uncertainties 
remain. The Act specifies that, at a minimum, the study focus on 
emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene.
    Section 202(l)(2) instructs us to set standards to control 
hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles, motor vehicle fuels, or 
both. These standards, which may be revised from time to time, are to 
reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through 
the application of technology which will be available, taking into 
consideration the motor vehicle standards established under section 
202(a) of the Act, the availability and cost of the technology, and 
noise, energy and safety factors, and lead time. The regulations are to 
apply, at a minimum, to benzene and formaldehyde emissions.
    We completed the study required under section 202(l)(1) in April 
1993. The report, entitled ``Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study,'' 
is available on our website (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm). 
Specific pollutants or pollutant categories discussed in this report 
include benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, diesel 
particulate, gasoline particulate, gasoline vapors, and selected 
metals. The emissions and exposure aspects of this report were recently 
updated in November 1999 for several of the air toxics covered in the 
1993 study. That report, entitled ``Analysis of the Impacts of Control 
Programs on Motor Vehicle Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas 
and Nationwide,'' is also available on our website, and is described in 
more detail in section I.E., below. We sought peer review comments on 
both the 1993 and 1999 studies. We considered the 1993 comments in 
developing the 1999 document and will consider the 1999 comments in 
developing our future activities (e.g., in the development of version 4 
of the Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure Model, HAPEM4).
    Today's action is pursuant to section 202(l)(2). In this action, we 
identify a list of MSATs and discuss the impacts of existing mobile 
source emission control programs on their emissions. In a separate 
rulemaking, the HD2007 rule, we are proposing stringent emission 
standards that would lead to significant reductions of the gaseous and 
PM components in diesel exhaust emissions. In today's proposal, we are 
proposing standards to maintain the benzene content of gasoline fuel at 
1998-1999 levels for volumes produced in that time period. We are also 
seeking comment on whether additional volumes of gasoline produced 
above the volumes produced in a baseline year should be subject to a 
different benzene standard.
    Today's proposal is based on all the information EPA has available 
at this time. EPA recognizes that there are various gaps in the data, 
and that further analysis and evaluation would be useful in evaluating 
the appropriateness of and need for additional future controls on motor 
vehicles or their fuels. Given the important contribution of mobile 
sources to the national inventory of air toxics, we are proposing a 
plan to conduct this additional work in the near future. The results of 
this additional research would form the basis for a future rulemaking 
to re-evaluate the question of whether additional controls on motor 
vehicles and nonroad engines or their fuels are appropriate under the 
Act based on all of the information available to the Agency at that 
time.

E. Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Studies

    In 1993, EPA released a study of motor vehicle-related air toxics 
in compliance with section 202(l)(1) of the Clean Air Act.\5\ The study 
provided estimates of motor vehicle emissions of several pollutants 
believed to pose the greatest risk to public health. Using these 
estimates of emissions, the study modeled the exposure and risk 
attributable to motor vehicle emissions and projected emissions, 
exposures, and risk for the year 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA, 1993. Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study. Report 
No. EPA 420-R-93-005. This report can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Peer review of this study was completed in 1994.\6\ The comments 
from the peer review included suggestions for improving EPA's exposure 
modeling and risk assessment methodology. In response to these 
comments, EPA updated its exposure model for motor vehicle-related air 
toxics. Also, since 1993, significant new information on vehicle 
emission rates has been developed as part of the Auto/Oil program, the 
development of the Complex Model for reformulated gasoline, CARB test 
programs, and other sources, and much more is known about the impact of 
fuel properties on toxic emissions. Furthermore, EPA has developed new 
programs, such as the NLEV and Tier 2 standards, which have significant 
effects on projections of toxic emissions and exposure. Finally, EPA 
has released an updated cancer risk assessment for benzene, a draft 
reassessment for 1,3-butadiene, and a draft assessment for diesel 
exhaust emissions.7, 8, 9,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Peer review comments on the 1993 study can be accessed at 
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm.
    \7\ EPA 1998. Environmental Protection Agency, Carcinogenic 
Effects of Benzene: An Update, National Center for Environmental 
Assessment, Washington, DC. 1998. This report can be accessed at 
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/benzene.htm.
    \8\ EPA 1998. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Risk 
Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene. EPA/600/P-98/001A, February 1998. This 
report can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/butadiene.htm.
    \9\ EPA 1999. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions: 
SAB Review Draft. EPA/600/8-90/057D Office of Research and 
Development, Washington, D.C. The document is available 
electronically at www.epa.gov/ncea/diesel.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of all of this new information that has been developed 
since 1993, and in response to peer review comments, EPA has updated 
the estimates of emissions and exposure contained in

[[Page 48064]]

the 1993 study.\10\ The Agency is making further efforts to improve its 
understanding of toxic emissions, exposure, and risk associated with 
on-highway vehicles, nonroad equipment, and other sources as part of 
the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) process discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor 
Vehicles Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide 
(Volumes 1 and 2), November 1999. EPA420-R-99-029/030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above air toxics studies, there are limitations in how 
ranges of exposures are modeled or characterized. For instance, the 
screening models the Agency has used do not consider ``hotspots'' for 
elevated air toxics concentrations. For this reason, EPA has not been 
able to conduct a complete exposure assessment. The Agency also needs 
to do more work on considering the costs and performance levels of 
pollution controls on air toxics. These activities would be included in 
the proposed Technical Analysis Plan discussed later in this preamble.

F. Other Air Toxics Activities

    As we developed and prepared today's mobile source air toxics 
program, we worked in the context of two other important activities 
that are ongoing at the Agency. These are EPA's Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy (UATS) development and the National Air Toxics 
Assessment (NATA) activities. Because these two programs are also 
important parts of our efforts to reduce toxic emissions from all 
sources, this section contains a brief summary of their key components. 
Interested readers are encouraged to visit EPA's Toxics website for 
more information about these programs (www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm).
1. Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
    EPA's Urban Air Toxics Strategy (the UATS) focuses on reducing the 
human health threats of air toxics in urban areas. In urban areas, 
toxic air pollutants raise special concerns because sources of 
emissions and people are concentrated in the same geographic areas, 
leading to large numbers of people being exposed to the emissions of 
many HAPs from many sources. In the UATS, EPA outlines future actions 
that we plan to take to reduce emissions of air toxics and improve our 
understanding of the health threats posed by air toxics in urban areas. 
The over-arching goal for the UATS is to reduce cancer and noncancer 
risks associated with air toxics in urban areas. Also, because air 
toxics in urban areas may threaten the health of some people more than 
others, depending on factors such as where they live in relation to 
toxic sources, we intend to characterize exposure and risk 
distributions both geographically and demographically. This will 
include particular emphasis on highly exposed individuals (such as 
those in geographic hot spots) and specific population subgroups (e.g., 
children, the elderly, and low-income communities).
    The overall UATS goals are: (1) To reduce by 75 percent from 1990 
levels the risk of cancer associated with air toxics from stationary 
sources (both large and small commercial and industrial sources); (2) 
to substantially reduce the noncancer health effects (e.g., birth 
defects and reproductive effects) associated with air toxics from small 
commercial and industrial sources; and (3) to address disproportionate 
impacts in certain areas (e.g., highly-exposed individuals in toxics 
``hot spots'') or experienced by certain populations (e.g., children, 
the elderly, or minority and low-income communities).
    As a first step in the UATS, EPA identified 33 of the 188 Section 
112(b) toxic air pollutants that EPA concluded pose the greatest threat 
to public health in the largest number of urban areas (see Table I-2, 
above). It should be noted that while diesel exhaust emissions are not 
included as a specific pollutant in the list of 33 urban HAPs, many of 
the hazardous constituents of diesel exhaust emissions are included 
among them, and it is a pollutant that we identified in the UATS as a 
concern in urban areas.
    The UATS outlines several steps that EPA will take to reduce urban 
air toxics and address risks, and as a part of the UATS, EPA has 
prepared an Action Plan. The key components of the Action Plan are as 
follows:
     Achieve reductions through regulatory actions and related 
projects. The strategy presents a framework for reducing air toxic 
emissions from all types of sources found in urban areas, including 
mobile sources, major industrial sources, and smaller stationary 
sources. Today's proposal contains mobile source-specific toxics 
regulations. We are also developing programs to reduce emissions from 
several area source categories (i.e., smaller commercial and industrial 
operations), and plan to complete regulations to address the new 13 
sources identified in the UATS by 2004. Regulations are already under 
development or exist for the 16 other area source categories listed in 
the UATS.
     Collaborate with interested parties. We are working with 
state, local, and tribal agencies, environmental groups, environmental 
justice communities, and affected industries, including small 
businesses, to assure that any actions under the UATS are responsive to 
health concerns while promoting fairness, encouraging urban 
redevelopment, and minimizing regulatory burdens.
     Education and outreach efforts. We will make an effort to 
inform stakeholders about the UATS and get their input into designing 
programs to implement it.
2. National Air Toxics Assessment
    National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) activities are an important 
component of the UATS and EPA's overall goal of reducing exposure to 
air toxics. These assessment activities include air toxics monitoring, 
emissions inventory development, exposure modeling, research 
activities, and risk assessment. Over time, these activities will help 
us set program priorities, characterize risks, and track progress 
toward reducing exposure to air toxics. Specifically, our current NATA 
activities include expanding air toxics monitoring, improving and 
periodically updating emissions inventories, periodically conducting 
national- and local-scale air quality, multimedia and exposure 
modeling, characterizing risks associated with air toxics exposures, 
and continued research on health and environmental effects and 
exposures to both ambient and indoor sources of air toxics.
    As part of these NATA activities, EPA is now conducting an initial 
national screening-level assessment to demonstrate our approach to 
characterizing air toxics risks nationwide. This initial screening-
level assessment will help to characterize the potential health risks 
associated with inhalation exposures to the 33 urban HAPs and diesel 
exhaust emissions.\11\ While such a broad-scale assessment is 
necessarily limited in the scope of the risks that it can assess 
quantitatively, and by the uncertainties inherent in the various types 
of data and methods currently available, it represents an important 
step in characterizing air toxics risks nationwide. Our initial 
national, screening-level air toxics assessment includes four major 
steps:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For an explanation of the connection between diesel 
exhaust, which is one of our MSATs, and diesel PM, see section II.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Compiling a national emissions inventory of 1996 air 
toxics emissions from outdoor sources of air toxics emissions.

[[Page 48065]]

     Estimating 1996 air toxics ambient concentrations across 
the continental United States (and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) 
for the 33 urban HAPs and diesel PM.

--Model evaluation comparing ambient concentrations with available 
monitored values.

     Estimating 1996 population exposures across the 
continental United States (and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) to 
the 33 urban HAPs and diesel PM.
     Characterizing potential public health risks due to 
inhalation of these 33 urban HAPs.
    In describing what NATA will include, it is also important to note 
the potentially important sources and pathways of risks to public 
health that are beyond the scope of this quantitative assessment. For 
example, while we recognize that indoor sources of air toxics emissions 
likely contribute substantially to the total exposures that people 
experience for a number of these HAPs, assessing these indoor sources 
of exposure cannot be done on a national scale at this time. Further, 
for a subset of these HAPs (i.e., those that persist and bioaccumulate 
in the environment), dietary exposures (e.g., eating contaminated fish) 
likely contribute much more to the total risk associated with exposure 
to these pollutants than do the inhalation exposures that will be 
addressed in this assessment. These and other important aspects of 
total population exposures to air toxics will be addressed more fully 
over time as part of our NATA activities as more comprehensive data and 
assessment tools become available.
    Additionally, NATA activities include other key activities that 
will support further risk characterizations on the local and national 
level in the future. These include:
     Developing and implementing a plan to characterize the 
concentrations of ambient air toxics through an expanded monitoring 
network. Data from existing state and local air monitoring programs 
will be compiled to summarize our current knowledge about ambient 
concentrations of air toxics. Existing ambient air toxics monitoring 
data will be compiled and summarized and then used as a ``reality 
check'' on model output.
     Improving existing monitoring networks, guided by data 
analysis and model predictions, to improve the collection of ambient 
concentration data for future model evaluations. As the monitoring 
program matures, trend sites will be established to assess the 
effectiveness of all of our air toxics control programs.
     Evaluating air toxics on a more local scale (e.g., an 
urban area) using more refined air quality modeling tools that factor 
in specific local information such as terrain (e.g., mountainous or 
flat) and local weather patterns. The results of national and local-
scale modeling can be compared to provide a more complete context for 
the evaluation of air toxics.
     Comparing air toxics inventories from 1990 and 1996 on a 
toxicity-weighted basis to help inform future assessments of progress 
toward meeting the risk reduction goals.
     Recommending tools to state, local and tribal regulatory 
agencies for evaluating air toxics concentrations, exposures and risk. 
This will include a comparison of the results from national-scale 
models to those from more local-scale models.
    While there continue to be significant uncertainties and gaps in 
methods, models, and data that limit our ability to assess risks to 
public health and the environment associated with exposures to air 
toxics, continued research will enable future assessment activities, 
both at the national screening-level and at more local refined levels, 
to yield improved assessments of cumulative air toxics risks.

II. What Are the Mobile Source Air Toxics?

A. Introduction

    There are hundreds of different compounds and elements that are 
known to be emitted from passenger cars, on-highway trucks, and various 
nonroad equipment. Several of these compounds may have adverse effects 
on human health and welfare. In recognition of this fact, Congress 
instructed EPA, in section 202(l)(2) of the Act, to set emission 
control standards for hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and 
their fuels. Except for benzene and formaldehyde (specifically 
mentioned in 202(l)(2)), the Act does not specify the compounds that 
should be included in such a control program. Therefore, the first step 
in developing a mobile source air toxics control program is to identify 
the compounds that should be treated as hazardous air pollutants for 
purpose of section 202(l)(2). Since EPA data suggests that nonroad 
engines and vehicles emit the same pollutants, EPA will identify this 
list as a list of mobile source air toxics (MSATs).\12\ EPA has used 
the methodology described below to develop this list of MSATs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We have chosen to call our list of toxics a mobile sources 
list to acknowledge that nonroad sources may also contribute 
emissions of these pollutants. For purposes of section 202(l)(2), 
each of the MSATs would be considered a ``hazardous air pollutant 
from motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Methodology Used To Identify Our List of Mobile Source Air 
Toxics

    EPA developed the list of MSATs by first compiling all available 
recent (i.e., less than 10 years old) studies which speciated emissions 
from motor vehicles and their fuels. We then compared the list of 
compounds in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database 
to the speciated lists of compounds in these studies. IRIS is a 
database of compounds that identifies EPA's consensus scientific 
judgment on the characterization of the potential adverse health 
effects that may result from a lifetime or acute exposure to various 
substance. IRIS may also indicate that based on the current data a 
compound can be found to have ``evidence of noncarcinogenicity'' i.e., 
the compound does not cause cancer.
    By comparing the list of compounds in IRIS to these emission 
speciation studies, we generated a list of 21 compounds. An evaluation 
of the potential for adverse health effects reflected in IRIS and in 
the ongoing agency scientific assessments of these compounds indicates 
that the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to these 
compounds warrants inclusion as a MSAT.
    It is important to note that inclusion on the list is not itself a 
determination by EPA that emissions of the compound in fact present a 
risk to public health or welfare, or that it is appropriate to adopt 
controls to limit the emissions of such a compound from motor vehicles 
or their fuels. The purpose of the list is more as a screening tool--it 
identifies those compounds emitted from motor vehicles or their fuels, 
and where the available information about their potential for adverse 
health or welfare effects indicates that further evaluation of 
emissions controls is appropriate. In conducting any such further 
evaluation, pursuant to sections 202(a) or 211(c) of the Act, EPA would 
consider whether emissions of the compound cause or contribute to air 
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public 
health or welfare. Such an evaluation would also consider the 
appropriate level of any controls, based on the criteria established in 
section 202(l)(2). Inclusion of a compound on the MSAT list does not 
decide these issues, but instead identifies those compounds for which 
such an

[[Page 48066]]

evaluation would appear to be warranted.
    EPA also compared its universe of known compounds emitted from 
motor vehicles against other lists or sources of information on toxic 
substances, and did not identify any additional substance that we 
believe should be listed at this time. EPA believes this process allows 
for re-evaluation of the MSAT list in the future, as information is 
learned about additional compounds or new information is learned about 
the 21 compounds. Compounds may be added to or removed from the list in 
a rulemaking.
    EPA invites comment on an alternative listing approach whereby any 
compound emitted from motor vehicles or their fuels that is listed 
under section 112(b) would be considered a MSAT. Additional compounds 
not on the section 112(b) list, such as diesel exhaust, would be 
considered a MSAT where EPA has sufficient scientific evidence, such as 
an EPA health assessment or similar analysis, indicating a potential 
for adverse effects on public health or welfare that would warrant 
inclusion on the list.
1. Identifying Pollutants Emitted From Mobile Sources
    In identifying a list of MSAT, EPA first compiled all available 
recent studies which speciated emissions from motor vehicles and their 
fuels. To do this, EPA reviewed a number of databases that contain 
information on the various species of compounds emitted from motor 
vehicles and their fuels. It is difficult to get a precise picture of 
these emissions due to the variety and number of databases in the 
literature. This is particularly true for hydrocarbon (HC) speciation 
databases. Most toxic air pollutants are hydrocarbons by their chemical 
nature and thus will be detected only if the HCs are chemically 
separated and identified (speciated). Many test programs that 
characterize vehicle emissions identify only total hydrocarbons (THC) 
without separating out the individual species of hydrocarbons and many 
use different test methods. The issue is further complicated by the 
limited availability of these databases for certain vehicle classes.
    We have recent (less than ten years old) speciation profiles for 
emissions from light-duty gas vehicles (LDGV), heavy-duty diesel 
vehicles (HDDV), heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGV), gasoline powered 
nonroad engines, and turbine engine aircraft.\13\ Data for other 
vehicle and engine types (e.g., light-duty diesel engines and nonroad 
diesel engines) either do not exist or are outdated (more than 10 years 
old) and thus are judged not to be representative of current emissions. 
However, it is unlikely that the lack of recent data for these vehicle 
and engine types would result in the absence of compounds from the 
list, since the combustion process is similar to vehicle and engine 
types for which we do have data. Forty-four speciation studies were 
found that met this age criteria. All of these speciation profiles 
attempt to accomplish more or less the same objective: separating and 
identifying the compounds that comprise the hydrocarbon portion and 
particulate phase of mobile source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See appendix I, chapter 2 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to alternative-fueled vehicles, most of the compounds 
included in their exhaust are included on our list of MSATs (e.g., 
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde). It should be noted that, depending on 
their fuel, these vehicles may also emit unburned ethanol and methanol, 
which were not included in our speciation data.
    Low level ethanol mixtures (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline) are 
widely used in the United States. Higher level ethanol mixtures (e.g., 
85% ethanol) are used as alternative fuel sources in a small number of 
flexible fuel vehicles. However, there is a paucity of data on 
potential inhalation effects of ethanol, and the compound is not listed 
in IRIS. Thus it is not included on the list of MSATs. EPA requests 
comment on whether it should be included.
    Methanol is also a promising alternative fuel for motor vehicles, 
and a small number of flexible fuel vehicles operate on a methanol 
mixture (e.g., 85% methanol). Inhalation of methanol at high 
concentrations (greater than 1000 ppm) has caused birth defects in rats 
and mice and at low levels can cause symptoms such as eye irritation, 
headaches, dizziness, and nausea. Methanol is highly toxic by oral 
exposure routes and is listed in IRIS. Because of the small numbers of 
vehicles using methanol currently in use, EPA requests comment on 
whether this compound should also be included in our MSAT list.
    EPA requests comment on our list of compounds associated with motor 
vehicles and their fuels provided here.
2. Using IRIS To Identify Pollutants With Potential Adverse Health 
Effects
    The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an EPA database of 
scientific information that contains the Agency consensus scientific 
positions on potential adverse health effects that may result from 
lifetime (chronic) or short-term (acute) exposure to various substances 
found in the environment.\14\ IRIS currently provides health effects 
information on over 500 specific chemical compounds. The information 
contained in the IRIS database includes an EPA finding for each 
compound that: (1) there is a health hazard, either cancer or 
noncancer, associated with exposure to the compound, (2) the compound 
is noncarcinogenic based on current data, or (3) the data is 
insufficient to determine if the compound is a hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA IRIS Database, http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of qualitative and 
quantitative health information. IRIS information may include the 
reference dose (RfD) for noncancer health effects resulting from oral 
exposure, the reference concentration (RfC) for noncancer health 
effects resulting from inhalation exposure, and the carcinogen 
assessment for both oral and inhalation exposure. Combined with 
information on specific exposure situations, the summary health hazard 
information in IRIS may be used in evaluating potential public health 
risks from environmental contaminants.
    Before a substance is listed on the IRIS database, it goes through 
a thorough scientific evaluation. This consensus and review process, 
managed by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), consists of 
(1) an annual Federal Register announcement of the IRIS agenda and a 
call for scientific information from the public on the selected 
chemical substances, (2) a search of the current literature, (3) 
development of health assessment and draft IRIS summaries, (4) internal 
EPA peer review, (5) external peer review, (6) Agency consensus review 
and management approval within EPA, (7) preparation of final IRIS 
summaries and supporting documents, and (8) entry of summaries and 
supporting documents into the IRIS database.

C. List of Mobile Source Air Toxics

    By comparing the list of compounds in IRIS to the motor vehicle 
emissions identified in the speciation studies, we identified 21 MSAT. 
This list is set out in Table II-1. Each of these pollutants are known, 
probable, or possible human carcinogens (Group A, B or C) or were 
considered by the Agency to pose a risk

[[Page 48067]]

of adverse noncancer health effects.\15\ EPA requests comment on the 
appropriateness of the compounds on the list of compounds associated 
with motor vehicles and their fuels provided here as well as the need 
to consider other hazardous or toxic air pollutants for inclusion on 
the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A further discussion of the potential cancer and noncancer 
risks, and other dose-response information for each MSAT can be 
found in chapter 3 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is difficult to identify the specific form of metals being 
emitted in motor vehicle exhaust because the databases only report the 
total amount of metal compound identified. As a result, we have chosen 
to list the entire group of metal compounds if any compound of the 
metal has been detected in motor vehicle exhaust and any compound of 
the metal is listed in IRIS as potentially causing adverse human health 
effects. For example, if we assume most chromium (Cr) emissions for 
mobile sources are unidentified as to the species, we would present the 
emissions as total chromium and not attempt to allocate these emissions 
because of the lack of accurate metal speciation information in most 
cases. When we assess the range of potential health impacts associated 
with exposure to chromium compounds, we consider the health effects 
associated with each compound for which we have information. For 
chromium, the most toxic form in IRIS is Cr+6; hence the health impacts 
described for chromium compounds include these most serious effects 
even though it is highly unlikely that all motor vehicle emissions are 
Cr+6. EPA believes this listing approach is a reasonable, health-
protective way to handle the uncertainty surrounding motor vehicle 
emissions of metals. We also recognize that this is not an appropriate 
methodology for assessing the actual health risks of the entire group 
of metal compounds emitted from motor vehicles.

     Table II-1.--Proposed List of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde................  Diesel Exhaust......  MTBE.\c\
Acrolein....................  Ethylbenzene........  Naphthalene.
Arsenic Compound \a\........  Formaldehyde........  Nickel Compounds.\a\
Benzenen....................  n-Hexane............  POM.\d\
1,3-Butadiene...............  Lead Compounds \a\..  Styrene.
Chromium Compounds \a\......  Manganese Compounds   Toluene.
                               \a\.
Dioxin/Furans \b\...........  Mercury Compounds     Xylene.
                               \a\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Although the different species of the same metal differ in their
  toxicity, the onroad mobile source inventory contains emissions
  estimates for total compounds of the metal identified in particulate
  speciation profiles (i.e., the sum of all forms).
\b\ This entry refers to two large groups of chlorinated compounds. In
  assessing their cancer risks, their quantitative potencies are usually
  derived from that of the most toxic, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin.
 
\c\ MTBE is listed due to its potential inhalation air toxics effects
  and not due to ingestion exposure associated with drinking water
  contamination.
\d\ Polycyclic Organic Matter includes organic compounds with more than
  one benzene ring, and which have a boiling point greater than or equal
  to 100 degrees centigrade. A group of seven polynuclear aromatic
  hydrocarbons, which have been identified by EPA as probable human
  carcinogens (benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
  benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, 7,12-
  dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) are sometimes
  used as a surrogate for the larger group of POM compounds.

D. How Our List of MSATs Compares to Other Lists or Sources of Data on 
Toxics

    There are other sources that provide information characterizing the 
cancer and noncancer health effects associated with exposure to air 
toxics. In identifying our MSAT list we relied upon the health effects 
data from the EPA IRIS database because it represents EPA's scientific 
consensus opinion on the health effects associated with exposure to 
various pollutants.
    We also compared our emissions speciation data to four other lists 
of toxic air pollutants to confirm that our MSAT list is reasonable. 
The four lists of toxic air pollutants are: the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
section 112(b) list of hazardous air pollutants; California EPA 
(CalEPA) list of toxic air contaminants (TAC); U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry (ATSDR) list of Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs); and International 
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monographs on cancer.
    Comparing these four lists against the emissions speciation 
studies, we identified two additional compounds not included on our 
list of 21 MSAT `` propionaldehyde and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane. Both the 
Cal EPA TAC list and the CAA section 112(b) HAP list contain these 
compounds.
    At this time EPA is not including propionaldehyde or 2,2,4-
trimethylpentane in the list of MSATs because EPA has not drawn a 
conclusion on the potential adverse health effects associated with 
exposure to these pollutants. We request comment on whether these two 
compounds should be included on our MSAT list and, if so, why. Comments 
should include scientific information on the potential health effects 
of these pollutants.

E. Diesel Health Assessment Document

    One of the key features of today's program is that we are proposing 
to designate diesel exhaust as a mobile source air toxic. The following 
paragraphs describe the most current information regarding the EPA's 
assessment of the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust and 
provide information regarding actions by other agencies to evaluate the 
hazard associated with exposure to diesel exhaust.
    EPA determined a reference concentration in 1993 to minimize 
noncancer health effects resulting from exposure to diesel exhaust. EPA 
has summarized available information to characterize the cancer and 
noncancer health effects from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions in 
the draft Health Assessment Document for Diesel Emissions (the 
Assessment). This information is also presented in the TSD.
    The key components of the current draft Assessment are: (1) 
information about the chemical components of diesel exhaust and how 
they can influence toxicity, (2) the cancer and noncancer health 
effects of concern for humans, and (3) the possible impact or risk to 
an exposed human population. EPA is currently revising the Assessment 
based on a February 2000 review by the Agency's Science Advisory Board 
(SAB) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). A revised 
Assessment is expected to be available for peer review and public 
comment in late July 2000. The Assessment will be reviewed by

[[Page 48068]]

CASAC late in 2000. The updated Assessment will inform the Technical 
Analysis Plan described in today's proposed program.
    The proposed finding in EPA's draft Health Assessment Document, 
under review by CASAC, is that diesel exhaust is a likely human 
carcinogen in the lung at environmental levels of exposure and that 
exposure to diesel exhaust can pose a noncancer health hazard.
    The concern for the cancer and noncancer health hazard resulting 
from diesel exhaust exposure is widespread. Several national and 
international agencies have designated diesel exhaust or diesel 
particulate matter as a ``potential'' or ``probable'' human carcinogen. 
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers diesel 
exhaust ``probably carcinogenic to humans''. Based on IARC findings, 
the State of California identified diesel exhaust in 1990 as a chemical 
known to the State to cause cancer and has listed diesel PM as a toxic 
air contaminant. The National Institutes for Occupational Safety and 
Health has classified diesel exhaust a ``potential occupational 
carcinogen.'' The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 
recently designated diesel exhaust particulates as ``reasonably 
anticipated to be a human carcinogen'' in its Ninth Report on 
Carcinogens.

F. Diesel Exhaust and Diesel Particulate Matter

    Diesel exhaust include gaseous and particulate components. Gaseous 
components of diesel exhaust include organic compounds, nitrogen-
containing compounds, sulfur compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon 
dioxide, water vapor, and excess air (nitrogen and oxygen). Among these 
gaseous organic compounds are benzene (a known human carcinogen), 
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene (possible or probable 
human carcinogens). Particulate components include many organic 
compounds that are mutagenic as well as several trace metals (including 
chromium, manganese, mercury and nickel) that may have general 
toxicological significance (depending on the specific species). In 
addition, small amounts of dioxins have been measured in diesel 
exhaust, some of which may partition to the particle phase.
    Because diesel exhaust is a mixture of particles and gases, the 
choice of a measure of exposure (i.e., dosimeter) is important. EPA 
believes that exposure to whole diesel exhaust is best described, as 
many researchers have done over the years, by diesel particulate 
concentrations expressed in units of mass concentration (e.g., 
g/m\3\). The choice of this dosimeter implies that the 
contribution of the gaseous components and diesel particulate 
constituents to toxicity are related by diesel particulate mass. This 
assumption is consistent with historic practice, but can only be 
validated when there is a better understanding of the toxicological 
mode of action for diesel exhaust.
    While some of the cancer and noncancer hazard may be associated 
with exposure to the gaseous component of diesel exhaust, studies 
suggest that the particulate component plays a substantial role in 
carcinogenicity and noncancer effects. Investigations show that diesel 
particles (the elemental carbon core plus the adsorbed organics) induce 
lung cancer at high doses and that the particles, independent of the 
gaseous compounds, elicit an animal lung cancer response. The presence 
of non-diesel elemental carbon particles, as well as the organic-laden 
diesel particles, correlate with an adverse inflammatory effect in the 
respiratory system of animals. Additional evidence suggesting the 
importance of the role of particulate matter in diesel exhaust includes 
the observation that the extractable particle organics collectively 
produce cancer and adverse mutagenic toxicity in laboratory 
experiments.
    Given the available information, we are proposing to list diesel 
exhaust as a mobile source air toxic pollutant. We invite scientific 
and policy rationales for listing only the particulate component of 
diesel exhaust as an MSAT.

III. How Are Motor Vehicle Emission Control Programs Reducing MSAT 
Emissions?

    In the previous section we identified the 21 MSATs. We now turn to 
an evaluation of the impact of existing and planned controls on 
inventories of those air toxics by examining the emissions inventories 
and estimated reductions expected to be achieved by our various mobile 
source control programs.
    The data and information available on emissions of these 21 MSATs 
vary considerably. While we have baseline inventory data for all of the 
MSATs except napthalene, we do not have inventory projections for all 
of them. Therefore, we are examining the projected impacts of our 
current and proposed mobile source control program by groupings of air 
toxics. More specifically, we have projections of future emissions for 
five gaseous toxics (benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, 
acetaldehyde, MTBE) and for diesel PM \16\ and we present these in this 
section. However, we do not have emissions projections for the 
remaining gaseous toxics (acrolein, POM, styrene, toluene, xylene, 
ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and n-hexane), but because these compounds 
are part of VOCs, we believe it is reasonable to utilize VOC emissions 
inventory projections to track the expected impact of our control 
programs on these other gaseous MSATs. Finally, we also do not have 
emissions inventory projections for the metals on the MSAT list 
(arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, mercury compounds, nickel 
compounds, manganese compounds, and lead compounds) or for dioxins/
furans. While metal emissions and dioxin/furans emissions are 
associated with particles, and it is possible that they track PM 
emissions to some extent, we do not have good data on these 
relationships. Therefore, we are not presenting emission projections 
for these compounds in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In this notice the emissions inventory for diesel exhaust 
is looked at in terms of diesel PM, as that is what we have measured 
to date. Thus, even though we are proposing to list diesel exhaust 
as an MSAT, all emissions inventory and trends numbers are stated in 
terms of diesel PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we describe in the following discussion, there have been and 
will continue to be significant reductions in MSAT emissions as a 
result of implemented, promulgated, and proposed regulations. By 2020, 
we project on-highway emissions of gaseous toxics such as benzene, 
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde, to decrease by 75 
percent or more from 1990 levels as a result of our mobile source 
control programs up to and including our Tier 2 control program and our 
recently proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and on-
highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements (HD2007 rule). Under 
these current and proposed controls we expect on-highway diesel PM 
emissions to be reduced by more than 90 percent by 2020, as compared 
with 1990 levels. Nonroad engines and equipment also contribute 
substantially to levels of MSAT emissions and have only in recent years 
been subject to emission standards. Since nonroad engines are not 
subject to the same stringent controls as on-highway vehicles, the 
reductions from these sources are more moderate than those for on-
highway sources.
    The discussion in this section consists of two parts. First, we 
describe current inventories of MSAT emissions. Next, we describe how 
our on-highway emission control programs will reduce them. Interested 
readers should refer to

[[Page 48069]]

chapter 4 of our Technical Support Document for more detailed 
information about the methodology we used to compile these inventories 
and the results of our analysis. We consider the impacts of our nonroad 
engine control programs on MSAT emissions in section VI of this 
preamble.

A. Baseline Inventories

    We developed inventory estimates for several gaseous MSATs 
(acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, MTBE) and also for 
diesel PM as part of the 1999 study, ``Analysis of the Impacts of 
Control Programs on Motor Vehicle Toxic Emissions and Exposure in Urban 
Areas and Nationwide,'' described in Section I.E, above (hereafter 
referred to as the 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study, or the 1999 
Study).\17\ We addressed these five gaseous MSATs and diesel PM because 
we had detailed information on the emission impacts of emission control 
technologies, fuel properties, and other parameters for these 
compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor 
Vehicles Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide 
(Volumes 1 and 2), November 1999. EPA420-R-99-029/030. This report 
can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study provides 1990 and 1996 
estimates of emissions for these compounds. The 1990 baseline 
represents estimated emissions before any of the programs added by the 
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were implemented. The 1996 estimates 
reflect toxics emissions with some of the new Clean Air Act programs in 
place, such as Phase 1 of the RFG program. We present emission 
estimates for these years in Table III-1. Note that since completion of 
the Study, we have updated our estimates of diesel PM emissions; these 
updated estimates are presented in Table III-1. It should also be noted 
that these estimates are only for on-highway vehicles.

  Table III-1.--Annual Emission Summary for the Total U.S. for Selected
                Air Pollutants, On-Highway Vehicles Only
                        [Short tons \a\ per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1990
                   Compound                       baseline       1996
                                                 emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,3-butadiene.................................       36,000       22,000
Acetaldehyde..................................       41,000       27,000
Benzene.......................................      257,000      165,000
Formaldehyde..................................      139,000       80,000
Diesel PM \b\.................................      235,000      180,000
MTBE..........................................       55,000      65,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ In this notice we report emissions in terms of short tons as opposed
  to metric tons. One short ton is 2,000 pounds. To convert to metric
  tons, multiply short tons by 0.9072. Note that all emissions and
  percentages in this and subsequent tables are rounded.
\b\ The 1996 diesel PM estimate is based on the Tier 2 rulemaking
  inventories, updated to reflect the Updated Tier 2 Emissions Inventory
  for light-duty diesel exhaust and the proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine
  rule for heavy-duty diesel exhaust. For 1990, we used estimates from
  EPA's Trends Report for that year, as described below.

    The 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI) prepared in connection 
with the Agency's NATA \18,\ \19\ activities, described above, also 
contains emission estimates for 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene, 
formaldehyde and MTBE. The 1996 NTI emission estimates for these 
compounds differ slightly from those generated in the 1999 Study, due 
largely to revisions made to the NTI based on state comments. Since 
diesel exhaust are not included on the list of 112(b) hazardous 
pollutants, which is the focus of the 1996 NTI, diesel PM estimates 
have not been compiled there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\-
    \19\ [Reserved].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI) prepared in connection 
with the Agency's NATA activities, described above, also contains 
emission estimates for 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene, 
formaldehyde and MTBE. The 1996 NTI emission estimates for these 
compounds differ slightly from those generated in the 1999 Study, due 
largely to revisions made to the NTI based on state comments. Since 
diesel exhaust are not included on the list of 112(b) hazardous 
pollutants, which is the focus of the 1996 NTI, diesel PM estimates 
have not been compiled there.
    The 1996 NTI also contains 1996 emissions estimates for several 
other MSATs, and includes data for nonroad \20\ as well as on-highway 
sources. We present these data in Table III-2. We also indicate the on-
highway and nonroad percentages of the national inventories for these 
MSATs (the total national inventories include emissions from on-highway 
and nonroad mobile sources, major and area stationary sources, and 
other sources such as forest fires). Between the 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle 
Air Toxics Study and the 1996 NTI, we have baseline inventory data for 
all of the 21 MSATs except mercury compounds and naphthalene.\21\ \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The nonroad inventory in the 1996 NTI includes emissions 
data for aircraft, commercial marine vessel, locomotives, and other 
nonroad engines. Note that under the Clean Air Act definition, 
nonroad does not include aircraft. For convenience, in this notice 
the term ``nonroad'' will include aircraft except where otherwise 
noted. It should be noted that the NONROAD model, on which the 
estimates for nonroad engines other than locomotive, commercial 
marine vessels, and aircraft are based, is still draft, and the 
emissions estimates based on this model are subject to change.
    \21\ [Reserved].
    \22\ Naphthalene emissions are not reported in the 1996 NTI 
separately from 16-PAH. Since diesel exhaust emissions are not 
included in the list of 112(b) hazardous pollutants that is the 
focus of the 1996 NTI, diesel PM emissions estimates have not been 
compiled there. See Chapter 3 of the TSD for the explanation of the 
linkage between diesel exhaust and diesel PM.

[[Page 48070]]



                         Table III-2.--1996 On-Highway and Nonroad Emission Inventories of Proposed MSATs 1996 NTI (Short Tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          On-Highway                      Nonroad                   Mobile sources
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Percent of                   Percent of                   Percent of
                           Compound                                             total national               total national               total national
                                                                     Tons          emissions        Tons        emissions        Tons        emissions
                                                                                   (percent)                    (percent)                    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,3-Butadiene a...............................................          23,500              42        9,900              18       33,400              60
Acetaldehyde a................................................          28,700              29       40,800              41       69,500              70
Acrolein a....................................................           5,000              16        7,400              23       12,400              39
Arsenic Compounds a...........................................            0.25            0.06         2.01            0.51         2.26            0.57
Benzene a.....................................................         168,200              48       98,700              28      266,900              76
Chromium Compounds a..........................................              14             1.2           35               3           49             4.2
Dioxins/Furans a, b...........................................          0.0001             0.2         N.A.            N.A.       0.0001             0.2
Ethylbenzene..................................................          80,800              47       62,200              37      143,000              84
Formaldehyde a................................................          83,000              24       86,400              25      169,400              49
Lead Compounds a..............................................              19             0.8          546            21.8          565            22.6
Manganese Compounds a.........................................             5.8             0.2         35.5             1.3         41.3             1.5
Mercury Compounds a...........................................             0.2             0.1          6.6             4.1          6.8             4.2
MTBE..........................................................          65,100              47       53,900              39      119,000              86
n-Hexane......................................................          63,300              26       43,600              18      106,600              44
Napthalene....................................................            N.A.            N.A.         N.A.            N.A.         N.A.            N.A.
Nickel Compounds a............................................            10.7             0.9         92.8             7.6        103.5             8.5
POM (as sum of 7 PAH) a.......................................            42.0               4         19.3               2         61.3               6
Styrene.......................................................          16,300              33        3,500               7       19,800              40
Toluene.......................................................         549,900              51      252,200              23      802,100              74
Xylene........................................................         311,000              43      258,400              36      569,400             79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Indicates also on the list of urban HAPs for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
b Mass given in tons of TEQ (toxic equivalency quotient). The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has recently developed an inventory for
  dioxin and dioxin-like compounds using different methods than those used in the NTI. For 1995, the EPA-ORD estimate of on-highway emissions of dioxin
  compounds is 0.00005 tons TEQ, comprising 1.5 percent of the national inventory in that year.

    The above inventory data reflect certain interesting 
characteristics of mobile source air toxics emissions. First, mobile 
sources account for the majority of the national inventory of three of 
the gaseous MSATs that are included on the urban HAP list. These three 
are 1,3-butadiene (60 percent), acetaldehyde (70 percent), and benzene 
(76 percent). Mobile sources account for 39 percent of the national 
inventory of acrolein, and 49 percent of the national inventory of 
formaldehyde, two other gaseous urban HAPs. All of these MSATs are 
formed as part of the combustion process. In addition, benzene is also 
released through evaporative emissions from gasoline.
    Second, with regard to the other MSATs that are included on the 
urban HAP list, the mobile source contribution generally is small 
(arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, manganese compounds, nickel 
compounds, POM, and dioxins/furans). The sole exception is lead 
compounds. Mobile sources contribute 23 percent to national inventories 
of lead compound emissions, due primarily to nonroad sources and, more 
specifically, to the use of a lead-additive package used to boost the 
octane of aviation gasoline.\23\ The mobile source contribution to the 
other metals on the urban HAP list comes primarily from engine wear, 
some fuel additives, or impurities in engine oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Aviation gasoline is used by a relatively small number of 
aircraft, those with piston engines, which are generally used for 
personal transportation, sightseeing, crop dusting, and similar 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the gaseous MSATs that are not included on the urban 
HAP list (ethylbenzene, MTBE, n-hexane, styrene, toluene, and xylene), 
mobile source contributions are high because of the presence of these 
compounds in gasoline.
    In addition, mobile sources account for almost all of diesel PM 
emissions. As shown in Table III-1, above, we estimate that 1996 on-
highway diesel PM emissions are approximately 180,000 tons. We estimate 
that 1996 nonroad diesel PM emissions are approximately 346,000 tons, 
as discussed in section VI of this document.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Note that the nonroad diesel PM emissions estimate is still 
draft and is subject to change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Impacts of Motor Vehicle Emission Controls on Emission Inventories

1. Description of Emission Control Programs
    Many of the programs that we have put in place since the passage of 
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to achieve attainment of the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, PM and CO have also 
reduced MSAT and diesel PM emissions. For example, measures to control 
hydrocarbons from motor vehicles are also effective in controlling 
gaseous toxics. In addition, certain programs address air toxics 
directly, such as the RFG program and the gasoline lead phase-out. In 
this section we briefly describe several categories of mobile source 
emission control measures that have helped reduce inventories of these 
harmful compounds. These programs include:
     More stringent vehicle standards and test procedures. The 
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments set specific emission standards for 
hydrocarbons and for PM. Air toxics are present in both of these 
pollutant categories. As vehicle manufacturers develop technologies to 
comply with the hydrocarbon and particulate standards (e.g., more 
efficient catalytic converters), we expect air toxics to be reduced as 
well. Since 1990, we have developed a number of programs to address 
exhaust and evaporative hydrocarbon emissions and PM emissions. Some of 
the key programs are the Tier 1 and NLEV standards for light-duty 
vehicles and trucks; enhanced evaporative emissions standards; the 
supplemental federal test procedures (SFTP); urban bus standards;

[[Page 48071]]

and heavy-duty diesel and gasoline standards for the 2004/2005 time 
frame.
     Recent motor vehicle/fuel control initiatives. Two of our 
recent initiatives to control emissions from motor vehicles and their 
fuels are the Tier 2 control program and our recently proposed 2007 
heavy-duty engine rule. Together these two initiatives define a set of 
comprehensive standards for light-duty and heavy-duty motor vehicles 
and their fuels. In both of these initiatives, we treat vehicles and 
fuels as a system. The Tier 2 control program establishes stringent 
tailpipe and evaporative emission standards for light-duty vehicles and 
a reduction in sulfur levels in gasoline fuel beginning in 2004. The 
proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine rule proposes stringent exhaust 
emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles for the 2007 
model year as well as reductions in diesel fuel sulfur levels starting 
in 2006.
     Limits on gasoline volatility. Volatility is a measure of 
how easily a liquid evaporates. As described earlier, some toxics such 
as benzene are present in gasoline and get into the air when gasoline 
evaporates. We imposed limits on gasoline volatility in the early 1990s 
to control evaporative emissions of both hydrocarbon and toxic 
compounds (most air toxics are hydrocarbons, so programs designed to 
reduce hydrocarbon emissions also reduce air toxics).
     Reformulated gasoline. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 
required reformulated gasoline to be introduced in the nation's most 
polluted cities beginning in 1995. From 1995 through 1999, these 
gasolines were required to provide a minimum 16.5 percent reduction in 
air toxics emissions over typical 1990 gasolines, increasing to a 21.5 
percent minimum reduction beginning in the year 2000. The air toxics 
reductions have been achieved mainly by further reducing gasoline 
volatility and by reducing the benzene, aromatics, sulfur, and olefin 
content of the gasoline.
     Phase-out of lead in gasoline. One of the first programs 
was the removal of lead from gasoline. The lead phase out began in the 
mid-1970s. It was completed January 1, 1996 when lead was banned from 
motor vehicle gasoline. The removal of lead from gasoline has 
essentially eliminated on-highway mobile source emissions of this 
highly toxic substance.
     Ensuring emissions are controlled while vehicle actually 
used. Many of our vehicle standards require certification of new 
engines and vehicles, but ensuring continued performance of emission 
controls can be difficult. The Clean Air Act establishes several 
programs to make sure vehicle emission controls are functioning 
properly in actual use. These programs include requirements for 
periodic emission inspections (I/M, or inspection and maintenance 
programs) and for computerized diagnostic systems that alert drivers 
and mechanics to malfunctioning emission controls.
    We encourage the interested reader to refer to chapter 1 of our TSD 
for more detailed information about these programs.
2. Emission Reductions From Control Programs
    We expect the mobile source emissions control programs described 
above to have beneficial impacts on the national inventories of MSATs. 
The remainder of this section summarizes our MSAT inventory 
projections. First, we present an overview of our inventory 
methodologies. Next, we present the results of our inventory 
projections. We encourage interested readers to refer to chapter 4 of 
our TSD for a more detailed discussion of these projections and how we 
developed them. The inventory projections in this section are for on-
highway vehicles only, since we have the most complete information for 
this category of mobile sources. Projections of nonroad MSAT emissions 
are included in section VI of this preamble.
a. Overview of Inventory Sources
    We have developed inventory projections for five gaseous MSATs, for 
VOC, and for diesel PM for the years 2007 and 2020 under our current 
and proposed control programs. These programs include the national low-
emission vehicle (NLEV) program, the reformulated gasoline (RFG) 
program, the 2004 heavy-duty diesel and gasoline engine standards, the 
Tier 2/Sulfur controls, and our recently proposed heavy-duty engine and 
vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control 
requirements (HD2007 rule).
    The inventory projections for the five gaseous toxics are based on 
the 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study, and data from a 
spreadsheet model developed in support of the proposed 2007 heavy-duty 
engine rule. \25\ The 1999 Study estimated on-highway motor vehicle air 
toxics emissions for ten urban areas (Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, 
Houston, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Spokane, 
and St. Louis) and 16 geographic regions. These areas were selected to 
reflect the range of potential fuels, temperatures, and I/M programs 
observed in the U.S. The estimation methodology used in the 1999 Study 
was similar to that used in our original 1993 Motor Vehicle Related Air 
Toxics Study. In our approach, the MOBILE model is used to generate 
total organic gas (TOG) emissions from on-highway motor vehicles by 
vehicle class and model year. Toxics fractions, developed as a 
percentage of the toxic compound of interest contained in TOG 
emissions, are then applied to the MOBILE-based TOG emission rates 
(reported in grams per mile) to arrive at toxics emission rates 
(reported in grams per mile or milligrams per mile). These toxics 
fractions are developed as a function of vehicle class (e.g., light-
duty, heavy-duty), fuel type (e.g., gasoline or diesel), fuel 
composition, and technology type (e.g., non-catalyst, catalyst).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ This spreadsheet model can be found in EPA Air Docket A-99-
06, Item II-B-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not have detailed emissions data for gaseous MSATs other than 
the five gaseous MSATs examined in the 1999 Study. However, we expect 
the trend for other gaseous MSATs, including acrolein, POM, styrene, 
xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and n-hexane, to follow 
that of VOC, since all of these compounds are VOCs. Therefore, to 
estimate projected inventory impacts from mobile source emission 
control programs, we use VOC inventories.
    We believe this is appropriate because all of these compounds are 
constituents of VOCs, and we expect their inventories to decrease in 
proportion to decreases in overall VOC emissions. We recognize that 
some gaseous MSATs may not decrease at the same rate as VOCs overall. 
Without having more detailed emission data for each of the MSATs, 
however, we are unable to project how those rates may differ. We 
request comment on this approach, and on how to develop inventory 
projections for the other gaseous MSATs.
    Our VOC and diesel PM emission estimates are derived from several 
sources. The 1996 and later values for light-duty vehicles are based on 
the Tier 2 rulemaking inventories, updated to reflect the Updated Tier 
2 Emissions Inventory spreadsheet.\26\ The 1996 and later values for 
heavy-duty engines and vehicles are based on data from a spreadsheet 
model developed in support of the proposed 2007 heavy-

[[Page 48072]]

duty engine rule.\27\ The 1990 VOC emission estimate is based on the 
1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study, \28\ and the 1990 diesel PM is 
from EPA's Trends Report.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Details of this approach can be found in a memorandum by 
Harvey Michaels to Docket A-2000-12 titled ``Adjustment to the Tier 
2 Air Quality Inventory for the Mobile Source Air Toxics Proposed 
Rule''.
    \27\ This spreadsheet model can be found in EPA Air Docket A-99-
06, Item II-B-31.
    \28\ The analysis methodology is described in a memorandum from 
Meredith Weatherby, Eastern Research Group, to Rich Cook, EPA, 
entitled ``Estimating of 1990 VOC and TOG Emissions'' in EPA Air 
Docket A-2000-12.
    \29\ EPA, 2000. National Air Pollution Emission Trends, 1900-
1998 (March 2000). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Research Triangle Park, NC. Report No. 454/R-00-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not reporting inventory trends for the metals on our list of 
MSATs (arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, mercury compounds, nickel 
compounds, manganese compounds, and lead compounds) or for dioxins/
furans. Metals in mobile source exhaust can come from fuel, fuel 
additives, engine oil, engine oil additives, or engine wear. Formation 
of dioxin and furans requires a source of chlorine. Thus, while metal 
emissions and dioxin/furan emissions are associated with particles, 
there are a number of other factors that contribute to emission levels. 
While it is possible that these compounds track PM emissions to some 
extent, we do not have good data on these relationships.
b. Emission Reductions
    Table III-4 presents the annual emission projections for on-highway 
vehicles in the years 2007 and 2020 for five gaseous toxics, VOC, and 
diesel PM with our current and proposed on-highway control programs.

 Table III-4.--Annual Fifty-State Emissions Summary for Selected Air Pollutants With Tier 2 and Proposed Heavy-
                          Duty 2007 Controls On-Highway Vehicles Only From 1990 to 2020
                                         [Thousand short tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Compound                                1990         1996         2007         2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.....................................................          257          165           86           65
Acetaldehyde................................................           41           27           14            8
Formaldehyde................................................          139           80           35           17
1,3 Butadiene...............................................           36           22           11            9
MTBE \a\....................................................           55           65           25           18
VOC.........................................................        7,585        4,819        2,662        1,838
Diesel PM...................................................          235          180           82          15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These estimates do not include consideration of EPA's examination of options to phase down or otherwise
  control the use of MTBE under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or legislative authority that EPA has asked
  Congress to provide the Agency to address MTBE use in gasoline.

    Table III-5 summarizes the percent reductions we expect in on-
highway emissions of gaseous MSATs, VOC, and diesel PM from 1990 and 
1996 levels in 2007 and 2020 as a result of our current and proposed 
on-highway control programs.

    Table III-5.--Summary of Fifty-State Percent Emission Reductions With Tier 2 and Proposed Heavy-Duty 2007
                      Controls On-Highway Vehicles Only in 2007 and 2020 From 1990 or 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Reduction in 2007         Reduction in 2020
                          Compound                           ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               From 1990    From 1996    From 1990    From 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.....................................................           67           48           75           61
Acetaldehyde................................................           65           47           82           73
Formaldehyde................................................           75           55           87           78
1,3 Butadiene...............................................           69           49           75           60
MTBE \a\....................................................           54           61           67           72
VOC.........................................................           65           45           76           62
Diesel PM...................................................           65           48           94          92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These estimates do not include consideration of EPA's examination of options to phase down or otherwise
  control the use of MTBE under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or legislative authority that EPA has asked
  Congress to provide the Agency to address MTBE use in gasoline.

    The results of this analysis show that on-highway emissions of the 
five gaseous MSATs examined are expected to decline by approximately 75 
percent by 2020 from 1990 levels with our existing and proposed 
controls. For some gaseous MSATs, the reductions are even greater. For 
example, we project both formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions will 
decrease by over 80 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels with our current 
and proposed controls. Likewise, VOC inventories from on-highway 
vehicles are projected to decrease as much as 75 percent between 1990 
and 2020 and we assume that other gaseous toxics would decrease by 
approximately 75 percent as well. Finally, diesel PM emissions are 
expected to decline by over 90 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels.
    Though these air toxics emissions reductions are substantial, we 
are not certain whether or not more control in the future is warranted 
for the remaining emissions from these air toxics. They have the 
potential to present serious health impacts to the public under certain 
circumstances that we have not been able to investigate fully. We also 
believe there is merit in considering further vehicle and fuel controls 
for both highway and nonroad sources for addressing the remaining 
emissions given the ever-changing nature of pollution control 
technology. These controls would be considered as part of our proposed 
Technical Analysis Plan outlined in section VII.

C. Summary

    In this section, we presented our inventory projections for MSATs. 
These projections, which are limited to on-highway mobile sources, show 
that with

[[Page 48073]]

our current and proposed emission control programs up to and including 
Tier 2 and our recently proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine rule, on-
highway emissions of gaseous MSATs are expected to decline by 
approximately 75 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, and on-highway 
emissions of diesel PM are expected to decline by over 90 percent by 
2020 from 1990 levels. These reductions will result from the more 
stringent VOC and PM controls that we have put into place over the last 
decade or have recently adopted (Tier 2) or proposed (HD2007).

IV. Evaluation of Additional Motor Vehicle-based Controls

    This section discusses the relationship between EPA's vehicle-based 
control programs and the control of MSATs, the impact of our most 
recent efforts to control VOCs, and the need for additional control of 
MSATs.

A. MSATs and Motor Vehicle-based Controls

    The majority of gaseous MSATs are hydrocarbons that are primarily 
the result of incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels (a small amount 
of raw fuel may also pass through the engine unburned). Technologies 
used to reduce exhaust hydrocarbons also reduce MSAT hydrocarbon 
species. This is true whether control is achieved through engine or 
component modifications, add-on devices, or the use of aftertreatment 
devices such as oxidation or three-way catalysts. We are not aware of 
vehicle or engine technologies that selectively reduce MSATs without 
reducing other hydrocarbons to a similar degree.
    The other major source of hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles 
are fuel vapors. These emissions occur when components of the liquid 
fuel (gasoline or diesel) evaporate when onboard the vehicle. The 
emissions are normally separated into refueling emissions and 
evaporative emissions (hot soak, diurnal, and running losses). The 
nature and amount of potential MSATs associated with fuel vapors depend 
primarily on the fuel composition and the temperatures involved. 
Gasoline is volatile and evaporates at normal ambient temperatures, 
while diesel fuel is relatively non-volatile. Thus evaporative 
emissions are only an issue for gasoline-fueled vehicles (or vehicles 
using volatile alternative fuels such as methanol). Evaporative and 
refueling emissions are controlled by eliminating sources of potential 
liquid and vapor leaks within the vehicle fuel system and venting any 
vapors to an activated carbon canister or similar device. Activated 
carbon effectively adsorbs most hydrocarbon compounds, including the 
common evaporative-related MSATs.
    Particulate matter emissions from motor vehicles are primarily 
composed of partially burned carbon and hydrocarbons from the fuel and 
engine oil, and to a lesser degree, metals and other inorganic 
compounds from contaminants or additives in the fuel or engine oil, or 
products of engine wear in the oil. Since our PM exhaust emission 
standards apply without regard to the source of the PM, manufacturers 
must account for all of these emissions. Manufacturers have 
significantly reduced PM emissions associated with unburned fuel and 
engine oil through combustion system and engine modifications.

B. EPA's Motor Vehicle-Based Emission Control Program

    To understand the relationship between the Agency's current 
emission control program for on-highway vehicles and the control of 
MSATs, it is important to first understand the structure and scope of 
our current emission control programs. EPA's emission control program 
for on-highway vehicles has historically been divided into two broad 
vehicle/engine categories that we regulate: ``light-duty'' (vehicles 
8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or less) and ``heavy-
duty'' (vehicles above 8,500 pounds GVWR).\30\ Within these light-duty 
and heavy-duty categories, we further distinguish vehicles and 
sometimes establish different emission limits based on vehicle size or 
other factors. For example, within the light-duty category, in the past 
we have often had different programs for light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EPA recently created the new category of ``medium-duty 
passenger vehicles'' (MDPVs) that includes passenger vehicles over 
8,500 pounds GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Light-Duty Vehicles
    Before our regulations, cars emitted more than 9 grams per mile 
(gpm) HC in exhaust emissions. Our HC emission standards in the 1970s 
and 1980s cut these levels by more than an order of magnitude, to a 
level of 0.41 gpm in 1980. In 1991, we finalized Tier 1 controls for 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks to be phased in from 1994 to 
1996 (56 FR 25724). In 1998, we developed an innovative, voluntary 
nationwide program to make new cars, called National Low Emission 
Vehicles (NLEV), significantly cleaner than Tier 1 cars (63 FR 926). 
The NLEV program went into effect in the Northeast states in 1999 and 
will go into effect in the rest of the country in 2001. Table IV-1 
illustrates the declining exhaust standards through the NLEV program 
that have resulted in HC reductions in the 1970s through the 1990s and 
are expected to result in future reductions.\31\ In December 1999, the 
Agency finalized the Tier 2/sulfur rule establishing light-duty 
requirements that will be phased-in beginning with the 2004 model year. 
A more detailed discussion of the Tier 2 program follows in section C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Our programs achieve VOC reductions through standards that 
limit HC, NMHC, or NMOG.

                                  Table IV-1. Hydrocarbon (HC) Exhaust Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles (gpm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                                 1970            1972            1975            1980            1994            2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC......................................................            2.2             3.4             1.5            0.41         0.31\1\       0.09 \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1994 standard is an nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standard.
\2\ The 2001 standard is an nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) standard.

    Our existing regulations contain test procedures to measure 
evaporative hydrocarbon emissions during a simulated parking event 
(diurnal emissions) and immediately following a drive (hot soak 
emissions). In 1993, we finalized more stringent evaporative emission 
test procedures which apply to light-duty and heavy-duty gasoline 
vehicles. These procedures were fully phased in by 1999 (58 FR 16002). 
The 1993 rule also addressed fuel spitback during refueling with a 
vehicle test to ensure that no spillage occurs when a vehicle is 
refueled at a rate of up to 10 gallons (37.9 liters) per minute. The 
Tier 2 rule included even more stringent requirements.

[[Page 48074]]

    We have also finalized on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) 
requirements for light-duty gasoline vehicles (59 FR 16262, April 6, 
1994), and proposed to extend ORVR to heavy-duty gasoline vehicles 
between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR (64 FR 58471, October 29, 1999). ORVR 
is a nationwide program for capturing refueling emissions by collecting 
vapors from the vehicle gas tank and storing them in the vehicle during 
refueling. The fuel vapors are then purged into the engine air intake 
to be burned while the vehicle is being driven.
2. Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    Table IV-2 summarizes the hydrocarbon and PM standards for heavy-
duty engines. Also shown in the table are estimates of emission rates 
from uncontrolled engines. Not shown in the table are the standards in 
our recently proposed 2007 heavy-duty rulemaking.\32\ In that NPRM we 
proposed exhaust emission standards of 0.14 NMHC and 0.01 PM for all 
heavy-duty engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 65 FR 35429, June 2, 2000.

                  Table IV-2.--HC and PM Exhaust Emissions and Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Gasoline  (Otto-Cycle)                          Diesel
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Exhaust HC                 Exhaust HC                 Exhaust PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled Emissions.........  10-13 g/bhp-hr             4 g/bhp-hr                 0.7 g/bhp-hr
Current Standards..............  1.1 g/bhp-hr\a\            1.3 g/bhp-hr               0.10 g/bhp-hr
2004/5 Standards...............  0.25 g/bhp-hr\b\           0.4 g/bhp-hr\c\            0.10 g/bhp-hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Current standard is 1.9 g/bhp-hr for Otto-cycle vehicles over 14,000 GVWR.
\b\ Standard has been proposed as a 2005 NMHC+NOx standard; level shown is estimated equivalent NMHC standard.
\c\ Standard is a 2004 NMHC+NOx standard; level shown is estimated equivalent NMHC standard.

C. Feasibility of More Stringent Vehicle-Based Standards To Reduce 
MSATs

    Section III of this proposal highlights the very significant 
reduction in toxics emissions that have been achieved as a result of 
EPA's on-highway emission control programs. Most recently, the Agency 
has finalized the Tier 2/sulfur requirements which will require 
manufacturers to incorporate the latest light-duty emission controls. 
EPA has also proposed new heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and 
on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements that would also 
result in large emission reductions.\33\ This section summarizes these 
two new technology-forcing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 65 FR 35429, June 2, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Light-Duty Vehicles
    Finalized in December 1999, the Tier 2/sulfur requirements phase-in 
a single set of tailpipe emission standards that will, for the first 
time, apply to all passenger cars, light-duty trucks (LDTs), and larger 
passenger vehicles. To enable the very clean Tier 2 vehicle emission 
control technology to be introduced and to maintain its effectiveness, 
nationwide gasoline sulfur requirements were also put into place. The 
Tier 2 program begins in 2004 for passenger cars and light LDTs (LDTs 
up to 6,000 pounds GVWR), while an interim program begins in 2004 for 
heavy LDTs (LDTs over 6,000 pounds GVWR). For heavy LDTs and MDPVs 
(medium-duty passenger vehicles), the Tier 2 standards will be phased 
in beginning in 2008, with full compliance in 2009. Thus, when fully 
implemented all vehicles designed for passenger use will have to meet 
the stringent new emission standards.
    The Tier 2 program is designed to focus on reducing the ozone and 
particulate matter air quality impact for these vehicles. Ozone 
reductions will be achieved through control of nitrogen oxides and non-
methane hydrocarbons. As discussed above, it is the control of NMHC 
through the NMOG standards that results in the control of the gaseous 
toxics. Control of PM emissions will occur through reductions in 
sulfur. The Tier 2 rule also established stringent PM standards. 
Because all Tier 2 standards are fuel neutral, the PM standards apply 
to both gasoline and diesel vehicles.
    The Tier 2 standards will reduce new vehicle NOX levels 
to an average of 0.07 grams per mile. The NMOG standards vary depending 
on which of the various ``bins'' (i.e., certification categories) the 
manufacturers choose to use in complying with the average 
NOX standard. However, we expect significant reductions in 
NMOG emissions from these vehicles as a result of the more stringent 
NMOG standards in the bins and the need to select bins to meet the 
NOX average. When fully phased-in, we expect fleet average 
NMOG levels below the 0.09 g/mi level. The Tier 2 rule also finalized 
formaldehyde standards that harmonize federal standards with the 
California's LEV II program. The standards are primarily of concern for 
vehicles fueled with methanol because formaldehyde is chemically 
similar to methanol and is likely to be produced when methanol is not 
completely burned in the engine.
    In order to meet strict Tier 2 standards on a fleet-wide average, 
manufacturers will have to use a combination of sophisticated 
calibration changes and emission system hardware modifications to 
increase and maintain high control system efficiency. They will be 
challenged to maintain tight air-fuel control and improved catalyst 
performance, especially achieving better catalyst thermal management. 
Minimizing the time necessary for the catalyst to reach its operating 
temperature will be especially critical, since the vast majority of 
emissions occur in the minute or less which passes before the catalyst 
``lights off.'' Many manufacturers are going to have to depend more on 
the precious metal palladium for oxidation of NMOG and CO emissions, as 
well as the reduction of NOX, because palladium is more 
tolerant to high temperatures to increase in-use efficiency.
    The Tier 2 standards for evaporative emissions represent, for most 
vehicles, more than a 50-percent reduction in diurnal plus hot soak 
standards from those that will be in effect in the years immediately 
preceding Tier 2 implementation. These standards should achieve similar 
reductions in gaseous MSATs, especially since activated carbon 
preferentially absorbs larger organic molecules. Under these 
requirements, it is likely that manufacturers will also need to upgrade 
materials and both increase the reliability of fuel/vapor hose 
connections and fittings and reduce the number used in the system.

[[Page 48075]]

    Taken as a whole, the Tier 2 program presents the manufacturers 
with significant compliance challenges in the coming years. It will 
require the use of hardware and emission control techniques and 
strategies not used in the fleet today. Bringing essentially all 
passenger vehicles under the same emission control program regardless 
of their size, weight, and application is a major engineering 
challenge. While there may be other prototype technologies on the 
horizon which could potentially reduce cold-start emissions and 
therefore air toxics, given the cost and engineering burden associated 
with Tier 2, it is not appropriate to propose standards based on these 
technologies. We are not convinced that these technologies would be 
feasible and cost effective on a fleet-wide basis at this time. This is 
discussed in more detail in the TSD.
2. Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    With regard to exhaust emission standards, the 2007 heavy-duty 
engine standards would reduce hydrocarbon emissions to levels 
approaching 0.1 g/bhp-hr for both gasoline and diesel. This would 
result in a significant reduction even when compared to the 2004 
standards. Similarly, the proposed exhaust PM standard for heavy-duty 
diesel engines is very stringent. The proposed value of 0.01 g/bhp-hr 
is a 90-percent reduction from current standards which are currently 
being achieved with significant combustion chamber and engine 
modifications. Achieving a 0.01 g/bhp-hr standard will require the use 
of particulate trap-oxidizers. This technology will also result in HC 
emission reductions. It is further worth noting that the 2007 proposal 
includes provisions for a closed crankcase for turbocharged diesel 
engines. Crankcase emissions from these engines are a significant 
source of MSATs (PM and hydrocarbons) which has previously remained 
uncontrolled.
    For chassis-certified gasoline-powered heavy-duty vehicles, EPA 
proposed that beginning in 2007 they meet exhaust hydrocarbon standards 
of similar stringency to those discussed above for Tier 2. These 
include hydrocarbon standards of 0.195 g/mi for vehicles of 8,500-
10,000 lbs GVWR and 0.23 g/mi for vehicles of 10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR.
    Fuel quality changes will enable gasoline and diesel-powered 
vehicles/engines to meet the more stringent standards over their full 
life. As part of the Tier 2 rule, EPA promulgated provisions limiting 
gasoline sulfur levels to 30 ppm average and 80 ppm cap. This program 
phases in beginning in 2004, and will enable a new generation of 
vehicle emission control for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles and also 
improve the emission performance of the current fleet. Sulfur is a fuel 
contaminant, and controlling sulfur will also reduce sulfate PM 
emissions. The 2007 heavy-duty proposal mentioned above also includes 
provisions to greatly reduce the sulfur content of current on-highway 
diesel fuel. Not only will this reduction enable the emission control 
technology now under development, but it will also reduce sulfate PM 
emissions as was the case for gasoline.
    We have also proposed more stringent evaporative standards, which 
would force even further refinements in fuel/vapor systems. Onboard 
refueling vapor control is proposed to be effective for 2004 for all 
heavy-duty gasoline-powered vehicles. This would reduce emissions from 
current uncontrolled levels by 95 percent. In addition, as part of the 
2007 proposal, evaporative emission standards are proposed to be 
reduced by 50 percent over current standards. Both refueling controls 
and further evaporative controls would reduce evaporative emissions of 
air toxics from heavy-duty vehicles even further.
    The proposal for 2007 heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards 
contains extensive analysis and discussion of the technological 
feasibility. This analysis demonstrates that the proposed heavy-duty 
standards reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable 
through the application of technology that will be available 
considering costs and other relevant factors. EPA expects that the 
recently proposed rulemaking to establish 2007 model year standards for 
heavy-duty diesel engines will satisfy the criteria in section 202(a) 
as well as 202(l)(2) and therefore defers to the technical decisions 
that will be made in that rulemaking. For further information on the 
diesel engine proposal see 65 FR 35430 (June 2, 2000).
3. Conclusion
    The Tier 2 program represents a comprehensive, integrated package 
of exhaust, evaporative, and fuel quality standards. The Tier 2 program 
will achieve significant reductions in NMHC, NOX, and PM 
emissions from all light-duty vehicles in the program. Emission control 
in the Tier 2 program will be based on the widespread implementation of 
advanced catalyst and related control system technology. The standards 
are so stringent that they will require the maximum level of control 
technology be used. To illustrate this point, it is worth noting that 
about 80 percent of all emissions from a Tier 2 vehicle will occur in 
the first 60 seconds of operation, before the catalyst ``lights-off.'' 
Manufacturers will have to optimize their cold-start strategies and the 
efficiency of warmed systems to achieve the Tier 2 levels. Compliance 
with the Tier 2 standards will require the application of emission 
technology not widely used in the light-duty fleet today and in some 
cases the use of technological approaches still under development. 
Meeting the Tier 2 requirements will significantly reduce air toxics as 
a result of reductions in NMHC.
    The emission control program for heavy-duty engines and vehicles 
has achieved major reductions in the emissions of criteria pollutants 
and their precursor emissions. New stringent emissions were established 
for heavy-duty diesel engines in a final rule promulgated in the fall 
of 1997 that will take effect in 2004. In October of 1999, we published 
a notice proposing to reaffirm the 2004 heavy-duty diesel engine 
emission standards. The notice also proposed new 2004 model year 
emission standards and related requirements for heavy-duty Otto-cycle 
vehicles/engines and supplemental test requirements for heavy-duty 
diesel engines.
    We also recently announced a further initiative in control of 
heavy-duty vehicle/engine emissions in May 2000. This was done in the 
proposal to establish new heavy-duty diesel and Otto-cycle engine 
standards and vehicle emission standards for 2007. It also proposed new 
on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements.

V. Evaluation of Additional Fuel-based Controls

    In previous sections, we showed that the mobile source toxics 
inventory will continue to decline through 2020 due to existing 
programs. In this section we consider the role of fuels programs in 
reducing toxics emissions from mobile sources. Fuels contribute to air 
toxics emissions in two ways: evaporative emissions of the fuel, and 
exhaust emissions due to combustion of the fuel. One means of 
controlling toxics emissions from motor vehicles is to change the 
benzene content of the fuel.
    In this section, we discuss our investigation of additional fuel-
based controls for reducing toxics emissions. We begin with a 
discussion of the current gasoline-based toxics control programs, 
including a presentation of the over-compliance arising under the 
federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping programs. This is 
followed by a discussion of why we believe that gasoline benzene 
control is

[[Page 48076]]

an appropriate initial focus for additional fuel controls to reduce 
MSATs. Next, we present our proposed anti-backsliding program for fuel 
benzene in both RFG and conventional gasoline (CG). As part of this 
discussion we address the issue of state controls of benzene levels in 
gasoline. We discuss potential future benzene controls that would be 
included as part of the investigation in our proposed Technical 
Analysis Plan. Finally, we discuss other fuel controls considered in 
EPA's development of this proposal.

A. What Current Gasoline Programs Control Toxics Emissions?

    Current federal gasoline programs that control toxics emissions 
include the prohibition on leaded gasoline for highway use, the 
summertime volatility requirements, and the reformulated gasoline and 
anti-dumping programs. The first of these programs, the prohibition on 
leaded gasoline for use in motor vehicles, is a Clean Air Act 
requirement adopted in 1990 that was designed to complete the phase-out 
of leaded gasoline because of its contribution to national ambient lead 
levels. Lead is a probable human carcinogen with a variety of serious 
non-cancer health effects at low dose levels. The transition to 
unleaded gasoline began in 1974, and leaded gasoline has been banned 
for highway use since 1996 (see CAA Section 211(n)).
    Under the second program, the federal volatility requirements, 
every area of the continental U.S. has a maximum summertime gasoline 
Reid vapor pressure (RVP). RVP is a volatility measurement of gasoline. 
Generally speaking, a fuel with a higher RVP evaporates more quickly 
than a fuel with a lower RVP. Thus, by instituting a maximum summertime 
RVP for each area, we control evaporative emissions of the volatile 
components of gasoline, including benzene and other gaseous toxics.
    The federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program includes, in 
addition to standards on VOC and NOX emissions, several 
requirements related to toxics. Specifically, the RFG program (covering 
about one-third of the gasoline sold in the country) includes standards 
on the benzene content of fuel as well as standards governing the 
overall toxics emissions associated with evaporation and combustion of 
the fuel. Toxics emissions covered under the RFG program include 
exhaust and evaporative benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-
butadiene and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Under the Phase II RFG 
program which began in January 2000, a refinery's or importer's annual 
average total toxics emissions, as measured by the Complex Model,\34\ 
must be 21.5 percent less than the toxics emissions attributable to the 
statutory baseline fuel. Additionally, a refinery's or importer's 
annual average RFG benzene content cannot exceed 0.95 percent by 
volume, and no batch may exceed 1.3 percent by volume. Alternatively, 
no batch of RFG may have a benzene content exceeding 1.0 percent by 
volume. Each refinery and importer must choose annually whether to 
comply with the average benzene requirement (0.95 volume percent) or 
the ``per-gallon'' benzene requirement (1.0 volume percent); 
essentially no refinery/importer chooses the latter compliance method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Complex Model is a regulatory tool for estimating 
emissions for the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs. 
The Complex Model inputs are eight specified fuel parameters: 
benzene, oxygen content (by oxygenate type), sulfur, RVP, aromatics, 
olefins, and the percents evaporated at 200F and 300F (E200 and 
E300). Complex Model outputs are the estimated emissions (VOC, 
toxics, NOX) resulting from the fuel parameters 
specified. The Complex Model also calculates percent reductions of 
the input slate of fuel parameters and resulting emissions compared 
to a base set of fuel parameters and the resulting base emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has also adopted standards to cover all fuel used outside of 
the RFG areas. These ``anti-dumping'' standards \35\ include 
requirements for NOx performance and exhaust toxics performance. 
Exhaust toxics performance is measured using the Complex Model with all 
of the toxic compounds mentioned above except for evaporative benzene 
emissions. On a mass basis, exhaust benzene emissions comprise 
approximately 67 percent of total exhaust toxics emissions. Regarding 
exhaust toxics performance, the anti-dumping program requires that a 
refinery's or importer's total exhaust toxics emissions, as predicted 
by the Complex Model, not exceed that refinery's or importer's 
individual exhaust toxics emissions baseline, which is their 1990 
performance level. Unlike the RFG program, the anti-dumping program 
does not specifically regulate the benzene content of conventional 
gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The conventional gasoline standards are often referred to 
as the anti-dumping requirements because they prevent refiners from 
merely directing the clean gasoline to RFG areas and ``dumping'' the 
dirtier fuel in all other areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on 1998 compliance reports from refineries, average national 
compliance with the toxics portion of the reformulated gasoline and 
anti-dumping programs, including benzene requirements, exceeds the 
basic requirements. In other words, on average, refineries and 
importers produced gasoline in 1998 which over-complied with the 
applicable toxics and fuel benzene requirements. Table V-1 compares 
required levels or baseline levels, as applicable, of toxics emissions 
and fuel benzene under EPA's RFG and anti-dumping regulations with the 
actual levels achieved in 1998.

                     Table V-1.--Over-Compliance With Existing Benzene and Toxics Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Type of gasoline                            Reformulated                         Conventional
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual 1998 toxics performance         30.3 percent reduction \a\.................  44 mg/mile.\b\
 (volume weighted).
Required or baseline Phase I toxics    16.5 percent reduction.....................  47 mg/mile.\c\
 performance.
Actual 1998 benzene (volume weighted)  0.65 vol%..................................  1.1 vol%.
Required or baseline benzene (annual   0.95 vol%..................................  1.3 vol%.\d\
 average).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For RFG, toxics performance is measured on the basis of total toxics with respect to the statutory baseline.
 
\b\ For CG, toxics performance is measured on the basis of exhaust toxics with respect to an individual
  refinery's 1990 baseline.
\c\ Under anti-dumping for CG, exhaust toxics in mg/mi per the Complex Model can be no higher than a refiner's
  1990 annual average exhaust toxics emissions. The value of 47 mg/mi is the volume-weighted average of the
  standards applicable to all individual refineries.
\d\ EPA does not currently regulate the fuel benzene level of CG. The value of 1.3 vol% is the volume-weighted
  average of the 1990 baseline levels for all refineries.

    Thus RFG produced in 1998 exhibited an average total toxics 
emissions reduction which was nearly twice that required, and had 
average gasoline benzene levels which were approximately one-third less 
than the

[[Page 48077]]

maximum average allowed. For CG, the over-compliance was less dramatic, 
amounting to approximately six percent for exhaust toxics. Although 
there is currently no standard for the benzene content of CG, in 1998 
the CG benzene levels were approximately 15 percent lower than the 
average of benzene levels for individual 1990 refinery anti-dumping 
baselines.
    Note that the information contained in Table V-1 reflects industry 
averages. In fact, not all refineries and importers over-comply. 
Approximately 90 percent of RFG refineries and importers over-complied 
in 1998. Most refineries and importers in over-compliance for RFG 
benzene are also in over-compliance for CG benzene. EPA believes that 
this over-compliance, particularly with respect to benzene, is due to a 
number of factors, including:
    (1) Benzene extraction for the petrochemical industry. For certain 
refineries geographically located near petrochemical plants, it is 
profitable to remove benzene from reformate, a gasoline blending 
component, and sell it for petrochemical uses.
    (2) Dilution with oxygenates. The oxygenate requirement of the RFG 
program, and refineries' and importers' use of oxygenates in 
conventional gasoline as gasoline extenders or for octane, reduce and 
dilute overall aromatics (e.g., benzene, toluene and xylene, all of 
which are gaseous MSATs).

B. Why Is EPA Focusing on Benzene?

    Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon that is present in gasoline as 
well as in exhaust and evaporative emissions. Benzene is also emitted 
from diesel engines, but at levels approximately one-fortieth that 
coming from gasoline vehicles. Emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles 
and engines contain several different toxic pollutants, including the 
following MSATs: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, 
polycyclic organic matter (POM), and MTBE. However, on a mass basis, 
benzene makes up about 70 percent of the total amount of these gaseous 
toxics.\36\ Thus if toxics emissions are going to be controlled through 
mobile sources, the benzene content of gasoline is an obvious area for 
priority consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Per EPA's Complex Model (40 CFR 80.45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to concerns about the sheer mass of benzene emissions, 
we are focusing on the benzene content of gasoline in this proposal 
because benzene emissions are one of two toxic compounds that section 
202(l) of the Act indicates must be evaluated for control. We believe 
that individual States and environmental organizations will support 
this direction since they have expressed concerns specifically about 
fuel benzene content and ambient benzene concentrations.
    We do not believe that it is appropriate at this time to propose 
controls on MSATs other than benzene through fuel modifications. Our 
reasons for this proposed determination follow.
    Benzene is one of several toxic compounds that are part of vehicle 
emissions as well as a component of the fuel. Because refiners are able 
to directly control fuel benzene levels, benzene offers refiners the 
greatest degree of control over a specific toxic fuel component that is 
also present in emissions at substantial levels.
    There are, however, some gaseous toxic components of vehicle 
emissions which, although not components of the fuel, can be controlled 
through fuel property limits. These include 1,3-butadiene, 
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Along 
with benzene, all of these compounds are currently controlled under the 
RFG program via a toxic emissions performance standard, and are 
prohibited from increasing above 1990 levels under the anti-dumping 
program for CG. As discussed previously, we are requesting comment on a 
toxics performance standard as an alternative to the proposed benzene 
anti-backsliding program. Since a performance standard necessarily 
allows refiners to trade off increases in one toxic compound with 
decreases in another, a new toxics emissions performance standard would 
not necessarily result in a reduction in benzene. In fact, an emissions 
performance standard could actually allow increases in benzene 
emissions. As discussed above, we believe that benzene should be the 
toxic pollutant targeted for control in this rulemaking. Still, benzene 
emissions do constitute up to 70 percent of total toxics emissions from 
gasoline, such that costs to control the non-benzene toxic emissions 
could be significant. As a result, we would expect refiners to aim for 
benzene control even under a new toxics performance standard, 
suggesting that the fuel benzene controls we are proposing today may be 
equivalent to the emission reductions that would be produced under a 
toxics performance standard. Control of these other toxics would most 
likely occur collectively through an emissions performance standard, 
and benzene would remain the primary means of toxics control in this 
case.
    Formaldehyde is specifically listed in the CAA, along with benzene, 
as an MSAT that we must evaluate for control. We believe that 
additional controls on formaldehyde are not appropriate for today's 
proposal, though we will conduct further evaluation under our Technical 
Analysis Plan before making a determination. Formaldehyde control would 
require control of bulk fuel properties such as olefins or aromatics 
which could significantly affect octane and cost. Formaldehyde 
emissions are also expected to go down in the future. This means that 
any controls on formaldehyde may not be cost-effective, and EPA does 
not have enough information at this time to resolve this issue. 
Formaldehyde actually constitutes a significantly larger fraction of 
total hydrocarbons for diesel vehicles. Unfortunately, we do not have 
the data that would allow us to correlate individual diesel fuel 
properties with formaldehyde emissions. The alternative to controlling 
formaldehyde through diesel reformulation would be to set diesel engine 
standards for formaldehyde. As described above, our recently finalized 
Tier 2 rule and our proposed rulemaking to set new standards for 2007 
model year heavy-duty engines and vehicles in fact address formaldehyde 
emissions from motor vehicles and heavy-duty trucks.
    A number of other MSATs do not fall under the RFG or anti-dumping 
programs, and we do not currently have sufficient information on how 
changes in fuel properties affect emissions of these compounds. These 
include acrolein, styrene, dioxin/furans, xylene, toluene, 
ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and hexane. We are not aware of any model 
that would allow us to quantify how fuel controls could affect 
emissions of these compounds. We request comment or information about 
the effect of fuel controls on the aforementioned MSATs. We do know 
that bulk fuel aromatics control would reduce emissions of some of 
these compounds, but we are currently unable to quantify this effect. 
The relationship between other fuel properties and emissions of these 
compounds is even less clear. As a result, we cannot estimate the costs 
associated with controlling these compounds via fuels.
    There are a number of metals that are emitted from motor vehicles, 
but these toxic compounds are being addressed in other actions. For 
instance, these metals generally arise from contaminants in lube oils. 
The recent rulemaking proposing new standards for heavy-duty engines 
and vehicles beginning in model year 2007 also proposes controls

[[Page 48078]]

on the use of used oil as a diesel fuel additive/extender. Finally, 
lead is no longer allowed to be used as an additive in motor gasoline.
    We are not proposing controls to address emissions of MTBE in this 
rulemaking, even though MTBE is on our proposed list of MSATs. The 
primary mechanism for controlling MTBE emissions would be to limit the 
use of MTBE in gasoline. The Agency is currently pursuing a separate 
rulemaking under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to consider 
the phase down or phase out the use of MTBE. We believe it is 
reasonable to defer consideration of MTBE controls to that rulemaking, 
which will address the important concerns of preserving water 
resources, as well as any air pollution impacts. In addition, the EPA 
and the United States Department of Agriculture jointly announced, on 
March, 2000, the Administration's legislative principles for protecting 
drinking water supplies, preserving clean air benefit and promoting 
renewable fuels and urged Congress to take action consistent with these 
principles, including providing EPA the authority to significantly 
reduce or eliminate the use of MTBE in gasoline.
    Finally, changes to diesel fuel could result in reductions in a 
variety of toxic compounds, including aldehydes, dioxins/furans, POM, 
and of course diesel PM. At this time, however, there is insufficient 
data to allow us to quantify how changes in individual diesel fuel 
properties would affect emissions of these compounds. As a result, we 
cannot specify how refiners might change their operations or what 
capital equipment they might need to install in order to reformulate 
their diesel fuel, and thus we cannot estimate costs associated with 
this type of control. We request comment or information regarding the 
effect of diesel fuel reformulation on toxics emissions.

C. Given the Existing Over-Compliance, Why Is EPA Considering 
Additional Gasoline Benzene Controls?

    Absent regulatory changes affecting toxic emissions and/or 
oxygenates, or reduction in the petrochemical demand for benzene, EPA 
expects that this average level of over-compliance will continue. 
Benzene emissions are critically dependent upon exhaust VOC control, 
which should continue to improve over the next 4-5 years due to the 
introduction of NLEV and Tier 2 vehicles. However, current benzene 
emission reductions are not guaranteed to continue. Therefore, because 
of the potential for serious health effects associated with air toxics 
from gasoline, EPA is proposing a toxics control program to maintain 
current benzene levels by creating an anti-backsliding program. Because 
it is an anti-backsliding program, it is not designed to reduce 
gasoline benzene content or benzene emissions beyond today's levels. 
However, it would prevent benzene emissions from increasing during the 
time period that we will be considering the need for and 
appropriateness of additional fuel-based toxics control programs.

D. What Type of Gasoline Control Program Is EPA Proposing Today?

    The program EPA is proposing today focuses solely on gasoline 
benzene control and would require that a refinery's annual average 
gasoline benzene content not exceed the refinery's average gasoline 
benzene content during a baseline time period. We consider this 
approach to be an ``anti-backsliding'' measure, in that it does not 
allow gasoline benzene levels to increase, or ``backslide,'' relative 
to the baseline. This section provides an overview of our proposed 
benzene control program while section H provides a more detailed 
discussion of the specific requirements of the program. We are also 
taking comment on an alternative approach involving a toxics emissions 
performance standard, which is described more fully in section I.
    We are proposing that the benzene control program would begin in 
2002. We believe this is an appropriate start date because refiners 
already have all of the information needed to establish their benzene 
baselines (see the baseline time period discussion below). Also, since 
the standards are intended to maintain 1998-1999 levels of over-
compliance with benzene standards for RFG, and 1998-1999 benzene levels 
in CG, and thus are not technology-forcing, no lead time for capital 
equipment installation is necessary. As a result, gasoline benzene 
levels can be controlled at the earliest practical date. While we 
considered other effective dates, we believe the 2002 date is most 
practical. This is because the standards will not be finalized until 
December 2000, it will take several months for refiners to have their 
baselines approved, and it is desirable to have the program start on 
January 1. Therefore, 2002 is the earliest practicable effective date. 
We request comment on a start date of 2002.
    We are also proposing that these benzene requirements would apply 
separately to federal RFG and CG. This is consistent with the separate 
treatment of these two gasoline types under the RFG and anti-dumping 
programs, and ensures that the benzene is not ``moved'' from one pool 
to the other to achieve compliance. As described more fully in section 
V.F.1 below, the proposed benzene anti-backsliding standards would 
apply only to a volume equal to the average of volume of gasoline 
produced during the baseline years (i.e., 1998-1999). The Agency is 
taking comment on the appropriate standard to apply to any incremental 
gasoline that a refinery may produce beyond the amount of gasoline 
produced as an annual average in 1998-1999.
    We are proposing a baseline time period of January 1, 1998 through 
December 31, 1999 (``1998-1999''). Thus, a refinery's baseline benzene 
content would be the average benzene content of all the gasoline 
produced during the two-year time period from 1998-1999. As an 
alternative, we could also choose a different pair of baseline years, 
such as 1999-2000, or a longer time frame, such as 1997-1999. Phase II 
RFG went into effect in January of this year, and the Agency is 
interested in public comment on the appropriateness of using the year 
2000 as part of its benzene baseline. We request comment on the 
proposed baseline period (1998-1999), on alternative baseline periods, 
and specifically ask commenters to address the Agency's concerns 
pertaining to using the year 2000 in an alternative baseline.
    Substantial emissions reductions have accrued as a result of the 
RFG program, and more are expected with the introduction of Phase II 
RFG. EPA has a significant interest in ensuring the continued 
production of RFG by domestic and foreign refineries. The proposed 
anti-backsliding standards for RFG and CG may have an impact on the 
future production of RFG, particularly for those refiners that are 
interested in expanding production or entering the RFG market for the 
first time. The Agency as described more fully in section V.F.1 below, 
is requesting comment on separate treatment of incremental volumes of 
RFG above baseline volumes based on 1998-1999 production.
    Despite the fact that our proposed anti-backsliding program uses a 
two-year averaging period to establish baselines, we have chosen to 
propose a one-year averaging period for compliance purposes. The one-
year averaging period is consistent with that used in the RFG, anti-
dumping, and upcoming gasoline sulfur programs. It therefore represents 
a minimal additional reporting burden for refineries and importers. It 
also ensures

[[Page 48079]]

that temporal variations in ambient benzene concentrations due to 
varying fuel benzene content are kept to a minimum; a two-year 
averaging period, for instance, might allow fuel benzene levels in one 
year to be significantly higher than in the following year. 
Nonetheless, we request comment on the two-year averaging period option 
for compliance purposes, and on any other options which will maintain 
the anti-backsliding benefits of the proposed program.
    EPA recognizes that some fluctuations in benzene levels may occur 
from one year to the next for a given refinery even if no long-term 
trend upward or downward is evident for that refinery. We are proposing 
that the baselines be applied to every single year after 2001 even 
though year-to-year fluctuations might push some refiners' benzene 
levels above their applicable standard in any given year. In response 
to this possibility, we are proposing a one-year deficit carryover 
provision. This provision would ensure that a refinery can meet its 
benzene standard while still allowing for the year-to-year fluctuations 
that may arise in the course of gasoline production. Therefore, our 
proposed program would give refineries maximum flexibility to comply 
with our anti-backsliding program. We request comment on this proposed 
approach.
    Finally, we have chosen to propose an anti-backsliding program 
which controls gasoline benzene levels instead of a control which 
focuses on air toxics performance for two reasons. First, total benzene 
emissions constitute up to 70 percent of total toxics emissions 
(exhaust benzene emissions constitute roughly 65 percent of total 
exhaust toxics emissions). As a result, refineries would most likely 
focus on gasoline benzene control even if we proposed an equivalent 
toxics emissions performance standard. Second, gasoline benzene control 
also avoids the potential for offsetting benzene emissions increases 
with decreases in some other toxic pollutant such as 1,3-butadiene, 
formaldehyde, sulfur, or acetaldehyde. At the same time, there are a 
number of reasons why a toxics performance standard approach may also 
be desirable, and therefore, we are taking comment on it as an 
alternative anti-backsliding approach. This alternative toxics 
performance standard approach is described in more detail in section I.

E. Will the Proposed Benzene Standards Pre-Empt State Benzene Controls?

    As EPA has explained in its federal fuel rulemakings, including in 
the preambles to the Tier2/sulfur gasoline rule and 1994 RFG rules, 
where EPA has adopted controls under section 211(c)(1) on the 
characteristics or components of gasoline provided to a particular 
area, section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act generally prohibits 
States from adopting their own controls respecting those 
characteristics or components unless the State controls are identical 
to EPA's.\37\ Thus, EPA recognizes that by adopting specific controls 
on benzene content, as is proposed today, there is little question that 
States would be preempted pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(A) from 
adopting their own benzene controls for gasoline subject to the federal 
benzene standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Section 211(c)(4)(A) provides: Except as otherwise provided 
in [211(c)(4)(B) or (C)], no state (or political subdivision 
thereof) may prescribe or attempt to enforce, for purposes of motor 
vehicle emissions control, any control or prohibition respecting any 
characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive in a motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle engine * * * if the Administrator has 
prescribed under [211(c)(1)] a control or prohibition applicable to 
such characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive, unless 
the State prohibition or control is identical to the prohibition or 
control prescribed by the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes the concerns associated with the potential 
disruption caused by numerous ``boutique'' fuels (i.e., state- and 
area-specific fuel types). In most situations, EPA believes that a 
uniform national program best balances protection of public health and 
protection of an efficient fuel distribution network. As the number of 
boutique fuels increases the less efficient the distribution system 
become. Therefore EPA's general expectation is that State fuels that 
differ from federal standards should be limited to situations where 
local or unique circumstances warrant control.
    Today's proposal, however, is different from our previous fuel 
controls in two important respects. First, today's proposal, unlike 
many of our controls such as the federal sulfur regulations and the 
benzene standard for RFG, would not impose a uniform national standard 
that ensures significant emissions reductions in all areas of the 
country. EPA expects that under the proposed refinery-by-refinery 
standards, gasoline benzene levels around the country would not change 
from where they are today. This is particularly significant for areas 
receiving conventional gasoline where the average benzene levels are 
higher. In addition, several conventional gasoline areas in the country 
currently receive gasoline with benzene levels well above the national 
average.
    Today's proposal also differs from many of our federal fuel 
controls such as the Tier 2/sulfur rule and our gasoline volatility 
program, in that it addresses a toxic component of gasoline, as 
compared to a fuel component that adversely affects efforts to achieve 
a NAAQS. This is important because section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act 
allows for a waiver of preemption of state standards only where 
necessary to achieve a NAAQS. A similar mechanism is not clearly 
provided for States seeking to control ambient concentrations of toxics 
in their areas.
    Thus, without some regulatory mechanism, this proposal could have 
the effect of preventing States from addressing local toxics concerns 
under all circumstances because a waiver may not be available. We 
therefore believe it is appropriate to consider options that would 
allow States to adopt more stringent conventional gasoline benzene 
standards in areas with higher than average benzene levels. EPA seeks 
comment on two alternatives.
    One alternative would be to define the applicability of the rule 
such that the federal conventional gasoline benzene standards proposed 
today would not apply to gasoline intended for and used in States where 
the State adopts more stringent benzene controls under a benzene 
control program submitted to EPA for approval. Under this approach, 
State benzene controls that are more stringent than the federal 
standard would not be preempted by the benzene standard proposed today. 
This would facilitate the ability of States to adopt more stringent 
conventional gasoline benzene standards. It is important to note that 
this provision for more stringent State benzene controls would apply 
only to conventional gasoline areas. States in RFG areas would continue 
to be subject to the current federal benzene standard for RFG, which 
was issued under section 211(c)(1), as well as the benzene standard 
proposed today.
    Under this approach, the regulations would establish a process 
analogous to the waiver process provided in section 211(c)(4)(C) of the 
Act and provide criteria that must be met before a State could adopt 
and enforce a more stringent standard. For example, the regulations 
could require the state to establish the following: that areas within 
the state are experiencing benzene air pollution problems and that 
there is a reasonable basis for the State's determination that there is 
a public health need for additional controls; how benzene levels in 
gasoline impact air quality; and that the standards and lead time 
provided in the state plan are reasonable and practicable considering 
factors such as cost and supply impacts. We request comment on all of 
these

[[Page 48080]]

criteria and invite suggestions for other criteria that we could use.
    Under this approach, the State would also need to demonstrate that 
the State control is more stringent than the applicable federal 
requirement. We have considered several options for making this 
demonstration, and request suggestions for other means of comparison. 
One difficulty is that EPA's proposed program would control benzene at 
the refinery and importer level while any State standards would apply 
to a geographic area. In many cases, gasoline distributed in a given 
area may not have been produced by a refinery in the area; in fact, the 
refinery could be hundreds of miles from the area. One option we have 
considered for determining whether a State program is more stringent is 
to evaluate whether it would get more benzene control than today's 
proposed program. A State could determine the gasoline benzene levels 
in the area, and make predictions of any changes in those levels with 
the State program. This would require estimating the range of gasoline 
benzene levels in gasoline supplied to the area under the federal 
program, and any differences in the gasoline benzene levels that would 
result from a State program. Another option would require a State 
standard to be as low (in benzene) as the cleanest refinery baseline of 
the refineries most likely to supply the area.
    EPA believes this first alternative would be a reasonable exercise 
of EPA's discretion under section 211(c)(1), because a federal backstop 
is not needed to avoid degradation in benzene levels in those areas 
where a State has adopted more stringent controls. Where a State adopts 
a more stringent benzene control for conventional gasoline sold in its 
area, it may request the EPA to remove the proposed federal benzene 
standard applicable to such gasoline. If EPA finds the State standard 
is in fact more stringent than the federal requirement otherwise 
applicable to gasoline intended for and used in that area and that the 
regulatory criteria are satisfied, the federal control would no longer 
be applicable to conventional gasoline used in that area. Because no 
federal benzene standard would apply to gasoline used in the area 
regulated by the State control, the State control would not be 
preempted by today's proposed federal benzene standard.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EPA believes that if a particular federal control does not 
apply to gasoline used in a given area, that federal control should 
have no preemptive effect in that area under section 211(c)(4)(A). 
Thus, to determine the scope of federal preemption in conventional 
gasoline areas, EPA would only consider the conventional gasoline 
controls. The current conventional gasoline exhaust toxics 
performance standards, described in more detail below, use benzene 
as one of the inputs in the model used to evaluate the performance 
of a particular gasoline formulation. The level of benzene is not 
itself limited by any federal regulation for conventional gasoline. 
EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that section 211(c)(4)(A) 
does not prohibit States from controlling benzene in conventional 
gasoline based on either the current conventional gasoline (CG) 
standards, or under today's proposal, where EPA's benzene control 
does not apply to that gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes this approach is consistent with the authority 
provided in section 211(c)(1). Section 211(c)(1) authorizes EPA to 
determine both the level of control that is appropriate as well as the 
product to which the control should apply. EPA believes it is 
appropriate that this federal program, which is designed to avoid 
backsliding, should not interfere with State authority to adopt 
controls that are more stringent. This approach is similar to the 
scheme outlined in section 211(c)(4), which allows EPA to approve 
otherwise preempted State fuel controls into the State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) if the controls are needed to help achieve one or more of 
the NAAQS. This alternative provides a mechanism for waiving preemption 
of State benzene controls that is otherwise missing in section 
211(c)(4).
    A second alternative would be to avoid preempting State benzene 
controls in conventional gasoline areas in the first instance. This 
could be accomplished by establishing a control, on a refinery-by-
refinery basis, based on the overall exhaust toxics performance rather 
than specifically on benzene levels. As with benzene, many refiners 
currently produce conventional gasoline that over-complies with the 
individual baselines for exhaust toxics performance assigned to each 
refinery. Much of this over-compliance, as explained earlier, is the 
result of lower benzene levels in gasoline. A more stringent exhaust 
toxics performance standard, like the proposed benzene standard, would 
ensure maintenance of this recent performance (in most cases over-
compliance) but would not specify how that level of performance is to 
be achieved.\39\ Like the refinery-by-refinery benzene standard being 
proposed today, a refinery-by-refinery exhaust toxics performance 
standard that reflects the recent level of performance achieved by that 
refinery would impose only negligible costs on refiners, if any. 
Moreover, because EPA would be regulating exhaust toxics performance 
and not benzene content, State benzene controls may not be 
preempted.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The conventional gasoline toxics performance standard 
requires that exhaust toxics performance of current fuels be no less 
than the individual baseline, which was based on the performance of 
the gasoline produced in 1990. The performance of gasoline is 
modeled using EPA's Complex Model. The inputs used by the Complex 
Model to evaluate exhaust toxics performance for conventional 
gasoline include the levels of benzene, MTBE, ETBE, ethanol, 
aromatics, olefins, sulfur, RVP, and oxygen, as well as distillation 
values (E200 and E300). By regulating performance rather than the 
individual parameters that affect performance, the regulations give 
refiners flexibility in determining their fuel formulations, and 
preserve overall performance even if specific fuel characteristics 
vary.
    \40\ A state control on benzene would not be a control 
``respecting'' exhaust toxics, for purposes of section 211(c)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA invites comments on the need to consider the above options for 
avoiding presumption of State controls, as well as the advantages and 
disadvantages of both of these approaches, including the potential 
preemptive effect of the approaches, and estimates of any costs 
associated with each of the approaches.
    We would expect that refiners would likely segregate such State 
fuel in order to comply with the State control. We invite comment on 
whether EPA should require segregation to ensure that batches of 
gasoline that were not intended to be State batches would not be 
labeled as such simply to avoid including them in a refinery's 
compliance determination for today's proposed program. By ensuring that 
gasoline is correctly accounted for and ultimately correctly 
distributed, the environmental goals of the federal and State programs 
are met. We request comment on this issue of segregating State 
gasoline, including the feasibility and practicality of such an 
approach and the impacts of distribution of a separate State gasoline.

F. What Are the Expected Impacts of EPA's Proposed Program?

1. Expected Costs and Benefits
    EPA believes that no refinery capital expenditures or operational 
changes would be needed to comply with the proposed anti-backsliding 
program since the proposal only requires that refineries continue doing 
what they did during 1998-1999 in terms of gasoline benzene content.
    Refineries with low 1998-1999 benzene levels may believe that the 
proposed rule is penalizing them for being ``cleaner'' than required 
with respect to fuel benzene content. While EPA appreciates the fact 
that these refineries were indeed cleaner than necessary, EPA believes 
that refineries in 1998-1999 were likely to be operating in a manner 
that optimized their operations. Thus, the over-compliance during that 
time period must have been the most comfortable

[[Page 48081]]

operating position for refiners. Individual refiners whose gasoline 
contained very low levels of benzene must have been maximizing profits 
in the same way as refiners whose gasoline contained higher levels of 
benzene. Thus, there is no clear unfairness to setting standards for 
all refiners according to this optimized level, which had little year-
to-year variation even over the three year period beginning in 1997.
Discussion of Incremental Volume Impact
    The Agency recognizes that the demand for RFG is projected to 
increase over time, approximately 2% per year based on VMT projections. 
This raises an issue whether additional or different costs may be 
associated with this additional production to meet an increase in 
demand. EPA invites comment on this issue. The proposed benzene 
standards apply only to the annual average volume of RFG produced in 
the baseline years. The Agency intends to regulate the additional 
incremental production of RFG, and discusses options below. However, at 
this time we are not proposing a specific course of action and will 
take all comments into consideration when determining the appropriate 
standard to apply to the incremental RFG production in the final rule.
    Specifically, EPA invites comment addressing four separate 
scenarios of potential increases in production of RFG: The first 
scenario would arise through increased production by refiners who 
currently produce RFG. These refiners may have current excess capacity 
and would expand their RFG production to meet rising demand. These 
refineries have established operations. They would have a baseline for 
their current production. The second scenario is refiners who might 
start producing RFG in the future. Some refiners who currently are only 
producing CG may decide to convert some of their production to RFG. 
They would not have an established baseline for the RFG production. The 
third scenario is importers, who are somewhat different since they 
often have no access to refining capacity themselves. Established 
importers would have a baseline. Therefore, to increase volume over the 
baseline volumes importers may have to find additional sources of RFG. 
That may cause them to seek additional volume from a new refining 
entity with benzene levels different from the established baseline. The 
last scenario consists of new refineries and importers who would not 
have established baselines. For each of these situations, EPA invites 
comment on costs associated with this increased production compared to 
costs with current production levels, information of the relative 
impacts on supply if any, and the predicted benzene levels of this 
increased production.
    EPA seeks comment on two basic options for establishing a benzene 
standard for this increased production and requests ideas on other 
options that may be appropriate. Information received in the above 
request for comments will be useful to EPA in deciding the appropriate 
approach to take in setting a standard for this increase in production 
volume. EPA also invites comment on the relative merits of both 
approaches as applied to the different situations described above.
    The first option would apply the same benzene content standard to 
all production. In other words, existing RFG refiners and importers 
that choose to expand production/importation would include all RFG 
produced in determining compliance with their 1998-1999 baseline 
benzene average. New RFG producers would need to meet the average 
benzene content currently found in the national RFG pool (i.e., 0.66 
vol%). This first option would ensure that the average benzene content 
of RFG would not degrade in the future.
    The second option would set a separate standard that would apply 
only to the additional volume of RFG produced by a refinery or 
importer.\41\ For these new barrels of RFG, EPA could require that the 
gasoline meet a less stringent standard, but no less stringent than the 
current RFG benzene standard of 0.95 vol% on average. This approach 
would preserve the benzene reductions that have been achieved to date 
for the existing inventory of RFG, while potentially allowing some 
limited increase above this level for the small amount of increased 
production. EPA requests comment on how benzene levels under this 
option are likely to compare to those that would be achieved under the 
first option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Under this option we would need to establish not only a 
refinery-by-refinery baseline benzene content standard but also a 
refinery-by-refinery baseline on the volume of gasoline produced. 
Presumably these baselines would be based on the same time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potential Interaction With Tier 2/Sulfur Gasoline Program and Possible 
MTBE Action
    EPA is also seeking comment on the potential interaction, if any, 
of today's proposal with the promulgated Tier 2/sulfur reduction 
program and possible MTBE gasoline control programs. Regarding Tier 2 
interaction with this proposal EPA, seeks comment on whether the 
implementation of Tier 2/sulfur there may lead to future compliance 
costs associated with this proposal. In addition to comments regarding 
potential costs differences, EPA requests comment on alternative 
benzene content standards that commenters believe would be appropriate 
under these circumstances and other alternative scenarios identified by 
commenters. EPA also seeks comment as to what extent, if any, the 
proposed benzene controls would affect the costs associated with future 
controls of MTBE content of gasoline. This information will be used to 
inform the Agency in its ongoing deliberations on the MTBE issue.
    With regard to benefits, our proposed anti-backsliding program is 
not expected to reduce toxics emissions beyond what is currently being 
achieved. Instead, we would expect it to hold the average content of 
benzene in gasoline to 1998-1999 levels (gasoline in 2002, for example, 
would have the same benzene content, on average, as gasoline in 1998-
1999 ). Because compliance with the proposed requirements would be 
determined at the refinery, and because fuel from a given refinery 
tends, on average, to be sold in a few specific areas (excluding 
fungible pipeline shipments), areas with relatively high gasoline 
benzene levels would be likely to continue to have relatively high 
gasoline benzene levels, unless a refiner voluntarily reduced its 
gasoline benzene content below its baseline levels. Fleet turnover to 
vehicles with lower standards (in other words, LEVs and Tier 2 
vehicles) is expected to lower emissions of toxic compounds even as VMT 
increases, so benzene emissions will in fact continue to decrease, 
independent of our proposed anti-backsliding program.
2. Applicability of the Anti-Dumping Program
    National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) recently wrote 
to us requesting that we consider repealing the gasoline anti-dumping 
program which was established as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments.\42\ A copy of this letter is included in the docket for 
this rule. The anti-dumping regulations require that each refiner's 
conventional gasoline, starting in 1995, produce no more emissions of 
NOX and exhaust toxics emissions than were produced by that 
refiner's 1990

[[Page 48082]]

gasoline. The primary purpose of the program was to prevent increased 
emissions from consumption of conventional gasoline due to the 
production of cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See EPA Air Docket A-2000-12, document number II-D-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NPRA believes that the combination of the Tier 2 sulfur controls, 
which begin phasing in by 2004, and the benzene standard being proposed 
today would on their own ensure compliance with the anti-dumping 
standards for NOX and exhaust toxics emissions. In other 
words, with sulfur levels controlled to 30 ppm on average and benzene 
levels capped at current levels (which on average are less than those 
existing in 1990), refiners could not modify other gasoline parameters 
in order to violate their 1990 baseline standards for these two 
pollutants.
    We request comment on the appropriateness of revising the anti-
dumping program after full implementation of the Tier 2 sulfur controls 
and the benzene standards being proposed today. We also request comment 
on retaining the anti-dumping program, but waiving the testing and 
reporting requirements for all refiners and importers after 
implementation of the sulfur and benzene programs. Finally, we also 
request comment on the need to require further reductions in fuel 
benzene levels beyond those being proposed today before waiving the 
testing and reporting requirements associated with the anti-dumping 
program, to ensure that the waiver does not relax the current anti-
dumping requirement for toxics.

G. Determination of the Need for Future Controls Deferred to Technical 
Analysis Plan and Future Rulemaking

    In today's action we are not proposing to reduce the benzene 
content of gasoline below 1998-1999 levels. Although EPA has started to 
evaluate the emission benefits, costs, and technical issues associated 
with reducing fuel benzene levels below 1998-1999 average levels, a 
more precise evaluation of these issues cannot be made without much of 
the information that would be developed in the proposed Technical 
Analysis Plan. We are deferring a determination of the need for and 
appropriateness of additional controls related to benzene or other 
toxics until such time as more information is available.
    Since reductions in fuel benzene content can produce substantial 
reductions in benzene emissions, fuel benzene control is a good 
approach to fuels-based toxics control. There are many ways of reducing 
gasoline benzene content. In fact, through our discussions with 
refineries and licensors of benzene reduction technology, we have 
identified four basic strategies that refineries could use to reduce 
benzene levels in their gasoline. The first strategy routes the 
precursor compounds (i.e., those compounds that tend to form benzene in 
the reformer \43\) around the reformer. The second strategy separates a 
benzene-rich stream from reformate, the reformer product, and saturates 
\44\ the benzene. In the third strategy benzene is separated from the 
reformate for sale to the petrochemical market. The fourth strategy 
involves separating either the benzene precursors or the benzene-rich 
product and other light compounds from the reformate, and saturating 
the benzene in an isomerate unit. While the first three strategies 
result in a net octane loss in the gasoline pool, the last strategy 
recovers that octane loss and can even increase the gasoline pool 
octane level. These and other potential benzene reduction strategies 
would be investigated in our Technical Analysis Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ A reformer is a refinery operating unit which produces a 
gasoline blending stream known as reformate. Reformate is very high 
in aromatics, such as benzene, and reformate is the main source of 
benzene and aromatics in finished gasoline.
    \44\ When benzene is saturated, hydrogen is added to the 
molecule to transform it from an aromatic compound to cyclohexane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating further mobile source air toxics, we will consider 
the appropriateness of both potential new controls and existing 
controls, considering costs and other relevant factors. Benzene 
reduction technologies (and in general, toxics reduction technologies 
and strategies), and how to best estimate the inventory benefits of 
additional control measures, are two areas for which we believe 
additional information is needed. Therefore, as mentioned above, we are 
deferring any further regulatory decisions until we can conduct our 
Technical Analysis Plan.
    It should be noted that there are clear advantages in deferring a 
decision regarding the need for and appropriateness of further mobile 
source air toxics controls. As the gasoline and proposed diesel sulfur 
control programs are phased-in over the next few years, we can consider 
the effects of those programs, for example, the refinery impacts, as we 
estimate the costs and benefits of further controls. Also, currently 
there are significant data gaps in our nonroad emissions estimates and 
uncertainty in our estimated toxics inventories. We will be in a better 
position to address these limitations over the next few years. 
Furthermore, the nationwide benzene inventory will continue to decrease 
over time due to other programs, ensuring that adverse health effects 
associated with exposure to benzene will continue to decline. In the 
meantime, our proposed anti-backsliding provisions would prevent 
increases in the benzene content of gasoline. We also believe that 
within the next few years, additional data on ambient toxics levels 
will provide us with important information in evaluating further mobile 
source air toxics policy decisions.

H. What Are the Details of Today's Proposed Program?

    This section explains the proposed benzene requirements, who must 
comply with the proposed standards, what gasoline is subject to the 
requirements, a possible credit banking and trading program, and 
compliance provisions.
1. Standards and Dates
    We are proposing that each refinery and importer be assigned an 
individual baseline benzene value, separately for their reformulated 
and conventional gasolines, based on the quality of the gasoline 
produced or imported during the two-year period from 1998 through 1999. 
We are proposing that, beginning January 1, 2002, during each annual 
averaging period, the average benzene content for each type of gasoline 
listed above may not exceed the baseline benzene content for that type 
of gasoline for that refinery.
    We are proposing a one-year deficit carryover which would permit 
refiners some flexibility in meeting their 1998-1999 baseline benzene 
levels. Under this flexibility, a refinery or importer would be allowed 
to be out of compliance with its benzene baseline for one year, but 
would have to make up the deficit and be in compliance the next year. 
EPA requests comments on this proposal and on a two-year averaging 
option wherein a refinery or importer's compliance would be determined 
every two years. EPA specifically requests comments on the potential 
environmental harms and costs or cost savings under such an option.
    We request comment on whether the proposed 1998-1999 baseline is an 
appropriate baseline time period, and whether there would be any 
difference in requiring 1997-1998 to be the baseline period, or perhaps 
even a three-year baseline time period, 1997-1999, or some other time 
period. We specifically request comment on the year-to-year variability 
in a refinery's gasoline benzene levels. We also request

[[Page 48083]]

comment on the option of allowing a refinery to petition for a 
different baseline time period, if, during a portion of the baseline 
time period, refinery operations were significantly different from 
average operations, barring normal maintenance and turnarounds.
    We also request comment on whether the proposed start of the 
program (January 1, 2002) allows sufficient time for refiners to 
prepare to meet the proposed requirements. We believe the proposed 
start date is appropriate since the requirements aim to capture recent 
performance as opposed to forcing further reductions. Because the 
proposed standards are average standards, which inherently allow batch-
to-batch variability, we are not including compliance cushions in the 
setting of the gasoline benzene standard from each refinery's RFG and 
CG standard. There were no compliance cushions used in either the anti-
dumping program or the RFG annual average benzene standard.
2. Entities Subject to the Proposed Regulation
    The proposed benzene control program would apply to anyone who 
produces or imports gasoline for sale in the U.S., primarily petroleum 
refiners and importers. This includes anyone meeting our definition of 
a refiner (including blenders, in most instances) or an importer. 
Foreign refiners would in some cases be treated as a refiner.
3. California Gasoline
    We are proposing that the requirements of the proposed benzene 
control program not apply to California gasoline. This is because 
California currently has a gasoline benzene standard that is more 
stringent than that required by the federal RFG program. Under 
California's program, a California refinery's annual average gasoline 
benzene content cannot exceed 0.8 vol%. This standard is more stringent 
than the federal RFG standards, which require that a refiner's RFG 
benzene not exceed 0.95 vol%, on average. California maximum benzene 
levels (on any batch subject to the averaging standard) are also more 
stringent than the federal RFG requirements. The current California 
maximum is 1.2 vol%, which will decrease to 1.1 vol% in 2003. The 
federal RFG maximum benzene level is 1.3 vol%. In 1998, California 
gasoline averaged less than 0.6 vol%. This average is below the current 
0.65 vol% annual average for non-California, federal RFG. Additionally, 
beginning in 2003, California gasoline will become subject to a more 
stringent (refinery-based) benzene requirement of 0.7 vol% annual 
average. Given this upcoming reduction in the California averaging 
standard to a 0.7 vol% annual average, we do not expect average 
California gasoline benzene levels to increase.
    While it is possible that California gasoline benzene levels could 
backslide compared to the levels in the baseline period, such a 
backslide is highly unlikely, or would be extremely minimal, given 
current California benzene levels and the upcoming more stringent 
standards. The goal of today's proposed program is to ensure that 
gasoline benzene levels around the country do not increase compared to 
the gasoline benzene levels during the baseline time period. We do not 
believe that excluding California from today's proposed program 
conflicts with this goal, and we do not expect any environmental 
detriment in California or the other 49 states as a result of excluding 
California gasoline from the proposed requirements.
    This exclusion for California gasoline is consistent with other EPA 
fuel controls. California gasoline is currently excluded from some or 
all of the requirements of the RFG, anti-dumping, and gasoline sulfur 
programs. In the final RFG and anti-dumping rule (59 FR 7716, February 
16, 1994), EPA exempted California refineries from most of the 
enforcement mechanisms, including reporting, associated with those 
programs because (1) California gasoline exceeded the federal 
performance standards for RFG; (2) the federal RFG areas in California 
were assured of meeting the federal RFG performance and content 
(benzene and oxygen) standards; and (3) the compliance and enforcement 
program was sufficiently rigorous. This exemption was extended for 
federal RFG Phase II (64 FR 49992, September 15, 1999). EPA has also 
exempted California gasoline from the recently promulgated gasoline 
sulfur requirements associated with the Tier 2 emission standards (65 
FR 6698, February 10, 2000) because the current California gasoline 
sulfur requirement is at least as stringent as the new federal sulfur 
requirement.
    Because it would not be included in the proposed program, we are 
proposing that California gasoline be segregated for the proposed 
benzene program as well as the other federal fuel programs. Though most 
California gasoline is produced and used in California, some is 
imported to or exported from California, and under the RFG and anti-
dumping rules, such gasoline must be segregated and separately 
accounted. Segregation will ensure that low-benzene California gasoline 
is not part of a non-California refiner's benzene compliance 
determination, which would otherwise allow the refiner to use the low-
benzene California gasoline to offset higher benzene gasoline destined 
for areas other than California.
    We request comment on whether California should be excluded from 
the requirements of this proposed rule. If California gasoline were 
subject to today's proposed rule, it would be considered a separate 
type of gasoline for baseline and compliance determinations, just as we 
have proposed separate determinations for RFG and conventional 
gasoline.
4. Proposed Baseline Development and Submittal Requirements
    a. General requirements. The purpose of establishing a benzene 
baseline for each refinery or importer is to determine the standards 
for that refinery under today's proposed rule. Each refinery or 
importer will have a reformulated gasoline benzene baseline value and a 
conventional gasoline benzene baseline value to the extent they 
produced or imported these fuels in the 1998-1999 baseline time period. 
We propose that refiners and importers would have to establish these 
benzene baselines for each individual refinery by submitting to us data 
establishing their annual average gasoline benzene levels based on the 
average of their 1998 and 1999 operations. No additional sampling or 
testing is required to establish a benzene baseline since this 
information is already required for both the reformulated gasoline and 
anti-dumping programs. We would review the data, and barring any 
discrepancies, approve benzene baselines for each refinery or importer.
    We believe the process we have defined would minimize the burden to 
the industry and the time it will take for us to review and approve the 
benzene baselines. Specifically, refiners and importers must submit to 
us information which establishes (separately for RFG and CG) the batch 
report numbers, benzene levels and volumes of each batch, or composite, 
as applicable, of gasoline produced or imported in 1998 and 1999, as 
well as the annual average benzene levels calculated from this data. 
Within 120 days, we will review the application and notify the refiner 
of approval or of any discrepancies we find in the data submitted.
    We are proposing that benzene baselines be submitted no later than 
June 30, 2001. EPA believes this would provide the industry with 
sufficient preparation time, and the Agency adequate review and 
approval time. EPA requests comment on whether this

[[Page 48084]]

deadline for benzene baseline submittals is appropriate.
    b. Proposed requirements for foreign refiners. We are proposing 
that foreign refiners may follow the general requirements of our 
protocol for establishing individual refinery baselines (see 40 CFR 
80.91-94 and also 40 CFR 80.410) by providing sufficient data to 
establish the volume of gasoline imported to the U.S. in 1998-1999 and 
the annual average benzene level of that gasoline. If the test method 
used to identify the benzene levels differs from the one specified in 
today's proposed action, the refiner would have to provide sufficient 
information about the test method to allow us to evaluate the 
appropriateness of the alternative. Because this information will be 
new to us, we may require more time to review and approve their 1998-
1999 benzene baseline. But, consistent with our previous handling of 
foreign refiner submissions, once we have determined that the 
submission is complete, and the protocol has been followed, the foreign 
refiner may use the baseline while awaiting our formal approval. 
However, the refiner would be held to the baseline that is ultimately 
approved.
    c. Proposed requirements for importers and blenders. To establish 
an individual benzene baseline, importers and blenders must have 
information on every batch of gasoline for at least twelve consecutive 
months within the two baseline years. Absent this data, we propose that 
they be assigned the industry average gasoline benzene baseline for 
that pool of gasoline.
    d. Proposed requirements for those with incomplete 1998-1999 
benzene data. Certain regulated parties did not produce or import 
gasoline into the U.S. during some or all of 1998-1999. EPA is 
proposing the following methodologies of determining the benzene 
baselines for these parties for the purposes of the proposed benzene 
control program:
    (1) Produced or imported for 12 consecutive months or more during 
the time period 1998-1999. EPA is proposing to accept, at a minimum, 12 
consecutive months' worth of data (which must include every batch 
produced or imported during that time period); any additional data (of 
acceptable quality) for the remainder of the baseline period must also 
be included in the determination.
    (2) Produced or imported for less than 12 consecutive months during 
1998-1999. EPA is proposing that refineries and importers in this 
situation use the 1998-1999 industry averages (separately for RFG and 
CG) as their 1998-1999 benzene baseline. We have estimated these values 
to be 0.66 vol% for RFG and 1.11 vol% for CG.
    e. Aggregation of refinery benzene baselines. Consistent with the 
anti-dumping program, and with our position to maintain current 
performance with today's proposed action, we are proposing that multi-
refinery refiners and importers be required to comply with the 
requirements of this proposal for their conventional gasoline on the 
same aggregate basis as their anti-dumping compliance is determined. 
Thus, each aggregate of a refiner would have a baseline conventional 
gasoline benzene level, computed after determining the baseline 
conventional gasoline benzene level of each refinery in the aggregate.
5. Flexibility Provisions
    a. Credit program. This proposed anti-backsliding program does not 
include a credit trading program. However, EPA is seeking comment on 
the need for and viability of a credit trading program such as outlined 
below. While the agency believes it has provided sufficient flexibility 
with the proposed deficit carryover program, we are seeking comment on 
this credit trading approach as an alternative, or additional, means of 
providing compliance flexibility.
    The current Reformulated Gasoline Rules provide a credit program 
that allows the transfer of benzene credits by refiners, importers, and 
blenders (see 40 CFR 80.67). In this program, benzene credits can be 
generated from a baseline average of 0.95 vol% benzene. This program 
will remain in place. Refiners that currently rely on this program, if 
any, will continue to be able to use it in meeting the basic RFG 
requirements in 40 CFR part 80, subpart D.
    This credit generation and transfer approach could also be 
incorporated in the proposed anti-backsliding benzene standard. 
Refiners could generate credits by reducing the average benzene in 
their product below the anti-backsliding baseline. Under such a trading 
program, compliance could be achieved through a transfer of benzene 
credits provided that (1) the credits are generated in the same 
averaging period as they are used; (2) the credit transfer takes place 
not later than 15 working days following the end of the averaging 
period in which the benzene credits were generated; (3) the credits 
were properly created; and (4) the credits are transferred directly 
from the refiner, importer, or blender that created the credits to the 
refiner, importer, blender that used the credits to achieve compliance 
(i.e., no brokering of credits).
    Based on the fact that RFG and CG would have separate baselines, 
EPA believes it would be inappropriate to allow credit trading between 
the RFG and conventional gasoline pools. We request comment on the need 
for and appropriateness of adopting this type of credit program in the 
proposed anti-backsliding standard for both the reformulated and 
conventional gasoline pools. We are also seeking comment on whether any 
additional constraints might be included to limit credit transactions 
to ensure that the average benzene levels supplied to a given area do 
not degrade.
    b. Hardship provisions. EPA is proposing to allow a refinery to 
temporarily produce and distribute gasoline which will cause it to 
exceed its baseline benzene level at the end of the averaging period 
based on the refiner's inability to produce complying gasoline because 
of extreme and unusual circumstances outside of the refiner's control 
that could not have been avoided through the exercise of due diligence. 
EPA is proposing to follow the ``extraordinary circumstances'' 
provisions as presented in 40 CFR 80.73 of the reformulated gasoline 
rule. EPA does not believe that the proposed benzene control program 
presents significant compliance challenges or compliance costs to the 
refiners. Thus, we are not proposing to include hardship provisions 
such as those included in the gasoline sulfur program for extreme 
economic hardship.
6. Downstream standards
    Compliance with today's proposal occurs at the refinery or importer 
level, since each refinery, aggregate of refineries, or importer must 
comply with its average 1998-1999 baseline. As a result, there are no 
downstream standards associated with today's proposed rule.
7. Sampling and Testing
    Overall we believe that our proposed anti-backsliding program will 
require refiners and importers to do little or no more than they are 
currently doing under the existing RFG and anti-dumping programs in 
terms of sampling and testing. The specific requirements are discussed 
below.
    a. Test method for benzene in gasoline. We are proposing that ASTM 
standard method D3606-99 Standard Test Method for ``Determination of 
Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas 
Chromatography'' be used for the measurement of benzene in gasoline.

[[Page 48085]]

This is the most recent update of this methodology.
    b. Requirement to test every batch of gasoline produced or 
imported. We propose that the applicable per-batch or composite 
sampling and testing, as applicable for RFG and conventional gasoline, 
be continued under our proposed benzene control program. Since this 
program is only concerned with the annual average benzene level, there 
is no need for more batch testing than is already required.
    c. Sampling methods. Sampling methods apply to all parties who 
conduct sampling and testing under the rule. We propose to require the 
use of sampling methods that were proposed in the July 11, 1997 Federal 
Register document for the RFG/CG rule (62 FR 37338, at 37341-37342, 
37375-37376). These sampling methods include ASTM D 4057-95 (manual 
sampling), ASTM D 4177-95 (automatic sampling from pipelines/in-line 
blending), and ASTM D 5842 (this sampling method is primarily concerned 
with sampling where gasoline volatility is going to be tested, but it 
would also be an appropriate sampling method to use when testing for 
benzene).
    d. Gasoline sample retention requirements. EPA is proposing to 
retain current gasoline sample retention requirements.
8. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    Under today's proposal, refiners and importers would be required to 
keep, and make available to EPA, certain records that demonstrate 
compliance with their benzene baseline standard. The RFG/CG regulations 
currently require refiners and importers to retain records that include 
much of the information required in this proposed rule. Where this is 
the case, there would be no requirement for duplication of records or 
information.
    Since there are no downstream standards under the proposed benzene 
regulations, only refiners and importers would be required to retain 
Product Transfer Documents (PTDs) and records of quality assurance 
programs (including, where applicable, benzene test results). Parties 
would be required to keep records for a period of five years.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Five years is the applicable statute of limitations for the 
RFG and other fuels programs. See 28 U.S.C. 2462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Refiners and importers would be required to submit an annual report 
that demonstrates compliance with the applicable benzene standards and 
data on individual batches of gasoline, including batch volume and 
benzene content. Based on our experience with other programs, we 
believe that requiring an annual benzene report and batch information 
will provide an appropriate and effective means of monitoring 
compliance with the average standards under the benzene program. Annual 
reports, on forms provided by the Agency, would be required to be 
received by EPA by the last day of February of the next calendar year.
    EPA is proposing that parties that only blend oxygenates or butane 
into gasoline not be considered refiners under the proposed rule, and, 
as a result, would not be subject to the proposed reporting 
requirements.
    We are also proposing that refiners and importers be required to 
arrange for a certified public accountant or certified internal auditor 
to conduct an annual review of the company's records that form the 
basis of the annual benzene compliance report (called an ``attest 
engagement''). The purpose of the attest engagement is to determine 
whether representations by the company are supported by the company's 
internal records. Attest engagements are already required under the 
RFG/CG regulations. The refiner's attest engagement under the RFG/CG 
rule partially encompasses benzene rule compliance since the attest 
auditors are already required to verify benzene results for both CG and 
RFG. Consistent with the RFG regulations, the attest reports for 
benzene would be included in the presently required attest engagement 
submitted by May 31 of each year.
9. Exemptions for Research, Development, and Testing
    We are proposing to provide an exemption from the proposed benzene 
requirements for gasoline used for research, development and testing 
purposes. We recognize that there may be legitimate research programs 
that require the use of gasoline with sufficiently high benzene levels 
such that extra effort would be required of the refiner to offset the 
benzene contribution of the research gasoline. As a result, we are 
proposing provisions for obtaining an exemption from the prohibitions 
for persons distributing, transporting, storing, selling or dispensing 
gasoline that would cause an exceedance of the refiner's annual average 
benzene standard, or cause the refiner to produce gasoline with 
sufficiently lower benzene to offset the benzene content of such 
gasoline if it were included, where such gasoline is necessary to 
conduct a research, development or testing program. Parties would be 
required to submit to EPA an application for exemption that describes 
the purpose and scope of the program and the reasons why use of the 
higher benzene gasoline is necessary. In approving any application, EPA 
may impose reasonable conditions such as recordkeeping, reporting, and 
volume limitations.
10. Liability and Penalty Provisions for Noncompliance
    The liability and penalty provisions under the proposed rule are 
similar to the liability and penalty provisions of the RFG and other 
fuels regulations.\46\ Regulated parties would be liable for committing 
certain prohibited acts, or causing others to commit prohibited acts. 
In addition, parties would be liable for a failure to meet certain 
affirmative requirements, such as the recordkeeping or PTD 
requirements, or causing others to fail to meet such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 40 CFR Sec. 80.5 (penalties for fuels violations); 
Sec. 80.23 (liability for lead violations); Sec. 80.28 (liability 
for volatility violations); Sec. 80.30 (liability for diesel 
violations); Sec. 80.79 (liability for violation of RFG prohibited 
acts); Sec. 80.80 (penalties for RFG/CG violations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of section 211(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) 
for the collection of penalties would apply for noncompliance with the 
proposed rule. The penalty provisions would subject any person who 
violates any requirement or prohibition of the rule to a civil penalty 
of up to $27,500 for every day of each such violation and the amount of 
economic benefit or savings resulting from the violation. A violation 
of the applicable average benzene standard would constitute a separate 
day of violation for each day in the averaging period. The penalty 
provisions are similar to the penalty provisions for violations of the 
RFG regulations.

I. Toxics Performance Standard

    EPA requests comments on an alternative approach that would be 
based on a toxics performance standard instead of a gasoline benzene 
content standard. This alternative program would be very similar to the 
gasoline benzene program described above, but would require that the 
average toxics performance for gasoline produced at each refinery not 
increase over the toxics performance of gasoline produced by that 
refinery during the baseline period, 1998-1999. Annual toxics 
performance would be determined using the Complex Model in the same way 
it is determined for our RFG and anti-dumping programs. Like our 
proposal for the gasoline benzene standard, toxics performance would be 
determined separately for RFG and CG. Also, like

[[Page 48086]]

our existing toxics performance requirements described above, the RFG 
standard would apply to total toxics emissions while the conventional 
gasoline standard would apply only to exhaust toxics performance. Other 
components of the program would work in the same way as for the 
gasoline benzene content standard, described in section H.
    We believe that both of these approaches, the benzene content 
standard and the toxics performance standard, are consistent with the 
toxics requirements of the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping 
programs, and either one could be used as the basis of a program that 
seeks to maintain current levels of fuel-based toxics control. However, 
a toxics performance standard (TPS) approach has some benefits compared 
to the gasoline benzene content approach. For example, a TPS may 
provide a toxics control program which offers more flexibility for 
refiners than the proposed benzene content program. This is because the 
TPS approach gives refiners more than one fuel parameter to adjust to 
achieve compliance with the requirements. At the same time, this 
flexibility varies by refiner, and may not be a benefit to many 
refiners given that benzene emissions, which are heavily influenced by 
gasoline benzene content, are the majority of toxics emissions. In 
addition, a TPS program may be preferable because it would limit 
emissions of several toxics, as a group, not just benzene.
    These benefits, however, must be weighed against some issues that 
would be raised by adoption of a TPS. First, while a TPS gives refiners 
more flexibility, it is also the case that refiners may gain a large 
degree of toxics benefits, as measured by the Complex Model, simply 
through the gasoline sulfur reduction already required by 2004 instead 
of through toxics control. In other words, refiners may be able to 
maintain their current levels of toxics performance by reducing sulfur; 
this may even allow them to reduce the performance of their fuels with 
respect to emissions of other toxics as long as the overall toxics 
performance remains constant. EPA is concerned that codification of the 
current level of TPS over-compliance would effectively amount to a loss 
of the toxics benefits of the Tier 2 rule. A second issue associated 
with the TPS option is that it may not yield the same degree of benzene 
control as a gasoline benzene content standard, since refiners can opt 
to adjust aromatics or other fuel parameters instead of holding their 
benzene levels at or near their 1998-1999 average. EPA requests comment 
on the importance of each of these issues as well as on ways they can 
be alleviated if a toxics performance standard is finalized. EPA also 
seeks comment on whether a TPS approach will offer the same degree of 
benzene control as a gasoline benzene content standard.
    A third alternative, which may alleviate some of the issues 
associated with a TPS, is to set a benzene emissions performance 
standard. Under this approach, annual average benzene emissions would 
be subject to comparison to baseline benzene emissions for 1998-1999, 
as measured by the Complex Model. Benzene emissions could be measured 
as they are in the existing fuel control programs, total for RFG, 
exhaust-only for CG, or we could measure total benzene emissions for 
both RFG and CG. EPA seeks comment on both alternatives. This approach 
is somewhat more stringent than the benzene fuel content standard in 
that it measures benzene emissions associated with a particular fuel 
formulation and not just the benzene content of the fuel. It is also 
more stringent than a TPS because it targets benzene specifically. 
Refiners may favor a benzene emissions performance standard because 
benzene emissions are a function of several gasoline constituents, and 
refiners would have greater flexibility when setting their fuel 
formulations. This option also has the benefit of specifically 
addressing and maintaining benzene emissions, which are not directly 
addressed under either the benzene content or the toxics performance 
standard approaches.
    At the same time, EPA is concerned that the same issues described 
above for the toxics performance standard may also apply to a benzene 
toxics performance standard. In this case, sulfur controls will allow 
catalysts to perform more efficiently, resulting in lower exhaust 
benzene. In addition, a specific benzene emissions performance standard 
would be more constraining for refiners, in that adjustments to 
aromatics would impact a refiner's ability to comply with the 
requirements. EPA seeks comments on whether a benzene emissions 
performance standard should be applied. EPA also seeks comment on the 
importance of the issues described above as well as on ways they can be 
alleviated if a benzene emissions performance standard is finalized.

VI. Nonroad Sources of MSAT Emissions

    In this section, we will look at MSAT emissions from nonroad mobile 
sources.\47\ First, we will briefly review the nonroad MSAT emission 
inventories that were presented in Section III. Next, we will discuss 
how the current nonroad emission control programs will reduce these 
nonroad inventories, as well as briefly touch upon the expected 
benefits from our new actions targeting the control of emissions from 
currently unregulated nonroad categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ ``Nonroad'' is a term that covers a diverse collection of 
engines, vehicles and equipment, as described in detail later in 
this section. The terms ``off-road'' and ``off-highway'' are 
sometimes used interchangeably with nonroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are looking at nonroad MSAT emissions separately from motor 
vehicle MSAT emissions primarily because our understanding of nonroad 
MSAT emissions is much more limited. This section ends with a 
discussion of the current gaps in our data that we will need to fill 
before we can comprehensively assess the need for, and appropriateness 
of, programs intended to further reduce nonroad MSAT emissions.

A. Nonroad MSAT Baseline Inventories

    We previously presented the 1996 baseline inventories for several 
key nonroad MSAT emissions in Table III-2. This nonroad MSAT data was 
taken from the 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In general, the 
data show that nonroad vehicles tend to be significant contributors of 
those same MSAT emissions for which motor vehicles are also significant 
contributors. For some MSAT emissions, the nonroad inventories are 
comparable to, or even higher than, those for on-highway vehicles. 
Nonroad vehicles contribute as much as 39 percent of the national 
inventory of some MSAT emissions, such as acetaldehyde and MTBE, and 
contribute significantly to the national inventories of several others, 
including 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, benzene, formaldehyde, lead 
compounds, n-hexane, toluene and xylene.
    Table III-4 shows our estimates of on-highway vehicle VOC and 
diesel PM emissions. Comparing the 1996 values in this table to the 
nonroad VOC and diesel PM numbers presented later in this section we 
see that the nonroad VOC inventory in 1996 was almost 80 percent of the 
on-highway inventory, while the nonroad diesel PM inventory for the 
same year was roughly twice that for on-highway diesel PM.

[[Page 48087]]

B. Impacts of Current Nonroad Mobile Source Emission Control Strategies

1. Description of the Emission Control Programs
    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 directed us to study the 
contribution of nonroad engines to urban air pollution, and to regulate 
them if warranted. Due to the variety of nonroad engine and equipment 
types and sizes, combustion processes, uses, and potential for 
emissions reductions, we have placed nonroad engines into several 
categories. These categories include land-based diesel engines (e.g., 
farm and construction equipment), small land-based spark-ignition (SI) 
engines (e.g., lawn and garden equipment, string trimmers), large land-
based SI engines (e.g., forklifts, airport ground service equipment), 
marine engines (including diesel and SI, propulsion and auxiliary, 
commercial and recreational), locomotives, aircraft, and recreational 
vehicles (large land-based spark ignition engines used in off-road 
motorcycles, ``all terrain'' vehicles and snowmobiles). Brief summaries 
of our current and anticipated programs for these nonroad categories 
follow.
     Land-based diesel engines. Land-based nonroad diesel 
engines include engines used in agricultural and construction 
equipment, as well as many other applications (excluding locomotives, 
mining equipment, and marine engines). Under our Tier 1 standards 
phased in beginning in 1996, NOX reductions of over 30 
percent were required of new land-based nonroad diesel engines greater 
than 50 horsepower (hp).\48\ Standards applicable to engines under 50 
hp took effect for the first time in 1999. We have completed a second 
set of standards (Tier 2) which will be phased in from 2001 through 
2006 and will require further NOX reductions, as well as 
reductions in diesel PM emissions. Still more stringent NOX 
standards for engines over 50 hp (Tier 3) have been adopted and will be 
phased in from 2006 through 2008. These Tier 2 and Tier 3 regulations 
will result in 50 percent reductions in VOC and 40 percent reductions 
in diesel PM beyond the Tier 1 regulations.\49\ Finally, we are 
currently working on appropriate Tier 3 diesel PM standards for land-
based nonroad diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994.
    \49\ 63 FR 56968, October 23, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Small land-based SI engines. Small land-based spark-
ignition engines at or below 25 hp are used primarily in lawn and 
garden equipment such as lawn mowers, string trimmers, chain saws, lawn 
and garden tractors, and other similar equipment. Our Phase 1 emission 
controls for these engines took effect beginning in 1997 and will 
result in a roughly 32 percent reduction in VOC emissions.\50\ We 
recently completed Phase 2 regulations for these engines which will 
result in additional reductions in combined HC and NOX 
beyond the Phase 1 levels of 60 percent for nonhandheld engines and 70 
percent for handheld engines.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995.
    \51\ 64 FR 15208, March 30, 1999 and 65 FR 24267, April 25, 
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Large land-based SI engines. We do not currently have 
emission standards in place for SI engines above 25 hp used in 
commercial applications. Such engines are used in a variety of 
industrial equipment such as forklifts, airport ground service 
equipment, generators and compressors. We are currently developing an 
emission control program for these engines.
     Marine engines. Due to the wide variety of marine engine 
types and applications we have broken them down into three general 
categories for regulatory purposes. The first category consists of 
gasoline outboard and personal watercraft engines. Our standards for 
these engines took effect in 1998 and become increasingly stringent 
over a nine year phase-in period, ultimately resulting in a 75 percent 
reduction in VOC.\52\ The second category consists of commercial diesel 
marine engines. Our emission standards for these engines take effect in 
2004 and are similar to our standards for land-based nonroad diesel 
engines.\53\ These regulations will ultimately result in VOC reductions 
of 13 percent and diesel PM reductions of 26 percent for engines 
subject to the standards. The last category consists of both gasoline 
and diesel recreational sterndrive and inboard engines. We do not 
currently have emission regulations in place for this category of 
marine engine, but have begun developing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 61 FR 52088, October 4, 1996.
    \53\ 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Locomotives. Our regulations for locomotives and 
locomotive engines consist of three tiers, applicable depending on the 
date a locomotive is originally manufactured.\54\ The first set of 
standards (Tier 0) applies to locomotives and locomotive engines 
originally manufactured from 1973 through 2001, any time they are 
manufactured or remanufactured. The second set of standards (Tier 1) 
applies to locomotives and locomotive engines manufactured from 2002 
through 2004. The third set of standards (Tier 2) applies to 
locomotives manufactured in 2005 and later. While the Tier 0 and Tier 1 
regulations are primarily intended to reduce NOX emissions, 
the Tier 2 regulations will result in 50 percent reductions in VOC and 
diesel PM, as well as additional NOX reductions beyond the 
Tier 0 and Tier 1 regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 63 FR 18978, April 16, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Aircraft. A variety of emission regulations have been 
applied to commercial gas turbine aircraft engines, beginning with 
limits on smoke and fuel venting in 1974. In 1984, limits were placed 
on the amount of unburned HC that gas turbine engines can emit per 
landing and takeoff cycle. Most recently (1997), we adopted the 
existing International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
NOX and CO emission regulations for gas turbine engines. 
None of these actions has resulted in significant emissions reductions, 
but rather have largely served to prevent increases in aircraft 
emissions. We continue to explore ways to reduce emissions from 
aircraft throughout the nation.
     Recreational Vehicles. Large land-based spark ignition 
engines used in recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-road 
motorcycles and ``all terrain'' vehicles, and are presently 
unregulated. We are currently developing emission regulations for 
recreational vehicles.
    In addition to the above engine-based emission control programs, 
fuel controls will also reduce emissions of air toxics from nonroad 
engines. For example, gasoline formulation (the removal of lead, limits 
on gasoline volatility and reformulated gasoline) will reduce nonroad 
MSAT emissions, because most gasoline-fueled nonroad vehicles are 
fueled with the same gasoline used in on-highway vehicles. An exception 
to this is lead in aviation gasoline. Aviation gasoline is a high 
octane fuel used in a relatively small number of aircraft (those with 
piston engines). Such aircraft are generally used for personal 
transportation, sightseeing, crop dusting, and similar activities.
    As just discussed, most of our fuel controls aimed at gasoline 
cover both on-highway and nonroad vehicle fuel. The same is not true 
for diesel fuel. We have regulations in place that have dramatically 
reduced the sulfur levels in on-highway diesel fuel, and we have 
proposed further reductions in on-highway diesel fuel sulfur levels. 
These controls, however, do not apply to nonroad diesel fuel. Prior to 
the sulfur controls for on-highway diesel fuel, there was no 
distinction between nonroad and on-highway diesel fuel. We

[[Page 48088]]

are considering the control of sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel, which 
would allow more effective diesel PM control technologies such as 
catalysts to be applied to nonroad engines and vehicles.
2. Emission Reductions From Current Programs
    The programs just summarized are expected to result in reductions 
of national inventories of the MSAT emissions. This section summarizes 
our estimates of nonroad MSAT inventories into the future, based on the 
nonroad emission control programs we currently have in place. 
Interested readers are encouraged to refer to our Technical Support 
Document for a more detailed discussion of these projections. The 
discussion in this section consists of three parts. First, we discuss 
the inventories of four gaseous MSAT emissions: benzene, formaldehyde, 
acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene. Second, we discuss nonroad VOC 
emissions inventories as a surrogate for the other nonroad gaseous MSAT 
emissions. Finally, we discuss the trend of nonroad diesel PM 
emissions.
    We are not reporting inventory trends for the metals on our list of 
MSATs (arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, mercury compounds, nickel 
compounds, manganese compounds, and lead compounds) or for dioxin/
furans. Metals in mobile source exhaust can come from fuel, fuel 
additives, engine oil, engine oil additives, or engine wear. Formation 
of dioxin and furans requires a source of chlorine. Thus, while metal 
emissions and dioxins/furans emissions are associated with particles, 
there are a number of other factors that contribute to emission levels. 
While it is possible that these compounds track PM emissions to some 
extent, we do not have good data on these relationships.
    a. MSAT emissions. Table VI-1 shows our estimates of four nonroad 
MSAT emissions. These estimates were based on the 1996 inventories 
contained in the 1996 NTI study.\55\ The 1990 estimates were derived by 
applying toxic fractions to the nationwide VOC totals from the draft 
NONROAD model to the 1996 NTI numbers.\56\ Toxic fractions represent 
the fraction of total VOC that a given MSAT makes up. By knowing the 
total VOC inventory and the toxic fraction for a given MSAT, we can 
estimate the inventory of that specific MSAT indirectly. The 2007 and 
2020 estimates were derived from the draft NONROAD model, with the 
toxic fractions applied to the nationwide NONROAD VOC results. Toxic 
fractions were applied separately to the various sources of nonroad 
emissions (e.g., diesel, gasoline, two-stroke, four-stroke, exhaust, 
evaporative) in the NONROAD model. Because the toxic fractions for the 
four MSATs shown vary from one another among the different nonroad 
emission sources, the percentage reductions of the four MSATs shown 
differ from each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ It should be noted that these estimates do not include 
locomotives, aircraft or commercial marine diesel engines. Thus, the 
1996 estimates shown here differ slightly from those shown in Table 
III-2.
    \56\ The draft NONROAD model is a model we are developing to 
project emissions inventories from nonroad mobile sources. Because 
this is a draft model and subject to future revisions, the 
inventories derived from the draft NONROAD model and presented here 
are subject to change. The version of the NONROAD model that was 
used in this analysis is the one we also used in support of our 
recently proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine rule (65 FR 35429, June 2, 
2000).

   Table VI-1.--Annual Toxics Emissions Summary for Selected Air Pollutants for the Total U.S. Nonroad Mobile
                                            Sources From 1990 to 2020
                                         [Thousand short tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Compound                  1990 emissions    1996 emissions    2007 emissions     2020 emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................................             100.2              98.7              75.4               69
Acetaldehyde...........................              37.7              40.8              26.3               20
Formaldehyde...........................              79.2              86.4              53.8               40.7
1,3-Butadiene..........................               9.4               9.9               8.8                7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VI-2 summarizes the percent reductions from 1990 and 1996 
levels represented by the inventories in Table VI-1. This table shows 
that the reductions expected from our existing nonroad control programs 
are significant, although not as substantial as the reductions of these 
pollutants for on-highway vehicles presented in section III.

 Table VI-2.--Summary of Percent Emission Reductions in 2007 and 2020 for Selected Air Pollutants for the Total
                                  U.S. From 1990 or 1996 Nonroad Mobile Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Reduction in 2007                   Reduction in 2020
                Compound                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              From 1990         From 1996         From 1990         From 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.................................                25                24                31                30
Acetaldehyde............................                30                36                47                51
Formaldehyde............................                32                38                49                53
1,3-Butadiene...........................                 7                11                18                21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. VOCs. With the exception of the four MSATs shown in Table VI-1, 
we do not have detailed emissions data from nonroad mobile sources for 
the other gaseous MSAT emissions. Therefore, to estimate projected 
inventory impacts from our current nonroad mobile source emission 
control programs, we use VOC inventories. We believe this is 
appropriate because the gaseous MSAT emissions are constituents of 
total VOC emissions. By using VOC emissions as a surrogate, we are 
assuming that MSAT emissions track VOC reductions. In reality, however, 
some gaseous MSAT emissions may not decrease at the same rate as VOCs 
overall. Without having more detailed emission data for each of the 
MSAT emissions, however, we are unable to offer any insights on how 
those rates may differ. We request comment on how to develop inventory 
projections for the other gaseous MSAT emissions.
    Our VOC emission inventories were developed using the draft NONROAD

[[Page 48089]]

model. Because the draft NONROAD model does not include locomotives, 
commercial marine diesel engines, or aircraft we supplemented the draft 
NONROAD model inventories with the locomotive and diesel marine 
inventories developed in support of our regulations for those 
categories, and with aircraft emission inventories from the National 
Air Pollutant Emissions Trends, 1900-1996 report. The results of this 
analysis, presented in Table VI-3, show that VOC inventories are 
projected to decrease approximately 44 percent between 1996 and 2020 
due to existing nonroad mobile source emission control programs. 
Comparing the results of this analysis with Table III-4, we see that 
expected nonroad VOC reductions are not as dramatic as those projected 
for on-highway vehicles, with nonroad and on-highway VOC inventories 
expected to be very similar by 2020. This analysis shows that our 
existing nonroad emission control programs will also result in 
significant gaseous MSAT reductions (assuming, as previously discussed, 
that gaseous MSAT emissions track VOC reductions).

  Table VI-3.--Annual VOC Emissions Summary for the Total U.S. Nonroad
                             Mobile Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                         1996    2007    2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million short tons per year.....................     3.6     2.2     2.0
Cumulative Percent Reduction from 1996..........  ......      39      44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Diesel PM. We estimated the nonroad diesel PM inventories using 
the draft NONROAD model. As explained earlier, because the draft 
NONROAD model does not include locomotives, commercial marine diesel 
engines, or aircraft we supplemented the draft NONROAD model 
inventories using other sources of information to cover these 
emissions. Table VI-4 shows our estimates of nonroad diesel PM 
emissions inventories. As can be seen, we expect nonroad diesel PM 
emissions to begin to drop with the implementation of some of our 
nonroad regulations. However, in the absence of additional controls, we 
expect that nonroad diesel PM emission inventories will begin to 
increase due to expected growth in the populations of nonroad vehicles 
and equipment. Comparing Table VI-4 to Table III-4 we see that, while 
the nonroad diesel PM inventory is roughly twice that for on-highway 
vehicles in 1996, nonroad emissions of diesel PM are expected to be 
three to four times as great as on-highway diesel PM emissions by 2020.
    As was previously mentioned, we are considering appropriate Tier 3 
diesel PM standards for land-based nonroad diesel engines. We believe 
that any specific new requirements for nonroad diesel PM we might 
propose would need to be carefully considered in the context of a 
proposal for nonroad diesel fuel standards. This is because of the 
close interrelationship between fuels and engines--the best emission 
control solutions may not come through either fuel changes or engine 
improvements alone, but perhaps through an appropriate balance between 
the two. Thus, we are working to formulate thoughtful proposals 
covering both nonroad diesel fuel and engines.

   Table VI-4.--Annual Diesel PM Emissions Summary for the Total U.S.
                         Nonroad Mobile Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Year                   1996          2007          2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousand short tons per year..         345.8         282.8         310.8
Cumulative Percent Reduction    ............            18            10
 from 1996....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Gaps in Nonroad Mobile Source Data

    There are significant gaps in our data on MSAT emissions from 
nonroad engines. As a result of these data gaps our understanding of 
nonroad MSAT inventories is less developed than our understanding of 
on-highway vehicle MSAT emissions. The largest single data gap is in 
the area of emission factors. While we have basic emission factors for 
VOC and PM for most of the nonroad categories, we have very little VOC 
speciation data for the given categories which would allow us to use 
VOC as a surrogate to estimate emissions of specific MSAT emissions. 
Given the large variety of nonroad engine sizes, types and uses, as 
well as the likelihood that this variety will result in some 
differences in VOC composition, it is important that we obtain or 
develop speciated VOC data specific to each nonroad category in order 
to more accurately project nonroad MSAT inventories. These gaps, too, 
must be filled in order to accurately assess the need for, and the most 
appropriate direction of, any future MSAT control program targeted 
specifically at nonroad mobile sources.

D. Summary

    In this section we presented our inventory projections of MSAT 
emissions from nonroad mobile sources. We also briefly discussed the 
data gaps that need to be filled in order to better understand nonroad 
MSAT emissions. Our analysis shows that, without further emission 
control programs, some nonroad gaseous MSAT emissions are expected to 
decline by almost 50 percent by 2020. However, our analysis also shows 
that, absent additional controls, nonroad diesel PM emissions are 
expected to increase in the future.

VII. Technical Analysis Plan To Address Data Gaps and Reopening of 
Rulemaking

A. Technical Analysis Plan To Address Data Gaps

    Because of the continuing potential future health impacts of 
exposure to the public of air toxics from mobile sources, we propose to 
continue our toxics-related research activities. Therefore, in addition 
to proposing today's controls, we believe we must continue to evaluate 
and re-assess the need for, and level of, controls for both on-highway 
and nonroad sources of air toxics in the future. Among the 21 compounds 
that EPA is proposing for inclusion on the list of MSATs, we believe 
that the Agency should focus its research in the next two years on 
benzene, diesel exhaust, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 
acrolein for on-highway and nonroad mobile sources.\57\ Agency 
screening analysis and consultation with the States indicate that these 
chemicals are likely to present the greatest risks to public health and 
welfare. This MSATs research will be coordinated with and extend the 
work that now is underway in the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 
program that is part of the Urban Air Toxics Strategy. \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ EPA may also focus on other MSATs in the next two years, if 
new information shows that is appropriate.
    \58\ EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, which is 
responsible for the MSATs program, will be working in coordination 
with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAPQS), which 
manages NATA, and the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, which is 
examining issues related to a wide range of indoor air pollutants. 
OTAQ will also rely on the health effects information and exposure 
and risk assessment guidelines of EPA's Office of Research and 
Development in conducting its program.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 48090]]

    In conducting future research, EPA plans to address four critical 
areas where there are data gaps, or the need for additional research 
and analysis on the exposure of the public to air toxics, and the fuel 
and vehicle pollution controls that are available to reduce air toxic 
emissions. They are:
     Developing better air toxics emission factors for nonroad 
sources;
     Improving estimation of air toxics exposures in 
microenvironments;
     Improving consideration of the range of total public 
exposures to air toxics; and
     Increasing understanding of the effectiveness and costs of 
vehicle, fuel, and nonroad controls for air toxics.
    Developing emission factors for nonroad sources. EPA wants to 
analyze the emissions of several types of commonly used nonroad engines 
to increase the engine test data it has on the air toxics from nonroad 
mobile sources. The Agency will then pool the data on air toxics 
emissions to develop better air toxics emissions factors for these 
sources.
    Improving estimation of exposures in microenvironments. In the 
past, the Agency has used carbon monoxide (CO) measurements outdoors 
and indoors as a surrogate for estimating air toxics levels in 
different microenvironments (e.g., inside vehicles, homes, shopping 
malls, office buildings, etc.). This approach has limitations. EPA is 
currently using the Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure Model--Version 4 
(HAPEM4), for estimating microenvironmental exposures in the National 
Scaling Assessment of NATA. HAPEM4 uses recent, direct technical 
assessments of the microenvironmental factors for individual chemicals 
to model the exposures in microenvironments. These microenvironmental 
factors and the results of their application are currently being peer 
reviewed. After that review, EPA will incorporate applicable comments 
into HAPEM4 microenvironmental factors that are needed to provide 
improved exposure estimates. In the future, it may prove necessary to 
have new field research undertaken to fill gaps in current data sets 
such as microenvironmental settings (e.g., ``houses with attached 
garages''). EPA will conduct field work in areas that the Agency judges 
are critical to provide reasonable exposure results for any major group 
of the U.S. population.
    Another important aspect of considering microenvironmental 
exposures is the amount of time people spend in each microenvironment. 
HAPEM4 uses the recently developed Comprehensive Human Activity 
Database (CHAD) of information describing activities of various 
subgroups in the U.S. population in different microenvironmental 
settings. CHAD is a more expansive human activity diary data set than 
others EPA has used in exposure assessments to date, but the Agency 
recognizes that additional field research may be needed to expand human 
activity information for under-represented demographic groups, 
particularly in urban areas. EPA will update CHAD to take advantage of 
new data that becomes available through peer-reviewed studies. As CHAD 
is updated in the future, EPA will make necessary adjustments to ensure 
that HAPEM4 is providing the best reflection of each subgroup's 
activities and enable a reasonable subgroup analysis where EPA would be 
likely to gain additional insights about the health effects occurring 
for particular groups. In addition, the Agency will review the data to 
see where special analysis is warranted to isolate the subgroups facing 
greater risks.
    Improving consideration of the range of public exposures. EPA's 
analysis to date has primarily examined average levels of exposure. 
However, as the Agency has stated in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA 
also wants to consider the disproportionate impacts of air toxics in 
``hotspot'' areas. Hotspots are generally thought of as areas with 
elevated pollutant levels that could be associated with potentially 
serious health risks. The HAPEM3 modeling framework that EPA used for 
conducting the 1999 EPA Air Toxics Study described in Section I.E. 
above could not address this issue.\59\ States and local air pollution 
control agencies have raised the hotspots issue as a major concern that 
needs to be addressed in a proper air toxics risk characterization.\60\ 
Initially, EPA needs to develop and evaluate approaches that allow a 
reasonable examination of the concern over hotspots. Upon finding a 
reasonable way to address this issue, the Agency plans to assess the 
impacts of elevated air toxics in certain areas over the next two 
years. EPA will work with the State and local air pollution control 
agencies to ensure that the results of air toxics monitoring data 
analyses and urban monitoring pilot projects scheduled to be completed 
in the next year are considered in EPA's development of mobile source 
air toxics exposure and risk analyses.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor 
Vehicles Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide 
(Volumes 1 and 2), November 1999. EPA420-R-99-029/030. This report 
can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm.
    \60\ STAPPA/ALAPCO and NESCAUM raised this concern at an 
conference on mobile source air toxics that the Health Effects 
Institute managed for EPA in February 2000.
    \61\ EPA will characterize the exposure risks of air toxics in 
future analysis in the manner prescribed in the Agency's Guidance 
for Risk Characterization, February 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA will evaluate the feasibility of improving the 
local-scale accuracy of the ASPEN model. More accurate and reliable 
local scale-modeling of ambient air toxics concentrations will better 
inform the Agency and the public about potential ``hot spots.'' This 
information will also improve HAPEM exposure estimates.
    Increasing understanding of the effectiveness and costs of vehicle, 
fuel, and nonroad air toxics controls. The Agency intends to conduct 
additional analysis on the types of controls that it could have for 
vehicles, fuels, and nonroad engines to lower emissions cost-
effectively in a reliable and predictable manner. For the seven air 
toxics mentioned above, the Agency will analyze a variety of control 
options, including a reevaluation of previously considered control 
options, for both on-highway and nonroad sources. Based on the results 
of this work, EPA plans a more detailed engineering feasibility, 
performance, and cost analysis for the most promising technical 
approaches and a re-assessment of the level of air toxics controls for 
these sources.
    In all of these research areas, EPA wants to work collaboratively 
with industry representatives, manufacturers of emissions control 
technology, State and local agencies, environmental groups, and other 
stakeholders. In keeping with this approach, the Agency plans to hold 
at least three technical workshops with all interested stakeholders to 
consider:
     Improvements EPA should make to ASPEN and HAPEM4 to enable 
the Agency to better assess the risks from air toxics;
     Ways to address the significance of the hotspots 
issue;\62\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ This workshop would include ways to qualify and quantify 
the geographic and exposure/risk impacts of mobile source emissions, 
considering both the ubiquitous ambient impact as well as potential 
hotspots. It would further assess how to examine for hotspots the 
geographic and exposure variability that exists for air toxics. 
Geographic variability includes the observed elevated urban area 
ambient concentrations of mobile source air toxics, peak ambient 
concentrations adjacent to roadways in urban and rural areas, and 
the elevated, mobile source-dependent emissions impacts (for 
example, waste transfer station operations and bus, marine, 
aircraft, and locomotive terminal operations). Exposure variability 
includes recognition of factors that lead to different levels of 
human exposure, such as commuting, or living in a residence with an 
attached garage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 48091]]

     Available vehicle, fuel, and nonroad control technologies 
for reducing air toxics.
    The results of this research will provide the basis for any future 
rulemaking, as discussed below.
    EPA solicits comments on this plan to support the Agency's future 
decisions on MSAT controls. The Agency also solicits submission of any 
documents with relevant technical research of which commenters believe 
the EPA may be unaware, or descriptions of research activities 
commenters believe the Agency should pursue.

B. Commitment for Further Rulemaking

    EPA is also proposing a regulatory provision providing for a future 
rulemaking that will determine, based on the information available at 
that time, what additional motor vehicle or fuel controls would be 
appropriate to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants from motor 
vehicles and their fuels. This rulemaking would reassess the 
appropriateness of the then current standards under the Clean Air Act 
including the need for and technical and economical feasibility of 
further controls. The standards that have been promulgated by EPA or 
that are promulgated pursuant to today's proposal would stay in effect 
unless revised by this subsequent rulemaking procedure. EPA commits to 
issue a proposed rule by the end of 2003, and to take final action by 
the end of December of 2004.
    As part of this rulemaking, EPA will reexamine the controls 
available for reducing emissions of benzene as well as the other 
hazardous air pollutants emitted from on-highway and nonroad vehicles 
and equipment and their fuels. EPA will reassess the reductions in 
toxics emissions expected to be achieved by the current suite of motor 
vehicle and fuel controls that will be implemented over the next 
several years as well as the potential for innovative control 
technologies to provide further reductions. In 2004, EPA will also be 
able to better determine the appropriateness of additional fuel 
controls in light of potential developments being considered by 
Congress, EPA and States with respect to MTBE and the oxygen content of 
gasoline. Finally, the review will consider the contribution of nonroad 
engines to emissions of air toxics and whether controls that reduce 
these emissions along with motor vehicle emissions are appropriate 
under the Act.

VIII. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

    Publication of this document opens a public comment period on this 
proposal. You may submit comments during the period indicated under 
DATES above. The Agency encourages all parties that have an interest in 
the program described in this document to offer comment on all aspects 
of the action. Throughout this proposal you will find requests for 
specific comment on various topics.
    The most useful comments are those supported by appropriate and 
detailed rationales, data, and analyses. We also encourage commenters 
who disagree with the proposed program to suggest and analyze alternate 
approaches to meeting the air quality goals of this proposed program. 
You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary 
information, to the EPA's Air Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the date 
specified above for the end of the comment period.
    Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly separate such information from other 
comments. Such submissions should be labeled as ``Confidential Business 
Information'' and be sent directly to the person listed (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), not to the public docket. This will help 
ensure that proprietary information is not placed in the public docket. 
If a commenter wants EPA to use a submission of confidential 
information as part of the basis for the final rule, then a non-
confidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or 
information must be sent to the docket.
    We will disclose information covered by a claim of confidentiality 
only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when we 
receive it, we will make it available to the public without further 
notice to the commenter.

B. Public Hearings

    We will hold a public hearing as noted under DATES above. If you 
would like to present testimony at the public hearing, we ask that you 
notify the contact person listed above two weeks before the date of the 
hearing. You should include in this notification an estimate of the 
time required for the presentation, and any need for audio/visual 
equipment. We also suggest that sufficient copies of the statement or 
material to be presented be made available to the audience. In 
addition, it is helpful if the contact person receives a copy of the 
testimony or material before the hearing.
    The hearing will be conducted informally, and technical rules of 
evidence will not apply. A sign-up sheet will be available at the 
hearing for scheduling the order of testimony. Written transcripts of 
the hearing will be prepared. The official record of the hearing will 
be kept open for 30 days after the hearing date to allow submittal of 
supplementary information.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines a 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    EPA has determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 because it raises 
novel legal or policy issues and is therefore subject to OMB review. 
The Agency believes that this regulation would result in none of the 
economic effects set forth in Section 1 of the Order.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally 
requires federal agencies to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 
of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements 
unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include businesses, small not-for-profit

[[Page 48092]]

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because the standards as proposed seek to hold gasoline 
benzene fuel content to levels previously achieved by refiners in 1998 
and 1999. The proposed standards would not require refiners to purchase 
equipment or to change their refining practices in new and unique ways. 
Today's proposed program also does not create requirements that would 
affect the ways in which fuels are transported or stored.
    Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements (ICR) in this proposed rule 
will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We will 
announce in a separate Federal Register document that the ICR has been 
submitted to OMB.
    The Agency may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, 
and a person is not required to respond to a request for information, 
unless the information collection request displays a currently valid 
OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

D. Intergovernmental Relations

1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory action on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgation an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, we must develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small 
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially 
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small 
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of 
our regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental 
mandates. The plan must also provide for informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA believes this proposed rule contains no federal mandates for 
state, local, or tribal governments or for the private sector as 
defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. Nothing in the 
proposed rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
2. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule may have federalism implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132, by preempting state and fuel benzene 
controls. The proposed standards will impose no direct compliance costs 
on states. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    EPA consulted with state and local officials in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation to permit them to have meaningful 
and timely input into its development. In the spirit of Executive Order 
13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between 
EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment 
on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
3. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments
    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13094 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.''
    The proposed rule does not create any mandates or impose any 
obligations, and thus does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rule references technical standards adopted by the 
Agency through previous rulemakings. No new technical standards are

[[Page 48093]]

proposed in today's document. The standards referenced in today's 
proposed rule involve the measurement of gasoline fuel parameters. The 
measurement standards for gasoline fuel parameters referenced in 
today's proposal are government-unique standards that were developed by 
the Agency through previous rulemakings. These standards have served 
the Agency's emissions control goals well since their implementation 
and have been well accepted by industry.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

F. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA believes this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive 
Order because it is not an economically significant regulatory action 
as defined by Executive Order 12866.

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    The statutory authority for the fuels controls proposed in today's 
document can be found in sections 202 and 211(c) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), as amended. Additional support for the procedural and 
enforcement-related aspects of the fuel controls in today's proposal, 
including the proposed recordkeeping requirements, come from sections 
114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, 
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 14, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 80 and 86 of title 
40, of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 80 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(l), 7545 and 7601(a).

    2. Section 80.2 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 80.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (d) Previously certified gasoline, or PCG, means gasoline or RBOB 
that previously has been included in a batch for purposes of complying 
with the standards in subparts D, E, H, and I of this part, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *
    3. Section 80.46 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 80.46  Measurement of reformulated gasoline fuel parameters.

* * * * *
    (e) Benzene. (1) Benzene content shall be determined using ASTM 
standard method D-3606-99, entitled ``Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation 
Gasoline by Gas Chromatography''; except that
    (2) Instrument parameters must be adjusted to ensure complete 
resolution of the benzene, ethanol and methanol peaks because ethanol 
and methanol may cause interference with ASTM standard method D-3606-99 
when present.
* * * * *
    (h) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard methods D 2622-98, D 
3246-96, D 3606-99, D 1319-93, D 4815-93, and D 86-90 with the 
exception of the degrees Fahrenheit figures in Table 9 of D 86-90, are 
incorporated by reference. These incorporations by reference were 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the 
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket 
Section (LE-131), room M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Docket No. A-97-03, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, or at the 
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 
700, Washington, DC.
    4. Subpart I is added to read as follows:
Subpart I--Gasoline Benzene

General Information

Sec.
80.580-80.585   [Reserved]
80.590   Who must register with EPA under the benzene program?

Gasoline Benzene Standards

80.595   What are the gasoline benzene standards for refiners and 
importers?
80.600   What gasoline is subject to the benzene standards and 
requirements?
80.605   How is the annual refinery or importer average benzene 
level determined?
80.610   What requirements apply to oxygenate blenders?
80.615   What requirements apply to butane blenders?
80.620   [Reserved]
80.625   What requirements apply to California gasoline?
80.635-80.685   [Reserved]

Baseline Determination

80.690   How does a refiner or importer apply for a benzene 
baseline?
80.695   How is a benzene baseline determined?
80.700   [Reserved]
80.705   What is the benzene baseline for refineries or importers 
with incomplete 1998-1999 data?
80.710-80.725   [Reserved]

Sampling, Testing and Retention Requirements for Refiners and Importers

80.730   What are the sampling and testing requirements for refiners 
and importers?
80.735   What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to 
refiners and importers?
80.740   What requirements apply to refiners producing gasoline by 
blending blendstocks into previously certified gasoline (PCG)?
80.745   [Reserved]
80.750   What alternative benzene requirements apply to importers 
who transport gasoline by truck?
80.755-80.760   [Reserved]

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

80.765   What records must be kept?
80.770   What are the benzene reporting requirements?

Exemptions

80.775   What if a refiner or importer is unable to produce gasoline 
conforming to the requirements of this subpart?
80.780   What are the requirements for obtaining an exemption for 
gasoline used

[[Page 48094]]

for research, development or testing purposes?

Violation Provisions

80.785   What acts are prohibited under the gasoline benzene 
program?
80.790   What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the 
prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for 
violations of this subpart?
80.795   Who is liable for violations under the gasoline benzene 
program?
80.800   [Reserved]
80.805   What penalties apply under this subpart?

Provisions for Foreign Refiners With Individual Benzene Baselines

80.810   What are the additional requirements for gasoline produced 
at foreign refineries having individual refiner benzene baselines?

Attest Engagements

80.815   What are the attest engagement requirements for gasoline 
benzene compliance applicable to refiners and importers?
80.820   [Reserved]

Additional Rulemaking

80.825   What additional rulemaking will EPA conduct?

Subpart I--Gasoline Benzene

General Information


Secs. 80.580-80.585  [Reserved]


Sec. 80.590  Who must register with EPA under the benzene program?

    (a) Refiners and importers who are registered by EPA under 
Sec. 80.76 are deemed to be registered for purposes of this subpart.
    (b) Refiners and importers subject to the standards in Sec. 80.595 
who are not registered by EPA under Sec. 80.76 must provide to EPA the 
information required by Sec. 80.76 by October 1, 2001, or not later 
than three months in advance of the first date that such person 
produces or imports gasoline, whichever is later.
Gasoline Benzene Standards


Sec. 80.595  What are the gasoline benzene standards for refiners and 
importers?

    (a)(1) The refinery or importer annual average gasoline benzene 
standard is the baseline benzene level for that refinery or importer as 
determined at Sec. 80.695.
    (2) A refinery or importer has a separate annual average gasoline 
benzene standard for each of the following types of gasoline produced 
at that refinery or imported:
    (i) Reformulated gasoline;
    (ii) Conventional gasoline.
    (b)(1) The annual average gasoline benzene standard is the maximum 
average benzene level allowed for gasoline produced at a refinery or 
imported by an importer during each calendar year starting January 1, 
2002. Refiners who have chosen, under subpart E of this part, to comply 
with the requirements of subpart E of this part on an aggregate basis, 
must comply with the requirements of this subpart on the same aggregate 
basis.
    (2) The benzene standard and all compliance calculations for 
benzene under this subpart are in percent by volume (vol%) and volumes 
are in gallons.
    (3) The averaging period is January 1 through December 31 of each 
year.
    (4) The standards under paragraph (a) of this section shall be met 
by the importer for all imported gasoline, except gasoline imported as 
Certified Benzene-FRGAS under Sec. 80.810.
    (5) The annual average benzene level is calculated in accordance 
with Sec. 80.605.


Sec. 80.600  What gasoline is subject to the benzene standards and 
requirements?

    For the purpose of this subpart, all reformulated gasoline, 
conventional gasoline and RBOB, collectively called ``gasoline'' unless 
otherwise specified, is subject to the standards and requirements under 
this subpart, as applicable, with the following exceptions:
    (a) Gasoline that is used to fuel aircraft, racing vehicles or 
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events, provided 
that:
    (1) Product transfer documents associated with such gasoline, and 
any pump stand from which such gasoline is dispensed, identify the 
gasoline either as gasoline that is restricted for use in aircraft, or 
as gasoline that is restricted for use in racing motor vehicles or 
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events;
    (2) The gasoline is completely segregated from all other gasoline 
throughout production, distribution and sale to the ultimate consumer; 
and
    (3) The gasoline is not made available for use as motor vehicle 
gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor vehicles, except for motor 
vehicles used only in sanctioned racing events.
    (b) Gasoline that is exported for sale outside the U.S.
    (c) Gasoline designated as California gasoline under Sec. 80.625, 
and used in California.
    (4) For RFG, the volume of RFG that exceeds the annual average 
volume of RFG produced during the 1998-1999 baseline years.


Sec. 80.605  How is the annual refinery or importer average benzene 
level determined?

    (a) The annual refinery or importer average gasoline benzene level 
is calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AU00.000

Where:

Ba = The refinery or importer annual average benzene value, 
as applicable.
Vi = The volume of applicable gasoline produced or imported 
in batch i.
Bi = The benzene content of batch i determined under 
Sec. 80.730.
n = The number of batches of gasoline produced or imported during the 
averaging period.
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during the 
averaging period.

    (b) The annual average calculation specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section shall be completed separately for each type of gasoline 
specified at Sec. 80.595(a)(2).
    (c) All annual refinery or importer average calculations shall be 
conducted to two decimal places.
    (d) A refiner or importer may include oxygenate added downstream 
from the refinery or import facility when calculating the benzene 
content, provided the following requirements are met:
    (1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline, the refiner or 
importer must comply with the requirements of Sec. 80.101(d)(4)(ii).
    (2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the refiner or importer must 
comply with the requirements of Sec. 80.69(a).
    (e) Refiners and importers must exclude from compliance 
calculations all of the following:
    (1) Gasoline that was not produced at the refinery;
    (2) In the case of an importer, gasoline that was imported as 
Certified Benzene-FRGAS under Sec. 80.810;
    (3) Blending stocks transferred to others;
    (4) Gasoline that has been included in the compliance calculations 
for another refinery or importer; and
    (5) Gasoline exempted from standards under Sec. 80.600.
    (f) A refiner or importer may exceed its refinery or importer 
annual average benzene standard specified in Sec. 80.595, separately 
for RFG and CG, for a given averaging period, creating a compliance

[[Page 48095]]

deficit, provided that in the calendar year following the year the 
standard is not met, the refinery or importer shall:
    (1) Achieve compliance with the refinery or importer annual average 
benzene standard specified in Sec. 80.595; and
    (2) Use additional benzene credits sufficient to offset the 
compliance deficit of the previous year.


Sec. 80.610  What requirements apply to oxygenate blenders?

    Oxygenate blenders who blend oxygenate into gasoline downstream of 
the refinery that produced the gasoline or the import facility where 
the gasoline was imported, are not subject to the requirements of this 
subpart applicable to refiners for this gasoline.


Sec. 80.615  What requirements apply to butane blenders?

    Butane blenders who blend butane into gasoline downstream of the 
refinery that produced the gasoline or the import facility where the 
gasoline was imported, are not subject to the requirements of this 
subpart applicable to refiners for this gasoline.


Sec. 80.620  [Reserved]


Sec. 80.625  What requirements apply to California gasoline?

    (a) Definition. For purposes of this subpart California gasoline 
means any gasoline designated by the refiner or importer as for use in 
California.
    (b) California gasoline exemption. California gasoline that 
complies with all the requirements of this section is exempt from all 
other provisions of this subpart.
    (c) Requirements for California gasoline. The requirements are as 
follows:
    (1) Each batch of California gasoline must be designated as such by 
its refiner or importer;
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Designated California gasoline must ultimately be used in the 
State of California and not used elsewhere;
    (4) In the case of California gasoline produced outside the State 
of California, the transferors and transferees must meet the product 
transfer document requirements under Sec. 80.81(g); and
    (5) Gasoline that is ultimately used in any part of the United 
States outside of the State of California must comply with the 
standards and requirements of this subpart, regardless of any 
designation as California gasoline.
    (d) Use of California test methods and off site sampling 
procedures. In the case of any gasoline that is not California gasoline 
and that is either produced at a refinery located in the State of 
California or is imported from outside the United States into the State 
of California, the refiner or importer may, with regard to such 
gasoline:
    (1) Use the sampling and testing methods approved in Title 13 of 
the California Code of Regulations instead of the sampling and testing 
methods required under Sec. 80.730; and
    (2) Determine the benzene content of gasoline at off site tankage 
as permitted in Sec. 80.81(h)(2).


Secs. 80.635-80.685  [Reserved]

Baseline Determination


Sec. 80.690  How does a refiner or importer apply for a benzene 
baseline?

    (a)(1) A refiner or importer must submit an application to EPA 
which includes the information required under paragraph (c) of this 
section no later than June 30, 2001.
    (2) Any refinery which was not in operation during 2001, or any 
importer which was not in business during 2001, must submit an 
application to EPA which includes the applicable information required 
under paragraph (c) of this section no later than 6 months prior to the 
introduction of gasoline into commerce.
    (b) The benzene baseline request must be sent to: U.S. EPA, Attn: 
Benzene Program (6406J), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. For 
commercial (non-postal) delivery: U.S. EPA, Attn: Benzene Program, 501 
3rd Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.
    (c) The benzene baseline application must include the following 
information:
    (1) A listing of the names and addresses of all refineries owned by 
the company for which the refiner is applying for a benzene baseline, 
or the name and address of the importer applying for a benzene 
baseline.
    (2)(i) The annual average benzene level for each type of gasoline, 
per Sec. 80.595(a)(2), produced in 1998-1999 for each refinery for 
which the refiner is applying for a benzene baseline, or the annual 
average gasoline benzene baseline for gasoline imported in 1998-1999.
    (ii) Calculation of the average benzene levels under this paragraph 
shall be in accordance with Sec. 80.695.
    (iii) For those with insufficient data pursuant to Sec. 80.705, a 
statement that the refinery's or importer's baseline will be the 
default baseline specified at Sec. 80.705(b).
    (3) A letter signed by the president, chief operating or chief 
executive officer, of the company, or his/her delegate, stating that 
the information contained in the benzene baseline determination is true 
to the best of his/her knowledge.
    (4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number and E-mail 
address of a company contact person.
    (5) The following information for each batch of gasoline produced 
or imported in 1998-1999, separated by type of gasoline as listed at 
Sec. 80.585(a)(2):
    (i) Batch number assigned to the batch under Sec. 80.65(d) or 
Sec. 80.101(i);
    (ii) Volume; and
    (iii) Benzene content.
    (d) Foreign refiners must follow the procedures specified in 
Sec. 80.810(b) to establish individual benzene baseline values for a 
foreign refinery.
    (e) Within 120 days of receipt of an application under this 
section, EPA will notify the refiner of approval of the refinery's 
baseline or of any deficiencies in the application.
    (f) If at any time the baseline submitted in accordance with the 
requirements of this section is determined to be incorrect, the 
corrected baseline applies ab initio and the annual average standards 
are deemed to be those applicable under the corrected information.


Sec. 80.695  How is a benzene baseline determined?

    (a) A refinery's or importer's benzene baseline is calculated using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AU00.001

Where:

BBase = Benzene baseline value.
Vi = Volume of gasoline batch i produced or imported.
Bi = Benzene content of gasoline batch i produced or 
imported.
n = Total number of batches of gasoline produced or imported during 
January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999.
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during January 1, 
1998 through December 31, 1999.

    (b) The calculation at Sec. 80.695(a) shall be made separately for 
each type of gasoline listed at Sec. 80.595(a)(2).
    (c) Any refinery for which oxygenate blended downstream was 
included in compliance calculations for 1998-1999, pursuant to 
Sec. 80.65 or Sec. 80.101(d)(4), must include this oxygenate in the 
baseline calculations for benzene content under paragraph (a) of this 
section.

[[Page 48096]]

Sec. 80.700  [Reserved]


Sec. 80.705  What is the benzene baseline for refineries or importers 
with incomplete 1998-1999 data?

    (a)(1) A refinery or importer must use the methodology specified at 
Sec. 80.695 for determining a benzene baseline if it has benzene 
measurements on every batch of gasoline produced or imported for 12 or 
more consecutive months during January 1, 1998 through December 31, 
1999.
    (2) The determination in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is made 
separately for each type of gasoline listed at Sec. 80.595(a)(2) 
produced or imported during January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999.
    (3) All consecutive and non-consecutive batch benzene measurements 
during January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999 are to be included in 
the baseline determination, unless the refinery or importer petitions 
EPA to exclude such data on the basis of data quality, per 
Sec. 80.91(d)(6) and receives permission from EPA to exclude such data.
    (b) A refinery or importer that has benzene measurements on every 
batch of gasoline produced or imported for less than 12 consecutive 
months during January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999 shall have the 
following benzene values as its benzene baseline for the purposes of 
this subpart:
    (1) [Reserved]
    (2) For conventional gasoline, 1.11 vol% benzene.


Secs. 80.710-80.725  [Reserved]

Sampling, Testing and Retention Requirements for Refiners and Importers


Sec. 80.730  What are the sampling and testing requirements for 
refiners and importers?

    (a) Sample and test each batch of gasoline. (1) Beginning January 
1, 2002, refiners and importers shall collect a representative sample 
from each batch of gasoline produced or imported and test each sample 
to determine its benzene content for compliance with requirements under 
this subpart prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import 
facility, using the sampling and testing methods provided in this 
section.
    (2) For purposes of meeting the sampling and testing requirements 
of this section for conventional gasoline, any refiner may, prior to 
analysis, combine samples of gasoline from more than one batch of 
gasoline or blendstock and treat such composite sample as one batch of 
gasoline or blendstock pursuant to the requirements of 
Sec. 80.101(i)(2).
    (3) Any refiner who produces reformulated gasoline or conventional 
gasoline using computer-controlled in-line blending equipment may meet 
the testing requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section under the 
terms of an exemption granted under Sec. 80.65(f)(4).
    (b) Sampling methods. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this 
section, refiners and importers shall sample each batch of gasoline by 
using one of the following methods:
    (1) Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall be performed 
according to the applicable procedures specified in one of the two 
following methods:
    (i) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method D 
4057-95, entitled ``Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum 
and Petroleum Products.''
    (ii) Samples collected under the applicable procedures in ASTM 
method D 5842-95, entitled ``Standard Practice for Sampling and 
Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement,'' may be used for 
measuring benzene content if there is no contamination present that 
could affect the benzene test result.
    (2) Automatic sampling of petroleum products in pipelines shall be 
performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM 
method D 4177-95, entitled ``Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling 
of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
    (c) Test method for measuring the benzene content of gasoline. (1) 
For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers 
shall use the method provided in Sec. 80.46(e) to measure the benzene 
content of gasoline they produce or import.
    (2) Except as provided in Sec. 80.750 and in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, any ASTM benzene test method for liquefied fuels may be 
used for quality assurance testing under Sec. 80.800, if the protocols 
of the ASTM method are followed and the alternative method is 
correlated to the method provided in Sec. 80.46(e).
    (d) Incorporations by reference. ASTM standard practices D 4057-95, 
D 4177-95 and D 5842-95 are incorporated by reference. These 
incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Copies may 
be inspected at the Air Docket Section (LE-131), room M-1500, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-97-03, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.


Sec. 80.735  What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to 
refiners and importers?

    (a) Sample retention requirements. Beginning January 1, 2002, any 
refiner or importer shall:
    (1) Collect a representative portion of each sample of a batch or 
composite batch analyzed under Sec. 80.730(a), of at least 330 ml in 
volume;
    (2) Retain sample portions for the most recent 20 samples 
collected, or for each sample collected during the most recent 21 day 
period, whichever is greater;
    (3) Comply with the gasoline sample handling and storage procedures 
under Sec. 80.730(b) for each sample portion retained; and
    (4) Comply with any request by EPA to:
    (i) Provide a retained sample portion to the Administrator's 
authorized representative; and
    (ii) Ship a retained sample portion to EPA, within 2 working days 
of the date of the request, by an overnight shipping service or 
comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified by 
EPA, and accompanied with the benzene test result for the sample 
determined under Sec. 80.730(a).
    (b) Sample retention requirement for samples subject to independent 
analysis requirements. (1) Any refiner or importer who meets the 
independent analysis requirements under Sec. 80.65(f) for any batch of 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB will have met the requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section, provided the independent laboratory 
meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for the 
gasoline batch.
    (2) For samples retained by an independent laboratory under 
paragraph (b) of this section, the test results required to be 
submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall be the test results 
determined under Sec. 80.65(e).
    (c) Sampling compliance certification. Any refiner or importer 
shall include with each annual report filed under Sec. 80.770, the 
following statement, which must accurately reflect the facts and must 
be signed and dated by the same person who signs the annual report:

    I certify that I have made inquiries that are sufficient to give 
me knowledge of the procedures to collect and store gasoline 
samples, and I further certify that the procedures meet the 
requirements of the ASTM procedures required under 40 CFR 80.730.

[[Page 48097]]

Sec. 80.740  What requirements apply to refiners producing gasoline by 
blending blendstocks into previously certified gasoline (PCG)?

    (a) Any refiner who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into 
PCG must meet the requirements of Sec. 80.730 to sample and test every 
batch of gasoline as follows:
    (1) Sample and test to determine the volume and benzene content of 
the PCG prior to blendstock blending.
    (2) Sample and test to determine the volume and benzene content of 
the gasoline subsequent to blendstock blending.
    (3) Calculate the volume and benzene content of the blendstock, by 
subtracting the volume and benzene content of the PCG from the volume 
and benzene content of the gasoline subsequent to blendstock blending. 
The blendstock is a batch for purposes of compliance calculations and 
reporting.
    (b) In the alternative, a refiner may sample and test each batch of 
blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and 
benzene content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch 
for purposes of compliance calculations for the annual average benzene 
standard and for reporting.


Sec. 80.745  [Reserved]


Sec. 80.750  What alternative benzene requirements apply to importers 
who transport gasoline by truck?

    Importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck may 
comply with the following requirements instead of the requirements to 
sample and test every batch of gasoline under Sec. 80.730:
    (a) Standards. The imported gasoline must comply with the 
applicable average standards under Sec. 80.595(a).
    (b) Terminal testing. The importer may use test results for benzene 
content testing conducted by the terminal operator, for gasoline 
contained in the storage tank from which trucks used to transport 
gasoline into the United States are loaded, for purposes of 
demonstrating compliance with the standards in paragraph (a) of this 
section, provided the following conditions are met:
    (1) The sampling and testing shall be performed after each receipt 
of gasoline into the storage tank, or immediately before each transfer 
of gasoline to the importer's truck.
    (2) The sampling and testing shall be performed using the methods 
specified in Secs. 80.730(b) and 80.46(e), respectively.
    (3) At the time of each transfer of gasoline to the importer's 
truck for import to the U.S., the importer must obtain a copy of the 
terminal test result that indicates the benzene content of the truck 
load.
    (c) Quality assurance program. The importer must conduct a quality 
assurance program, as specified in this paragraph, for each truck 
loading terminal.
    (1) Quality assurance samples must be obtained from the truck-
loading terminal and tested by the importer, or by an independent 
laboratory, and the terminal operator must not know in advance when 
samples are to be collected.
    (2) The sampling and testing must be performed using the methods 
specified in Secs. 80.730(b) and 80.46(e), respectively.
    (3)(i) The quality assurance test results for benzene must differ 
from the terminal test result by no more than the ASTM reproducibility 
of the terminal's test results, as determined by the following 
equation:


R = 0.13 (B) + 0.05, for 0.1 B1.5 vol%

R = 0.28 (B), for B>1.5 vol%


Where:

R = ASTM reproducibility.
B = Benzene content based on the terminal's test result.
    (ii) For measured benzene levels less than 0.1 vol%, use 0.1 vol% 
in the equation in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
    (4) The frequency of the quality assurance sampling and testing 
must be at least one sample for each fifty of an importer's trucks that 
are loaded at a terminal, or one sample per month, whichever is more 
frequent.
    (d) Party required to conduct quality assurance testing. The 
quality assurance program under paragraph (c) of this section shall be 
conducted by the importer. In the alternative, this testing may be 
conducted by an independent laboratory that meets the criteria under 
Sec. 80.65(f)(2)(iii), provided the importer receives, no later than 21 
days after the sample was taken, copies of all results of tests 
conducted.
    (e) Assignment of batch numbers. The importer must treat each truck 
load of imported gasoline as a separate batch for purposes of assigning 
batch numbers and maintaining records under Sec. 80.765, and reporting 
under Sec. 80.770.
    (f) EPA inspections of terminals. EPA inspectors or auditors, and 
auditors conducting attest engagements under Sec. 80.815, must be given 
full and immediate access to the truck-loading terminal and any 
laboratory at which samples of gasoline collected at the terminal are 
analyzed, and must be allowed to conduct inspections, review records, 
collect gasoline samples, and perform audits. These inspections or 
audits may be either announced or unannounced.
    (g) Certified Benzene-FRGAS. This section does not apply to 
Certified Benzene-FRGAS.
    (h) Effect of noncompliance. If any of the requirements of this 
section are not met, all gasoline imported by the truck importer during 
the time any requirements are not met is deemed in violation of the 
gasoline benzene average standards in Sec. 80.595, as applicable. 
Additionally, if any requirement is not met, EPA may notify the 
importer of the violation and, if the requirement is not fulfilled 
within 10 days of notification, the truck importer may not in the 
future use the sampling and testing provisions in this section in lieu 
of the provisions in Sec. 80.730.


Secs. 80.755-80.760  [Reserved]

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements


Sec. 80.765  What records must be kept?

    (a) Records that must be kept. Beginning January 1, 2002, any 
person who produces, imports, sells, offers for sale, dispenses, 
distributes, supplies, offers for supply, stores, or transports 
gasoline, shall keep records that contain the following information:
    (1) The product transfer document information required under 
Secs. 80.77 and 80.106;
    (2) For any sampling and testing for benzene content required under 
this subpart:
    (i) The location, date, time and storage tank or truck 
identification for each sample collected;
    (ii) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and 
the person who performed the test;
    (iii) The results of the test as originally printed by the testing 
apparatus, or where no printed result is produced, the results as 
originally recorded by the person who performed the test; and
    (iv) Any record that contains a test result for the sample that is 
not identical to the result recorded under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of 
this section.
    (b) Additional records that refiners and importers must keep. 
Beginning January 1, 2002, any refiner for each of its refineries, and 
any importer for the gasoline it imports, shall keep records that 
include the following information:
    (1) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported:
    (i) The batch volume;
    (ii) The batch number assigned under Sec. 80.65(d)(3) and the 
appropriate designation under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of

[[Page 48098]]

this section; except that if composite samples of conventional gasoline 
representing multiple batches are tested under Sec. 80.101(i)(2) for 
anti-dumping compliance purposes, for purposes of this subpart a 
separate batch number must be assigned to each batch using the batch 
numbering procedures under Sec. 80.65(d)(3);
    (iii) The date of production or importation; and
    (iv) If appropriate, the designation of the batch as California 
gasoline under Sec. 80.625, exempt gasoline for research and 
development under Sec. 80.780, or for export outside the United States.
    (2) The calculations used to determine the applicable baseline 
under Sec. 80.695.
    (3) The calculations used to determine compliance with the 
applicable benzene average standards of Sec. 80.595.
    (4) A copy of all reports submitted to EPA under Sec. 80.770.
    (c) Additional records importers must keep. Any importer shall keep 
records that identify and verify the source of each batch of Certified 
Benzene-FRGAS and Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS imported and demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements for importers under Sec. 80.810(o).
    (d) Length of time records must be kept. The records required in 
this section shall be kept for five years from the date they were 
created.
    (e) Make records available to EPA. On request by EPA the records 
required in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section shall be 
provided to the Administrator's authorized representative. For records 
that are electronically generated or maintained the equipment and 
software necessary to read the records shall be made available, or upon 
approval by EPA, electronic records shall be converted to paper 
documents which shall be provided to the Administrator's authorized 
representative.


Sec. 80.770  What are the benzene reporting requirements?

    Beginning with the 2002 averaging period, and continuing for each 
averaging period thereafter, any refiner or importer shall submit to 
EPA annual reports that contain the information required in this 
section, and such other information as EPA may require.
    (a) Refiner and importer annual reports. Any refiner, for each of 
its refineries and/or aggregate(s) of refineries, and any importer for 
the gasoline it imports, shall submit a report for each calendar year 
averaging period that includes the following information for each type 
of gasoline specified at Sec. 80.595(a)(2), as applicable:
    (1) The EPA importer, or refiner and refinery facility registration 
numbers;
    (2) The applicable standard under Sec. 80.595;
    (3) The total volume of gasoline produced or imported;
    (4) The annual average benzene content of the gasoline produced or 
imported;
    (5) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported during the 
averaging period:
    (i) The batch number assigned under Sec. 80.65(d)(3) and the 
appropriate designation under Sec. 80.75; except that if composite 
samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple batches produced 
are tested under Sec. 80.101(i)(2) for anti-dumping compliance 
purposes, for purposes of this subpart a separate batch number must be 
assigned to each batch using the batch numbering procedures under 
Sec. 80.65(d)(3);
    (ii) The date the batch was produced;
    (iii) The volume of the batch; and
    (iv) The benzene content of the batch as determined under 
Sec. 80.730; and
    (6) When submitting reports under this paragraph (a) of this 
section, any importer shall exclude Certified Benzene-FRGAS under 
Sec. 80.810.
    (b) Additional reporting requirements for importers. Any importer 
shall report the following information for Benzene-FRGAS imported 
during the averaging period:
    (1) The EPA refiner and refinery registration numbers of each 
foreign refiner and refinery where the Certified Benzene-FRGAS was 
produced; and
    (2) The total gallons of Certified Benzene-FRGAS and Non-Certified 
Benzene-FRGAS imported from each foreign refiner and refinery.
    (c) Report submission. Any annual report required under this 
section shall be:
    (1) Signed and certified as meeting all of the applicable 
requirements of this subpart by the owner or a responsible corporate 
officer of the refiner or importer; and
    (2) Submitted to EPA no later than the last day of February for the 
prior calendar year averaging period.
    (d) Attest reports. Attest reports for refiner and importer attest 
engagements required under Sec. 80.85 shall be submitted to the 
Administrator by May 31 of each year for the prior calendar year 
averaging period.
Exemptions


Sec. 80.775  What if a refiner or importer is unable to produce 
gasoline conforming to the requirements of this subpart?

    In appropriate extreme and unusual circumstances (e.g., natural 
disaster or Act of God) which are clearly outside the control of the 
refiner or importer and which could not have been avoided by the 
exercise of prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA may permit a refiner 
or importer, for a brief period, to distribute gasoline which does not 
meet the requirements of this subpart provided the refiner or importer 
meets all the criteria, requirements and conditions contained in 
Sec. 80.73 (a) through (e).


Sec. 80.780  What are the requirements for obtaining an exemption for 
gasoline used for research, development or testing purposes?

    Any person may request an exemption from the provisions of this 
subpart for gasoline used for research, development or testing 
(``R&D'') purposes by submitting to EPA an application that includes 
all the information listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (a) Criteria for an R&D exemption. For an R&D exemption to be 
granted, the proposed test program must:
    (1) Have a purpose that constitutes an appropriate basis for 
exemption;
    (2) Necessitate the granting of an exemption;
    (3) Be reasonable in scope; and
    (4) Have a degree of control consistent with the purpose of the 
program and EPA's monitoring requirements.
    (b) Information required to be submitted. To demonstrate each of 
the four elements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section, the 
application required under this section must include the following 
information:
    (1) A statement of the purpose of the program demonstrating that 
the program has an appropriate R&D purpose.
    (2) An explanation of why the stated purpose of the program cannot 
be achieved in a practicable manner without performing one or more of 
the prohibited acts under Sec. 80.785.
    (3) To demonstrate the reasonableness of the scope of the program:
    (i) An estimate of the program's beginning and ending dates;
    (ii) An estimate of the maximum number of vehicles and engines 
involved in the program, and the number of miles and engine hours that 
will be accumulated on each;
    (iii) The benzene content of the gasoline expected to be used in 
the program; and
    (iv) The quantity of gasoline that exceeds the applicable benzene 
standard that is expected to be used in the program.
    (4) With regard to control, a demonstration that the program 
affords EPA a monitoring capability, including at a minimum:
    (i) A description of the technical and operational aspects of the 
program;

[[Page 48099]]

    (ii) The site(s) of the program (including street address, city, 
county, state, and zip code);
    (iii) The manner in which information on vehicles and engines used 
in the program will be recorded and made available to EPA;
    (iv) The manner in which results of the program will be recorded 
and made available to EPA;
    (v) The manner in which information on the gasoline used in the 
program (including quantity, benzene content, name, address, telephone 
number and contact person of the supplier, and the date received from 
the supplier), will be recorded and made available to EPA;
    (vi) The manner in which distribution pumps will be labeled to 
insure proper use of the gasoline where appropriate;
    (vii) The name, address, telephone number and title of the 
person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption from whom further 
information on the application may be obtained; and
    (viii) The name, address, telephone number and title of the 
person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption who is 
responsible for recording and making available the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v) of this section, and 
the location in which such information will be maintained.
    (c) Additional requirements. (1) The product transfer documents 
associated with R&D gasoline must identify the gasoline as such, and 
must state that the gasoline is to be used only for research, 
development, or testing purposes.
    (2) The R&D gasoline must be designated by the refiner or importer 
as exempt R&D gasoline.
    (3) The R&D gasoline must be kept segregated from non-exempt 
gasoline at all points in the distribution system of the gasoline.
    (4) The R&D gasoline must not be sold, distributed, offered for 
sale or distribution, dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, 
transported to or from, or stored by a gasoline retail outlet, or by a 
wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, unless the wholesale purchaser-
consumer facility is associated with the R&D program that uses the 
gasoline.
    (d) Memorandum of exemption. The Administrator will grant an R&D 
exemption upon a demonstration that the requirements of this section 
have been met. The R&D exemption will be granted in the form of a 
memorandum of exemption signed by the applicant and the Administrator 
(or delegate), which may include such terms and conditions as the 
Administrator determines necessary to monitor the exemption and to 
carry out the purposes of this section, including restoration of motor 
vehicle emissions control systems. Any violation of such a term or 
condition of the exemption or any requirement under this section will 
cause the exemption to be void ab initio.
    (e) Effects of exemption. Gasoline that is subject to an R&D 
exemption under this section is exempt from other provisions of this 
subpart provided that the gasoline is used in a manner that complies 
with the memorandum of exemption granted under paragraph (d) of this 
section.
Violation Provisions


Sec. 80.785  What acts are prohibited under the gasoline benzene 
program?

    No person shall:
    (a) Averaging violation. Produce or import gasoline that does not 
comply with the applicable benzene average standard under Sec. 80.595.
    (b) Causing an averaging use violation. Cause another person to 
commit an act in violation of paragraph (a) of this section.


Sec. 80.790  What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the 
prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for 
violations of this subpart?

    (a) Compliance with the benzene standards of this subpart shall be 
determined based on the benzene level of the gasoline, measured using 
the methodologies specified in Secs. 80.730(b) and 80.46(e). Any 
evidence or information, including the exclusive use of such evidence 
or information, may be used to establish the benzene level of gasoline 
if the evidence or information is relevant to whether the benzene level 
of gasoline would have been in compliance with the standards if the 
appropriate sampling and testing methodology had been correctly 
performed. Such evidence may be obtained from any source or location 
and may include, but is not limited to, test results using methods 
other than those specified in Secs. 80.46(e) and 80.730(b), business 
records, and commercial documents.
    (b) Determinations of compliance with the requirements of this 
subpart other than the benzene standards, and determinations of 
liability for any violation of this subpart, may be based on 
information obtained from any source or location. Such information may 
include, but is not limited to, business records and commercial 
documents.


Sec. 80.795  Who is liable for violations under the gasoline benzene 
program?

    (a) Persons liable for violations of prohibited acts.--(1) 
Averaging violation. Any refiner or importer who violates 
Sec. 80.785(a) is liable for the violation.
    (2) Causing an averaging violation. Any refiner or importer who 
causes another party to violate Sec. 80.785(a), is liable for a 
violation of Sec. 80.785(b).
    (3) Parent corporation liability. Any parent corporation is liable 
for any violations of this subpart that are committed by any of its 
wholly-owned subsidiaries.
    (4) Joint venture liability. Each partner to a joint venture is 
jointly and severally liable for any violation of this subpart that 
occurs at the joint venture facility or is committed by the joint 
venture operation.
    (b) Persons liable for failure to meet other provisions of this 
subpart. (1) Any refiner or importer who fails to meet a provision of 
this subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section is liable 
for a violation of that provision.
    (2) Any refiner or importer who caused another person to fail to 
meet a requirement of this subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of 
this section, is liable for causing a violation of that provision.


Sec. 80.800  [Reserved]


Sec. 80.805  What penalties apply under this subpart?

    (a) Any person liable for a violation under Sec. 80.795 is subject 
to civil penalties as specified in section 205 of the Clean Air Act for 
every day of each such violation and the amount of economic benefit or 
savings resulting from each violation.
    (b) Any person liable under Sec. 80.795(a)(1) or (2) for a 
violation of the applicable benzene averaging standard or causing 
another party to violate that standard during any averaging period, is 
subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the 
averaging period.
    (c) Any person liable under Sec. 80.795(b) for failure to meet, or 
causing a failure to meet, a provision of this subpart is liable for a 
separate day of violation for each and every day such provision remains 
unfulfilled.
Provisions for Foreign Refiners With Individual Benzene Baselines


Sec. 80.810  What are the additional requirements for gasoline produced 
at foreign refineries having individual refiner benzene baselines?

    (a) Definitions. (1) A foreign refinery is a refinery that is 
located outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana

[[Page 48100]]

Islands (collectively referred to in this section as ``the United 
States'').
    (2) A foreign refiner is a person who meets the definition of 
refiner under Sec. 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.
    (3) Benzene-FRGAS means gasoline produced at a foreign refinery 
that has been assigned an individual refinery benzene baseline under 
Sec. 80.695 and that is imported into the U.S.
    (4) Non-Benzene-FRGAS means gasoline that is produced at a foreign 
refinery that has not been assigned an individual refinery benzene 
baseline, gasoline produced at a foreign refinery with an individual 
refinery benzene baseline that is not imported into the United States, 
and gasoline produced at a foreign refinery with an individual benzene 
baseline during a year when the foreign refiner has opted to not 
participate in the Benzene-FRGAS program under paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section.
    (5) Certified Benzene-FRGAS means Benzene-FRGAS the foreign refiner 
intends to include in the foreign refinery's benzene compliance 
calculations under Sec. 80.605, and does include in these compliance 
calculations when reported to EPA.
    (6) Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS means Benzene-FRGAS that is not 
Certified Benzene-FRGAS.
    (b) Baseline establishment. Any foreign refiner may submit a 
petition to the Administrator for an individual refinery benzene 
baseline pursuant to Sec. 80.695.
    (1) The refiner shall follow the procedures specified in 
Secs. 80.91 through 80.93 to establish the volume and benzene content 
of gasoline that was produced at the foreign refinery and imported into 
the United States during 1998 and 1999 for purposes of establishing a 
benzene baseline under Sec. 80.695.
    (2) In making determinations for foreign refinery baselines, EPA 
will consider all information supplied by a foreign refiner, and in 
addition may rely on any and all appropriate assumptions necessary to 
make such determinations.
    (3) Where a foreign refiner submits a petition that is incomplete 
or inadequate to establish an accurate baseline, and the refiner fails 
to cure this defect after a request for more information, EPA will not 
assign an individual refinery benzene baseline.
    (c) General requirements for foreign refiners with individual 
refinery benzene baselines. A foreign refiner of a refinery that has 
been assigned an individual benzene baseline according to Sec. 80.695 
must designate all gasoline produced at the foreign refinery that is 
exported to the United States as either Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as 
Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section.
    (1) In the case of Certified Benzene-FRGAS, the foreign refiner 
must meet all provisions that apply to refiners under this subpart.
    (2) In the case of Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, the foreign refiner 
shall meet all the following provisions, except the foreign refiner 
shall substitute the name Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS for the names 
``reformulated gasoline'' or ``RBOB'' wherever they appear in the 
following provisions:
    (i) The designation requirements in this section.
    (ii) The recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 80.765.
    (iii) The reporting requirements in Sec. 80.770 and this section.
    (iv) The product transfer document requirements in this section.
    (vi) The prohibitions in this section and Sec. 80.785.
    (vii) The independent audit requirements under Sec. 80.815, 
paragraph (h) of this section, Secs. 80.125 through 80.127, 80.128(a), 
(b), (c), (g) through (i), and 80.130.
    (3)(i) Any foreign refiner that has been assigned an individual 
benzene baseline for a foreign refinery under Sec. 80.695 may elect to 
classify no gasoline imported into the United States as Benzene-FRGAS, 
provided the foreign refiner notifies EPA of the election no later than 
November 1 of the prior calendar year.
    (ii) An election under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section shall:
    (A) Apply to an entire calendar year averaging period, and apply to 
all gasoline produced during the calendar year at the foreign refinery 
that is used in the United States; and
    (B) Remain in effect for each succeeding calendar year averaging 
period, unless and until the foreign refiner notifies EPA of a 
termination of the election. The change in election shall take effect 
at the beginning of the next calendar year.
    (d) Designation, product transfer documents, and foreign refiner 
certification. (1) Any foreign refiner of a foreign refinery that has 
been assigned an individual benzene baseline must designate each batch 
of Benzene-FRGAS as such at the time the gasoline is produced, unless 
the refiner has elected to classify no gasoline exported to the United 
States as Benzene-FRGAS under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
    (2) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to 
any Benzene-FRGAS prior to its being imported into the United States, 
it must include the following information as part of the product 
transfer document information in this section:
    (i) Identification of the gasoline as Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as 
Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS; and
    (ii) The name and EPA refinery registration number of the refinery 
where the Benzene-FRGAS was produced.
    (3) On each occasion when Benzene-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or 
other transportation mode for transport to the United States, the 
foreign refiner shall prepare a certification for each batch of the 
Benzene-FRGAS that meets the following requirements:
    (i) The certification shall include the report of the independent 
third party under paragraph (f) of this section, and the following 
additional information:
    (A) The name and EPA registration number of the refinery that 
produced the Benzene-FRGAS;
    (B) The identification of the gasoline as Certified Benzene-FRGAS 
or Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS;
    (C) The volume of Benzene-FRGAS being transported, in gallons;
    (D) In the case of Certified Benzene-FRGAS:
    (1) The benzene content as determined under paragraph (f) of this 
section; and
    (2) A declaration that the Benzene-FRGAS is being included in the 
compliance calculations under Sec. 80.605 for the refinery that 
produced the Benzene-FRGAS.
    (ii) The certification shall be made part of the product transfer 
documents for the Benzene-FRGAS.
    (e) Transfers of Benzene-FRGAS to non-United States markets. The 
foreign refiner is responsible to ensure that all gasoline classified 
as Benzene-FRGAS is imported into the United States. A foreign refiner 
may remove the Benzene-FRGAS classification, and the gasoline need not 
be imported into the United States, but only if:
    (1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes:
    (A) The volume of gasoline from the refinery's compliance 
calculations under Sec. 80.605; and
    (B) In the case of Certified Benzene-FRGAS, the volume and benzene 
content of the gasoline from the compliance calculations under 
Sec. 80.605.
    (ii) The exclusions under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall 
be on the basis of the benzene content and volumes determined under 
paragraph (f) of this section; and
    (2) The foreign refiner obtains sufficient evidence in the form of 
documentation that the gasoline was not imported into the United 
States.

[[Page 48101]]

    (f) Load port independent sampling, testing and refinery 
identification. (1) On each occasion Benzene-FRGAS is loaded onto a 
vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have 
an independent third party:
    (i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading and determine the volume of 
any tank bottoms;
    (ii) Determine the volume of Benzene-FRGAS loaded onto the vessel 
(exclusive of any tank bottoms present before vessel loading);
    (iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign 
refinery;
    (iv) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel 
used to transport the Benzene-FRGAS to the United States; and
    (v) Determine the date and time the vessel departs the port serving 
the foreign refinery.
    (2) On each occasion Certified Benzene-FRGAS is loaded onto a 
vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have 
an independent third party:
    (i) Collect a representative sample of the Certified Benzene-FRGAS 
from each vessel compartment subsequent to loading on the vessel and 
prior to departure of the vessel from the port serving the foreign 
refinery;
    (ii) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the 
compartment samples, and determine the value for benzene using the 
methodology specified in Sec. 80.730 by:
    (A) The third party analyzing the sample; or
    (B) The third party observing the foreign refiner analyze the 
sample; and
    (iii) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage 
of the Certified Benzene-FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, and 
from this review determine:
    (A) The refinery at which the Benzene-FRGAS was produced; and
    (B) That the Benzene-FRGAS remained segregated from:
    (1) Non-Benzene-FRGAS and Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS; and
    (2) Other Certified Benzene-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
    (3) The independent third party shall submit a report:
    (i) To the foreign refiner containing the information required 
under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, to accompany the 
product transfer documents for the vessel; and
    (ii) To the Administrator containing the information required under 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, within thirty days following 
the date of the independent third party's inspection. This report shall 
include a description of the method used to determine the identity of 
the refinery at which the gasoline was produced, assurance that the 
gasoline remained segregated as specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this 
section, and a description of the gasoline's movement and storage 
between production at the source refinery and vessel loading.
    (4) The independent third party must:
    (i) Be approved in advance by EPA, based on a demonstration of 
ability to perform the procedures required in this paragraph (f);
    (ii) Be independent under the criteria specified in 
Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(iii); and
    (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in 
paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities, facilities and 
documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of this 
paragraph (f).
    (g) Comparison of load port and port of entry testing. (1)(i) 
Except as described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, any 
foreign refiner and any United States importer of Certified Benzene-
FRGAS shall compare the results from the load port testing under 
paragraph (f) of this section, with the port of entry testing as 
reported under paragraph (o) of this section, for the volume of 
gasoline and the benzene value.
    (ii) Where a vessel transporting Certified Benzene-FRGAS off loads 
this gasoline at more than one United States port of entry, and the 
conditions of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met at the first 
United States port of entry, the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of 
this section do not apply at subsequent ports of entry if the United 
States importer obtains a certification from the vessel owner, that 
meets the requirements of paragraph (s) of this section, that the 
vessel has not loaded any gasoline or blendstock between the first 
United States port of entry and the subsequent port of entry.
    (2)(i) The requirements of this paragraph (g)(2) apply if:
    (A) The temperature-corrected volumes determined at the port of 
entry and at the load port differ by more than one percent; or
    (B) The benzene value determined at the port of entry is higher 
than the benzene value determined at the load port, and the amount of 
this difference is greater than the reproducibility amount specified 
for the port of entry test result by the American Society of Testing 
and Materials (ASTM).
    (ii) The United States importer and the foreign refiner shall treat 
the gasoline as Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, and the foreign refiner 
shall exclude the gasoline volume and properties from its gasoline 
benzene compliance calculations under Sec. 80.605.
    (h) Attest requirements. The following additional procedures shall 
be carried out by any foreign refiner of Benzene-FRGAS as part of the 
applicable attest engagement for each foreign refinery under 
Sec. 80.815:
    (1) The inventory reconciliation analysis under Sec. 80.128(b) and 
the tender analysis under Sec. 80.128(c) shall include Non-Benzene-
FRGAS in addition to the gasoline types listed in Sec. 80.128(b) and 
(c).
    (2) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Certified Benzene-
FRGAS, and of Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS. Agree the total volume of 
tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory reconciliation 
analysis in Sec. 80.128(b), and to the volumes determined by the third 
party under paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (3) For each tender under paragraph (h)(2) of this section where 
the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as a finding the 
name and country of registration of each vessel, and the volumes of 
Benzene-FRGAS loaded onto each vessel.
    (4) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified Benzene-
FRGAS, in accordance with the guidelines in Sec. 80.127, and for each 
vessel selected perform the following:
    (i) Obtain the report of the independent third party, under 
paragraph (f) of this section, and of the United States importer under 
paragraph (o) of this section.
    (A) Agree the information in these reports with regard to vessel 
identification, gasoline volumes and test results.
    (B) Identify, and report as a finding, each occasion the load port 
and port of entry parameter and volume results differ by more than the 
amounts allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, and determine whether 
the foreign refiner adjusted its refinery calculations as required in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (ii) Obtain the documents used by the independent third party to 
determine transportation and storage of the Certified Benzene-FRGAS 
from the refinery to the load port, under paragraph (f) of this 
section. Obtain tank activity records for any storage tank where the 
Certified Benzene-FRGAS is stored, and pipeline activity records for 
any pipeline used to transport the Certified Benzene-FRGAS, prior to 
being loaded onto the vessel. Use these records to determine whether 
the Certified Benzene-FRGAS was produced at the refinery that is the 
subject of the

[[Page 48102]]

attest engagement, and whether the Certified Benzene-FRGAS was mixed 
with any Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, Non-Benzene-FRGAS, or any 
Certified Benzene-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
    (5)(i) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified and Non-
Certified Benzene-FRGAS, in accordance with the guidelines in 
Sec. 80.127, and for each vessel selected perform the following:
    (ii) Obtain a commercial document of general circulation that lists 
vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port and date of 
departure of the vessel, and the port of entry and date of arrival of 
the vessel. Agree the vessel's departure and arrival locations and 
dates from the independent third party and United States importer 
reports to the information contained in the commercial document.
    (6) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Non-Benzene-FRGAS, 
and perform the following:
    (i) Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the 
gasoline inventory reconciliation analysis in Sec. 80.128(b).
    (ii) Obtain a separate listing of the tenders under this paragraph 
(h)(6) where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel. Select a 
sample from this listing in accordance with the guidelines in 
Sec. 80.127, and obtain a commercial document of general circulation 
that lists vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port 
and date of departure and the ports and dates where the gasoline was 
off loaded for the selected vessels. Determine and report as a finding 
the country where the gasoline was off loaded for each vessel selected.
    (7) In order to complete the requirements of this paragraph (h) an 
auditor shall:
    (i) Be independent of the foreign refiner;
    (ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the United 
States and a citizen of the United States, or be approved in advance by 
EPA based on a demonstration of ability to perform the procedures 
required in Secs. 80.125 through 130 and this paragraph (h); and
    (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in 
paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities and documents 
relevant to compliance with the requirements of Secs. 80.125 through 
80.130, Sec. 80.815 and this paragraph (h).
    (i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any foreign refiner shall commit 
to and comply with the provisions contained in this paragraph (i) as a 
condition to being assigned an individual refinery benzene baseline.
    (1) Any United States Environmental Protection Agency inspector or 
auditor will be given full, complete and immediate access to conduct 
inspections and audits of the foreign refinery.
    (i) Inspections and audits may be either announced in advance by 
EPA, or unannounced.
    (ii) Access will be provided to any location where:
    (A) Gasoline is produced;
    (B) Documents related to refinery operations are kept;
    (C) Gasoline or blendstock samples are tested or stored; and
    (D) Benzene-FRGAS is stored or transported between the foreign 
refinery and the United States, including storage tanks, vessels and 
pipelines.
    (iii) Inspections and audits may be by EPA employees or contractors 
to EPA.
    (iv) Any documents requested that are related to matters covered by 
inspections and audits will be provided to an EPA inspector or auditor 
on request.
    (v) Inspections and audits by EPA may include review and copying of 
any documents related to:
    (A) Refinery baseline establishment, including the volume and 
benzene content, and transfers of title or custody, of any gasoline or 
blendstocks, whether Benzene-FRGAS or Non-benzene-FRGAS, produced at 
the foreign refinery during the period January 1, 1998 through the date 
of the refinery baseline petition or through the date of the inspection 
or audit if a baseline petition has not been approved, and any work 
papers related to refinery baseline establishment;
    (B) The volume and benzene content of Benzene-FRGAS;
    (C) The proper classification of gasoline as being Benzene-FRGAS or 
as not being Benzene-FRGAS, or as Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-
Certified Benzene-FRGAS;
    (D) Transfers of title or custody to Benzene-FRGAS;
    (E) Sampling and testing of Benzene-FRGAS;
    (F) Work performed and reports prepared by independent third 
parties and by independent auditors under the requirements of this 
section and Sec. 80.815 including work papers; and
    (G) Reports prepared for submission to EPA, and any work papers 
related to such reports.
    (vi) Inspections and audits by EPA may include taking samples of 
gasoline or blendstock, and interviewing employees.
    (vii) Any employee of the foreign refiner will be made available 
for interview by the EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within a 
reasonable time period.
    (viii) English language translations of any documents will be 
provided to an EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within 10 working 
days.
    (ix) English language interpreters will be provided to accompany 
EPA inspectors and auditors, on request.
    (2) An agent for service of process located in the District of 
Columbia will be named, and service on this agent constitutes service 
on the foreign refiner or any employee of the foreign refiner for any 
action by EPA or otherwise by the United States related to the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (3) The forum for any civil or criminal enforcement action related 
to the provisions of this section for violations of the Clean Air Act 
or regulations promulgated thereunder shall be governed by the Clean 
Air Act, including the EPA administrative forum where allowed under the 
Clean Air Act.
    (4) United States substantive and procedural laws shall apply to 
any civil or criminal enforcement action against the foreign refiner or 
any employee of the foreign refiner related to the provisions of this 
section.
    (5) Submitting a petition for an individual refinery benzene 
baseline, producing and exporting gasoline under an individual refinery 
benzene baseline, and all other actions to comply with the requirements 
of this subpart relating to the establishment and use of an individual 
refinery benzene baseline constitute actions or activities that satisfy 
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2), but solely with respect to 
actions instituted against the foreign refiner, its agents and 
employees in any court or other tribunal in the United States for 
conduct that violates the requirements applicable to the foreign 
refiner under this subpart, including conduct that violates Title 18 
U.S.C. 1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2).
    (6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or employees, will not seek 
to detain or to impose civil or criminal remedies against EPA 
inspectors or auditors, whether EPA employees or EPA contractors, for 
actions performed within the scope of EPA employment related to the 
provisions of this section.
    (7) The commitment required by this paragraph (i) shall be signed 
by the owner or president of the foreign refiner business.
    (8) In any case where Benzene-FRGAS produced at a foreign refinery 
is stored or transported by another company between the refinery and 
the vessel that transports the Benzene-FRGAS to the

[[Page 48103]]

United States, the foreign refiner shall obtain from each such other 
company a commitment that meets the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section, and these commitments 
shall be included in the foreign refiner's baseline petition.
    (j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting a petition for an individual 
foreign refinery baseline under this section, or by producing and 
exporting gasoline to the United States under an individual refinery 
benzene baseline under this section, the foreign refiner, its agents 
and employees, without exception, become subject to the full operation 
of the administrative and judicial enforcement powers and provisions of 
the United States without limitation based on sovereign immunity, with 
respect to actions instituted against the foreign refiner, its agents 
and employees in any court or other tribunal in the United States for 
conduct that violates the requirements applicable to the foreign 
refiner under this subpart, including conduct that violates Title 18 
U.S.C. 1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2).
    (k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner shall meet the requirements 
of this paragraph (k) as a condition to being assigned an individual 
refinery benzene baseline.
    (1) The foreign refiner shall annually post a bond of the amount 
calculated using the following equation:

Bond = G x $ 0.01

Where:

Bond = Amount of the bond in U.S. dollars.
G = The largest volume of gasoline produced at the foreign refinery and 
exported to the United States, in gallons, during a single calendar 
year among the five preceding calendar years.

    (2) Bonds shall be posted by:
    (i) Paying the amount of the bond to the Treasurer of the United 
States;
    (ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper amount from a third party 
surety agent that is payable to satisfy United States administrative or 
judicial judgments against the foreign refiner, provided EPA agrees in 
advance as to the third party and the nature of the surety agreement; 
or
    (iii) An alternative commitment that results in assets of an 
appropriate liquidity and value being readily available to the United 
States, provided EPA agrees in advance as to the alternative 
commitment.
    (3) If the bond amount for a foreign refinery increases, the 
foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the shortfall within 
90 days of the date the bond amount changes. If the bond amount 
decreases, the foreign refiner may reduce the amount of the bond 
beginning 90 days after the date the bond amount changes.
    (4) Bonds posted under this paragraph (k) shall:
    (i) Be used to satisfy any judicial judgment that results from an 
administrative or judicial enforcement action for conduct in violation 
of this subpart, including where such conduct violates Title 18 U.S.C. 
1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2);
    (ii) Be provided by a corporate surety that is listed in the United 
States Department of Treasury Circular 570 ``Companies Holding 
Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds'' 
(Available from the Government Printing Office or the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html); and
    (iii) Include a commitment that the bond will remain in effect for 
at least five (5) years following the end of latest averaging period 
that the foreign refiner produces gasoline pursuant to the requirements 
of this subpart.
    (5) On any occasion a foreign refiner bond is used to satisfy any 
judgment, the foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the 
amount used within 90 days of the date the bond is used.
    (l) [Reserved]
    (m) English language reports. Any report or other document 
submitted to EPA by a foreign refiner shall be in English language, or 
shall include an English language translation.
    (n) Prohibitions. (1) No person may combine Certified Benzene-FRGAS 
with any Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS or Non-Benzene-FRGAS, and no 
person may combine Certified Benzene-FRGAS with any Certified Benzene-
FRGAS produced at a different refinery, until the importer has met all 
the requirements of paragraph (o) of this section, except as provided 
in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) No foreign refiner or other person may cause another person to 
commit an action prohibited in paragraph (n)(1) of this section, or 
that otherwise violates the requirements of this section.
    (o) United States importer requirements. Any United States importer 
shall meet the following requirements:
    (1) Each batch of imported gasoline shall be classified by the 
importer as being Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-Benzene-FRGAS, and each batch 
classified as Benzene-FRGAS shall be further classified as Certified 
Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS.
    (2) Gasoline shall be classified as Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as 
Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS according to the designation by the foreign 
refiner if this designation is supported by product transfer documents 
prepared by the foreign refiner as required in paragraph (d) of this 
section, unless the gasoline is classified as Non-Certified Benzene-
FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) For each gasoline batch classified as Benzene-FRGAS, any United 
States importer shall perform the following procedures:
    (i) In the case of both Certified and Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, 
have an independent third party:
    (A) Determine the volume of gasoline in the vessel;
    (B) Use the foreign refiner's Benzene-FRGAS certification to 
determine the name and EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign 
refinery that produced the Benzene-FRGAS;
    (C) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel 
used to transport the Benzene-FRGAS to the United States; and
    (D) Determine the date and time the vessel arrives at the United 
States port of entry.
    (ii) In the case of Certified Benzene-FRGAS, have an independent 
third party:
    (A) Collect a representative sample from each vessel compartment 
subsequent to the vessel's arrival at the United States port of entry 
and prior to off loading any gasoline from the vessel;
    (B) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the 
compartment samples; and
    (C) Determine the benzene value using the methodologies specified 
in Sec. 80.730, by:
    (1) The third party analyzing the sample; or
    (2) The third party observing the importer analyze the sample.
    (4) Any importer shall submit reports within thirty days following 
the date any vessel transporting Benzene-FRGAS arrives at the United 
States port of entry:
    (i) To the Administrator containing the information determined 
under paragraph (o)(3) of this section; and
    (ii) To the foreign refiner containing the information determined 
under paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (5) Any United States importer shall meet the requirements 
specified in Sec. 80.595 for any imported gasoline that is not 
classified as Certified Benzene-FRGAS under paragraph (o)(2) of this 
section.
    (p) Truck imports of Certified Benzene-FRGAS produced at a 
refinery. (1) Any refiner whose Certified

[[Page 48104]]

Benzene-FRGAS is transported into the United States by truck may 
petition EPA to use alternative procedures to meet the following 
requirements:
    (i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5) of this section;
    (ii) Load port and port of entry sampling and testing under 
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section;
    (iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this section; and
    (iv) Importer testing under paragraph (o)(3) of this section.
    (2) These alternative procedures must ensure Certified Benzene-
FRGAS remains segregated from Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS and from Non-
Benzene-FRGAS until it is imported into the United States. The petition 
will be evaluated based on whether it adequately addresses the 
following:
    (i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline shipments, if applicable, 
from the refinery, that ensure segregation of Certified Benzene-FRGAS 
from that refinery from all other gasoline;
    (ii) Contracts with any terminals and/or pipelines that receive 
and/or transport Certified Benzene-FRGAS, that prohibit the commingling 
of Certified Benzene-FRGAS with any of the following:
    (A) Other Certified Benzene-FRGAS from other refineries.
    (B) All Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS.
    (C) All Non-Benzene-FRGAS;
    (iii) Procedures for obtaining and reviewing truck loading records 
and United States import documents for Certified Benzene-FRGAS to 
ensure that such gasoline is only loaded into trucks making deliveries 
to the United States;
    (iv) Attest procedures to be conducted annually by an independent 
third party that review loading records and import documents based on 
volume reconciliation, or other criteria, to confirm that all Certified 
Benzene-FRGAS remains segregated throughout the distribution system and 
is only loaded into trucks for import into the United States.
    (3) The petition required by this section must be submitted to EPA 
along with the application for small refiner status and individual 
refinery benzene baseline and standards under Sec. 80.240 and this 
section.
    (q) Withdrawal or suspension of a foreign refinery's baseline. EPA 
may withdraw or suspend a baseline that has been assigned to a foreign 
refinery where:
    (1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any requirement of this 
section;
    (2) A foreign government fails to allow EPA inspections as provided 
in paragraph (i)(1) of this section;
    (3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, or a right to claim, 
sovereign immunity in an action to enforce the requirements in this 
subpart; or
    (4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil or criminal penalty that 
is not satisfied using the foreign refiner bond specified in paragraph 
(k) of this section.
    (r) Early use of a foreign refinery baseline. (1) A foreign refiner 
may begin using an individual refinery baseline before EPA has approved 
the baseline, provided that:
    (i) A baseline petition has been submitted as required in paragraph 
(b) of this section;
    (ii) EPA has made a provisional finding that the baseline petition 
is complete;
    (iii) The foreign refiner has made the commitments required in 
paragraph (i) of this section;
    (iv) The persons who will meet the independent third party and 
independent attest requirements for the foreign refinery have made the 
commitments required in paragraphs (f)(3)(iii) and (h)(7)(iii) of this 
section; and
    (v) The foreign refiner has met the bond requirements of paragraph 
(k) of this section.
    (2) In any case where a foreign refiner uses an individual refinery 
baseline before final approval under paragraph (r)(1) of this section, 
and the foreign refinery baseline values that ultimately are approved 
by EPA are more stringent than the early baseline values used by the 
foreign refiner, the foreign refiner shall recalculate its compliance, 
ab initio, using the baseline values approved by EPA, and the foreign 
refiner shall be liable for any resulting violation of the gasoline 
benzene requirements.
    (s) Additional requirements for petitions, reports and 
certificates. Any petition for a refinery baseline under Sec. 80.695, 
any alternative procedures under paragraph (r) of this section, any 
report or other submission required by paragraphs (c), (f)(2), or (i) 
of this section, and any certification under paragraph (d)(3) of this 
section shall be:
    (1) Submitted in accordance with procedures specified by the 
Administrator, including use of any forms that may be specified by the 
Administrator.
    (2) Be signed by the president or owner of the foreign refiner 
company, or by that person's immediate designee, and shall contain the 
following declaration:

    I hereby certify: (1) that I have actual authority to sign on 
behalf of and to bind [insert name of foreign refiner] with regard 
to all statements contained herein; (2) that I am aware that the 
information contained herein is being certified, or submitted to the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 80, subpart I, and that the information 
is material for determining compliance under these regulations; and 
(3) that I have read and understand the information being certified 
or submitted, and this information is true, complete and correct to 
the best of my knowledge and belief after I have taken reasonable 
and appropriate steps to verify the accuracy thereof.
    I affirm that I have read and understand the provisions of 40 
CFR part 80, subpart I, including 40 CFR 80.810 [insert name of 
foreign refiner]. Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and Title 
18, United States Code, section 1001, the penalty for furnishing 
false, incomplete or misleading information in this certification or 
submission is a fine of up to $10,000, and/or imprisonment for up to 
five years.
Attest Engagements


Sec. 80.815  What are the attest engagement requirements for gasoline 
benzene compliance applicable to refiners and importers?

    In addition to the requirements for attest engagements that apply 
to refiners and importers under Secs. 80.125 through 80.130, and 
Sec. 80.810, the attest engagements for refiners and importers must 
include the following procedures and requirements each year.
    (a) Baseline. (1) Obtain the EPA benzene baseline approval letter 
for the refinery to determine the refinery's applicable benzene 
baseline and baseline volume under Sec. 80.695.
    (2) Obtain a written representation from the company representative 
stating the benzene value that the company used as its baseline and 
agree that number to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and to the 
reports to EPA.
    (b) EPA reports.(1) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or 
importer's annual benzene reports filed with EPA for the year.
    (2) Agree the yearly volume of gasoline reported to EPA in the 
benzene reports with the inventory reconciliation analysis under 
Sec. 80.128.
    (3) Calculate the annual average benzene level for all gasoline and 
agree that value with the value reported to EPA.


Sec. 80.820  [Reserved]

Additional Rulemaking


Sec. 80.825  What additional rulemaking will EPA conduct?

    No later than December 31, 2003, the Administrator shall propose 
any requirements to control hazardous air pollutants from motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle fuels that the Administrator determines are

[[Page 48105]]

appropriate pursuant to section 202(l)(2) of the Act. The Administrator 
shall take final action on the proposal no later than December 30, 
2004.

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES 
AND ENGINES

    1. The authority citation for part 86 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7521(l) and 7521(m)-7671q.

[FR Doc. 00-18640 Filed 8-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P