[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17230-17273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-37]
[[Page 17229]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 80 and 86
Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17230]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 80, and 86
[AMS-FRL-6924-1]
RIN 2060-AI55
Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile
Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action addresses emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) from motor vehicles and their fuels. Hazardous air pollutants
refer to a range of compounds that are known or suspected to have
serious health or environmental impacts. Motor vehicles are significant
contributors to national emissions of several hazardous air pollutants,
notably benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and diesel
particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
In today's action, we list 21 compounds emitted from motor vehicles
that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health
effects. Our Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) list includes various
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals, as well as diesel
particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases (collectively DPM +
DEOG). The selection methodology we used to develop this MSAT list,
which may be used to add compounds to or remove compounds from the list
in the future as new information becomes available, is also described.
In today's action we also examine the mobile source contribution to
national inventories of these emissions and the impacts of existing and
newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including our
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, our national low emission vehicle
(NLEV) standards, our Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and
gasoline sulfur control requirements, and our proposed heavy-duty
engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control
requirements. Between 1990 and 2020, we project these programs will
reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene,
and acetaldehyde by 67 to 76 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel
PM emissions by 90 percent.
This action also finalizes new gasoline toxic emission baseline
requirements which require refiners to maintain current levels of over-
compliance with toxic emissions performance standards that apply to
federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping standards that
apply to conventional gasoline (CG). Because the new baseline
requirements do not require refiners to install new equipment or use
technologies beyond what they were using in the baseline period (1998-
2000), we project that this program will impose only negligible costs.
The new baseline requirements are designed to prevent backsliding and
to ensure that existing overcompliance with current standards
continues. We are not setting additional vehicle-based air toxics
controls at this time because the technology-forcing Tier 2 light-duty
vehicle standards and those standards being developed in response to
our recent proposal for heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards
represent the greatest degree of toxics control achievable at this time
considering existing standards, the availability and cost of the
technology, and noise, energy, and safety factors, and lead time.
Finally, because of our continuing concern about the potential
health impacts of public exposure to air toxics, today's action also
describes a Technical Analysis Plan through which we will continue to
improve our understanding of the risk posed by air toxics to public
health and welfare. It will also allow us to evaluate the need for and
appropriateness of additional mobile source air toxics controls for on-
highway and nonroad sources, and their fuels. Based on the information
developed through this technical analysis plan, we will conduct a
future rulemaking, to be completed no later than July 1, 2004.
DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2001. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of May 29, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments: All comments and materials relevant to today's
action have been placed in Public Docket No. A-2000-12 at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102),
Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's Air Docket
makes materials related to this rulemaking available for review at the
above address (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall) from 8:00 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone (734) 214-4334; FAX: (734) 214-4816; E-mail:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
This action will affect entities that produce new motor vehicles,
alter individual imported motor vehicles to address U.S. regulation, or
convert motor vehicles to use alternative fuels. It will also affect
entities that produce, distribute, or sell gasoline or diesel motor
fuel.
The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to
follow the regulations. Because these are only examples, you should
carefully examine the 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
Category NAICS SIC codes potentially regulated
codes (1) (2) entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............... 336111 3711 Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers.
336112
336120
Industry............... 336112 3711 Engine and Truck
Manufacturers.
336120
Industry............... 336311 3592 Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Converters.
336312 3714
422720 5172
454312 5984
811198 7549
541514 8742
541690 8931
[[Page 17231]]
Industry............... 811112 7533 Commercial Importers
of Vehicles and
Vehicle Components.
811198 7549
541514 8742
Industry............... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refiners.
Industry............... 422710 5171 Gasoline or Diesel
Marketers and
Distributors.
422720 5172
Industry............... 484220 4212 Gasoline or Diesel
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 action is available electronically on the day of
publication from the Office of the Federal Register Internet Web site
listed below. Electronic copies of this preamble and regulatory
language as well as the Response to Comments, the Technical Support
Document (TSD) and other documents associated with today's action will
be 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.
EPA 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) Air Toxics Web
Site:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm
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. Basic Components of Today's Program
1. Identification of Mobile Source Air Toxics
2. Assessment of Emission Benefits From Current Standards
3. Consideration of Additional On-Highway Controls
4. Nonroad Air Toxics
5. Technical Analysis Plan and Commitment for Further Rulemaking
C. EPA's Statutory Authority for Today's Action
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 Serious
Adverse Health Effects
C. List of Mobile Source Air Toxics
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
IV. Evaluation of Additional Motor Vehicle-based Controls
A. MSATs and Motor Vehicle-based Controls
B. Vehicle-based Standards to Reduce MSATs From Light-Duty
Vehicles
C. Vehicle-based Standards to Reduce MSATs From Heavy-Duty
Engines
D. Conclusions Regarding Vehicle-based Standards
V. Evaluation of Additional Fuel-Based Controls
A. Form of the Rule
1. What Is the Form of the Rule EPA Is Promulgating Today?
2. Why Did EPA Change From the Proposed Benzene Fuel Content
Form of the Rule to the TPR?
3. What Are the Benefits of the TPR?
4. What Are the Costs of the TPR?
B. Issues and Areas of Comment on Non-implementation Related
Aspects of the Program
1. What Is the Relationship Between the RFG and Anti-dumping
Requirements and the Toxics Anti-backsliding Requirements?
2. How Are Incremental Production Volumes of RFG Affected by
This Rule?
3. Does This Rule Contain Any Small Refiner Provisions?
4. Is This Rule Expected to Constraint the Potential for
Expanded Use of Ethanol in Conventional Gasoline?
5. Is Diesel Fuel Control a Part of Today's Regulation?
C. What Are the Components of the Anti-backsliding Toxics
Performance Program?
1. Start Date
2. Separate Compliance Determination for RFG and CG
3. Baseline Development and Submittal
4. Baseline Adjustment
5. Compliance Margin
6. Foreign Refiner Provisions
7. Default Baseline and Applicability
8. Compliance Period and Deficit and Credit Carryforward
9. Hardship Provisions
10. California Gasoline
11. Territories
12. Gasoline excluded
D. Why Isn't EPA Adopting Other Fuel Controls to Control MSATs?
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 Program
2. Emission Reductions From Current Programs
C. Gaps in Nonroad Mobile Source Data
VII. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data Gaps and Commitment for
Further Rulemaking
A. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data Gaps
B. Commitment for Further Rulemaking
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
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
G. Congressional Review Act
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Introduction
A. Background
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, perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, heavy metals like
mercury and lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins. 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 the health and welfare of populations in other geographic areas.
Some can persist for considerable time in the environment and/or
bioaccumulate in the food chain.
[[Page 17232]]
To address concerns about the potentially serious impacts of
hazardous air pollutants on public health and the environment, the
Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended in 1990, includes a number of
provisions that have led EPA to characterize, prioritize, and control
these emissions as appropriate. Since 1990, the Agency has worked to
comply with the Act through a combination of regulatory approaches,
partnerships, ongoing research and assessments, risk initiatives, and
education and outreach. We have put in place many programs to reduce
air toxic emissions that have resulted, and will continue to result, in
reductions in ambient concentrations of air toxics. On the stationary
source side, we have developed 46 stationary source standards for 82
different types of sources and have more under development. These
standards are required under Sections 112 and 129 of the Act and
provide for future evaluation of the need for additional stationary
source regulations based on the remaining risk from air toxics after
these standards are in effect. These actions have resulted, or are
projected to result in, substantial reductions in HAP emissions.
On the mobile source side, many of the emission control programs
put in place pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 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, particularly in urban areas which
often have high levels of ambient air toxics, our national low emission
vehicle (NLEV) program, our Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards
and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and standards for nonroad
vehicles and equipment, such as locomotives, recreational marine
engines, and aircraft. We have also proposed heavy-duty engine and
vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control
requirements that would reduce toxics emissions from heavy-duty
trucks.\1\ Finally, certain other mobile source control programs have
been specifically aimed at reducing toxics emissions from mobile
sources (e.g., our lead phase-out programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See final rules: NLEV, 62 FR 31191 (June 6, 1997); Tier 2,
65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000); land-based diesel nonroad, 63 FR
56968 (October 23, 1998); locomotive, 63 FR 18978 (April 16, 1998);
recreational marine, 61 FR 52088 (October 4, 1996); commercial
diesel marine, 64 FR 73300 (December 29, 1999); aircraft, 62 FR
25355 (May 8, 1997); RFG, 59 FR 7812 (February 16, 1994). See
proposed rule HD2007, 65 FR 35430 (June 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these mobile source standards were put in place primarily to
reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants through oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), volatile organic compound (VOC), carbon
monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) controls, and thereby to help
states and localities come into attainment with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, PM, and CO, they have reduced
and will continue to reduce on-highway emissions of air toxics
significantly.\2\ By 2020, we project these programs will reduce the
levels of on-highway emissions of benzene by 73 percent, formaldehyde
by 76 percent, 1,3-butadiene by 72 percent, and acetaldehyde by 67
percent from 1990 levels. In addition, by 2020, on-highway diesel PM
emission reductions of 94 percent from 1990 levels are projected in a
recent NPRM for heavy-duty engines.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, 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).
\3\ 65 FR 35430, June 2, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, because of the potentially serious effects exposure
to air toxics may have on human health, it is reasonable to assess
whether it is appropriate to establish additional mobile source
controls that are specifically designed to reduce further or minimize
increases in national inventories of these pollutants. In today's
action, pursuant to Section 202(l)(2) of the Act, the Agency has
identified those compounds emitted from mobile sources that should be
classified as mobile source air toxics, evaluated whether there are
additional controls that can be established at this time, set new toxic
emission performance standards, identified existing data gaps in our
understanding of the risk posed to the public from mobile source air
toxics, and committed to reevaluate the need for additional controls in
2003-2004.
Today's action provides the mobile source component of EPA's
National Air Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban Strategy (IUATS),
published July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38706). The overarching goal of the
IUATS is to reduce cancer and noncancer risks associated with all
sources 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. The IUATS identified 33 ``urban HAPs'' which pose the greatest
threat to human health in the largest number of urban areas. These 33
compounds are a subset of the 188 compounds listed in Section 112(b) of
the Clean Air Act and are listed in Table I-1. Thirteen of these
compounds are also included on our Mobile Source Air Toxics list (see
Section II, below). The IUATS is described in greater detail in Chapter
1 of the Technical Support Document for this rule. Additional
information can also be obtained from the EPA's Unified Air Toxics
website, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw.
Table I-1.--List of Urban HAPs for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde a Coke oven emissions Mercury compounds a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein a............................... 1,2-dibromomethane...................... Methylene chloride.
Acrylonitrile............................ 1,2-dichloropropane (propylene Nickel compounds. a
dichloride).
Arsenic compounds a...................... 1,3-dichloropropene..................... Polychlorinated biphenyls.
Benzene a................................ Ethyl dichloride (1,2-.................. Polycyclic organic matter.
a
Beryllium compounds...................... Ethylene oxide.......................... Quinoline.
1,3-Butadiene a.......................... Formaldehyde a.......................... 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxine (and cogeners
and TCDF cogeners). a
Cadmium compounds........................ Hexachlorobenzene....................... 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
Carbon tetrachloride..................... Hydrazine............................... Tetrachloroethylene.
Chloroform............................... Lead compounds a........................ Trichloroethylene.
Chromium compounds a..................... Manganese compounds a................... Vinyl chloride.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Included on our Mobile Source Air Toxics list.
[[Page 17233]]
Today's rule is our first attempt at addressing mobile source air
toxics in a systematic and integrated manner. Additional analysis,
however, will be necessary to evaluate the sufficiency of those
controls and to determine whether there is a need for additional
controls. Today's rule also contains a Technical Analysis Plan (TAP)
that identifies key information gaps about the risk posed by mobile
source air toxics and the feasibility of additional controls. In order
to address these data gaps, the Agency will continue to compile,
analyze, and conduct additional research in coordination with other
toxics research activities that are ongoing in the Agency, including
the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) headed by EPA's Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and the Air Toxics
Research Strategy (ATRS) headed by EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD).
The results of NATA will be used to identify areas of the country
and pollutants where additional investigation is needed. NATA will
begin with an analysis of the risks associated with the 33 ``urban
HAPs'' identified in Table I-1. In the future, NATA will evaluate all
188 HAPs currently listed under Section 112(b) of the Act as well as
diesel PM. NATA is described in greater detail in Chapter 1 of the
Technical Support Document for this rule. Additional information can
also be obtained from the NATA website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/nata).
The Air Toxics Research Strategy (ATRS) is an Agency 10 year plan
to guide and prioritize research in air toxics from various sources,
including mobile sources. ATRS is also described in Chapter 1 of the
Technical Support Document.
With this background, we now turn to an overview of today's action.
B. Basic Components of Today's Program
Today's action addresses mobile source air toxics emissions. In it,
we identify our list of 21 mobile source air toxics (MSATs) and set new
gasoline toxic emission performance baseline requirements for RFG and
conventional gasoline. We also describe a Technical Analysis Plan to
continue analysis and research that will aid us in evaluating and
assessing the need for additional mobile source air toxics controls.
The information acquired through our technical analysis will form the
basis for a future mobile source air toxics 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. Section II of today's action identifies a
list of 21 toxic compounds emitted from motor vehicles and describes
the methodology we used to generate this list. This methodology may be
used to add compounds to, or remove compounds from, the MSAT list in
the future as new information becomes available.
2. Assessment of Emission Benefits From Current Standards
Today's action also describes how our current mobile source
emission control programs are expected to reduce MSAT emissions. 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 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. Section
III contains our on-highway toxics emissions inventory analysis and
estimates of these expected reductions.
3. Consideration of Additional On-Highway Controls
Although we anticipate substantial reductions in emissions of key
toxic pollutants by 2020, the serious potential health effects
associated with many of these compounds lead us to evaluate whether
additional controls are technologically feasible 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 reduce evaporative and
exhaust emissions from vehicles and engines. Fuel-based controls
explore how changing fuel formulation can reduce air toxic emissions.
In performing our analysis of additional controls in Sections IV and V,
we followed 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.''
Based on our analysis and the comments we received from various
stakeholders, we are finalizing gasoline toxic emission performance
standards that will help maintain current levels of overcompliance with
existing gasoline toxics emission standards. These requirements are
refiner-specific, based on each refinery's average 1998-2000 gasoline
toxic emission performance levels for RFG and conventional gasoline.
Consistent with our proposal, we are not setting additional air toxics
emissions standards for motor vehicles in today's action. However, it
is important to note that we have proposed stringent new diesel
particulate matter standards for heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) that would
reduce HDV PM emissions by 90%. We expect to issue a final rule for
this category soon. We believe that it is not technologically feasible
at this time to set additional motor vehicle controls under Section
202(l)(2) beyond the controls already adopted or proposed by the
Agency. This decision is based on consideration of the technical
feasibility, cost, and other factors relevant to a proposal of further
controls at this time.
4. Nonroad Air Toxics
Section 202(l)(2) of the Act specifies that we set standards to
control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and motor vehicle
fuels which, by definition, do not include nonroad engines or vehicles
or their fuels. However, nonroad engines are also important
contributors to national inventories of mobile source air toxics
emissions. Therefore, we believe it is also helpful to include a
discussion of nonroad sources in today's action. In addition, as noted
above, today's action is part of EPA's Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy. As part of our effort to establish a comprehensive plan that
seeks to reduce urban air toxic emissions, we intend to address both
on-highway and motor vehicles and evaluate emissions and potential
strategies relating to hazardous air pollutants from nonroad engines
and vehicles.
5. Technical Analysis Plan and Commitment for Further 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 action. At this time, EPA is also
engaged in other toxics-related activities as part of NATA, the IUATS,
ATRS, and other rulemaking activities. This emerging information will
help us to
[[Page 17234]]
further evaluate potential additional mobile source air toxics controls
in the future.
Building on these Agency toxics activities, and to increase our
understanding of mobile source air toxics, we will implement the
Technical Analysis Plan described in Section VII below. This Plan will
be coordinated with the other research activities 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 nonroad engines and equipment. Our TAP will
be fully coordinated and integrated with activities conducted as part
of NATA, the IUATS, and the ATRS. This will allow us to take full
advantage of what is collectively learned and provide a solid basis for
future action, including a future rulemaking, to be completed no later
than July 1, 2004.
C. EPA's Statutory Authority for Today's Action
Today's action is established pursuant to Section 202(l) of the
Clean Air Act. That Section 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.
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 the 1993
report include benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde,
diesel particulate, gasoline particulate, gasoline vapors, and selected
metals. The emissions and exposure aspects for several of the air
toxics covered in this report were recently updated in November 1999.
The 1999 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 reports. 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, described in
Section VII, below).
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, and are to
be set under Section 202(a) or 211(c) of the Act. Section 211(c) of the
Act authorizes the Agency to control or prohibit the manufacturer,
introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale, of any fuel or
fuel additive if any emission product of such fuel or fuel additive
causes or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
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.\4\ In recognition of this fact, Congress
instructed EPA, in Section 202(l)(2) of the Act, to set 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 considered 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 suggest that nonroad engines and on-highway
vehicles emit the same pollutants, EPA has identified this list as a
list of mobile source air toxics (MSATs).\5\ We are listing 21 MSATs
using the methodology described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Our authority under 202(a) and 211(c) allows us to address
air pollution that impacts health or welfare. This initial MSAT list
focuses on human health. Additional compounds may be added in the
future due to their ecological impacts, material damage, or
visibility impairment and it is noteworthy that some of the MSATs on
the list have important ecological impacts.
\5\ 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 is 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 searching for lists of
compounds in all available databases and recent studies (i.e., ten
years old or less) which speciated emissions from motor vehicles and
their fuels. Data for vehicles and engines more than ten years old are
considered to be outdated and thus are judged not to be representative
of current emissions. The lists did not include emissions from
alternative-fueled vehicles, currently in a very small number of
vehicles, such as flexible-fueled vehicles. We then compared the
speciated lists of compounds in these studies to the list of compounds
in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. IRIS is a
database of compounds that identifies EPA's consensus scientific
judgment on the characterization of the potential serious adverse
health effects that may result from a lifetime exposure to a substance
(discussed in more detail below).
By comparing the lists of compounds provided in the emission
speciation databases and studies to the list of compounds in IRIS, we
generated a list of 21 compounds. An evaluation of the potential for
serious adverse health effects as reflected in IRIS and in the ongoing
agency scientific assessments of these compounds indicates that these
compounds warrant inclusion as MSATs.
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 to provide a screening tool
that identifies those compounds emitted from motor vehicles or their
fuels for which 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 public health or
[[Page 17235]]
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
evaluation would appear to be warranted.
With regard to emissions from alternative-fueled vehicles, most of
the compounds included in the exhaust are included on our list of MSATs
(e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde). It should be noted that, depending
on the fuel used, these vehicles may also emit unburned ethanol and
methanol.
EPA compared the lists of compounds emitted from motor vehicles
with lists or sources of information on toxic substances other than
IRIS to determine the reasonableness of the MSAT list. Based on this
comparison, we requested comments on the possible addition of
propionaldehyde and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane to the MSAT list. We are not
adding these compounds to the MSAT list at this time due to the absence
of an Agency consensus view as expressed on IRIS regarding the adverse
health effects of these compounds. The MSAT list will be re-evaluated
in the future as new information is acquired about emissions and/or
health effects for any mobile source pollutant. Compounds may be added
to or removed from the list in future rulemaking notices.
1. Identifying Pollutants Emitted From Mobile Sources
In identifying a list of MSAT, EPA first searched for lists of
compounds from all available databases and recent (i.e., ten years old
or less) studies that speciated the emissions from motor vehicles and
their fuels. Many toxic air pollutants are hydrocarbons (HCs) by their
chemical nature and thus will be identified only if the HCs are
chemically separated (speciated). In addition, the compounds that
comprise the particulate phase of mobile source emissions must also be
chemically speciated. Many test programs that characterize vehicle
emissions identify only total hydrocarbons and particulate matter
without separating the individual species of hydrocarbons and other
elements.
The databases and recent studies reporting emissions from light-
duty gasoline vehicles (LDGV), heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDV),
heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGV), and gasoline-powered nonroad
engines are identified in Appendix I located at the end of Chapter 2 of
the TSD. 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 particular vehicle and engine types would
lead us to overlook compounds that should be included on our list of
MSATs, because the combustion processes for these missing vehicle and
engine types are similar to those for the vehicle and engine types for
which we do have data.
2. Using IRIS to Identify Pollutants With Potential Serious Adverse
Health Effects
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an EPA database of
scientific information that contains the Agency consensus scientific
positions on the potential serious adverse health effects that may
result from lifetime (chronic) exposure to substances found in the
environment.\6\ IRIS currently provides health effects information on
over 500 specific chemical compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA IRIS Database, http://www.epa.gov/iris/intro.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of qualitative and
quantitative health information. IRIS information may include the
reference concentration (RfC) for noncancer health effects resulting
from chronic inhalation exposure, the reference dose (RfD) for
noncancer health effects resulting from chronic oral exposure, and the
carcinogen assessment for both oral and inhalation exposure. The RfC or
RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude or more) of a daily exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without
appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime.
Because of the public health conservative methodology in deriving the
RfC or RfD, it is possible that exposure above the RfC or RfD may not
pose an appreciable risk; however the significance of exceedances must
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 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. IRIS also lists compounds for which the
Agency has reviewed currently available information and concluded that
(1) there are insufficient data to calculate an RfC or RfD for the
noncancer hazard potentially posed by the compound(s), and/or (2) there
is an absence of sufficient information to identify a cancer hazard.
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
In our notice of proposed rulemaking we listed 21 MSATs. We
received comments on six proposed MSATs as well as other compounds. We
are finalizing this list of 21 compounds, but we have changed the
listing for diesel exhaust to diesel particulate matter and diesel
exhaust organic gases. A discussion of the comments received on the
proposed MSAT list is provided below and the MSAT list is provided in
Table II-1.
Table II-1.--List of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel Particulate
Matter + Diesel
Acetaldehyde Exhaust Organic MTBE
Gases (DPM + DEOG)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein.................... Ethylbenzene........ Naphthalene.
Arsenic Compounds \1\....... Formaldehyde........ Nickel Compounds.
\1\
Benzene..................... n-Hexane............ POM.\3\
1,3-Butadiene............... Lead Compounds \1\.. Styrene.
[[Page 17236]]
Chromium Compounds \1\...... Manganese Compounds Toluene.
\1\.
Dioxin/Furans \2\........... Mercury Compounds Xylene.
\1\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the different metal compounds generally differ in their
toxicity, the onroad mobile source inventory contains emissions
estimates for total metal compounds (i.e., the sum of all forms).
\2\ 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.
\3\ 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 used here
as surrogates for the larger group of POM compounds.
By comparing the lists of compounds identified in the motor vehicle
emission databases and studies with the toxic compounds listed in IRIS,
we identified 21 compounds. Each of these pollutants are known,
probable, or possible human carcinogens (Group A, B or C) and/or
pollutants for which the Agency has calculated an RfC or RfD.\7\ We
therefore consider each of these compounds to be MSATs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to public comments we are changing the way we list
diesel exhaust as an MSAT. We believe a better approach is to list
diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases (DPM + DEOG)
as the MSAT. This listing approach is more precise about the components
of diesel exhaust expected to contribute to the observed cancer and
noncancer health effects and provides a framework for developing
regulatory control strategies.
Currently available science, while suggesting an important role for
the particulate phase component of diesel exhaust, does not attribute
the serious cancer and noncancer health effects independently to diesel
particulate matter separate from the organic gas phase components.
Therefore, this listing approach does not constitute two separate MSAT
listings but a single listing meant to capture the collection of
emissions potentially responsible for the cancer and noncancer health
effects related to diesel exhaust.
While this listing departs slightly from the approach described
above, we believe this is reasonable because (1) there are several
nontoxic components of diesel exhaust (e.g., water vapor, nitrogen,
oxygen) that we are excluding from the listing, (2) this listing
includes the components of diesel exhaust that are likely to contribute
to either the cancer or the noncancer hazard (with the exception of the
gaseous phase criteria pollutants such as NOX,
SO2 and CO which are subject to National Ambient Air Quality
Standards), (3) the more precise listing provides Federal and State
government, industry, and public interest groups an ability to focus on
the components of diesel exhaust that pose a potential concern for
public health, and (4) this focus provides specific targets for
emissions reductions should future analysis indicate that additional
controls are necessary.
Regarding the listing of metals, 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. Literature
values report only the total amount of the metal compound identified
and not the specific form of the metal being emitted in motor vehicle
exhaust. For example, chromium (Cr) can be emitted from combustion
sources in different forms, the most toxic of which is Cr+6. In the
literature, the form of Cr emissions from mobile sources are
unidentified. In our list of MSAT, we therefore list chromium compounds
generally, and do not attempt to list specific forms of these metals
because we lack metal speciation information. When we assess the range
of potential health impacts associated with exposure to chromium
compounds, we consider the health effects associated with all forms of
the compound for which we have health effects information. For
chromium, the most toxic form in IRIS is Cr+6; hence the health impacts
described for chromium compounds refer to 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. Moreover, it is consistent with Congress' list of
HAP for stationary sources in Section 112(b) of the Act. At the same
time we recognize that to accurately assess the actual health risks
associated with exposure to metal emissions from mobile sources,
identification of the specific forms of the metals emitted would be
important.
With regard to emissions from alternative-fueled vehicles, most of
the compounds included in the exhaust are included on our list of MSATs
(e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde). It should be noted that, depending
on the fuel used, these vehicles may also emit unburned ethanol and
methanol. 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. There is a paucity of data on potential
inhalation effects of ethanol, and the compound is not listed in IRIS.
One commenter responded to our request for comment on the addition of
ethanol to the list of MSATs based on the presence of ethanol in
alternative fuels and stated that ethanol should not be listed as an
MSAT. At this time EPA is not including ethanol in the list of MSATs
because we do not have an Agency consensus view as expressed on IRIS
regarding the potential adverse health effects associated with exposure
to ethanol. The Agency is continuing toxicity testing and risk
assessment of potential adverse health effects resulting from exposure
to this compound. We will reassess available information regarding
potential health effects of exposure to ethanol when we evaluate
whether additional controls are appropriate in 2003.
We did not include methanol on our proposed list of MSAT because it
was not identified in our analysis of speciated emissions from motor
vehicles. Instead, in the NPRM, we requested comment on whether
methanol and ethanol, by virtue of their use in alternative fuel
vehicles, should be included on the list.
During the comment period, one commenter directed EPA to studies
that identify methanol as an emissions
[[Page 17237]]
product of motor vehicles burning reformulated gasoline. This commenter
suggested that further research needed to be conducted to determine
whether methanol should be added to the list of MSAT. Recently
submitted comments echoed the need to conduct further research and
requested more time to consider the addition of methanol to the MSAT
list.
In order to provide a full opportunity for public comment and to
respond to these comments in more detail, we will address the addition
of methanol to the MSAT list in a separate rulemaking. We believe it is
reasonable to defer making a decision on listing methanol until after
today's rulemaking, because listing in today's rulemaking would not
result in additional controls. The existing motor vehicle VOC controls
will reduce emissions of methanol along with other gaseous toxics and
fuel controls will need to be considered in subsequent rulemakings. As
part of the future notice addressing addition of methanol to our list
of MSAT, we will also evaluate possible controls in accordance with
section 202(l)(2) as appropriate.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking we compared lists of emitted
compounds to four lists of toxic air pollutants to confirm that our
MSAT list was reasonable. The four lists of toxic air pollutants we
used were: 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 and databases, we identified two additional
compounds not included on our list of MSATs--propionaldehyde and 2,2,4-
trimethylpentane. Comments we received on these compounds suggested
either that (1) further study was needed to determine the potential for
adverse health effects or that (2) both compounds should be added to
the list of MSATs based on their presence in the CAA section 112(b) HAP
list, or due to the presence of these compounds on the emissions lists.
At this time EPA is not including propionaldehyde or 2,2,4-
trimethylpentane in the list of MSATs because we do not have an Agency
consensus view as expressed on IRIS regarding the potential adverse
health effects associated with exposure to these pollutants. EPA
assessments of these compounds have been proposed and we will use all
currently available information to reassess the possible inclusion of
these compounds in the list of MSATs when we evaluate whether
additional controls are appropriate in 2003.
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 how our various mobile source control programs will
affect the inventories of these air toxics.
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 naphthalene, 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 programs by groupings of air
toxics. We do have specific projections of future emissions for five
gaseous toxics (benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde,
MTBE) and for diesel PM (as the surrogate for DPM + DEOG) and we
present these in this section. 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 estimate 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 some of these
compounds 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 action. We believe this is
reasonable because the mobile source contribution to metals inventories
is small and comes primarily from engine wear and impurities in engine
oil, or from fuel additives.
As we describe in the following discussion, there have been and
will continue to be significant reductions in MSAT emissions as a
result of our mobile source regulations. By 2020, we project on-highway
emission control programs (up to and including our Tier 2 control
program and our proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine rule) will reduce
benzene emissions by 73 percent, formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent,
1,3-butadiene emissions by 72 percent, and acetaldehyde emissions by 67
percent from 1990 levels. Under these same controls we project on-
highway diesel PM emissions will be reduced by 94 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 these inventories.
Interested readers should refer to Chapter 4 of our TSD 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,'' (hereafter referred to as the 1999 EPA Motor
Vehicle Air Toxics Study, or the 1999 Study).\8\ The pollutants
examined in the 1999 Study were chosen because we had adequate data to
perform a rigorous modeling analysis for those pollutants. The 1999
Study examined the impact of a variety of parameters including fuel
properties, emission control technologies, and type of in-use operation
on the 1990 and 1996 emissions inventories for these six pollutants.
The 1990 baseline represents estimated emissions before any of the
programs added by the1990 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. Note
that
[[Page 17238]]
since completion of the 1999 Study, we have updated our estimates of
diesel PM emissions and our estimates of toxics emissions from heavy-
engines (as part of improvements made with regard to heavy-duty engine
modeling). Our updated baseline toxics inventory estimates are
presented in Table III-1. It should also be noted that these estimates
are only for on-highway vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.
Table III-1.--Annual Emissions From On-Highway Vehicles for Selected Air
Pollutants
[Short tons per year] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound 1990 Emissions 1996 Emissions \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,3-Butadiene............... 36,000.............. 24,000
Acetaldehyde................ 41,000.............. 31,000
Benzene..................... 257,000............. 171,000
Formaldehyde................ 139,000............. 93,000
Diesel PM................... 235,000 \c\......... 182,000
MTBE........................ 55,000.............. 67,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ In this notice we report emissions in terms of short tons as opposed
to metric tons.
\b\ The 1996 estimates are based on updated inventories taking into
consideration the proposed 2007 and later model year heavy-duty engine
standards.
\c\ For 1990, we used diesel PM estimates from EPA's Trends Report.
The 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI) prepared in connection
with the Agency's NATA activities 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 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study, due to
revisions made to the NTI based on updated vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
information provided by a number of states, minor changes to the
emissions model used (the MOBTOX model), and revised heavy-duty
information. Since DPM + DEOG is not included on the list of 112(b)
hazardous air pollutants, which is the focus of the 1996 NTI, DPM +
DEOG estimates were not compiled in the 1996 NTI.
The 1996 NTI also contains 1996 emissions estimates for several
other MSATs, and includes data for nonroad \9\ 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 naphthalene.\10\ (For DPM + DEOG, we do not
have inventory data on the DEOG portion. For this analysis, we are
using DPM as a surrogate for DPM + DEOG.) While good baseline data
exist for many of the MSATs, they do not exist for all. As noted
earlier, we plan to conduct additional research in coordination with
other toxics research activities that are ongoing in the Agency to
improve our characterization of toxics emission from mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 vehicles do not include aircraft. For convenience, in this
action 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.
\10\ Naphthalene emissions are not reported in the 1996 NTI
separately from 16-PAH. See Chapter 3 of the TSD for the explanation
of the linkage between diesel exhaust and diesel PM.
Table III-2.--1996 On-Highway and Nonroad Emission Inventories of Some MSATs From the 1996 NTI
[Short tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Highway Nonroad Mobile Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound Percent of Percent of Percent of
Tons Total National Tons Total National Tons Total National
Emmissions Emmissions Emmissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Naphthalene.................... 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
[[Page 17239]]
Xylene......................... 311,000 43 258,400 36 569,400 79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These compounds are 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 1996 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 TEQ rates the toxicity of each dioxin
and furan relative to that of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is assigned a TEQ of 1.0.)
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 except for benzene, which 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, mercury
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.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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, 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 diesel PM
emissions. A limited number of stationary sources, such as large
generators, do operate on diesel fuel. Because there are relatively few
stationary sources that operate on diesel fuel, we believe that diesel
PM from stationary sources is relatively small compared to diesel PM
from mobile sources. (However, for this analysis we have not generated
an estimate of diesel PM from stationary sources.) As shown in Table
III-1, above, we estimate that 1996 on-highway diesel PM emissions are
approximately 182,000 tons. We estimate that 1996 nonroad diesel PM
emissions are approximately 346,000 tons, as discussed in Section VI of
this notice.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ It should be noted that the nonroad diesel PM emissions
estimate is based on the draft NONROAD model 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 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; 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 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 would establish 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
[[Page 17240]]
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
to control toxic emissions from motor vehicles was the removal of lead
from gasoline. Beginning in the mid-1970s, unleaded gasoline was phased
in to replace leaded gasoline. The phase-out of leaded gasoline 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 throughout the vehicle's
life. 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 on-board 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 national inventories of MSATs. The
remainder of this section summarizes our MSAT inventory projections.
First, we present an overview of the methodologies used to project
future emissions inventories. 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. Projections of nonroad
MSAT emissions are included in Section VI of this preamble.
a. Overview of Inventory Sources
We developed inventory projections that reflect our current and
proposed control programs, described above, for five gaseous MSATs, for
VOC, and for diesel PM for the years 2007 and 2020. The inventory
projections for the five gaseous toxics are based on the 1999 EPA Motor
Vehicle Air Toxics Study, updated to incorporate a variety of new
information on on-highway vehicles.
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 United States. Every county in the country was then ``mapped''
to one of these modeled areas or regions. Mapping was done based on a
combination of geographic proximity, I/M program, and fuel control
programs. 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). For light-duty vehicles, information developed
for the Complex Model was used to develop these relationships. 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).
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. 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. Because
we do not have emissions data for DEOG, we are using diesel PM as the
surrogate for the MSAT listed as DPM and DEOG. Where we have data
regarding specific constituents in the diesel exhaust organic gas phase
we present that information.
Our VOC and diesel PM emission estimates are derived from several
sources. The 1996 and later values are based on updated modeling that
factors in the impact of the proposed 2007 heavy duty engine standards.
The 1990 VOC emission estimate is based on the 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle
Air Toxics Study,\13\ and the 1990 diesel PM is from EPA's Trends
Report.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.
\14\ 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 because we do not have good data on these relationships at this
time. 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 and
it is possible that some of these compounds track PM emissions to some
extent, there are a number of other factors that contribute to
emissions, and we do not have good data on these relationships.
We did receive one comment regarding inputs to the emission
inventory modeling performed for the NPRM. The National Petrochemical
and Refiners Association (NPRA) commented that the vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) growth rates for heavy-duty vehicles, which were based
on 1998 estimates from the Energy Information Agency (EIA), were too
high. In support of their comments, NPRA submitted EIA's 1999 estimates
which were lower than those from 1998 used by EPA. For the inventory
projections contained in today's action, we have retained the same
growth rates used in the NPRM analysis. Based on discussions with EIA,
we believe the 2000 growth estimates will be higher than both the 1999
estimates NPRA referenced and the 1998 estimates we used in the NPRM
analysis.\15\ However,
[[Page 17241]]
because the final 2000 numbers are not yet available from EIA, we are
retaining the use of the growth rates used in the NPRM as a more
reasonable estimate than the 1999 growth estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Early Release of the Annual Energy Outlook 2001,''
available at www.eia.doe.gov/oaif/aeo/earlyrelease/index.html,
Energy Information Administration, downloaded from EIA web site on
December 12, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Emission Reductions
Table III-3 presents the annual emission projections for on-highway
vehicles for five gaseous toxics, VOC, and diesel PM with our current
on-highway control programs and the proposed 2007 and later model year
heavy-duty engine standards. The 1996 inventories presented in Table
III-3 are slightly higher than the 1996 inventories presented in Table
III-2 because the estimates of heavy-duty vehicle VMT have been updated
and improved since the VMT estimates for the 1996 NTI were prepared.
Table III-3.--Annual Emmissions Inventories From On-Highway Vehicles a
[Thousand short tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compound 1990 1996 2007 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,3 Butadiene........................................... 36 24 12 10
Acetaldehyde............................................ 41 31 17 13
Benzene................................................. 257 171 89 68
Formaldehyde............................................ 139 93 43 34
Diesel PM............................................... 235 182 85 15
MTBE b.................................................. 55 67 26 18
VOC..................................................... 7,585 4,933 3,028 2,153
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes the impact of our current on-highway control programs and the proposed 2007 and later model year
heavy-duty engine standards.
\b\ 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-4 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 on-highway
control programs and the proposed 2007 and later model year heavy-duty
engine standards.
Table III-4.--Reductions in On-Highway Vehicle Emissions a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in 2007 Reduction in 2020
-------------------------------------------------------
Compound From 1990 From 1996 From 1990 From 1996
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,3 Butadiene........................................... 67 50 72 57
Acetaldehyde............................................ 58 46 67 57
Benzene................................................. 65 48 73 60
Formaldehyde............................................ 69 54 76 64
Diesel PM............................................... 64 53 94 92
MTBE b.................................................. 52 61 67 73
VOC..................................................... 60 39 72 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes the impact of our current on-highway control programs and the proposed 2007 and later model year
heavy-duty engine standards.
\b\ 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 67 to 76 percent
by 2020 from 1990 levels with our existing and proposed control
programs. For some gaseous MSATs, the reductions are even greater.
Likewise, VOC inventories from on-highway vehicles are projected to
decrease by 72 percent between 1990 and 2020 and we assume that other
gaseous toxics would decrease by approximately 72 percent as well.
Finally, diesel PM emissions are projected to decline by 94 percent by
2020 from 1990 levels.
IV. Evaluation of Additional Motor Vehicle-Based Controls
We are not establishing new standards for motor vehicles in this
rulemaking to control MSAT emissions. Based on the information
available to the Agency at this time, we have determined that our
proposed and current control programs for VOC and diesel PM emissions
from motor vehicles will achieve the greatest degree of MSAT control
that is feasible when cost and other relevant factors are considered.
This section summarizes our rationale for this determination, including
the relationship between EPA's vehicle-based control programs and the
control of MSATs (especially for those programs established after the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments), the impact of our most recent efforts
to control VOCs, and the possibility of additional control. The
Technical Support Document contains additional information.
It is important to note that while we are not adopting new vehicle-
based controls in this rulemaking, we will continue to consider the
need for, and feasibility of, vehicle-based controls in the future and
as part of our Technical Analysis Plan. As we have in the past, we will
also continue to look for opportunities to control MSAT emissions in
conjunction with other pollutants (e.g., NOX,
SO2, VOC). Most of the vehicle-based comments focused on
these types of controls. These
[[Page 17242]]
comments are addressed in the Response To Comments document.
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. Since a small
amount of raw fuel passes through the engine unburned, MSATs present in
the fuel are also emitted in the exhaust. In either case, the
technologies used to reduce exhaust hydrocarbons also reduce the
hydrocarbon species listed as MSATs. 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
is fuel vapors. These emissions occur when components of the liquid
fuel (gasoline or diesel) evaporate when on board 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 a significant issue for gasoline-fueled vehicles (or
vehicles using volatile alternative fuels). 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. In some
cases, they have also achieved reductions using aftertreatment.
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).\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EPA recently created the new category of ``medium-duty
passenger vehicles'' (MDPVs) that includes passenger vehicles 8,500-
10,000 pounds GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Vehicle-Based Standards To Reduce MSATs From Light-Duty Vehicles
Before we began regulating automobile exhaust, vehicles typically
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 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 HC exhaust standards through
the NLEV program.\17\ Also shown in the table are the number of miles
for which the standards apply, which has increased with time. Thus
manufacturers need to make their emission control systems more durable
and reliable over a longer period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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 1972 1975 1980 1994 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 3.4 1.5 0.41 a 0.31 b 0.09
Applicability (Miles)........... 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 120,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The 1994 standard is a nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standard.
b The 2001 standard is a nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) standard. This standard will be replaced by the new multi-
level Tier 2 NMOG standards, but the average standard level should remain at approximately 0.09 gpm.
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. These requirements phase-in a set of tailpipe
emission standards that will, for the first time, apply the same
standards to 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 of these vehicles. Ozone
reductions will be achieved through control of nitrogen oxides and non-
methane hydrocarbons. As discussed above, it is the control of HC
through the NMOG standards that
[[Page 17243]]
results in the control of the gaseous toxics. The Tier 2 rule also
established stringent PM standards. Control of PM emissions will occur
through reductions in gasoline sulfur and the use of aftertreatment for
diesel vehicles. 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 at or below the 0.09 g/mi level. This will represent a 99
percent reduction from uncontrolled pre-1970 levels. Since these
controls should be at least as effective at reducing MSATs, these
standards should also reduce MSATs to a similar extent from
uncontrolled levels.
The Tier 2 rule also finalized formaldehyde standards that
harmonize federal standards with the California's LEV II program.
Section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act instructs the Agency to
promulgate regulations that, at a minimum, apply to emissions of
benzene and formaldehyde. We believe that the shift to a toxics
emissions performance requirement will limit emissions of these two
pollutants. In response to comments, we also considered setting more
stringent vehicle-based formaldehyde standards in this FRM. However,
since we are not aware of any technology that could specifically reduce
formaldehyde emissions, we have no confidence that more stringent
vehicle or engine formaldehyde standards would be feasible.
Nevertheless, we remain confident that the combination of our Toxics
Performance Standard, Tier 2 formaldehyde standards and Tier 2 NMOG
standards described above will achieve significant reductions in
formaldehyde emissions.
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. Palladium is more tolerant to
high temperatures and will enable manufacturers to increase catalyst
efficiency in a broad range of in-use conditions. These technologies
will be highly effective at reducing MSATs, including benzene and
formaldehyde.
Our existing regulations also 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. That rule also addressed fuel spitback and spillage during
refueling. These procedures were fully phased in by 1999 (58 FR 16002).
The Tier 2 rule included even more stringent requirements. The Tier 2
evaporative standards 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. In fact, since the activated carbon used to capture
evaporative emissions preferentially adsorbs larger organic molecules,
these controls may achieve a greater degree of control of MSATs, which
are generally larger and heavier than many other gasoline components.
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. We have also finalized on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)
requirements for light-duty gasoline vehicles (59 FR 16262, April 6,
1994). 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.
Taken as a whole, the Tier 2 program presents the manufacturers
with significant 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, we have concluded that
it would not be appropriate to set tighter standards in this FRM based
on these prototype technologies. We are not convinced that these
technologies would be feasible and cost effective on a fleet-wide basis
in the near future. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 of
the TSD.
C. Vehicle-Based Standards To Reduce MSATs From Heavy-Duty Engines
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. In addition, the standards in our recently
proposed 2007 heavy-duty rulemaking are also shown in the table.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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.
[[Page 17244]]
Proposed 2007 Standards..... 0.14 g/bhp-hr............. 0.14 g/bhp-hr............. 0.01 g/bhp-hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Current standard is 1.9 g/bhp-hr for Otto-cycle vehicles over 14,000 GVWR.
b Standard was set 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.
With regard to exhaust emission standards, the proposed 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 new exhaust PM standard for heavy-duty diesel
engines is stringent. This standard (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 catalyzed PM traps.
This technology will also result in HC emission reductions. It is
further worth noting that the proposed 2007 standards include
provisions for a closed crankcase for turbocharged diesel engines.
Crankcase emissions from these engines are a significant source of
MSATs (PM and hydrocarbons) that 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 that would greatly reduce the sulfur content of current on-
highway diesel fuel. Not only would this reduction enable the emission
control technology now under development, but it would also reduce
sulfate PM emissions .
We have recently extended our onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements
to heavy-duty gasoline engines up to 14,000 pounds GVWR (65 FR 59896,
October 6, 2000). These OBD provisions require that vehicle
manufacturers install dashboard indicators that alert drivers to the
need for emission-related maintenance, and electronic monitors that
store codes in the vehicle's computer to assist mechanics in the
diagnosis and repair of the malfunction. As some of the commenters
noted, requiring that all highway vehicles incorporate these OBD
systems will ensure good control of in-use emissions, including MSAT
emissions. We are in the process of developing a proposal that would
address OBD provisions for all other heavy-duty vehicles.
We have also proposed in the 2007 rulemaking more stringent
evaporative standards, which will force even further refinements in
fuel/vapor systems. Beginning in 2005, onboard refueling vapor control
will be required for all heavy-duty gasoline-powered vehicles (65 FR
59896, October 6, 2000). This would reduce emissions by 95 percent from
current uncontrolled levels. In addition, as part of the proposed 2007
rulemaking, EPA proposed to reduce evaporative emission standards by 50
percent over current standards. Both refueling controls and further
evaporative controls will reduce evaporative emissions of air toxics
from heavy-duty vehicles even further.
The proposed rulemaking for 2007 heavy-duty engine and vehicle
standards contains extensive analysis and discussion of the
technological feasibility of potential HC and PM emission controls for
heavy-duty engines. That draft analysis demonstrated EPA's belief at
the time of the proposal that those heavy-duty standards would be the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology that will be available considering costs and
other relevant factors. EPA believes that the proposed rule to
establish 2007 model year standards for heavy-duty diesel engines
satisfies the criteria in section 202(a) as well as 202(l)(2) and
therefore defers to the technical decisions made in that rulemaking.
D. Conclusions Regarding Vehicle-Based Standards
We are not establishing new standards for motor vehicles in this
rulemaking to control MSAT emissions. We believe our decision in this
regard is appropriate given the information currently available. We are
also confident that our existing programs (and proposed programs, if
finalized) will continue to achieve very significant reductions in MSAT
emissions.
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. These reductions
will include reductions in MSATs. 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 very
stringent and will require manufacturers to make full use of nearly all
available emission control technologies. To illustrate this point, it
is worth noting that about 80 percent of all remaining emissions from a
well-maintained Tier 2 vehicle will occur in the first 60 seconds of
operation, before the catalyst ``lights-off.'' Manufacturers will have
to optimize both 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. Based on the
information available to the Agency at this time, we believe that the
technologies that will be applied to meet the Tier 2 requirements
provide the greatest achievable reductions in emissions of air toxics
as well, considering costs and other relevant factors.
The existing emission control program for heavy-duty engines and
[[Page 17245]]
vehicles has already achieved major reductions in MSAT emissions . New
more stringent emission standards for heavy-duty engines will take
effect in 2004 and 2005. We have also proposed a further initiative
that would require additional control of heavy-duty vehicle/engine
emissions (65 FR 35430, June 2, 2000). This would establish new heavy-
duty engine and vehicle emission standards beginning with model year
2007. The 2007 rulemaking is being finalized separately in a broader
rulemaking that addresses the complicated implementation issues
associated with proposed emission standards. In developing a final rule
that would establish these standards, the Agency intends to adopt
standards that would result in the greatest achievable reductions in
emissions of air toxics as well, considering costs and other relevant
factors.
We have also made significant progress in the area of in-use
operation. To address the malmaintenance issue, we have established OBD
requirements for manufacturers (both light-duty and heavy-duty). To
address both the malmaintenance and tampering issues, we are working
with states to develop and optimize inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs that monitor the emission performance of in-use vehicles.
Historically, these programs have relied on tailpipe testing to
identify high-emitting vehicles. However, these programs have begun to
rely more on the OBD systems to identify the high-emitting vehicles, as
well as the cause of the emission problem. We are also investigating
ways in which we could encourage the use of new emission controls on
older vehicles. As described in the Response to Comments, these are not
being finalized in this FRM.
V. Evaluation of Additional Fuel-Based Controls
The previous section evaluated motor vehicle controls in the
context of mobile source air toxics (MSATs). The primary purpose of
this section is to discuss the fuel program being promulgated today. We
discuss the form of the rule, major areas of comment including our
response and final decisions on those aspects, and the details of the
fuels program. We also discuss why we are not at this time considering
other fuel controls as a means of reducing MSATs. The details of our
technical analyses of these fuel issues can be found in Chapter 7 of
the Technical Support Document (TSD). The Response to Comments Document
contains our responses to all of the relevant comments on the fuels
aspects of this rulemaking.
A. Form of the Rule
1. What Is the Form of the Rule EPA Is Promulgating Today?
We are finalizing new toxics emissions performance requirements
(TPR) for gasoline. This anti-backsliding program will require,
beginning with calendar year 2002, that a refinery's or importer's
annual average total toxics emissions performance, as predicted by the
Complex Model, for its baseline production volume of reformulated
gasoline (RFG) not exceed its 1998-2000 baseline RFG total toxics
emissions performance. Likewise for conventional gasoline (CG), this
rule will require that the exhaust toxics emissions performance of a
refinery's or importer's baseline production volume of CG not exceed
its 1998-2000 baseline exhaust toxics emissions performance for CG.
The 1998-2000 baseline RFG or CG toxics emissions performance value
is the average performance of the gasoline produced at the refinery (or
imported) over the three year period 1998 through 2000. Emission values
are determined using the Complex Model,\19\ and compliance with the
program is determined separately for RFG and CG. We have included in
our program a number of compliance flexibilities, such as a deficit and
credit carryforward, and a compliance margin, to offset unexpected or
unusual variances in the gasoline quality of a refinery (or importer).
We believe that these provisions will help to ensure that this program
does not require new capital investments or changes in refinery
operations, and thus will not pose an additional burden on refiners.
Were this program to require new investments in the refining sector, we
would be concerned that it would impose an economic burden on refiners
that would be inconsistent with our finding that an anti-backsliding
program at negligible cost is the most stringent program that we can
justify in the near term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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, Reid Vapor
Pressure, aromatics, olefins and the percents evaporated at
200 deg.F and 300 deg.F (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
resulting base emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current rule is designed to avoid increases in toxic emissions
from gasoline while imposing the least cost on the refining industry.
Some have claimed that a refinery-specific performance requirement is
inherently unfair because those refineries that have overcomplied to
the greatest extent will receive the most stringent new baseline
requirement. We recognize generally that setting standards based on
current production may appear to penalize those who have voluntarily
overcomplied. In fact, there is at least one refinery that has sought
and received Agency recognition for its efforts to voluntarily
overcomply with existing requirements.
The Agency recognizes as a general matter the importance of
providing appropriate incentives for the regulated community to take
actions consistent with improving the environment. However, in this
case, we believe that setting refinery-specific standards is the most
appropriate and equitable approach to ensuring that emissions do not
increase above current levels. As we explained in the NPRM, we believe
that these refineries that have overcomplied have done so primarily
because it was economically advantageous. In most cases, the financial
incentive to overcomply is due to proximity to a market for chemical
benzene. If the Agency were to establish a single, nationwide standard,
commenters could legitimately characterize such an action as penalizing
those refineries that are not located near petrochemical markets. Since
each refinery is unique in terms of construction and location, any
single standard will create varying degrees of challenges. Faced with a
situation where a significant number of refineries have overcomplied
with existing standards, the Agency has sought to craft a rule that
represents the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable
considering costs. The regulation that we finalize today achieves these
goals.
2. Why Did EPA Change From the Proposed Benzene Fuel Content Form of
the Rule to the TPR?
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we proposed a benzene content
requirement in order to capture the significant amount of
overcompliance above and beyond the requirements of the federal
reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs. Average benzene levels
in 1998 and 1999 were 0.66 volume percent for RFG and 1.11 volume
percent for conventional gasoline. These national average benzene
levels are significantly below current requirement of 0.95 volume
percent for RFG and average conventional gasoline baselines of 1.3
volume. Benzene emissions account for
[[Page 17246]]
roughly 70% of motor vehicle air toxics (i.e., benzene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and POM).
The Agency asked for comment on two other forms of the rule:
benzene emissions performance and toxics emissions performance. The
Agency did not propose a toxics performance form because of concerns
that capping the total mass of toxics would allow benzene emissions to
potentially increase if other air toxics declined. However, subsequent
refinery modeling showed that benzene emissions would be unlikely to
increase in the future following implementation of RFG Phase II and
Tier 2 low sulfur gasoline standards, and the proposed low sulfur
diesel standards. We viewed a benzene emissions requirement as
tantamount to a benzene content requirement, but more difficult to
quantify and enforce because there is not currently such a rule in
effect.
We received a significant number of comments on this proposal
during the public hearing and in written comments submitted to the
Agency. In general, commenters from the petroleum industry stated that
there are significant costs associated with the benzene content form of
the rule. These same commenters pointed out that there was little
environmental benefit to the proposed requirements to justify their
costs. Others commented that the Agency's concern about benzene
emissions would be better served by a performance requirement since
there is expected to be upward pressure on aromatics due to future
environmental regulations and capping benzene fuel content will not
prevent increases in fuel aromatics. Several commenters found that the
rule did not go far enough to protect public health and welfare from
the potential risk from mobile source air toxics.
In response to these comments, and based on refinery modeling
performed for this rulemaking, the Agency will finalize a toxics
performance requirement instead of a benzene content requirement. The
Agency's general rationale is twofold: a toxics performance requirement
captures a larger amount of the overcompliance with the existing
standards while imposing less costs on the refining industry than the
proposed benzene content requirement. This action is consistent with
comments received from the regulated industry and the Agency's updated
refinery modeling.
Evaluation of a Benzene Content Standard
The Agency evaluated the benzene content standard in terms of its
expected environmental performance and its potential cost to industry.
Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act identifies five toxic air
pollutants related to gasoline--benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde and POM. Benzene emissions are about 70 percent of the
total mass of these toxics, but all of these toxics are known or
probable human carcinogens and pose a risk to public health and
welfare. Benzene emissions are a function of benzene fuel content, but
other components in the fuel also influence benzene emissions, such as
total aromatics, sulfur, and Reid Vapor Pressure. Controlling the
benzene content of RFG and CG would in effect control only a portion of
the benzene emissions, which in turn are only a portion of total toxic
emissions. The Agency is concerned ultimately with reducing ambient
concentrations and exposure to air toxics.
The costs related to a benzene content standard were calculated
using a refinery model. The Agency found that a benzene content
standard would impose aggregate annual costs (including amortized
capital and all the operating costs) of $74 million for refineries in
PADDs I, II, and III. On a per gallon basis, the annual cost of the
proposed benzene content standard was predicted to be 0.0702 c/gal.
Since gasoline production in PADDs I, II, and III represents about 91%
of the national gasoline supply without California refiners, if we
extrapolate this cost to the rest of the U.S., the aggregate cost would
be approximately $81 million for the nation. California gasoline
production is not included in this cost analysis because this
regulation does not apply to California gasoline.
It is important to note that there are some advantages related to
fuel content standards. Compliance and enforcement are aided by the
ability to test the fuel rather than relying on estimates derived from
a model. A fuel content standard does not rely on an emissions model
that may not fully estimate emissions from the vehicle fleet on the
road today or in the future. Thus the decision to shift from a fuel
content to an emissions based requirement in this rule should not be
viewed by the reader as suggesting that the Agency in a general sense
is no longer interested in controls on specific fuel components. It is
simply in this particular case that we found an emissions performance
requirement to be superior under a combined consideration of broader
environmental benefits and lower costs.
Evaluation of a Toxics Performance Requirement
There are several advantages for adopting a toxics performance
requirement. It allows for a more comprehensive approach to capping air
toxics emissions at current levels. By focusing on the five toxic
compounds modeled by the Complex Model instead of only benzene, the
mass emissions of air toxics placed under anti-backsliding constraints
is substantially increased. Also, by focusing on emissions instead of
fuel content, the new rule will establish an appropriate performance
requirement while simultaneously providing some additional flexibility
to regulated entities. Finally, it offers broader protection to public
health because all five toxics included in the toxics performance
requirement are known or probable human carcinogens.
Section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act instructs the Agency to
promulgate regulations that, at a minimum, apply to emissions of
benzene and formaldehyde. The shift to a toxics emissions performance
requirement will limit emissions of these two pollutants along with
emissions of 1,3-butadiene, POM and acetaldehyde. Thus, while refiners
will have the ability to adjust fuel parameters in ways that will
increase the emissions of one or more of these pollutants, any such
increase must be offset by reductions in the emissions of the other
pollutants.
All of the pollutants covered by the toxics performance control are
carcinogens. The nationwide inventories and ambient concentrations of
all of these five pollutants are heavily influenced by motor vehicle
emissions. Without today's anti-backsliding program, the current
standards would leave room for toxics emissions from gasoline-fueled
motor vehicles to increase by 70,000 tons per year (based on 1996
inventory levels) as described in the Technical Support Document. This
would amount to a 14% increase, on average, in RFG areas, and a 18%
increase, on average, in CG areas. Capping the overall toxics emissions
performance of gasoline to reflect current overcompliance is an
appropriate means of addressing the potential adverse public health
impacts that could occur if this backsliding from current levels were
to occur. While we are not able to quantify the risk to public health
that would result if backsliding were to occur, we believe a
precautionary approach is appropriate. By adopting anti-backsliding
controls, this precautionary approach will protect public health by
reducing the potential risks to public health from backsliding.
[[Page 17247]]
The Act also instructs the Agency to take costs into consideration.
As stated previously, numerous petroleum refineries provided written
testimony that a benzene content requirement would impose significant
costs on the industry. The Agency conducted refinery modeling for this
rule which accounted for the impact on refinery operations and fuel
properties of Tier 2 low sulfur gasoline and low sulfur diesel fuel.
This modeling analysis, discussed in more detail in the TSD, found that
the costs associated with the benzene content requirement were
significantly higher than the costs that a toxics performance
requirement would impose on the industry.
3. What Are the Benefits of the TPR?
The purpose of today's action is to prevent future increases above
the current level of air toxic emissions derived from existing fuel
properties. This anti-backsliding measure will ensure that mass
emission rates (in milligrams per mile, mg/mi) of air toxics from motor
vehicles do not increase while the Agency gathers additional
information for a forthcoming rulemaking in 2003-2004.
The Clean Air Act identified five air toxics in the federal
reformulated gasoline program: benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, and POM. The RFG program established a toxics emissions
performance standard for RFG, and an anti-backsliding toxics standard
for conventional gasoline based on 1990 baseline toxics levels for each
refinery. On average, refineries have overcomplied with the toxics
emissions performance standards for both RFG and CG. Table V-1 compares
the percent reductions required for RFG Phase I and the national
average CG mass toxics emissions with actual national average
performance in 1998, which was the most recent year for which complete
and accurate data was available. On a national average, greater
overcompliance was experienced for RFG than for CG.
Table V-1.--Overcompliance With Toxics Performance Standards for RFG and CG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent difference in
Phase I Standards 1998 Average emissions (Percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFG, Percent Reduction from statutory 16.5% reduction........................ 28.1% reduction........................ 15%
baseline,. (45.3 mg/mi)........................... (38.4 mg/mi)...........................
Total Toxics Performance (equivalent
mg/mi).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CG, Mass Emissions,.................. 47.3 mg/mi \a\......................... 44.7 mg/mi............................. 6%
Exhaust Toxics Performance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Volume-weighted average of refinery-specific standards.
The 1998 average values were based on volume-weighted toxics
performance values for batch reports for all refineries in the U.S.
which produced gasoline in 1998. The data available to us at this time
does not allow us to account for the impact of imports on these
nationwide average values. The values in Table V-1 differ slightly from
those in the NPRM because we excluded noncomplying refineries from the
analysis and volume-weighted only actual emissions in units of mg/mi
instead of percent change values for each refinery.
Overcompliance with RFG standards resulted in substantial toxics
reductions beyond what was required by law. We have estimated
reductions in the total toxics inventories due to overcompliance of 70
thousand tons in 1996 and 40 thousand tons in 2007, using the
inventories from the 1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study (see TSD).
While we do not believe that refiners are likely to increase their
toxics content in the absence of this regulation, it is nonetheless
important to ensure that these benefits are maintained in the event of
unforeseen circumstances that may otherwise result in backsliding on
toxics standards up to existing legal limits. Without this regulation,
such backsliding could occur if refineries increase benzene or
aromatics to increase octane levels, or if they change their refinery
operations in reaction to unforeseen future circumstances.
4. What Are the Costs of the TPR?
In conjunction with this rulemaking, we analyzed refinery modeling
results for gasoline production regions in the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts, specifically PADDs \20\ I and III. This modeling analysis used
the average regional gasoline fuel properties produced in 1999 to
quantify the emissions performance of gasoline in these regions in
1999. The refinery modeling also predicted the likely regional fuel
properties after refineries modified their operations to comply with
the future requirements for Phase II RFG, Tier 2 low sulfur gasoline,
and proposed low sulfur diesel fuel (hereafter future fuel
regulations). The Agency applied the Complex Model to evaluate the
projected emissions performance of the predicted gasoline properties in
these regions. The reader should refer to the TSD which accompanies
this rule for more detailed discussion of the refinery modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is currently pursuing a separate rulemaking under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address the use of MTBE, and
thus we have deferred consideration of MTBE controls to that
rulemaking. Note that 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. These actions
were based initially on recommendations of EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on
Oxygenates in Gasoline.
The Agency recognizes that the use of MTBE does have an impact on
emissions of toxic air pollutants from motor vehicles. The Blue Ribbon
Panel found that present toxic emission performance of RFG can be
attributed, to some degree, to the use of oxygenates. Further, the
Panel recommended that any future change in the use of MTBE in gasoline
should ``ensure that there is no loss of current air quality
benefits.'' \21\ The anti-backsliding nature of this rulemaking is
consistent with the Panel's recommendations. Should the Agency take
action in the future to limit the amount of MTBE in fuel, its impact on
emissions of air toxics--and the potential for additional costs due to
today's action--would be carefully considered. As EPA develops any
regulatory actions to address MTBE and water resource issues, the
Agency will consider the overall impact on the
[[Page 17248]]
refining industry of any such action and, along with today's rule, and
other relevant factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Achieving Clean Air and Clean Water: The Report of the Blue
Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline, EPA420-R-99-21, September,
1999, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the new baseline requirements do not require refiners to
install new equipment or use new technologies beyond what they were
using in the baseline period (1998-2000), this program imposes only
negligible costs. This conclusion is based on our analyses of likely
refiner behavior based on the expected requirements in the time frame
applicable for this rulemaking. Unforeseen circumstances could change a
refiner's actions needed to comply with this rule, which in turn could
lead to additional costs depending on their chosen course of action.
In contrast, the proposed benzene content standard was predicted to
impose higher costs while capturing a smaller amount of the existing
overcompliance with toxic standards. As stated previously, the Agency
found that a benzene content standard would impose aggregate annual
costs (including amortized capital and all the operating costs) of $74
million for refineries in PADDs I, II, and III. On a per gallon basis,
the annual cost of the proposed benzene content standard was predicted
to be 0.0702 c/gal. Since gasoline production in PADDs I, II, and III
represents about 91% of the national gasoline supply without California
refiners, if we extrapolate this cost to the rest of the U.S., the
aggregate cost would be approximately $81 million for the nation.
California gasoline production is not included in this cost analysis
because this regulation does not apply to California gasoline.
There are limitations to the ability of a refinery model to predict
the costs associated with each refinery. This inherent limitation of
refinery modeling is of particular concern with the refinery-specific
requirement that is adopted today. To help ensure that each refinery
affected by this rule is faced with the type of costs estimated by the
Agency's refinery modeling, we incorporated several flexibilities into
the final rule. We have expanded the baseline period from two to three
years, provided a one-year carryforward for credits and deficits, and
adopted compliance margins for RFG and CG.
B. Issues and Areas of Comment on Non-implementation Related Aspects of
the Program
1. What Is the Relationship Between the RFG and Anti-dumping
Requirements and the Toxics Anti-backsliding Requirements?
The reformulated gasoline program established a toxics performance
standard for gasoline used in those metropolitan areas with the worst
ozone levels. An anti-dumping toxics standard was established for
gasoline used in those areas not required to have RFG and which did not
opt to use RFG. The anti-dumping toxics standard was intended to
prevent refineries from shifting certain less desirable fuel components
into the conventional gasoline pool as a result of RFG production. The
anti-dumping program was an anti-backsliding program for exhaust toxics
and NOX relative to the baseline year of that program, 1990.
Today's anti-backsliding requirements are in addition to the applicable
RFG or anti-dumping requirements for gasoline. Today we are
establishing refinery-specific toxics performance requirements (TPR)
for reformulated and conventional gasoline. A refiner will now have to
meet both today's toxics requirements and the applicable toxics
performance for RFG or anti-dumping.
In the NPRM, we asked for comment on repealing the anti-dumping
program. We received comments from many refiners in support of this
recommendation from the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
(NPRA). However, we find that we cannot repeal the anti-dumping
program. The anti-dumping program is required by the Clean Air Act and
we cannot ensure that today's requirements and the Tier 2 gasoline
sulfur requirements will exactly duplicate the anti-dumping program.
For example, the gasoline sulfur standards do not guarantee that all
conventional gasoline will meet the individual NOX
performance standards because some anti-dumping individual baselines
have even lower average sulfur levels than the gasoline sulfur program
will require. Additionally, the flexibilities provided in today's rule,
such as deficit and credit carryforward, could cause the anti-
backsliding toxics emissions performance to exceed the anti-dumping
toxics performance requirement in a given year. Nonetheless, we
understand the refiners' concerns on this issue, and we will take steps
to ensure that the compliance process, including any reporting
requirements, is as streamlined as possible.
Because we are promulgating toxics performance requirements that
are identical in form to the toxic performance standards already in
place, today's rule does not change the ability of States to regulate
gasoline characteristics or components. As discussed in the NPRM, we
believe a toxics performance requirement may not cause States to be
prohibited by section 211(c)(4) of the Act from setting their own fuel
benzene standard. Note that any such State fuel benzene standard could
only be set for conventional gasoline because the reformulated gasoline
regulations impose a federal benzene standard on RFG, thus preempting
States from setting a more stringent RFG benzene standard.
EPA recognizes the concerns expressed by the petroleum industry
that a patchwork of different state fuel standards, sometimes referred
to as ``boutique'' fuels, may increase the likelihood of disruptions in
the fuel supply. In most situations, EPA believes that a uniform
national program is the best way to protect public health and minimize
disruption to the efficiency of the country's fuel distribution
network. EPA's general expectation is that States will consider these
issues in evaluating whether adoption of a state fuel program would be
warranted.
2. How Are Incremental Production Volumes of RFG Affected by This Rule?
In the NPRM, we proposed to apply the RFG requirements determined
for this final rule to those volumes of RFG up to the baseline volume
of RFG. We did not propose to extend the requirements to incremental
RFG production volumes, but asked for comment on the appropriate
requirements to apply to a refinery's incremental volume of RFG.
Incremental volume of RFG means that amount of RFG produced in a
calendar year above the RFG annual average baseline (1998-2000) volume
of the refinery. Based on projections of vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
RFG demand is expected to increase about 1.5% per year.
We sought comment on two approaches for regulating the incremental
RFG volume. The first would be to apply the individual refinery
requirement to the incremental volume, in effect subjecting all of a
refinery's annual RFG production to its individual baseline under
today's program. The other would be to apply a non-individual
requirement to the incremental volume. This could be a national control
level based on the current national average toxics performance of RFG
(or some less
[[Page 17249]]
stringent level), but would not be less stringent than the applicable
standard under the RFG program.
Many refiners did not want the incremental volume of RFG subject to
any controls (i.e., the individual refinery baseline or the national
average baseline) other than the current applicable RFG standards. Some
refiners commented that we should exempt incremental volumes of CG from
the final requirements as well. DOE pointed out that future growth in
gasoline demand will likely be addressed through increased imports as
well as greater use of existing FCC units and reformers, all of which
would likely increase the toxic emission characteristics of all
gasoline, be it RFG or CG.
This rulemaking contains several unique factual circumstances that
bear on this issue. The Agency has a strong interest in creating
incentives, and not creating disincentives, for refiners to produce
additional barrels of cleaner-burning RFG in the future. Placing new
constraints on incremental RFG production may unnecessarily hamper the
expanded use of RFG and its associated air quality benefits.
Gasoline production in the United States is expected to increase by
about 1.5 percent per year for the next several years. In the few years
between promulgation of this rule and the reevaluation in 2003-2004,
incremental volumes will only account for a small fraction of total US
gasoline production and consumption. Such a small fraction is unlikely
to have a material effect on the anti-backsliding goal of this rule.
Moreover, to determine the potential effect of excluding
incremental volumes from this regulation, we investigated the
historical impact of volume increases on fuel benzene content for RFG
and CG. Pool-average benzene levels in CG did not show a statistically
significant increase. While pool-average RFG did show a statistically
significant increase when production volume increased, the increase was
small--on the order of an increase of 0.005 benzene volume percent per
1 percent total volume. Thus the incremental volume exclusion is
unlikely to have a material impact on air toxic emissions from
gasoline. See the Technical Support Document for details.
While our analysis focused only on fuel benzene content, there is
some reason to believe that other changes in fuel properties associated
with incremental volumes (e.g., increases in sulfur and olefins) may
contribute to some toxics emissions. These incremental volumes could
affect both the fuel properties and toxics emissions of both CG and
RFG, because incremental volumes are primarily a function of growth in
demand for gasoline, which affects both CG and RFG. However, requiring
refiners to meet a more stringent toxics standard for these incremental
volumes could require additional capital investment and thereby impose
a constraint on incremental gasoline production. As a result, we have
decided to exclude incremental volumes from our anti-backsliding
program for both RFG and CG.
After consideration of these comments on this issue and our
analysis of incremental production volumes, we are finalizing a program
in which the toxics performance requirements finalized today will not
apply to incremental volumes of RFG or CG. Any volumes of gasoline that
are above a refinery's baseline volume will thus be subject only to the
existing toxics standards under either the RFG or anti-dumping
programs. For RFG, incremental volumes will remain subject to the
current 21.5 percent standard for total toxics given in 40 CFR
Sec. 80.41(f). Incremental volumes of CG will remain subject to the
current CG requirements for exhaust toxics emissions. For those
refineries or importers that are unable to establish a volume baseline
for 1998 to 2000 either because they were not operating during that
period, or did not exist as a refining or importing facility, the
applicable standard shall be the 1998-2000 national average toxics
performance for RFG and CG. We believe this approach ensures that
increasing gasoline demand can be addressed without requiring
additional toxics reductions that might not be achievable under Section
202(l)(2) in the near-term.
3. Does This Rule Contain Any Small Refiner Provisions?
We did not have a SBREFA panel for this rule because we believe
this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small refiners. At the same time, however, we are sensitive to small
refiner concerns about their ability to meet these anti-backsliding
requirements. Nevertheless, we believe that no small refiner provisions
are needed in this rule for two reasons. First, because this is an
anti-backsliding measure, refiners are not expected to have to install
new equipment or change their operations to comply with the
requirements. Second, we included a number of flexibilities in this
program, such as deficit and credit carryforward, and a compliance
margin. These flexibilities will help those small refiners that may
experience temporary short-term difficulties due to supply or
operational problems. We believe these flexibilities are sufficient to
preclude significant negative impacts of this rule on both small and
large refiners.
4. Is This rule Expected to Constrain the Potential for Expanded Use of
Ethanol in Conventional Gasoline?
While refinery modeling to answer this particular question has not
been performed, the Agency does not believe that the toxics performance
requirement will constrain the potential for expanded use of ethanol in
conventional gasoline. If ethanol is used in conventional gasoline at
ten percent by volume, gasoline components such as aromatics, benzene
and olefins will be diluted by ten percent, thus lowering associated
toxic emissions. Ethanol does have the effect of increasing exhaust
emissions of acetaldehyde, but acetaldehyde contributes only about 6
percent to the mass of five toxics air pollutants used in the Complex
Model to model toxics performance (benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and POM).\22\ Thus even a relatively large
increase in acetaldehyde emissions should be offset by a ten percent
decrease in more than 90 percent of the remainder of toxic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The estimated acetaldehyde contribution of 6.4 percent was
based on a Complex Model output from 1998 production of CG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Is Diesel Fuel Control a Part of Today's Regulation?
The fuel controls being set in today's action are only for
gasoline. We are not setting air toxics requirements for diesel fuels
because, unlike for gasoline, we do not have data that would allow us
to correlate individual diesel fuel properties with toxics emissions.
We do not have a model to explore the toxics impacts of different
diesel fuel formulations and therefore, a diesel fuel reformulation
program, similar to the reformulated gasoline program, is not a viable
toxics control option. We intend to include research on diesel fuel-
related air toxics in our Technical Analysis Plan.
C. What Are the Components of the Anti-backsliding Toxics Performance
Program?
1. Start Date
We are finalizing the January 1, 2002, program start date as
proposed. Because this is an anti-backsliding program, lead time is not
needed to install hardware or make operational changes. Thus, beginning
with the 2002 calendar year, a refinery's or importer's annual average
[[Page 17250]]
toxic emissions performance, determined separately for RFG and CG,
cannot exceed its baseline toxics emissions performance, determined
over the three years 1998-2000. The first report associated with
today's rule will be due February 28, 2003, the same date as the
reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping reports are due for calendar
year 2002.
2. Separate Compliance Determination for RFG and CG
As discussed in the NPRM, our proposal to keep compliance separate
for RFG and CG under this program is consistent with the current
treatment of these two fuel types in the RFG and anti-dumping programs.
Separate compliance determinations for RFG and CG ensure that one pool
is not made cleaner at the expense of the other. No supporting
arguments for combining the pools were provided in the comments. Thus,
we are finalizing this provision as proposed.
3. Baseline Development and Submittal
We proposed a two-year baseline period, 1998-1999, and requested
comment on this and other baseline period options. There were many
comments on this issue. Many commenters expressed concern about
refinery fluctuations during a given time period which could cause a
baseline not to reflect typical operations. Many commenters suggested
that we should provide flexibility in the baseline setting process.
Several individual refiners and one industry commenter suggested
lengthening the baseline period to encompass more refinery operational
fluctuations, thus establishing a more accurate baseline that is true
to normal operations.
In the final rule, we are finalizing a three year baseline period,
encompassing the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. This baseline period, which
is one year longer than the baseline period we proposed, provides
baseline values which are truer to a refinery's ``normal'' operating
mode. Though two commenters opposed inclusion of 2000 because it was a
transition year (from Phase 1 to Phase 2 RFG requirements) and,
according to these commenters, not representative of refinery
operations over time, we believe that including 2000, precisely because
it is a Phase II RFG year, improves the baseline because it adds data
to the baseline determination which is the most recent available.
Including 2000 also helps to further offset (by virtue of a 3-year
average versus a 2-year average) the effects of unit turnarounds at the
refinery. At the same time, we do not expect significant differences,
on average, between a baseline established using the 2-year averaging
approach and one developed using the 3-year approach. However, we
believe that for an individual refinery, the 3-year averaging approach
provides that refinery with a more robust baseline. Finally, given that
this rule does not require any capital improvements or operational
changes by refiners to achieve its goals, and since refiners will have
the 2000 data, we believe this data should be included in the baseline
determination.
We are requiring that refiners and importers submit to us
information which establishes separate TPR baselines for their RFG and
CG. For RFG, the applicable TPR baseline is total toxics emissions,
calculated as a percent reduction from the statutory baseline. For CG,
the applicable TPR baseline is exhaust toxics emissions, in mg/mile.
Both baselines are determined using the Complex Model. These forms of
the TPR are consistent in form with the existing toxic emission
requirements of the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs.
The baseline submittal must contain the batch report number and
volume of each batch (or composite) of gasoline produced or imported in
1998, 1999 and 2000. Additionally, the refiner or importer must
determine and report the applicable toxics emission performance level
of each batch by evaluating the measured fuel parameters of each batch
in the appropriate seasonal version of the Phase II Complex Model.
Because this data is already required to demonstrate compliance with
RFG and anti-dumping requirements, a refiner must simply submit the
same information found in its original submittals of its RFG and anti-
dumping reports. Submissions of these baselines will be very similar to
the streamlined electronic process which has been implemented for Tier
2 gasoline sulfur baseline submissions. The Agency will handle the
toxics baselines under today's program in a manner consistent with the
submissions and associated guidance for Tier 2 sulfur baseline
submissions.
Finally, all of the toxics emissions performance of RFG and CG
produced over the 3-year baseline time period must be volume-weighted
to determine the baseline toxic emission performance levels for RFG and
CG. The average annual volume over the 3-year baseline time period must
also be reported. A refinery which exceeded (that is, was out of
compliance) with the applicable toxics standard in any of the baseline
years must use the applicable RFG or CG standard as its toxics emission
performance value for gasoline produced that year in its baseline
determination.
Baselines must be submitted no later than June 30, 2001. Though we
proposed to notify refiners of their toxics baselines within 120 days
of submittal, after further consideration we are modifying this
provision slightly from the proposal: we will notify refiners and
importers of their baseline approvals by October 31, 2001, or within 4
months of submittal, whichever is later.
4. Baseline Adjustment
In response to the proposed benzene content requirement, one
commenter suggested that a refiner that has a low baseline benzene
level (because it produced benzene for the petrochemical market during
the baseline period) should be able to increase its baseline benzene
level to some minimum benzene level which would be set by EPA. Because
we have switched to a TPR for this final rule, this regulation does not
directly affect on fuel benzene content. Nonetheless, we can address
the issue raised by the commenter since it is relevant, in a broad
sense, to the baseline setting process.
In general, we do not believe that EPA should allow baselines
established under this rule to be adjusted because of refining or
marketing decisions of the refiner. It is our belief that, in general
(and absent refinery disasters or other similar, critical events),
during the baseline period, every refinery was operating to maximize
profits, considering its crude slate, operating units, product mix,
marketing plan, etc. With regard to refineries that achieved low
emissions levels due to benzene extraction, we do not believe there is
any basis for expecting the benzene market to change in such a way that
warrants setting a minimum toxics performance level. In fact,
projections of the benzene market suggest continued growth (see TSD).
In addition, because we are promulgating a TPR, which is a function
of all of the fuel parameters evaluated by the Complex Model, and not a
single fuel parameter requirement (like a fuel benzene content
requirement), it is not clear how we would set such a minimum toxics
emission level to account for changes in the petrochemical market. We
would have to consider each of the eight Complex Model fuel parameters
separately, and this would be complicated by the fact that the fuel
parameters' effects on toxics emissions vary considerably.
[[Page 17251]]
Nonetheless, we are allowing a refiner to petition EPA for a
permanent adjustment of its TPR baseline. Refiners requesting such an
adjustment must demonstrate how circumstances during 1998-2000
materially affected the baseline toxics determination. Because we
believe that the deficit and credit carryforward, compliance margin,
and inclusion of a third baseline year sufficiently consider and
minimize the potential compliance burden for those refiners that
experience unusual refinery operational issues, we expect that the
number of baseline adjustments will be small. Baseline adjustments will
likely be limited to those refineries that experienced unexpected
operational problems during the baseline period which could not have
been avoided through due diligence and planning.
5. Compliance Margin
A compliance margin refers to the cushion refiners typically
included in their fuel production to ensure that their fuel will meet
compliance requirements over a 12-month period. Without such a cushion,
the refiner could fall into noncompliance due to minor operational
problems. Compliance margins are most important to a refiner when
trying to meet a per-gallon requirement, but can also be useful for
meeting averaging requirements, for example, to account for test method
variability, or other factors that might affect a refiner's ability to
comply.
Though we did not propose to include a compliance margin on the
fuel benzene content requirement in our NPRM, additional information
gleaned from refinery modeling and comments has led us to include a
compliance margin on the TPR being finalized today. Though refinery
modeling shows that post-2004 RFG total toxics and CG exhaust toxics
emissions in PADDs I and III will, on average, be lower than during the
baseline period, the difference is not large enough to ensure that
refiners won't have to go beyond what our anti-backsliding requirements
strictly call for. Also, at this time, we do not know whether the lower
toxics emissions predicted by refinery modeling is true of gasoline in
the other PADDs. Thus we believe that a compliance margin is needed to
ensure that this rule is achievable in the near term.
We are instituting separate compliance margins for RFG and CG
because of the different format in which compliance with the applicable
requirement is determined. EPA examined batch data from selected
refineries in 1998. The toxic emission properties of each batch of RFG
and CG were compared against their respective regulatory limits. A
statistical analysis was performed to quantify the difference between
the regulatory standard and the actual emissions characteristics of the
fuel. This difference is commonly referred to as a ``compliance
cushion.'' A more detailed discussion of the methodology used to
determine the values of the compliance margins associated with today's
rule is located in the TSD.
The compliance margin we determined for RFG toxics performance is
0.7%. Thus, for example, if refinery X has a volume-weighted RFG total
toxics performance during 1998-2000 of -29.6% (percent change from the
statutory baseline), without a compliance margin -29.6% is its anti-
backsliding requirement. With a compliance margin of 0.7%, refinery X's
anti-backsliding requirement becomes -28.9%, that is, its requirement
becomes slightly less stringent as a result of including the compliance
margin. Thus, under this program, refinery X's RFG must have an annual
average total toxics emissions reduction from the statutory baseline of
at least 28.9%.
EPA determined a compliance margin of 2.5 mg/mile for CG. Thus for
refinery Y with a volume-weighted CG exhaust toxics performance during
1998-2000 of 105.0 mg/mile, including the compliance margin increases
its CG anti-backsliding toxics requirement to 107.5 mg/mile. Thus, for
refinery Y's CG, its annual average exhaust toxics emissions must be no
greater than 107.5 mg/mile.
6. Foreign Refiner Provisions
Under the anti-dumping program, foreign refiners are allowed to
develop an individual baseline representing the quality and quantity of
gasoline they shipped to the U.S. in 1990. Those that develop an
individual baseline can designate each batch of gasoline destined for
the U.S. as subject to their individual requirement or, by default, as
subject to the importer's anti-dumping requirement, which in most cases
is the statutory baseline.
A similar provision is included in this rule. Under this rule, a
foreign refiner may develop a toxics anti-backsliding baseline for
gasoline it sent to the U.S. during the baseline period (1998-2000) if
it already has an individual anti-dumping baseline or is simultaneously
developing such a baseline. For compliance purposes, it may then
designate, on a batch-by-batch basis, whether that gasoline will be
subject to its individual anti-backsliding requirement or will be
included in the importer's compliance determination. A foreign refiner
with both an individual anti-dumping baseline and an individual toxics
anti-backsliding baseline must make a single designation for the batch.
In other words, if the foreign refiner includes that batch in its own
anti-dumping compliance determination, it is also included in its anti-
backsliding compliance determination. In this way, foreign refiners are
treated in the same manner as domestic refiners, and the potential
compliance confusion surrounding different designations on a single
batch are avoided.
7. Default Baseline and Applicability
The default toxics anti-backsliding baseline is the set of values
used by a regulated party that has insufficient data from which to
establish a unique individual anti-backsliding baseline. In the
proposal, we discussed that a refiner or importer with less than 12
consecutive months of applicable data during the baseline period would
have the default anti-backsliding baseline as its individual baseline
under this program. We are finalizing this provision as proposed.
Additionally, a refiner or importer which did not produce or import one
or more types of gasoline (either RFG or CG) during the baseline period
but who produces or imports that type of gasoline after December 31,
2000 will have the applicable default toxics anti-backsliding baseline;
it will be subject to the default toxics baseline plus the compliance
margin for that type of gasoline.
The default baseline consists of a reformulated gasoline total
toxics emissions performance value (measured as a percent reduction
from statutory baseline) and a conventional gasoline exhaust toxics
emissions performance value (measured in mg/mile). The final default
baseline will be the average of all of the reported applicable (i.e.,
RFG or CG) toxics emissions performance values over the baseline period
1998 through 2000. However, since the 2000 annual compliance reports
are not due from refiners and others to EPA until February 2001, we
will not be able to determine a default set of baseline values which
corresponds to our baseline period (1998-2000) until later in 2001. At
that time, we will issue the final default baseline.
At this time, we have calculated draft default baseline values
based on 1998-1999 RFG and CG reports; these interim default baseline
values are 26.01% (reduction from statutory baseline) for RFG and 92.14
mg/mile for CG, representing compliance under the
[[Page 17252]]
Phase II Complex Model. As discussed in the TSD, we do not expect the
final default baseline to be significantly different from these values.
Until the final default baseline is issued by EPA, the draft default
baseline values plus the compliance margins discussed above (26.71%
reduction from statutory baseline for RFG and 94.64 mg/mile for CG) are
the requirements for those subject to the default baseline under this
Subpart. Even though the default baseline represents only two of the
three baseline years, we believe it is sufficient, in the absence of
the 2000 information, for two reasons. First, the three year baseline
period was designated to better capture normal operations at a
refinery. In most cases, there are no normal operations to capture for
an entity subject to the default baseline. Second, we do not expect a
baseline determined using 1998 through 2000 data to be significantly
different from a baseline determined using 1998 through 1999 data.
8. Compliance Period and Deficit and Credit Carryforward
In the proposal, we discussed compliance periods of varying length
different from the proposed single calendar year compliance period.
Refiners who commented on this issue supported either a one-year
compliance period with deficit carryforward or a two-year compliance
period. As discussed in the NPRM, a one-year compliance period is
consistent with the compliance periods of other gasoline programs (and
thus represents minimal additional reporting burden for refiners and
importers), and it is short enough that temporal variations in toxics
emissions are minimized. For these reasons, we are finalizing a one-
year compliance period as proposed.
We do realize, however, that even for an anti-backsliding program,
unusual situations can happen which can significantly affect refinery
operations, and which could cause the refinery to be out of compliance
with its requirement. To this end, we proposed and are finalizing a one
year deficit carryforward. This will allow a refinery to exceed its
anti-backsliding toxics requirement for one year. In the next year, it
must make up the deficit as well as be in compliance for that year.
Additionally, though not proposed, we are also including a one year
credit carryforward. Under this provision, a refinery producing
gasoline that is cleaner than required by its toxics anti-backsliding
requirement may use the overcompliance to cover any deficit in the
following year. Because we are also providing a TPR compliance margin,
overcompliance will be creditable for purposes of a credit carryforward
only to the extent that it is overcompliance beyond the compliance
margin. The overcompliance credits may not be traded to another
company, and they expire at the end of the next calendar year.
We have provided refiners with compliance flexibility in several
forms--deficit and credit carryforward, a compliance margin, and
extended baseline time period. In the NPRM, we discussed the
possibility of including another flexibility in the form of a credit
trading program. Comments about this option were mixed. Some refiners
supported such a program, and offered other suggestions to enhance or
clarify the program. At least one refiner did not support such a
program, saying it would provide an unfair competitive advantage. Other
industry commenters were unsure of the actual implementation and
feasibility of the program, given the unequal baselines among refiners.
Because of these implementation, feasibility and anti-competitive
concerns, and because of the many other compliance flexibilities
provided in today's program, we are not including a credit program as
part of this rulemaking.
9. Hardship Provisions
We are adopting a provision permitting a refiner to seek a
temporary waiver from the toxics anti-backsliding requirements in
certain circumstances. Such a waiver will be granted at EPA's
discretion. Under this provision, a refiner may seek permission to
exceed its toxics anti-backsliding requirements based on the refiner's
inability to meet these requirements because of extreme and unusual
circumstances outside of the refiner's control that could not have been
avoided through the exercise of due diligence. This provision is
similar to a provision in EPA's RFG and gasoline sulfur regulations. It
is intended to provide refiners limited relief in unanticipated
circumstances that cannot be reasonably foreseen at this time or in the
near future. The conditions for obtaining such a waiver are similar to
those in the RFG regulations. These conditions are necessary and
appropriate to ensure that any waivers granted are limited in scope,
and that a refiner does not gain an economic benefit from a waiver.
Therefore, a refiner seeking a waiver must show that the waiver is in
the public interest; that the refiner was not able to avoid the
nonconformity; that it will make up, where practicable, the air quality
detriment associated with the waiver, that it will pay back any
economic benefit from the waiver; and that it will meet its toxics
anti-backsliding requirements as expeditiously as possible. The refiner
must also show that it will be unable to meet its toxics anti-
backsliding requirements even considering the deficit and credit
carryforward flexibility provisions included in today's program.
10. California Gasoline
We are not requiring gasoline intended for and actually used \23\
in California to be included in a refinery's or importer's compliance
determination under today's rule. This action is consistent with other
Agency actions on similar fuel issues. California gasoline is exempt
from the recently promulgated federal gasoline sulfur requirements, and
while subject to the RFG and anti-dumping provisions, California
refineries have been exempted from several of the enforcement and
compliance mechanisms of those programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ By limiting the exemption to California gasoline ``actually
used'' in California, we generally mean to limit where the gasoline
is dispensed. We do not intend to restrict the state in which the
gasoline is actually combusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the gasoline used in California is produced by California
refineries which are subject to the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline
(CBG) requirements. The current (Phase 2) set of CBG requirements began
in 1996 and runs through 2002; beginning in 2003, the California Phase
3 gasoline requirements take effect. In 1998, under the 0.8 vol% Phase
2 benzene standard, California refineries averaged 0.57 vol%. For
almost every fuel parameter, including benzene and aromatics, the Phase
3 standards are more stringent than the Phase 2 standards. Given the
benzene overcompliance in 1998, and the upcoming more stringent Phase 3
standards, it is likely that toxics emissions under Phase 3 will not be
greater than toxics emissions under Phase 2. Thus, we do not expect
California refineries, on average, to backslide relative to their 1998-
2000 average toxic emission level. Additionally, given the compliance
margin we are including in today's rule, it is highly unlikely that any
backsliding would exceed the combination of the actual 1998-2000
baseline plus the compliance margin.
Given this exemption for California gasoline, gasoline intended for
use in California must be segregated from all other gasoline.
[[Page 17253]]
11. Territories
Though in the NPRM we did not discuss the applicability of this
rule to the American territories of Guam, American Samoa and the
Northern Mariana Islands, we have recently exempted gasoline for these
areas from several requirements, including compliance with the anti-
dumping program. These areas are a significant distance from any
gasoline producers, and in the case of the anti-dumping requirements,
could only be serviced with complying gasoline at a significant cost.
Additionally, the air quality in these areas is pristine, and gasoline
consumption is low, such that no human health or environmental
detriment is expected from the exemption.
Likewise for today's rule, requiring gasoline destined for these
areas to be included in a refinery's or importer's compliance
determination would be of little value for several reasons. First, the
same conventional gasoline cost and supply issues discussed above would
apply. In addition to transportation costs, it is very expensive for a
refinery to produce small batches of complying gasoline. Also, most of
the refineries that produce gasoline for these areas are foreign
refineries which have not chosen to pursue individual baselines in
other rules (e.g., the anti-dumping or gasoline sulfur rules), and are
not likely to pursue an individual baseline for today's rule. Thus,
because of the Agency's precedent for exempting gasoline to these areas
from certain fuel regulations, and because of the lack of environmental
harm from exempting such gasoline, we are exempting the gasoline sent
to these areas from the requirements of this rule.
12. Gasoline Excluded
In addition to California gasoline and gasoline that is used in the
U.S. territories, we are also exempting certain other gasoline from the
requirements of this rule. We proposed to exempt gasoline used in
certain circumstances, including racing gasoline and gasoline used for
research, development and testing. These categories are the same
categories for which gasoline is exempt from the applicable regulations
of other programs, including the RFG and anti-dumping programs and
gasoline sulfur. We are finalizing these exempt gasoline categories as
proposed.
D. Why Isn't EPA Adopting Other Fuel Controls To Control MSATs?
Section 202(l)(2) requires EPA to adopt regulations that contain
standards which reflect the greatest degree of emissions reductions
achievable through the application of technology that will be
available, taking into consideration existing motor vehicle standards,
the availability and costs of the technology, and noise, energy and
safety factors. Today's rule adopts an anti-backsliding requirement
that EPA believes is appropriate under section 202(l)(2) as a near-term
control, that is, a control that can be implemented and take effect
within a year or two. We are not adopting long-term controls (i.e.,
controls that require longer lead time to implement) at this time
because we lack the information necessary to assess appropriate long-
term controls. We believe it will be important to address the
appropriateness of MSAT controls in the context of compliance with
other significant environmental regulations (discussed below).
Today's rule addresses toxics emissions from fuels in the near-
term. The rule will cap the toxics performance levels of gasoline
beginning in 2002. Adopting an anti-backsliding program is a reasonable
control on toxics emissions from fuels. The technology to maintain the
current toxics performance of gasoline produced at each refinery is
already available and continued compliance will not be costly even with
implementation of our recently adopted sulfur controls (see discussion
in Section V, and in Chapter 7 of the Technical Support Document).
We do not believe, however, that we could reasonably adopt further
controls to be implemented in this near-term time frame. First, the
lead time is too short to allow for investments and upgrading of
refinery equipment in any significant manner. Second, we have recently
adopted, or proposed to adopt, two regulations that will achieve very
significant emissions reductions by setting tight limits on the sulfur
content of fuels used in on-highway vehicles. To comply with these new
regulations, industry is already planning and investing in capital
improvements and pursuing the necessary permitting to upgrade their
refineries. While we lack the information to fully assess the costs and
benefits of further controls in the 2002 time frame, we have serious
concerns that further toxics controls in the 2002 time frame could
interfere with refiners' planning and affect their ability to meet our
recently promulgated, or proposed, sulfur standards.
Even though today's rule focuses on near-term options for
controlling toxic emissions from fuels, we plan to evaluate in our
future rulemaking whether additional controls will be needed or
appropriate in the longer term. We are not ready, however, to address
these long-term controls in this rulemaking. We need to collect the
information outlined in our Technical Analysis Plan (see Section V), so
that we can assess the costs and benefits of potential fuel controls.
This information will allow us to more accurately consider the impact
of our recently promulgated, or proposed, fuel sulfur controls and
assess how toxics controls can be incorporated. As part of the
Technical Analysis Plan we will also collect information, which is
currently lacking, on the availability and feasibility of further
controls and the risk posed to public health and welfare by air toxic
hot spots.
Based on our conclusion that the anti-backsliding controls are
reasonable controls for the near-term, the fact that we lack
information suggesting further controls are appropriate in near-term,
and the fact that we are not ready to address long-term controls in
this rulemaking, we conclude that today's anti-backsliding requirement
satisfies the criteria of section 202(l)(2).
Section 202(l)(2) directs EPA to adopt toxics controls and from
time to time review and revise those controls. Today's rule adopts
near-term controls and puts EPA on a schedule to review, and if
appropriate, revise those controls in accordance with the criteria in
202(l)(2). We note that the Agency has not prejudged the outcome of our
2003-2004 rulemaking, and will evaluate the sufficiency of the controls
and whether there is a need for additional controls based on the
information available at that time. We believe this two-step approach
is the most reasonable means to address toxics in the near-term in the
face of incomplete information and the significant changes underway at
many refineries across the country.
As discussed in the NPRM, a number of other MSATs such as acrolein,
styrene, dioxin/furans, xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and
hexane are not controlled by the RFG or anti-dumping programs. We do
not currently have sufficient information on how changes in fuel
properties affect emissions of these compounds, and thus we cannot
estimate the costs associated with controlling these compounds in
fuels.
Motor vehicle emissions of metals are being addressed in other
actions. Metals generally arise from contaminants in lube oils. The
recent proposed rule on heavy-duty engines and vehicles beginning in
model year 2007 also proposes controls on the use of used oil as a
diesel fuel additive/extender.
We are not controlling MTBE emissions in this rulemaking. The
[[Page 17254]]
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
phasing down or eliminating the use of MTBE, and thus we have deferred
consideration of MTBE controls to that rulemaking. Note that 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.
Finally, as discussed in Section V. B above, there is insufficient
data at this time to allow us to quantify how changes in individual
diesel fuel properties would affect emissions of compounds such as
aldehydes, dioxins/furans, and POM. 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.
VI. Nonroad Sources of MSAT Emissions
In this section, we will look at MSAT emissions from nonroad mobile
sources.\24\ 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 are expected to
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``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. Section 202(l)
instructs the Agency to address emissions from motor vehicles, which
do not include nonroad vehicles or engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
We received two general types of comments in response to our
discussion of nonroad sources in the proposal. First, several
commenters stated that our emission projections for the nonroad
category show that our current programs are effective at reducing
toxics from nonroad sources. These commenters argued that we do not
need to do anything further to reduce toxics emissions from nonroad
mobile sources. A second group of commenters pointed out that the
nonroad toxic inventories clearly argue for further controls on nonroad
sources, and that we should include such controls in the final rule. We
believe that we need to gather additional information on nonroad toxics
emissions before we can make an informed decision regarding future
actions, and are thus not including additional nonroad controls in
today's action. Further, we are not required to set toxic emissions
standards for nonroad sources under section 202(l)(2) of the Act.
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, such as benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde. 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.
Comparing the 1996 estimates of on-highway vehicle VOC and diesel
PM emissions in Table III-3 to the nonroad VOC and diesel PM numbers
presented later in this section (Tables VI-3 and VI-4), we see that the
nonroad VOC inventory in 1996 was almost 75 percent of the on-highway
inventory and the nonroad diesel PM inventory for the same year was
roughly twice that for on-highway diesel PM.
B. Impacts of Current Nonroad Mobile Source Emission Control Strategies
1. Description of the Emission Control Programs
Section 213 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 directed us to
study the contribution of nonroad engines to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and to
regulate them if warranted. The focus of the 1990 Amendments was on the
criteria pollutants and their implications for meeting the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Due to the variety of nonroad
engine and equipment types and sizes, combustion processes, uses, and
potential for emissions reductions, we 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. More detailed descriptions are contained in Chapter
Eight of the TSD for this rule.
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).\25\ 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. When fully phased in, these Tier 2
and Tier 3 regulations are projected to result in 50 percent reductions
in VOC and 40 percent reductions in diesel PM beyond the Tier 1
regulations.\26\ Finally, we intend to consider the control of sulfur
in nonroad diesel fuel as part of our Tier 3 technology review. This
would allow more effective diesel PM control technologies such as
catalysts to be
[[Page 17255]]
applied to nonroad engines and vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994.
\26\ 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 are
projected to result in a roughly 32 percent reduction in VOC
emissions.\27\ We recently completed Phase 2 regulations for these
engines which, when fully phased in, are projected to 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995.
\28\ 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.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 65 FR 76797, December 7, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine engines. Due to the wide variety of marine engine
types and applications we have split these engines 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, they are ultimately projected to
result in a 75-percent reduction in VOC.\30\ The second category
consists of commercial diesel marine engines. This includes diesel
engines up to 30 liters per cylinder in size used in a variety of
commercial marine applications. Our emission standards for these
engines take effect in 2004 and are similar to our standards for land-
based nonroad diesel engines.\31\ These regulations are projected to
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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 61 FR 52088, October 4, 1996.
\31\ 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999.
\32\ 65 FR 76797, December 7, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives. Our regulations for locomotives and
locomotive engines consist of three tiers of standards, applicable
depending on the date a locomotive is originally manufactured.\33\ 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.\34\ 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 are projected to result in 50 percent reductions
in VOC and diesel PM from unregulated levels, as well as additional
NOX reductions beyond the Tier 0 and Tier 1 regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 63 FR 18978, April 16, 1998.
\34\ Locomotives are typically overhauled to ``as new''
condition every four to eight years in a process known as
remanufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 65 FR 76797, December 7, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the above engine-based emission control programs,
fuel controls will also reduce emissions of air toxics from nonroad
engines. For example, restrictions on gasoline formulation (the removal
of lead, limits on gasoline volatility and reformulated gasoline
standards) are projected to 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 will control the
sulfur levels in on-highway diesel fuel and have proposed to reduce
these levels further. These controls, however, do not apply to nonroad
diesel fuel. Prior to the sulfur controls for on-highway diesel fuel,
which took effect in October of 1993, there was no distinction between
nonroad and on-highway diesel fuel.\36\ We are evaluating the need for
controlling sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel, in order to 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 nonroad mobile source control programs just summarized are
expected to result in reductions of national inventories of MSAT
emissions from nonroad engines. 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 TSD 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 in nonroad diesel PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 55 FR 34120, August 21, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 17256]]
chlorine. Thus, while metal emissions and dioxins/furans emissions are
associated with particles and it is possible that these compounds track
PM emissions to some extent, there are a number of other factors that
contribute to emission levels and we do not have good data on these
relationships.
a. Benzene, Acetaldehyde, Formaldehyde, and 1,3-Butadiene. Table
VI-1 shows our estimates of the nonroad emissions of these four gaseous
MSATs. These estimates were based on the 1996 inventories contained in
the 1996 NTI study.\37\ The 1990 estimates were derived by applying a
ratio of nationwide 1990 to 1996 VOC inventories from the draft NONROAD
model to the 1996 NTI numbers.\38\ Toxic fractions represent the
fraction of total VOC that a given MSAT makes up. The toxic fractions
were derived from speciated emissions data on different engines and
come from a variety of studies which are discussed in Chapter 2 of the
TSD. 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 MSAT 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. We
then summed the toxic emissions from the various sources of nonroad
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 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.
\38\ 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.
Table VI-1.--Annual Emissions for Benzene, Acetaldehyde, Formaldehyde, and 1,3-Butadiene From Nonroad Sourcesa
[Thousand short tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1996 2007 2020
Compound Emissions Emissions Emissions 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 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.
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.--Percent Emission Reductions for Benzene, Acetaldehyde, Formaldehyde, and 1,3-Butadiene From Nonroad
Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in 2007 Reduction in 2020
------------------------------------------------------------- (percent) (percent)
---------------------------------------------------
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 cannot estimate emissions from nonroad mobile sources for the other
gaseous MSAT emissions because we do not have toxic fraction
information 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,
as can be seen from Table VI-2, 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.
Our VOC emission inventories were developed using the draft NONROAD
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 Tables III-3 and III-4, we
see that expected nonroad VOC reductions are not as dramatic as those
projected for on-highway vehicles, with
[[Page 17257]]
nonroad and on-highway VOC inventories expected to be very similar by
2020. This is not surprising because the technologies available to
reduce nonroad emissions are not as sophisticated as those used to
control on-highway emissions. This analysis, however, shows that our
existing nonroad emission control programs will nonetheless result in
significant gaseous MSAT reductions (assuming, as previously discussed,
that gaseous MSAT emissions track VOC reductions).
Table VI-3.--Annual VOC Emissions From Nonroad 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 PM inventories using the
draft NONROAD model. We are using diesel PM as a surrogate for diesel
PM and diesel exhaust organic gases (DPM + DEOG). 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-3 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
about 20 times as great as on-highway diesel PM emissions by 2020 due
to the dramatic reductions in on-highway PM from the application of the
newest technologies and the use of low sulfur fuels. These estimates
assume projected reductions from the proposed standards for heavy-duty
vehicles in 2007 and future model years, which are not yet finalized.
As was previously mentioned, we are considering 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 proposals covering both
nonroad diesel fuel and engines.
Table VI-4.--Diesel PM Emissions From Nonroad Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1996 2007 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousand short tons per year.......... 345.8 282.8 310.8
Cumulative Percent Reduction from 1996 * * * 18% 10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 most classes and categories of nonroad vehicles and
engines 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 are projected to 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. We intend to use the technical analysis plan,
described in Section VII, to fill these data gaps.
VII. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data Gaps and Commitment
for Further Rulemaking
A. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data Gaps
Because of the potential future health impacts of public exposure
to air toxics from mobile sources we will continue our toxics-related
research and activities. Therefore, in addition to today's controls, we
will continue to evaluate and re-assess the need for, and level of
controls for both on-highway and nonroad sources of air toxics. Among
the 21 compounds that EPA has identified for inclusion on the list of
MSATs, we believe that, considering single chemical inhalation health
hazards and exposure to the MSAT emissions from on-highway sources,
diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases (DPM +
DEOG), benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein
are likely to present the highest risks to public health and
welfare.\39\ The need to focus short-term work on these six MSATs has
been highlighted in an Agency screening analysis\40\ and the States
have indicated these pollutants are major mobile source pollutants of
concern. Information that is made available from the work that is now
underway in the NATA National-Scale Analysis will also be used to
determine priority toxics
[[Page 17258]]
from mobile sources.\41\ In addition, priorities identified from the
NATA National-Scale Analysis will be considered and incorporated as
appropriate in the Air Toxics Research Strategy (ATRS) currently being
developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) in a
coordinated effort with the OAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ EPA may also focus on other MSATs in the next two years, if
new information shows that is appropriate.
\40\ Memo from Brodowicz, P. to Phil Lorang, Director Assessment
and Modeling Division and Chet France, Director Engines Programs and
Compliance Division. Screening/Ranking Analysis of the Air Toxic
Emissions From Onroad Mobile Sources to Be Addressed Under Section
202(l)(2). August 17, 1999.
\41\ EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ),
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 health effects, exposure, and
risk assessment efforts and guidelines of EPA's Office of Research
and Development in conducting its program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conducting this Technical Analysis Plan, we will address four
critical areas where there are data gaps. These areas 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 our understanding of the effectiveness and
costs of vehicle, fuel, and nonroad controls for air toxics.
The Agency recognizes the need to conduct additional work and to
focus on relevant scientific data to address the needs we outline in
this Technical Analysis Plan. The issues outlined are complex and while
the work conducted as part of the Technical Analysis Plan will begin to
address the significant data gaps, resolution of some aspects of these
issues will require a long-term effort. This effort will be coordinated
across the Agency to maximize available resources.
Developing emission factors for nonroad sources. EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has initiated emissions testing
of a comprehensive suite of hydrocarbons and inorganic compounds from
nonroad diesel engines. These emissions will be characterized using
steady-state as well as transient test cycles using typical nonroad
fuel and low-sulfur nonroad fuel. OTAQ has also initiated an effort to
characterize emissions (including speciated hydrocarbons) from in-use
nonroad engines. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) also
has information available from testing programs which will be useful to
characterize emissions of toxic compounds from certain classes of
gasoline nonroad engines using various fuels (oxygenated gasoline,
reformulated gasoline and conventional gasoline). The Agency will use
these data, in addition to other sources of nonroad test data to
develop better air toxics emissions factors for nonroad 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 the on-highway mobile source
contribution to air toxics levels from outdoor sources in different
microenvironments (e.g., inside vehicles, homes, shopping malls, and
office buildings). This approach has limitations. Estimates of the on-
highway contribution to air toxics levels in different
microenvironments are then used in conjunction with activity data to
estimate average exposures. A new approach was needed that addressed
some of the limitations of the CO surrogate approach and one that could
be used to estimate exposures from all outdoor sources. Thus, the
Agency developed the Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure Model--Version 4
(HAPEM4), to estimate microenvironmental exposures in the National-
Scale Assessment of NATA. HAPEM4 utilizes peer reviewed, pollutant
specific microenvironmental factors to predict exposure levels in
microenvironments. The application of these microenvironmental factors
in the NATA National-Scale Assessment is currently awaiting peer review
by the Agency's Science Advisory Board. After that review, EPA's OAQPS
will incorporate applicable comments into HAPEM4 microenvironmental
factors that are needed to provide improved exposure estimates.
In addition, EPA will use results of on-going studies at the Mickey
Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center and in the EPA Office
of Radiation and Indoor Air to evaluate indoor and outdoor
concentrations of gaseous toxics as well as the penetration of toxics
from outdoor sources into indoor spaces. EPA will also utilize data
from new studies planned or underway (within and outside the Agency)
that are designed to fill gaps in current data sets such as personal
exposure in microenvironmental settings (e.g., houses with attached
garages, residences and commercial buildings located near heavily-
trafficked roadways, bus depots, and delivery terminals).
Another important aspect of considering microenvironmental
exposures is the amount of time people spend in each microenvironment.
To address this issue, HAPEM4 uses the EPA ORD Consolidated Human
Activity Database (CHAD). CHAD contains 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 past exposure assessment,
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 incorporate new
data into HAPEM4 to provide the best reflection of each subgroup's
activities and thereby enable subgroup analysis from which EPA would be
likely to gain additional insights about the potential exposures for
particular subgroups, including children. The Agency will review the
data to see where special analysis is warranted to characterize 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 (see
Chapter 5 of the TSD and our 1999 Study \42\). As part of its National
Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) activities, EPA has also conducted a
national-scale air toxics analysis to estimate ambient concentrations
of 33 air toxics identified in the IUATS, plus diesel PM. The NATA
National-Scale Analysis apportioned the contribution of air toxics to
ambient concentrations between major, area, nonroad mobile, and on-
highway sources. The NATA National Scale Analysis also reported
distributions of concentrations across census tracts nationally and at
the county level. While providing a significant and informative body of
information, these studies do not address exposures to toxics in hot
spot areas. As the Agency has stated in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy, we also want to consider the disproportionate impacts of air
toxics in hot spot areas. Hot spots are generally thought of as areas
with elevated pollutant levels that could be associated with elevated
exposures and potentially serious health risks. At higher pollutant
concentrations, the potential for risk increases, making it important
to characterize the distribution of exposure in the population. For
example, it would be important to know how many people are in the high-
end distribution
[[Page 17259]]
of exposure and whether they have additional susceptibilities (e.g.,
the elderly, young, or those exposed to other chemicals beyond MSATs)
and what factors place them at high risk (e.g., proximity to sources).
States and local air pollution control agencies have raised the hot
spots issue as a major concern that needs to be addressed in a
comprehensive air toxics risk characterization.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 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.
\43\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To improve our ability to characterize MSAT exposures to highly
exposed subpopulations requires better information regarding ambient
concentrations of MSATs in hot spot areas and appropriate
microenvironmental factor values for high-exposure microenvironments.
EPA is developing local-scale emissions and dispersion models for
mobile sources to better inform the Agency and the public about
potential hot spots. In addition, EPA is conducting spatially refined
urban area modeling (including mobile sources).
Field sampling studies funded by the Mickey Leland National Urban
Air Toxics Research Center and ambient monitoring being conducted by
States and local entities will provide information that will be used to
support real-world characterizations of a few typical hot spot areas.
These field measurements will also provide information regarding the
distributions of microenvironmental concentrations and therefore,
exposures. EPA will also 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 underway omission
year are considered in EPA's development of mobile source air toxics
exposure and risk analyses.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing our understanding of the effectiveness and costs of
vehicle, fuel, and nonroad air toxics controls. The Agency intends to
conduct additional analysis on additional controls for motor vehicles,
fuels, and nonroad engines that could lower air toxics emissions cost-
effectively in a reliable and predictable manner. For DPM + DEOG,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein, the
Agency will analyze a variety of control options, and re-evaluate
previously considered control options, for both on-highway and nonroad
sources. This additional analysis of control options will include the
feasibility of requiring retrofit of both highway and nonroad heavy-
duty diesel engines with emissions controls for air toxics.
In each of these four areas of investigation, EPA will 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 existing models and
integration of emission, concentration and exposure models to enable
the Agency to better assess the risks from air toxics from all sources;
Ways to address the significance of the hot spot issue;
\45\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ This workshop will include ways to characterize the
geographic variability and exposure/risk impacts of mobile source
emissions, considering both the ubiquitous ambient impact as well as
potential hot spots. 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. While this workshop will focus on
methods to understand the range of exposures to mobile source
emissions, methods to characterize additional sources of toxics
exposure will also be examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future vehicle, fuel, and nonroad control technologies for
reducing air toxics.
The results of the Technical Analysis Plan, workshops, and other
efforts to improve our understanding of air toxics risks will provide
the basis for any future rulemaking, as discussed below.
B. Commitment for Further Rulemaking
EPA is including a regulatory provision in section 80.825 that
establishes a schedule for a future rulemaking to promulgate any
additional vehicle and fuel controls that EPA determines are
appropriate under section 202(l)(2). This rulemaking will reassess the
standards in place at the time using the information collected through
the Technical Analysis Plan described above and other activities
related to mobile sources and air toxics. The standards that are being
promulgated by EPA in today's final rule will remain in effect unless
modified by this or other future rulemaking. EPA commits to issue a
proposed rule by July 1, 2003, and to take final action on the proposal
by July 1, 2004. The regulation adopted today establishes a rulemaking
schedule for exercise of EPA's discretionary authority under section
202(l)(2), which directs EPA to ``from time to time revise''
regulations under that provision.
We are also stating in section 80.825 that the Agency intends to
evaluate emissions and potential strategies relating to HAPs from
nonroad engines and vehicles. This is consistent with the commitment,
expressed in the preamble of the NPRM, to address emissions from
nonroad as well as on-highway vehicles. The preamble discussion in the
NPRM explained that as part of the rulemaking envisioned under the
proposed section 80.825, EPA would reexamine the controls available for
reducing toxics emitted from on-highway and nonroad vehicles and
equipment, and their fuels (see preamble, 65 FR at 48091). The review
would consider whether controls that reduce emissions from nonroad
sources were appropriate under the Act. EPA intends to review the
regulations of various categories of nonroad engines and equipment, and
to consider controls for those pollutants and categories of new nonroad
engines that EPA determines are appropriate. Controls on all types of
nonroad vehicles and equipment, or pollutants may not be warranted. In
deciding what pollutants and categories of engines or equipment to
include in any proposal, EPA intends to consider a variety of factors
such as cost, risk to public health, available technology, as well as
any other appropriate factors.
Several commenters urged EPA not to include a commitment to a
future rulemaking in the regulations. These commenters argued that it
was premature to commit to a rulemaking before EPA had completed the
Technical Analysis Plan and that a future rulemaking could be a waste
of resources if EPA determines no further controls are appropriate.
Several commenters also questioned EPA's authority to commit future
administrations to such a rulemaking. EPA continues to believe the
regulatory commitment in section 80.825 is reasonable and entirely
within EPA's authority.
Other commenters supported EPA's commitment to future rulemaking,
but encouraged EPA to extend that commitment to include a periodic
review of mobile source toxics controls. They believe that EPA should
review the appropriateness of additional controls every three years. At
this time, we do not believe it is necessary to make such a formal
commitment. However, the Act allows us to review
[[Page 17260]]
and from time to time revise air toxics standards for mobile sources.
Therefore, in addition to today's controls, we will continue to
evaluate and re-assess the need for, and level of controls for both on-
highway and nonroad sources of air toxics as described above.
VIII. Public Participation
A wide variety of interested parties participated in the rulemaking
process that culminated with this final rule. The formal comment period
and a public hearing associated with the NPRM provided additional
opportunities for public input. EPA also met with a variety of
stakeholders, including environmental and public health organizations,
oil company representatives, auto company representatives, and states
at various points in the process.
We have prepared a detailed Response to Comments document that
describes the comments received on the NPRM and presents our response
to each of these comments. The Response to Comments document is
available in the docket of this rule and on the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality Internet toxics page (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm). Comments and our response are also
included throughout this preamble for several key issues.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as any regulatory action
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
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;
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, this rule
was submitted to OMB for review. Any written comments from OMB on
today's action and any responses from EPA to OMB comments are in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. Of the approximately 146 petroleum refiners that
currently produce gasoline in the U.S., about 15 meet the Small
Business Administration (SBA) definition of a small business. According
to SBA guidelines, a petroleum refining company must have fewer than
1500 employees to qualify as an SBA small business.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As a result of the toxics performance standard being finalized today,
all refiners will be required to maintain current levels of
overcompliance with RFG and anti-dumping toxic emission performance
requirements. Because the standards finalized in this action are not
technology-forcing, we believe that all refiners, including small
refiners will not be required to adjust their current refining
practices in any unique way to meet the toxics performance standard.
Chapter 7 of the TSD supports this conclusion and we believe that any
future costs that may be incurred by any refiner to comply with this
program will be negligible.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. We have
included a number of flexibilities in this program such as deficit and
credit carryforward that are available to all refineries to meet the
requirements finalized in today's action. We believe these
flexibilities are sufficient to address any unforseen burdens that any
refiner, including a small refiner, may face, and therefore, no unique
provisions or flexibilities need to be finalized for small refiners.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740. The information requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
Under this rulemaking, refiners and importers are required to
determine and submit to EPA a toxics baseline based on the quality of
the gasoline produced or imported between 1998 and 2000, inclusive. The
toxics baseline is a one-time submission. Additionally, at the end of
each calendar year beginning with 2002, refiners and importers are
required to submit certain information to EPA under this rule. The
types of information and other requirements associated with these
submissions is presented below.
The data that is used in determining the toxics baseline is
gasoline batch information which the refiner or importer already has,
and has submitted (or will submit in the case of 2000 data) to EPA per
the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping programs' requirements.
Thus, there is no requirement under this rule to collect additional
information; refiners and importers use the information they already
have (gasoline batch quality and volumes) to determine the baseline for
this rule, a straightforward and uncomplicated calculation.
In addition to the one-time toxics baseline determination and
submission, refiners and importers are required to calculate annually
and submit to EPA the following, separately for reformulated and
conventional gasoline:
(1) The annual average toxics value. This value is the average
quality of all of the batches of gasoline produced or imported during
the year and is based on the volume and toxics quality of each batch
(volume weighted combination of each batch's toxic value).
(2) The annual volume. This is the sum of all of the batch volumes
of gasoline produced or imported during the year.
(3) The incremental volume. This is the difference between a
refiner's or importer's 1998-2000 baseline volume and the annual volume
(see above). Only positive incremental volumes (that is, when the
annual volume exceeds the
[[Page 17261]]
1998-2000 volume) are used in the compliance baseline calculation (see
below).
(4) The compliance baseline. This annual calculation is the
standard for this rule, and is the value to which the annual average
toxics value (see above) is compared. Factors in this calculation are
the baseline quality and volume (as determined in the one-time baseline
submission, plus a compliance margin which has been set by EPA), and
the incremental volume (see above).
The annual average toxics value for each type of gasoline
(reformulated, conventional) is essentially the same determination
refiners and importers must make for the reformulated gasoline and
anti-dumping programs. The annual average toxics value determination is
made using the toxics values calculated for each reformulated gasoline
and conventional gasoline batch in accordance with the reformulated
gasoline and anti-dumping program requirements. No new data is required
to be collected for this rule. The annual volume is also part of the
reporting requirements of those two programs. Only the incremental
volume determination and the compliance baseline determination are new
requirements due to this rule. These latter two determinations require
minimal calculation time. Additionally, all information required to be
submitted annually under this anti-backsliding program will be
submitted at the same time and on the same forms as the annually
required information under the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping
programs.
Refiners and importers are also required to annually submit attest
engagements (independent comparison and calculation of reported values
and related information submitted by refiners and importers in
accordance with the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping
requirements). Attest engagements are also required for this anti-
backsliding rule. The information the independent auditor must consider
includes the refiner's or importer's baseline toxics value, annual
average toxics value, baseline volume, incremental volume and
compliance baseline. This addition (on top of the attest engagement
requirements for the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping program
attest engagement requirements) is expected to require minimal
additional resources.
In summary, we believe that the additional data required by this
rulemaking will require minimum effort to prepare and submit, and can
be submitted with the same data submission forms pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the RFG and anti-dumping
rules. While we believe that the minimal amount of additional data
required by this rulemaking does not pose significant additional
information collection burden on refiners,\46\ we have submitted
revisions to the RFG and anti-dumping Information Collection Requests
(ICRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions
and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose
the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it 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. The OMB
control number(s) for the information collection requirements in this
rule will be listed in an amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in a subsequent
Federal Register document after OMB approves the ICR.
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 promulgating 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 has determined that this rule does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, Local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the
private sector in any one year. The anti-backsliding standard that is
being finalized in today's action, consisting of a ``cannot exceed''
toxics performance standard which is based in average annual production
in 1998-2000, will not require refiners to install capital equipment or
make substantial changes to their operations in order to comply. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on State, Local, or Tribal
governmental entities and nothing in the rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 202 and 205 of UMRA.
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.''
The proposed rule has no federalism implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The standards finalized in today's action do not
change the existing form of the gasoline toxics standard and therefore
do not change the states's rights with respect to gasoline air toxics
controls. The
[[Page 17262]]
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 13084
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 officials 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.''
Today's rule does not create any mandates or impose any obligations
on State, Local, or Tribal governments, 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
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 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) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rule references technical standards adopted by the Agency
through previous rulemakings. No new technical standards are
established in today's rule. The standards referenced in today's rule
involve the measurement of gasoline fuel parameters. The measurement
standards for gasoline fuel parameters referenced in today's rule 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.
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.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866. In addition, data that provide a direct insight into the
question of greater susceptibility in children are lacking.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that it is important to develop a better
understanding of the effects on public health, including on children's
health, of the MSATs identified in today's rule. Accordingly, EPA
intends to address children's health issues as part of its Technical
Analysis Plan.
G. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on May 29, 2001.
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
The statutory authority for the fuels controls in today's final
rule 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 rule,
including the 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,
Incorporation by reference, 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,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 20, 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 Sec. 80.2 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
[[Page 17263]]
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 J of this part, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
3. Section Sec. 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 shall 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
``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength
Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry,'' D 3246-96 ``Standard Test
Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry,'' D
3606-99 ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene
in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography,'' D
1319-99 ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid
Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption,'' D 4815-99
``Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE,
tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in
Gasoline by Gas Chromatography,'' and D 86-90 ``Standard Test Method
for Distillation of Petroleum Products,'' 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. Section 80.81 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.81 Enforcement exemptions for California gasoline.
(a) The requirements of subparts D, E, F and J of this part are
modified in accordance with the provisions contained in this section in
the case of California gasoline.
* * * * *
5. Subpart J is added to part 80 to read as follows:
Subpart J--Gasoline Toxics
General Information
Sec.
80.800-80.805 [Reserved]
80.810 Who shall register with EPA under the gasoline toxics
program?
Gasoline Toxics Performance Requirements
80.815 What are the gasoline toxics performance requirements for
refiners and importers?
80.820 What gasoline is subject to the toxics performance
requirements of this subpart?
80.825 How is the refinery or importer annual average toxics value
determined?
80.830 What requirements apply to oxygenate blenders?
80.835 What requirements apply to butane blenders?
80.840 [Reserved]
80.845 What requirements apply to California gasoline?
80.850 How is the compliance baseline determined?
80.855 What is the compliance baseline for refineries or importers
with insufficient data?
80.860-80.905 [Reserved]
Baseline Determination
80.910 How does a refiner or importer apply for a toxics baseline?
80.915 How are the baseline toxics value and the baseline toxics
volume determined?
80.920-80.980 [Reserved]
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
80.985 What records shall be kept?
80.990 What are the toxics reporting requirements?
Exemptions
80.995 What if a refiner or importer is unable to produce gasoline
conforming to the requirements of this subpart?
80.1000 What are the requirements for obtaining an exemption for
gasoline used for research, development or testing purposes?
Violation Provisions
80.1005 What acts are prohibited under the gasoline toxics program?
80.1010 [Reserved]
80.1015 Who is liable for violations under the gasoline toxics
program?
80.1020 [Reserved]
80.1025 What penalties apply under this subpart?
Provisions for Foreign Refiners With Individual Toxics Baselines
80.1030 What are the requirements for gasoline produced at foreign
refineries having individual refiner toxics baselines?
Attest Engagements
80.1035 What are the attest engagement requirements for gasoline
toxics compliance applicable to refiners and importers?
80.1040 [Reserved]
Additional Rulemaking
80.1045 What additional rulemaking will EPA conduct?
Subpart J--Gasoline Toxics
General Information
Sec. 80.800-80.805 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.810 Who shall register with EPA under the gasoline toxics
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. 80.815
who are not registered by EPA under Sec. 80.76 shall 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 Toxics Performance Requirements
Sec. 80.815 What are the gasoline toxics performance requirements for
refiners and importers?
(a)(1) The gasoline toxics performance requirements of this subpart
require that the annual average toxics value of a refinery or importer
be compared to that refinery's or importer's compliance baseline, where
compliance has been achieved if--
(i) For conventional gasoline, the annual average toxics value is
less than or equal to the compliance baseline;
(ii) For reformulated gasoline and RBOB, combined, the annual
average toxics value is greater than or equal to the compliance
baseline.
(A) Refineries that only produce RBOB and importers that only
import RBOB shall treat RBOB as reformulated gasoline for the purposes
of determining compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
(B) Refineries that produce both RFG and RBOB and importers that
import both RFG and RBOB must combine any RFG and RBOB qualities and
volumes
[[Page 17264]]
for the purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of
this subpart.
(2) The requirements under this paragraph (a) shall be met by the
importer for all imported gasoline, except gasoline imported as
Certified Toxics-FRGAS under Sec. 80.1030.
(b) The gasoline toxics requirements of this subpart apply
separately for each of the following types of gasoline produced at a
refinery or imported:
(1) Reformulated gasoline and RBOB, combined;
(2) Conventional gasoline.
(c) Compliance baseline. (1) The compliance baseline of a refinery
or importer is determined in accordance with Sec. 80.915 or
Sec. 80.855, as applicable.
(2) 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, shall comply with the requirements of this subpart on the same
aggregate basis.
(d) Compliance determination. (1) The gasoline toxics performance
requirements of this subpart apply to gasoline produced at a refinery
or imported by an importer during each calendar year starting January
1, 2002. The averaging period is January 1 through December 31 of each
year.
(2) The annual average toxics value is calculated in accordance
with Sec. 80.825.
(e) Deficit carryforward. (1) A refinery or importer creates a
toxics deficit, separately for reformulated gasoline and conventional
gasoline, for a given averaging period, when--
(i) For conventional gasoline, its annual average toxics value is
greater than the compliance baseline;
(ii) For reformulated gasoline and RBOB, combined, the annual
average toxics value is less than the compliance baseline.
(2) In the calendar year following the year the toxics deficit is
created, the refinery or importer shall:
(i) Achieve compliance with the refinery or importer toxics
performance requirement specified in paragraph (a) of this section; and
(ii) Generate additional toxics credits sufficient to offset the
toxics deficit of the previous year.
(f) Credit carryforward. (1) A refinery or importer generates
toxics credits, separately for reformulated gasoline and conventional
gasoline, for a given averaging period, when--
(i) For conventional gasoline, its annual average toxics value is
less than the compliance baseline;
(ii) For reformulated gasoline and RBOB, combined, the annual
average toxics value is greater than the compliance baseline.
(2) Toxics credits may be used to offset a toxics deficit in the
calendar year following the year the credits are generated, provided
the following criteria are met:
(i) Reformulated gasoline toxics credits are only to be used to
offset a reformulated gasoline toxics deficit; conventional gasoline
credits are only to be used to offset a conventional gasoline toxics
deficit.
(ii) A refiner only offsets a toxics deficit at a refinery with
toxics credits generated by that refinery.
(iii) Credits generated on an aggregate basis may only be used to
offset a deficit calculated on an aggregate basis.
(iv) Credits used to offset a deficit from the previous year may
not also be carried forward to the following year. Credits in excess of
those used to offset a deficit from the previous year may be used to
offset a deficit in the following year.
(v) Only toxics credits generated under this subpart may be used to
offset a toxics deficit created under this subpart.
Sec. 80.820 What gasoline is subject to the toxics performance
requirements of this subpart?
For the purpose of this subpart, all reformulated gasoline,
conventional gasoline and RBOB, collectively called ``gasoline'' unless
otherwise specified, is subject to the 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. 80.845,
and used in California.
(d) Gasoline used in American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands.
(e) Gasoline exempt per Sec. 80.995.
(f) Gasoline exempt per Sec. 80.1000.
Sec. 80.825 How is the refinery or importer annual average toxics
value determined?
(a) The refinery or importer annual average toxics value is
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR01.000
Where:
Ta = The refinery or importer annual average toxics value,
as applicable.
Vi = The volume of applicable gasoline produced or imported
in batch i.
Ti = The toxics value of batch i.
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 calculation specified in paragraph (a) of this section
shall be made separately for each type of gasoline specified at
Sec. 80.815(b).
(c) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch of gasoline is
determined using the Phase II Complex Model specified at Sec. 80.45.
(1) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch of reformulated
gasoline or RBOB, and the annual average toxics value, Ta,
for reformulated gasoline and RBOB, combined, under this subpart are in
percent reduction from the statutory baseline described in
Sec. 80.45(b) and volumes are in gallons.
(2) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch of conventional
gasoline, and the annual average toxics value, Ta, for
conventional gasoline under this subpart are in milligrams per mile
(mg/mile) and volumes are in gallons.
(d) All refinery or importer annual average toxics value
calculations shall be conducted to two decimal places.
(e) A refiner or importer may include oxygenate added downstream
from the refinery or import facility when calculating the toxics value,
provided the following requirements are met:
(1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline, the refiner or
importer shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 80.101(d)(4)(ii).
(2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the refiner or importer shall
comply with the requirements of Sec. 80.69(a).
(f) Gasoline excluded. Refiners and importers shall exclude from
compliance calculations all of the following:
(1) Gasoline that was not produced at the refinery;
[[Page 17265]]
(2) In the case of an importer, gasoline that was imported as
Certified Toxics-FRGAS under Sec. 80.1030;
(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. 80.820.
Sec. 80.830 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. 80.835 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. 80.840 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.845 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. (1) Each batch of
California gasoline shall 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 shall meet the product
transfer document requirements under Sec. 80.81(g).
(5) Gasoline that is ultimately used in any part of the United
States outside of the State of California shall comply with the
standards and requirements of this subpart, regardless of any
designation as California gasoline.
Sec. 80.850 How is the compliance baseline determined?
(a) The compliance baseline to which annual average toxics values
are compared according to Sec. 80.815(a) is calculated according to the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR01.001
Where:
TCBase = Compliance baseline toxics value.
TBase = Baseline toxics value for the refinery or importer,
calculated according to Sec. 80.915(b)(1).
VBase = Baseline volume for the refinery or importer,
calculated according to Sec. 80.915(b)(2).
TExist = Existing toxics standard, per paragraph (b) of this
section.
Vinc = Volume of gasoline produced during the averaging
period in excess of VBase.
(b) The value of existing toxics standard, TExist, is
equal to:
(1) 21.5 percent, for reformulated gasoline and RBOB, combined;
(2) The refinery's or importer's anti-dumping compliance baseline
value for exhaust toxics, in mg/mi, per Sec. 80.101(f), for
conventional gasoline.
(c) If the refinery or importer produced less gasoline during the
compliance period than its baseline volume VBase, the value
of Vinc will be zero.
Sec. 80.855 What is the compliance baseline for refineries or
importers with insufficient data?
(a) A refinery or importer shall use the methodology specified in
this section for determining a compliance baseline if it cannot
determine an applicable toxics value for every batch of gasoline
produced or imported for 12 or more consecutive months during January
1, 1998 through December 31, 2000.
(b)(1) A refinery or importer that cannot determine an applicable
toxics value on every batch of gasoline produced or imported for 12 or
more consecutive months during the period January 1, 1998 through
December 31, 2000 or a refinery or importer that did not produce or
import reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB (combined) or conventional
gasoline or both during the period between January 1, 1998 and December
31, 2000, inclusive, shall have the following as its compliance
baseline for the purposes of this subpart:
(i) For conventional gasoline, 94.64 mg/mile.
(ii) For reformulated gasoline, 26.71 percent reduction from
statutory baseline.
(2) By October 31, 2001, EPA will revise by regulation the default
baseline values specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to
reflect the final 1998-2000 average toxics values.
Sec. 80.860-80.905 [Reserved]
Baseline Determination
Sec. 80.910 How does a refiner or importer apply for a toxics
baseline?
(a) A refiner or importer shall submit an application to EPA which
includes the information required under paragraph (c) of this section
no later than June 30, 2001 or 3 months prior to the first introduction
of gasoline into commerce from the refinery or by the importer,
whichever is later.
(b) The toxics baseline request shall be sent to: U.S. EPA, Attn:
Toxics Program (6406J), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. For
commercial (non-postal) delivery: U.S. EPA, Attn: Toxics Program, 501
3rd Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.
(c) The toxics baseline application shall 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 toxics baseline, or
the name and address of the importer applying for a toxics baseline.
(2) For each refinery and importer--
(i) The baseline toxics value for each type of gasoline, per
Sec. 80.815(b), calculated in accordance with Sec. 80.915;
(ii) The baseline toxics volume for each type of gasoline, per
Sec. 80.815(b), calculated in accordance with Sec. 80.915;
(iii) For those with insufficient data pursuant to Sec. 80.855, a
statement that the refinery's or importer's baseline toxics value is
the default compliance baseline specified at Sec. 80.855(b), and that
its baseline toxics volume is zero.
(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 toxics 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 during the period 1998-2000, separately for each type of
gasoline listed at Sec. 80.815(b):
(i) Batch number assigned to the batch under Sec. 80.65(d) or
Sec. 80.101(i);
(ii) Volume; and
(iii) Applicable toxics value determined as specified at
Sec. 80.915(c).
(d) Foreign refiners shall follow the procedures specified in
Sec. 80.1030(b) to establish individual toxics baseline values for a
foreign refinery.
(e) By October 31, 2001, or 4 months after the submission date,
whichever is later, EPA will notify the submitter of approval of its
toxics baseline.
[[Page 17266]]
(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 toxics
requirements are deemed to be those applicable under the corrected
information.
Sec. 80.915 How are the baseline toxics value and baseline toxics
volume determined?
(a)(1) A refinery or importer shall use the methodology specified
in this section for determining a baseline toxics value if it can
determine an applicable toxics value for every batch of gasoline
produced or imported for 12 or more consecutive months during January
1, 1998 through December 31, 2000.
(2) The determination in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is made
separately for each type of gasoline listed at Sec. 80.815(b) produced
or imported between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive.
(3) All consecutive and non-consecutive batch toxics measurements
between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive, 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)(1) A refinery's or importer's baseline toxics value is
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR01.002
Where:
TBase = Baseline toxics value.
Vi = Volume of gasoline batch i produced or imported between
January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive.
Ti = Toxics value of gasoline batch i produced or imported
between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive.
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported between January
1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive.
n = Total number of batches of gasoline produced or imported between
January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive.
M = Compliance margin.
(2) A refinery's or importer's baseline toxics volume is calculated
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR01.003
Where:
Vbase = Baseline toxics volume.
Vi = Volume of gasoline batch i produced or imported between
January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive.
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported between January
1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive.
n = Total number of batches of gasoline produced or imported between
January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, inclusive.
Y = Number of years between 1998 and 2000, inclusive, during some or
all of which the refinery produced, or the importer imported, gasoline.
(c) The calculation specified in paragraph (b) of this section
shall be made separately for each type of gasoline listed at
Sec. 80.815(b).
(d) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch of gasoline is
determined using the Phase II Complex Model specified at Sec. 80.45.
(1) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch of reformulated
gasoline or RBOB, and the baseline toxics value, TBase, for
reformulated gasoline and RBOB, combined, under this subpart are in
percent reduction from the statutory baseline defined in 40 CFR
80.45(b) and volumes are in gallons.
(2) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch of conventional
gasoline, and the baseline toxics value, TBase, for
conventional gasoline under this subpart are in milligrams per mile
(mg/mile) and volumes are in gallons.
(e) All refinery or importer baseline toxics value calculations
shall be conducted to two decimal places.
(f) Any refinery for which oxygenate blended downstream was
included in compliance calculations for 1998-2000, pursuant to
Sec. 80.65 or Sec. 80.101(d)(4), shall include this oxygenate in the
baseline calculations for toxics value under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(g) Baseline adjustment. (1) A toxics baseline determined
differently than described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
section may be allowed upon petition by the refiner or importer and
approval by the Administrator or designee. The petition must be
included with the baseline submittal under Sec. 80.910.
(2) A toxics baseline adjustment petition shall, at minimum, be
accompanied by:
(i) Unadjusted and adjusted baseline fuel parameters, applicable
toxics values, and volumes; and
(ii) A narrative describing how the circumstances during 1998-2000
materially affected the baseline toxics value calculated under
paragraph (a) of this section. The narrative shall also describe and
show the calculations, and the reasoning supporting the calculations,
used to determine the adjusted values.
(h) The compliance margin, M, that will be added to the toxics
baseline calculated according to paragraph (a) of this section shall be
equal to:
(1) -0.7% for reformulated gasoline or RBOB;
(2) 2.5 mg/mile for conventional gasoline.
Sec. 80.920-80.980 [Reserved]
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Sec. 80.985 What records shall be kept?
(a) The recordkeeping requirements specified under Sec. 80.74
applicable to refiners and importers of reformulated gasoline, RBOB
and/or conventional gasoline apply under this subpart, however,
duplicate records are not required.
(b) Additional records that refiners and importers shall 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) The calculations used to determine the applicable compliance
baseline under Sec. 80.915.
(2) The calculations used to determine compliance with the
applicable toxics requirements per Sec. 80.815.
(3) A copy of all reports submitted to EPA under Sec. 80.990,
however, duplicate records are not required.
(c) Additional records importers shall keep. Any importer shall
keep records that identify and verify the source of each batch of
Certified Toxics-FRGAS and Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS imported and
demonstrate compliance with the requirements for importers under
Sec. 80.1030(o).
(d) Length of time records shall 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
[[Page 17267]]
shall be provided to the Administrator's authorized representative.
Sec. 80.990 What are the toxics reporting requirements?
Beginning with the 2002 averaging period, and continuing for each
averaging period thereafter, any refiner or importer shall submit to
EPA 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:
(1) Include in its reformulated gasoline toxics emissions
performance averaging report per Sec. 80.75(e) the compliance baseline
and incremental volume, Vinc, for its reformulated gasoline
and RBOB, combined, per Sec. 80.850.
(2) Include in its conventional gasoline report per Sec. 80.105 the
compliance baseline and incremental volume, Vinc, for its
conventional gasoline per Sec. 80.850.
(3) Exclude Certified Toxics-FRGAS under Sec. 80.1030, if an
importer.
(b) Additional reporting requirements for importers. Any importer
shall report the following information for Toxics-FRGAS imported during
the averaging period:
(1) The EPA refiner and refinery registration numbers of each
foreign refiner and refinery where the Certified Toxics-FRGAS was
produced; and
(2) The total gallons of Certified Toxics-FRGAS and Non-Certified
Toxics-FRGAS imported from each foreign refiner and refinery.
Exemptions
Sec. 80.995 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 not meet the requirements of this
subpart, separately for reformulated gasoline (and RBOB, combined) and
conventional gasoline, provided the refiner or importer meets all the
criteria, requirements and conditions contained in Sec. 80.73 (a)
through (e).
Sec. 80.1000 What are the requirements for obtaining an exemption for
gasoline used for research, development or testing purposes?
Gasoline used for research, development or testing purposes is
exempt from the requirements of this subpart if it is exempted for
these purposes under the reformulated and conventional gasoline
programs, as applicable.
Violation Provisions
Sec. 80.1005 What acts are prohibited under the gasoline toxics
program?
No person shall:
(a) Averaging violation. Produce or import gasoline subject to this
subpart that does not comply with the applicable toxics requirement
under Sec. 80.815.
(b) Causing an averaging use violation. Cause another person to
commit an act in violation of paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 80.1010 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1015 Who is liable for violations under the gasoline toxics
program?
(a) Persons liable for violations of prohibited acts--(1) Averaging
violation. Any person who violates Sec. 80.1005(a) is liable for the
violation.
(2) Causing an averaging violation. Any person who causes another
party to violate Sec. 80.1005(a), is liable for a violation of
Sec. 80.1005(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.
(b) Persons liable for failure to meet other provisions of this
subpart. (1) Any person 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 person who causes another party 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. 80.1020 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1025 What penalties apply under this subpart?
(a) Any person liable for a violation under Sec. 80.1015 is subject
to civil penalties as specified in sections 205 and 211(d) 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. 80.1015(a) for a violation of the
applicable toxics requirements or causing another party to violate the
requirements 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. 80.1015(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 Toxics Baselines
Sec. 80.1030 What are the requirements for gasoline produced at
foreign refineries having individual refiner toxics 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 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) Toxics-FRGAS means gasoline produced at a foreign refinery that
has been assigned an individual refinery toxics baseline under
Sec. 80.915 and that is imported into the U.S.
(4) Non-Toxics-FRGAS means gasoline that is produced at a foreign
refinery that has not been assigned an individual refinery toxics
baseline, gasoline produced at a foreign refinery with an individual
refinery toxics baseline that is not imported into the United States,
and gasoline produced at a foreign refinery with an individual toxics
baseline during a year when the foreign refiner has opted to not
participate in the Toxics-FRGAS program under paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(5) Certified Toxics-FRGAS means Toxics-FRGAS the foreign refiner
intends to include in the foreign refinery's toxics compliance
calculations under Sec. 80.825, and does include in these compliance
calculations when reported to EPA.
(6) Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS means Toxics-FRGAS that is not
Certified Toxics-FRGAS.
(b) Baseline establishment. Any foreign refiner may submit a
petition to the Administrator for an individual refinery toxics
baseline pursuant to Sec. 80.915 for all gasoline that was produced at
the foreign refinery and imported into the United States between
January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000.
(1) The refiner shall follow the procedures specified in
Secs. 80.91 through 80.93 to establish an anti-dumping baseline, if it
does not already have such a baseline.
[[Page 17268]]
(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)(i) Where a foreign refiner submits a petition that is
incomplete or inadequate to establish an accurate toxics baseline, and
the refiner fails to cure this defect after a request for more
information, EPA will not assign an individual refinery toxics
baseline.
(ii) If a foreign refiner does not already have an anti-dumping
individual baseline per Sec. 80.94, and if pursuant to Sec. 80.94(b)(5)
EPA does not assign an individual anti-dumping baseline, EPA will also
not assign an individual refinery toxics baseline.
(c) General requirements for foreign refiners with individual
refinery toxics baselines. A foreign refiner of a refinery that has
been assigned an individual toxics baseline according to Sec. 80.915
shall designate all gasoline produced at the foreign refinery that is
exported to the United States as either Certified Toxics-FRGAS or as
Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS, except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section.
(1) In the case of Certified Toxics-FRGAS, the foreign refiner
shall meet all provisions that apply to refiners under this subpart J.
(2) In the case of Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS, the foreign refiner
shall meet all the following provisions, except the foreign refiner
shall use the name Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS instead of 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. 80.985.
(iii) The reporting requirements in Sec. 80.990 and this section.
(iv) The product transfer document requirements in this section.
(v) The prohibitions in this section and Sec. 80.1005.
(vi) The independent audit requirements under Sec. 80.1035,
paragraph (h) of this section, Secs. 80.125 through 80.127,
Sec. 80.128(a), (b), (c), (g) through (i), and Sec. 80.130.
(3)(i) Any foreign refiner that has been assigned an individual
toxics baseline for a foreign refinery under Sec. 80.915 may elect to
classify no gasoline imported into the United States as Toxics-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.
(4) In the case of information required under this section which
would duplicate information submitted in accordance with Sec. 80.94,
the refiner may indicate that such information is also submitted in
accordance with the requirements of this section. Duplicate submissions
are not required.
(d) Designation, product transfer documents, and foreign refiner
certification. (1) Any foreign refiner of a foreign refinery that has
been assigned an individual toxics baseline shall designate each batch
of Toxics-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 Toxics-FRGAS under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
(2) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to
any Toxics-FRGAS prior to its being imported into the United States, it
shall include the following information as part of the product transfer
document information in this section:
(i) Identification of the gasoline as Certified Toxics-FRGAS or as
Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS; and
(ii) The name and EPA refinery registration number of the refinery
where the Toxics-FRGAS was produced.
(3) On each occasion when Toxics-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or
other transportation mode for transport to the United States, the
foreign refiner shall prepare a written verification for each batch of
the Toxics-FRGAS that meets the following requirements:
(i) The verification 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 Toxics-FRGAS;
(B) The identification of the gasoline as Certified Toxics-FRGAS or
Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS;
(C) The volume of Toxics-FRGAS being transported, in gallons;
(D) In the case of Certified Toxics-FRGAS:
(1) The toxics value as determined under paragraph (f) of this
section; and
(2) A declaration that the Toxics-FRGAS is being included in the
compliance calculations under Sec. 80.825 for the refinery that
produced the Toxics-FRGAS.
(ii) The verification shall be made part of the product transfer
documents for the Toxics-FRGAS.
(e) Transfers of Toxics-FRGAS to non-United States markets. The
foreign refiner is responsible to ensure that all gasoline classified
as Toxics-FRGAS is imported into the United States. A foreign refiner
may remove the Toxics-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. 80.825; and
(B) In the case of Certified Toxics-FRGAS, the volume and toxics
value of the gasoline from the compliance calculations under
Sec. 80.825.
(ii) The exclusions under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall
be on the basis of the toxics value 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.
(f) Load port independent sampling, testing and refinery
identification. (1) On each occasion Toxics-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 Toxics-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 Toxics-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 Toxics-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 Toxics-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
[[Page 17269]]
the value for toxics 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;
(iii) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage
of the Certified Toxics-FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, and
from this review determine:
(A) The refinery at which the Toxics-FRGAS was produced; and
(B) That the Toxics-FRGAS remained segregated from:
(1) Non-Toxics-FRGAS and Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS; and
(2) Other Certified Toxics-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 shall:
(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 Toxics-
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 toxics value.
(ii) Where a vessel transporting Certified Toxics-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 toxics value determined at the port of entry is higher than
the toxics 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 Toxics-FRGAS, and the foreign refiner
shall exclude the gasoline volume and properties from its gasoline
toxics compliance calculations under Sec. 80.825.
(h) Attest requirements. The following additional procedures shall
be carried out by any foreign refiner of Toxics-FRGAS as part of the
applicable attest engagement for each foreign refinery under
Sec. 80.1035:
(1) The inventory reconciliation analysis under Sec. 80.128(b) and
the tender analysis under Sec. 80.128(c) shall include Non-Toxics-FRGAS
in addition to the gasoline types listed in Sec. 80.128(b) and (c).
(2) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Certified Toxics-
FRGAS, and of Non-Certified Toxics-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
Toxics-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 Toxics-
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 Toxics-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
Toxics-FRGAS is stored, and pipeline activity records for any pipeline
used to transport the Certified Toxics-FRGAS, prior to being loaded
onto the vessel. Use these records to determine whether the Certified
Toxics-FRGAS was produced at the refinery that is the subject of the
attest engagement, and whether the Certified Toxics-FRGAS was mixed
with any Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS, Non-Toxics-FRGAS, or any Certified
Toxics-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
(5) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified and Non-
Certified Toxics-FRGAS, in accordance with the guidelines in
Sec. 80.127, and for each vessel selected perform the following:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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-Toxics-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
[[Page 17270]]
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 80.130 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. 80.1035 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 toxics 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) Toxics-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
toxics value, and transfers of title or custody, of any gasoline or
blendstocks, whether Toxics-FRGAS or Non-toxics-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 toxics value of Toxics-FRGAS;
(C) The proper classification of gasoline as being Toxics-FRGAS or
as not being Toxics-FRGAS, or as Certified Toxics-FRGAS or as Non-
Certified Toxics-FRGAS;
(D) Transfers of title or custody to Toxics-FRGAS;
(E) Sampling and testing of Toxics-FRGAS;
(F) Work performed and reports prepared by independent third
parties and by independent auditors under the requirements of this
section and Sec. 80.1035 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 and personal and subject matter jurisdiction in the United States
over 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 J.
(3) A foreign refiner shall be subject to civil liability for
violations of this section, sections 114, 202(l), 211, and 301(a) of
the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(l), 7545 and
7601(a)), and all other applicable laws or regulations and shall be
subject to the provisions thereof. The Administrator may assess a
penalty against a foreign refiner for any violation of this section by
a foreign refiner, in the manner set forth in sections 205(c) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7524(c) or commence a civil action against a foreign
refiner to assess and recover a civil penalty in the manner set forth
in section 205(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7524(b). A FR shall be subject
to criminal liability for violations of this section, section 113(c)(2)
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2), 18 U.S.C. 1001 and all other
applicable provisions and shall be subject to the provisions thereof.
(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 toxics
baseline, producing and exporting gasoline under an individual refinery
toxics baseline, and all other actions to comply with the requirements
of this subpart J relating to the establishment and use of an
individual refinery toxics 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 J, including conduct that violates Title 18
U.S.C. section 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 Toxics-FRGAS produced at a foreign refinery
is stored or transported by another company between the refinery and
the vessel that transports the Toxics-FRGAS to the 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
toxics 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
[[Page 17271]]
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 J, including conduct that violates Title 18
U.S.C. section 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 toxics baseline.
(1) The foreign refiner shall annually post a bond of the amount
calculated using the following equation:
Bond = G x $ 0.01 - BondCG
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.
BondCG = amount of bond currently posted by the refinery
pursuant to Sec. 80.94.
(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 or administrative judgment,
order, assessment or payment under a judicial or administrative
settlement agreement that results from an administrative or judicial
enforcement action for conduct in violation of this subpart J,
including where such conduct violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 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'; 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 J.
(5) On any occasion a foreign refiner bond is used to satisfy any
judgment or other obligation, the foreign refiner shall increase the
bond to cover the amount used within 90 days of the date the bond is
used.
(6) The bond is used for payment of, not in lieu of, any obligation
arising under any judgment, order, assessment or settlement agreement.
Nothing herein is intended to waive any portion of any obligation
except what portion is actually paid by use of funds from the bond.
(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 Toxics-FRGAS
with any Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS or Non-Toxics-FRGAS, and no person
may combine Certified Toxics-FRGAS with any Certified Toxics-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 Toxics-FRGAS or as Non-Toxics-FRGAS, and each batch
classified as Toxics-FRGAS shall be further classified as Certified
Toxics-FRGAS or as Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS.
(2) Gasoline shall be classified as Certified Toxics-FRGAS or as
Non-Certified Toxics-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 Toxics-
FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) For each gasoline batch classified as Toxics-FRGAS, any United
States importer shall perform the following procedures:
(i) In the case of both Certified and Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS,
have an independent third party:
(A) Determine the volume of gasoline in the vessel;
(B) Use the foreign refiner's Toxics-FRGAS certification to
determine the name and EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign
refinery that produced the Toxics-FRGAS;
(C) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel
used to transport the Toxics-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 Toxics-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 toxics 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 Toxics-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. 80.815 for any imported gasoline that is not
classified as Certified Toxics-FRGAS under paragraph (o)(2) of this
section.
(p) Truck Imports of Certified Toxics-FRGAS produced at a Refinery
(1) Any refiner whose Certified Toxics-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;
[[Page 17272]]
(iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this section; and
(iv) Importer testing under paragraph (o)(3) of this section.
(2) These alternative procedures shall ensure Certified Toxics-
FRGAS remains segregated from Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS and from Non-
Toxics-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 Toxics-FRGAS
from that refinery from all other gasoline;
(ii) Contracts with any terminals and/or pipelines that receive
and/or transport Certified Toxics-FRGAS, that prohibit the commingling
of Certified Toxics-FRGAS with any of the following:
(A) Other Certified Toxics-FRGAS from other refineries.
(B) All Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS.
(C) All Non-Toxics-FRGAS;
(iii) Procedures for obtaining and reviewing truck loading records
and United States import documents for Certified Toxics-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
Toxics-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 shall be submitted to EPA
along with the application for small refiner status and individual
refinery toxics 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 J; 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
toxics requirements.
(s) Additional requirements for petitions, reports and
certificates. Any petition for a refinery baseline under Sec. 80.915,
any alternative procedures under paragraph (r) of this section, any
report or other submission required by paragraph (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 J, 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 J, including 40 CFR 80.1030 [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. 80.1035 What are the attest engagement requirements for gasoline
toxics 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. 80.1030, the attest engagements for refiners and importers
applicable to this subpart J shall include the following procedures and
requirements each year, which should be applied separately to
reformulated gasoline (and RBOB, combined) and conventional gasoline:
(a) Obtain the EPA toxics baseline approval letter for the refinery
to determine the refinery's applicable baseline toxics value and
baseline toxics volume under Sec. 80.915.
(b) Obtain a written representation from the company representative
stating the toxics value(s) that the company used as its baseline(s)
and agree that number to paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or importer's annual
toxics reports per Secs. 1A80.75(e) and 80.105 filed with EPA for the
year to determine the compliance baseline and incremental volume.
(d) Agree the yearly volume of gasoline reported to EPA in the
toxics reports with the inventory reconciliation analysis under
Sec. 80.128.
(e) Calculate the annual average toxics value level for each type
of gasoline specified at Sec. 80.815(b) and agree the applicable values
with the values reported to EPA.
(f) Calculate the difference between the yearly volume of gasoline
reported to EPA and the baseline volume, if applicable, to determine
the yearly incremental volume and agree that value with the value
reported to EPA.
(g) Calculate the compliance baseline per Sec. 80.850, and agree
that value with the value reported to EPA.
Sec. 80.1040 [Reserved]
Additional Rulemaking
Sec. 80.1045 What additional rulemaking will EPA conduct?
No later than July 1, 2003, the Administrator shall propose any
[[Page 17273]]
requirements to control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles
and motor vehicle fuels that the Administrator determines are
appropriate pursuant to section 202(l)(2) of the Act. The Administrator
will take final action on such proposal no later than July 1, 2004.
During this rulemaking, EPA also intends to evaluate emissions and
potential strategies relating to hazardous air pollutants from nonroad
engines and vehicles.
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. 01-37 Filed 3-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P