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

Monday,
February 26, 2007
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 59, 80, 85, and 86
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Mobile Sources; Final Rule
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES_2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:54 Feb 23, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26FER2.SGM 26FER2
8428 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION when they are operated at cold available either electronically through
AGENCY temperatures. This standard will be http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
phased in from 2010 to 2015. For copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
40 CFR Parts 59, 80, 85, and 86 passenger vehicles, we are also adopting West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
evaporative emissions standards that are Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036; FRL–8278–4]
equivalent to those currently in effect in Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
RIN 2060–AK70 California. Finally, we are adopting a 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
hydrocarbon emissions standard for excluding legal holidays. The telephone
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants portable fuel containers beginning in number for the Public Reading Room is
From Mobile Sources 2009, which will reduce evaporation (202) 566–1744, and the telephone
and spillage of gasoline from these number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
containers. These controls will 1742.
Agency (EPA).
significantly reduce emissions of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
ACTION: Final rule. benzene and other mobile source air Chris Lieske, U.S. EPA, Office of
toxics such as 1,3-butadiene, Transportation and Air Quality,
SUMMARY: EPA is adopting controls on
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, Assessment and Standards Division
gasoline, passenger vehicles, and
and naphthalene. There will be (ASD), Environmental Protection
portable fuel containers (primarily gas
additional substantial benefits to public Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
cans) that will significantly reduce
health and welfare because of Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
emissions of benzene and other
significant reductions in emissions of (734) 214–4584; fax number: (734) 214–
hazardous air pollutants (‘‘mobile
particulate matter from passenger 4816; e-mail address:
source air toxics’’). Benzene is a known
vehicles. lieske.christopher@epa.gov, or
human carcinogen, and mobile sources
are responsible for the majority of DATES: This rule is effective on April 27, Assessment and Standards Division
benzene emissions. The other mobile 2007. Hotline; telephone number: (734) 214–
source air toxics are known or suspected ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 4636; e-mail address: asdinfo@epa.gov.
to cause cancer or other serious health docket for this action under Docket ID SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
effects. We are limiting the benzene No. EPA–HQ–2005–0036. All
content of gasoline to an annual refinery documents in the docket are listed on Does This Action Apply to Me?
average of 0.62% by volume, beginning the www.regulations.gov Web site. Entities potentially affected by this
in 2011. In addition, for gasoline, we are Although listed in the index, some action are those that produce new motor
establishing a maximum average information is not publicly available, vehicles, alter individual imported
standard for refineries of 1.3% by e.g., CBI or other information whose motor vehicles to address U.S.
volume beginning on July 1, 2012, disclosure is restricted by statute. regulation, or convert motor vehicles to
which acts as an upper limit on gasoline Certain other material, such as use alternative fuels. It will also affect
benzene content when credits are used copyrighted material, is not placed on you if you produce gasoline motor fuel
to meet the 0.62 volume % standard. We the Internet and will be publicly or manufacture portable gasoline
are also limiting exhaust emissions of available only in hard copy form. containers. Regulated categories
hydrocarbons from passenger vehicles Publicly available docket materials are include:
NAICS
Category SIC codes b Examples of potentially affected entities
codes a
Industry ..................................................................................................... 336111 3711 Motor vehicle manufacturers.

Industry ..................................................................................................... 335312 3621 Alternative fuel vehicle converters.
424720 5172
811198 7539
.................... 7549
Industry ..................................................................................................... 811111 7538 Independent commercial importers.
811112 7533
811198 7549
Industry ..................................................................................................... 324110 2911 Gasoline fuel refiners.
Industry ..................................................................................................... 326199 3089 Portable fuel container manufacturers.
332431 3411
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
This table is not intended to be 80, 85, and 86. If you have any A. Statutory Requirements
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide questions regarding the applicability of 1. Clean Air Act Section 202(l)
for readers regarding entities likely to be this action to a particular entity, consult 2. Clean Air Act Section 183(e)
regulated by this action. This table lists the person listed in the preceding FOR 3. Energy Policy Act
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. Public Health Impacts of Mobile Source
the types of entities that EPA is now
Air Toxics (MSATs)
aware could potentially be regulated by Outline of This Preamble 1. What Are MSATs?
this action. Other types of entities not
I. Summary 2. Health Risk Associated With MSATs

listed in the table could also be a. National Cancer Risk
II. Overview of Final Rule
regulated. To determine whether your A. Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards b. National Risk of Noncancer Health
activities are regulated by this action, B. Gasoline Fuel Standards Effects
you should carefully examine the C. Portable Fuel Container (PFC) Controls c. Exposure Near Roads
applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 59, III. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? d. Exposure From Attached Garages
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8429
3. What Are the Health Effects of Air A. Introduction a. Overview

Toxics? B. What Cold Temperature Requirements b. Credit Generation
a. Overview of Potential Cancer and Are We Adopting? i. Eligibility
Noncancer Health Effects 1. Why Are We Adopting a New Cold ii. Early Credit Generation
b. Health Effects of Key MSATs Temperature NMHC Standard? iii. Standard Credit Generation
i. Benzene 2. What Are the New NMHC Exhaust c. Credit Use
ii. 1,3-Butadiene Emissions Standards? i. Early Credit Life
iii. Formaldehyde 3. Feasibility of the Cold Temperature ii. Standard Credit Life
iv. Acetaldehyde NMHC Standards iii. Consideration of Unlimited Credit Life
v. Acrolein a. Currently Available Emission Control iv. Credit Trading Provisions
vi. Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) Technologies 3. Provisions for Small Refiners and
vii. Naphthalene b. Feasibility Considering Current Refiners Facing Hardship Situations
viii. Diesel Exhaust Certification Levels, Deterioration and a. Provisions for Small Refiners
c. Gasoline PM Compliance Margin i. Definition of Small Refiner for Purposes
d. Near-Roadway Health Effects c. Feasibility and Test Programs of the MSAT2 Small Refiner Provisions
C. Ozone 4. Standards Timing and Phase-In ii. Small Refiner Status Application
1. Background a. Phase-In Schedule Requirements
2. Health Effects of Ozone b. Alternative Phase-In Schedules iii. Small Refiner Provisions
3. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone 5. Certification Levels iv. The Effect of Financial and Other
4. Current and Projected 8-hour Ozone 6. Credit Program Transactions on Small Refiner Status and
Levels a. How Credits Are Calculated Small Refiner Relief Provisions
D. Particulate Matter b. Credits Earned Prior to Primary Phase- b. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship
1. Background In Schedule Situations
2. Health Effects of PM c. How Credits Can Be Used i. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme
3. Welfare Effects of PM d. Discounting and Unlimited Life Hardship Circumstances
a. Visibility e. Deficits Can Be Carried Forward ii. Temporary Waivers Based on
i. Background f. Voluntary Heavy-Duty Vehicle Credit Unforeseen Circumstances
ii Current Visibility Impairment Program c. Option for Early Compliance in Certain
iii. Future Visibility Impairment 7. Additional Vehicle Cold Temperature Circumstances
b. Atmospheric Deposition Standard Provisions B. How Will the Gasoline Benzene
a. Applicability
c. Materials Damage and Soiling Standard Be Implemented?
b. Useful Life
4. Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels 1. General Provisions
c. High Altitude
5. Current PM10 Levels 2. Small Refiner Status Application
d. In-Use Standards for Vehicles Produced
IV. What Are the Emissions, Air Quality, and Requirements
During Phase-In
Public Health Impacts of This Rule? 3. Administrative and Enforcement
8. Monitoring and Enforcement
A. Emissions Impacts of All Rule Provisions
C. What Evaporative Emissions Standards
Provisions Combined Are We Finalizing? a. Sampling/Testing
1. How Will MSAT Emissions Be Reduced? 1. Current Controls and Feasibility of the b. Recordkeeping/Reporting
2. How Will VOC Emissions Be Reduced? New Standards C. How Will the Program Relate to Other
3. How Will PM Emissions Be Reduced? 2. Evaporative Standards Timing Fuel-Related Toxics Programs?
B. Emission Impacts by Provision 3. Timing for Flex Fuel Vehicles D. How Does This Program Satisfy the
1. Vehicle Controls 4. In-Use Evaporative Emission Standards Statutory Requirements of Clean Air Act
a. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 5. Existing Differences Between California Section 202(l)(2)?
b. Toxics and Federal Evaporative Emission Test VII. Portable Fuel Containers
c. PM2.5 Procedures A. What Are the New HC Emissions
2. Fuel Benzene Standard D. Additional Exhaust Control Under Standards for PFCs?
3. PFC Standards Normal Conditions 1. Description of Emissions Standard
a. VOC E. Vehicle Provisions for Small Volume 2. Determination of Best Available Control
b. Toxics Manufacturers 3. Diesel, Kerosene and Utility Containers
C. What Are the Air Quality, Exposure, and 1. Lead Time Transition Provisions 4. Automatic Shut-Off
Public Health Impacts of This Rule? 2. Hardship Provisions B. Timing of Standard
1. Mobile Source Air Toxics 3. Special Provisions for Independent C. What Test Procedures Would Be Used?
2. Ozone Commercial Importers (ICIs) 1. Diurnal Test
3. PM VI. Gasoline Benzene Control Program 2. Preconditioning To Ensure Durable In-
D. What Other Mobile Source Emissions A. Description of and Rationale for the Use Control
Control Programs Reduce MSATs? Gasoline Benzene Control Program a. Durability Cycles
1. Fuels Programs 1. Gasoline Benzene Content Standard b. Preconditioning Fuel Soak
a. Gasoline Sulfur a. Description of the Average Benzene c. Spout Actuation
b. Gasoline Volatility Content Standard D. What Certification and In-Use
c. Diesel Fuel b. Why Are We Finalizing a Benzene Compliance Provisions Is EPA Adopting?
d. Phase-Out of Lead in Gasoline Content Standard? 1. Certification
2. Highway Vehicle and Engine Programs i. Standards That Would Include Toxics 2. Emissions Warranty and In-Use
3. Nonroad Engine Programs Other Than Benzene Compliance
4. Voluntary Programs ii. Control of Gasoline Sulfur and/or 3. Labeling
5. Additional Programs Under Volatility for MSAT Reduction E. How Would State Programs Be Affected
Development That Will Reduce MSATs iii. Diesel Fuel Changes by EPA Standards?
a. On-Board Diagnostics for Heavy-Duty c. Why Are We Finalizing a Level of 0.62 F. Provisions for Small PFC Manufacturers
Vehicles Over 14,000 Pounds vol% for the Average Benzene Standard? 1. First Type of Hardship Provision
b. Standards for Small Nonroad Spark- i. General Technological Feasibility of 2. Second Type of Hardship Provision
Ignition Engines Benzene Control VIII. What Are the Estimated Impacts of the
c. Standards for Locomotive and Marine ii. Appropriateness of the 0.62 vol% Rule?
Diesel Engines Average Benzene Content Standard A. Refinery Costs of Gasoline Benzene
E. How Do These Mobile Source Programs iii. Timing of the Average Standard Reduction
Satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air d. Upper Limit Benzene Standard 1. Methodology
Act Section 202(l)? 2. Description of the Averaging, Banking, a. Overview of the Benzene Program Cost
V. New Light-duty Vehicle Standards and Trading (ABT) Program Methodology
b. Changes to the Cost Estimation I. National Technology Transfer These standards will significantly
Methodology Used in the Proposed Rule Advancement Act reduce emissions of the many air toxics
c. Linear Programming Cost Model J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions that are hydrocarbons, including
d. Refinery-by-Refinery Cost Model To Address Environmental Justice in benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,
e. Price of Chemical Grade Benzene Minority Populations and Low-Income
2. Summary of Costs Populations
acetaldehyde, acrolein, and
a. Nationwide Costs of the Final Benzene K. Congressional Review Act naphthalene. The fuel benzene
Control Program XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority standards and hydrocarbon standards
b. Regional Costs for vehicles and portable fuel containers
c. Refining Industry Cost Study I. Summary will together reduce total emissions of
B. What Are the Vehicle Cost Impacts? Mobile sources emit air toxics (also air toxics by 330,000 tons in 2030,
C. What Are the PFC Cost Impacts? including 61,000 tons of benzene. As a
known as ‘‘hazardous air pollutants’’)
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced result of this final rule, in 2030
E. Benefits that can cause cancer and other serious
health effects. Mobile sources contribute passenger vehicles will emit 45% less
1. Unquantified Health and Environmental
Benefits significantly to the nationwide risk from benzene, gas cans will emit almost 80%
2. Quantified Human Health and breathing outdoor sources of air toxics. less benzene, and gasoline will have
Environmental Effects of the Final Cold Mobile sources were responsible for 38% less benzene overall. Mobile
Temperature Vehicle Standard about 44% of outdoor toxic emissions, sources were responsible for over 70%
3. Monetized Benefits almost 50% of the cancer risk, and 74% of benzene emissions in 1999.
4. What Are the Significant Limitations of
of the noncancer risk according to EPA’s The reductions in mobile source air
the Benefit Analysis? toxics emissions will reduce exposure
5. How Do the Benefits Compare to the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) for 1999. In addition, people and predicted risk of cancer and
Costs of the Final Standards? noncancer health effects, including in
F. Economic Impact Analysis who live or work near major roads or
live in homes with attached garages are environments where exposure and risk
1. What Is an Economic Impact Analysis?
2. What Is the Economic Impact Model? likely to have higher exposures and risk, may be highest, such as near roads, in
3. What Economic Sectors Are Included in which are not reflected in NATA. vehicles, and in homes with attached
This Economic Impact Analysis? garages. Nationwide, the cancer risk
According to NATA for 1999, there
4. What Are the Key Features of the attributable to total MSATs emitted by
are a few mobile source air toxics that
Economic Impact Model? all mobile sources will be reduced by
pose the greatest risk based on current
5. What Are the Key Model Inputs? 30%, and the risk from mobile source
6. What Are the Results of the Economic information about ambient levels and
benzene will be reduced by 37%. At
Impact Modeling? exposure. These include benzene, 1,3-
2030 exposure levels, the highway
IX. Public Participation butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein,
vehicle contribution to MSAT cancer
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews naphthalene, and polycyclic organic
risk will be reduced on average 36%
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory matter (POM). All of these compounds
Planning and Review
across the U.S., and the highway vehicle
are gas-phase hydrocarbons except contribution to benzene cancer risk will
B. Paperwork Reduction Act POM, which appears in the gas and
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as be reduced on average by 43% across
particle phases. Benzene is the most the U.S. Nationwide, the mobile source
Amended by the Small Business
significant contributor to cancer risk contribution to the respiratory hazard
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. from all outdoor air toxics, according to index will be reduced by 23%. In
1. Overview NATA for 1999. NATA does not include addition, the hydrocarbon reductions
2. The Need for and Objectives of This a quantitative estimate of cancer risk for from the vehicle and gas can standards
Rule diesel exhaust, but it concludes that will reduce VOC emissions (which are
3. Summary of the Significant Issues diesel exhaust is a mixture of pollutants precursors to ozone and PM2.5) by over
Raised by the Public Comments that collectively poses one of the
4. Summary of Regulated Small Entities
1.1 million tons in 2030. The vehicle
greatest relative cancer risks when standards will reduce direct PM2.5
a. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles compared with the other individual
b. Gasoline Refiners emissions by over 19,000 tons in 2030
pollutants assessed. Although we expect and will also reduce secondary
c. Portable Fuel Container Manufacturers
5. Description of the Reporting, significant reductions in mobile source formation of PM2.5. Although ozone and
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance air toxics in the future, cancer and PM2.5 are considered criteria pollutants
Requirements of the Rule noncancer health risks will remain a rather than ‘‘air toxics,’’ reductions in
6. Relevant Federal Rules public health concern, and exposure to ozone and PM2.5 are nevertheless
7. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant benzene will remain the largest important co-benefits of this proposal.
Economic Impact on Small Entities contributor to this risk. Section I.B.2 of this preamble
a. Significant Panel Findings In this rule, we are finalizing provides more discussion of the public
b. Outreach With Small Entities (and the standards for passenger vehicles,
Panel Process) health and environmental impacts of
c. Small Business Flexibilities
gasoline, and portable fuel containers mobile source air toxics, ozone, and PM.
i. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles (typically gas cans). Specifically, we are Details on health effects, emissions,
ii. Gasoline Refiners finalizing standards for: exposure, and cancer risks are also
iii. Portable Fuel Containers • exhaust hydrocarbon emissions located in Chapters 1–3 of the
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act from passenger vehicles during cold Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism temperature operation; this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation • evaporative hydrocarbon emissions We estimate that the benefits of this
and Coordination With Indian Tribal from passenger vehicles; rule will be about $6 billion in 2030,
Governments • the benzene content of gasoline; based on the direct PM2.5 reductions
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health
and from the vehicle standards, plus
and Safety Risks • hydrocarbon emissions from unquantified benefits from reductions in
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That portable fuel containers that would mobile source air toxics and VOC. We
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, reduce evaporation, permeation, and estimate that the annual net social costs
Distribution, or Use spillage from these containers. of this rule will be about $400 million
in 2030 (expressed in 2003 dollars). NMHC level of 0.3 grams/mile. Vehicles dumping annual average toxics
These net social costs include the value between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds GVWR performance and benzene content
of fuel savings from the proposed gas and medium-duty passenger vehicles requirements. The current RFG and
can standards, which will be worth will be subject to a sales-weighted fleet Anti-dumping annual average
about $92 million in 2030. average NMHC level of 0.5 grams/mile. provisions thus will be replaced by this
The rule will have an average cost of For lighter vehicles, the standard will benzene control program. This benzene
0.27 cents per gallon of gasoline, less phase in between 2010 and 2013. For control program will also replace the
than $1 per vehicle, and less than $2 per heavier vehicles, the new standards will requirements of the 2001 MSAT rule
gas can. The reduced evaporation from phase in between 2012 and 2015. The (‘‘MSAT1’’). In addition, the program
gas cans will result in fuel savings that standards include a credit program and will satisfy certain fuel MSAT
will more than offset the increased cost other provisions designed to provide conditions of the Energy Policy Act of
for the gas can. In 2030, the long-term flexibility to manufacturers, especially 2005 and obviate the need to revise
cost per ton of the standards (in during the phase-in periods. These toxics baselines for reformulated
combination, and including fuel provisions are designed to allow the gasoline otherwise required by that Act.
savings) will be $1,100 per ton of total earliest possible phase-in of standards In all of these ways, the existing
mobile source air toxics reduced; $5,900 and help minimize costs and ease the national fuel-related MSAT regulatory
per ton of benzene reduced; and no cost transition to new standards. These program will be significantly
for the hydrocarbon and PM reductions standards in combination are expected consolidated and simplified.
(because we expect the vehicle to lead to emissions control over a wide We are finalizing a nationwide ABT
standards will have no cost in 2020 and range of in-use temperatures, and not program that allows refiners and
beyond). Section VIII of the preamble just at 20 °F and 75 °F. importers to choose the most
and Chapters 8–13 of the RIA provide We are also establishing, as proposed, economical compliance strategy
more details on the costs, benefits, and a set of nominally more stringent (investment in technology, credits, or
economic impacts of the standards. The evaporative emission standards for all both) for meeting the 0.62 vol% annual
impacts on small entities and the light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, average standard. From 2007–2010,
flexibilities we are finalizing are and medium-duty passenger vehicles. refiners can generate ‘‘early credits’’ by
discussed in section X of this preamble The standards are equivalent to making qualifying benzene reductions
and Chapter 14 of the RIA. California’s Low Emission Vehicle II earlier than required. Beginning in 2011
(LEV II) standards, and they reflect the and continuing indefinitely, refiners
II. Overview of Final Rule evaporative emissions levels that are and importers can generate ‘‘standard
A. Light-Duty Vehicle Emission already being achieved nationwide. The credits’’ by producing/importing
Standards standards codify the approach that most gasoline with benzene levels below 0.62
manufacturers are already taking for 50-
As described in more detail in section volume percent (vol%) on an annual
state evaporative systems, and thus
V, we are adopting new standards for average basis. Credits may be used
prevent backsliding in the future. The
both exhaust and evaporative emissions interchangeably towards company
evaporative emission standards will
from passenger vehicles. The new compliance with the 0.62 vol%
take effect in 2009 for lighter vehicles
exhaust emissions standards will standard, ‘‘banked’’ for future use, and/
and in 2010 for the heavier vehicles.
significantly reduce non-methane Section V of this preamble provides or transferred nationwide to other
hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions from details on the exhaust and evaporative refiners/importers subject to the
passenger vehicles at cold temperatures. vehicle standards. standard. In addition to the 0.62 vol%
These hydrocarbons include many standard, refiners and importers must
mobile source air toxics (including B. Gasoline Fuel Standards also meet a 1.3 vol% maximum average
benzene), as well as VOC. As we proposed, we are limiting the benzene standard beginning July 1,
As we discussed in the proposal, benzene content of all gasoline, both 2012. To comply with the maximum
current vehicle emission standards are reformulated and conventional. average standard, gasoline produced by
based on testing of NMHC that is Beginning January 1, 2011, refiners must a refinery or imported by an importer
generally performed at 75 °F. Recent meet a refinery average gasoline may not exceed 1.3 vol% benzene on an
research and analysis indicates that benzene content standard of 0.62% by annual average basis.
these standards are not resulting in volume on all their gasoline. The The ABT program allows us to set a
robust control of NMHC at lower program is described in more detail in numerically more stringent benzene
temperatures. We believe that cold section VI of this preamble. The standard than would otherwise be
temperature NMHC control can be standard does not apply to gasoline achievable (within the meaning of Clean
substantially improved using the same produced and/or sold for use in Air Act section 202(l)(2)). The ABT
technological approaches that are California because such gasoline is program also allows implementation to
generally already being used in the Tier already covered under California’s occur earlier. Under this benzene
2 vehicle fleet to meet the stringent Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline content standard and ABT program,
standards at 75 °F. These cold- (Ca3RFG) program. gasoline in all areas of the country will
temperature NMHC controls will also The benzene content standard, in have lower benzene levels than they
result in lower direct PM emissions at combination with the existing gasoline have today. Overall benzene levels will
cold temperatures. sulfur standard, will result in air toxics be 38% lower. This will reduce benzene
Accordingly, consistent with the emissions reductions that are greater emissions and exposure nationwide.
proposal, we are adopting a new NMHC than required under all existing gasoline The program includes special
exhaust emissions standard at 20 °F for toxics programs. As a result, upon full provisions for refiners facing hardship.
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, implementation in 2011, the regulatory Refiners approved as ‘‘small refiners’’
and medium-duty passenger vehicles. provisions for the benzene control are eligible for certain temporary relief
Vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds gross program will become the regulatory provisions. In addition, any refiner
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) will be mechanism used to implement the facing extreme unforeseen
subject to a sales-weighted fleet average reformulated gasoline (RFG) and Anti- circumstances or extreme hardship
circumstances can apply for similar contributor to cancer risk from all the vehicle emissions standards under
temporary relief. outdoor air toxics 1, and most of the this authority in conjunction with
nation’s benzene emissions come from section 202(l)(2).
C. Portable Fuel Container (PFC)
mobile sources. These risks vary Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Clean Air
Controls
depending on where people live and Act authorizes EPA (among other
Portable fuel containers, such as gas work and the kinds of activities in things) to control the manufacture of
cans and diesel and kerosene which they engage. People who live or fuel if any emission product of such fuel
containers, are consumer products used work near major roads, people that causes or contributes to air pollution
to refuel a wide variety of equipment, spend a large amount of time in vehicles which may reasonably be anticipated to
including lawn and garden equipment, or work with motorized equipment, and endanger public health or welfare. We
recreational equipment, and passenger people living in homes with attached are issuing the benzene standard for
vehicles that have run out of gas. As garages are likely to have higher gasoline under this authority in
described in section VII, we are exposures and higher risks. Although conjunction with section 202(l)(2).
adopting standards for these containers we expect significant reductions in Clean Air Act section 202(l)(2) also
that would reduce hydrocarbon mobile source air toxics in the future, requires EPA to revise its regulations
emissions from evaporation, predicted cancer and noncancer health controlling hazardous air pollutants
permeation, and spillage. The program risks are likely to remain a public health from motor vehicles and fuels, ‘‘from
we are finalizing is consistent with the concern. Benzene will likely remain the time to time.’’ EPA’s first rule under
proposal, except that instead of largest contributor to this risk. In Clean Air Act section 202(l) was
applying only to gasoline containers, it addition, some mobile source air toxics published on March 29, 2001, entitled,
will also apply to diesel and kerosene contribute to the formation of ozone and ‘‘Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air
containers. These standards will PM 2.5, which contribute to serious Pollutants from Mobile Sources’’ (66 FR
significantly reduce emissions of public health problems. Section III.B of 17230). That rule committed to
benzene and other gaseous toxics, as this preamble discusses the risks posed additional rulemaking that would
well as VOC. VOC is an ozone by outdoor toxics now and in the future. evaluate the need for and feasibility of
precursor, and certain aromatic species Sections III.C and III.D discuss the additional controls. Today’s final rule
are believed to contribute to secondary health and welfare effects of ozone and fulfills that commitment.
organic PM 2.5. PM, respectively. The controls in this
We are finalizing a performance-based 2. Clean Air Act Section 183(e)
rule will significantly reduce exposure
standard of 0.3 grams per gallon per day Clean Air Act section 183(e)(3)
to emissions of mobile source air toxics
of hydrocarbons, determined based on requires EPA to list categories of
(and reduce exposure to ozone and
the emissions from the can over a consumer or commercial products that
PM 2.5 as well), thus reducing these
diurnal test cycle specified in the rule. the Administrator determines, based on
public health concerns.
The standard applies to containers an EPA study of VOC emissions from
manufactured on or after January 1, A. Statutory Requirements such products, contribute at least 80
2009. We are also establishing test percent of the VOC emissions from such
1. Clean Air Act Section 202(l)
procedures and a certification and products in areas violating the national
compliance program, in order to ensure Section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act
ambient air quality standard for ozone.
that containers meet the emission requires EPA to set standards to control
EPA promulgated this list at 60 FR
standard over a range of in-use hazardous air pollutants (‘‘air toxics’’)
15264 (March 23, 1995), but it did not
conditions. The standards are based on from motor vehicles 2, motor vehicle
consider or list portable fuel containers.
the performance of best available fuels, or both. These standards must
After analyzing these containers’
control technologies, such as durable reflect the greatest degree of emission
emissions inventory impacts, we
permeation barriers, automatically reduction achievable through the
recently published a Federal Register
closing spouts, and cans that are well- application of technology which will be
notice that added portable fuel
sealed, and the standards will result in available, taking into consideration the
containers to the list of consumer
the use of these control technologies. motor vehicle standards established
products to be regulated.3 EPA is
California implemented an emissions under section 202(a) of the Act, the
required to develop rules reflecting
control program for gas cans in 2001, availability and cost of the technology,
‘‘best available controls’’ to reduce VOC
and since then, several other states have and noise, energy and safety factors, and
emissions from the listed products.
adopted the program. Last year, lead time. The standards are to be set
‘‘Best available controls’’ are defined in
California adopted a revised program, under Clean Air Act sections 202(a)(1)
section 183(e)(1)(A) as follows:
which will take effect July 1, 2007. The or 211(c)(1), and they are to apply, at a
revised California program is very minimum, to benzene and The term ‘‘best available controls’’ means
similar to the program we are finalizing. formaldehyde emissions. the degree of emissions reduction that the
Although a few aspects of the programs Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act Administrator determines, on the basis of
technological and economic feasibility,
are different, we believe manufacturers directs EPA to set standards for new health, environmental, and energy impacts, is
will be able to meet both EPA and motor vehicles or new motor vehicle achievable through the application of the
California requirements with the same engines which EPA judges to cause or most effective equipment, measures,
container designs, resulting in contribute to air pollution which may processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
equivalent emission reductions. reasonably be anticipated to endanger including chemical reformulation, product or
public health or welfare. We are issuing feedstock substitution, repackaging, and
III. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? directions for use, consumption, storage, or
People experience elevated risk of 1 Based on quantitative estimates of risk, which disposal.
cancer and other noncancer health do not include risks associated with diesel
Section 183(e)(4) also allows these
effects from exposure to air toxics. particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
2 ‘‘Motor vehicles’’ is a term of art, defined in standards to be implemented by means
Mobile sources are responsible for a Clean Air Act section 216(2) as ‘‘any self-propelled
significant portion of this risk. For vehicle designed for transporting persons or 3 71 FR 28320, May 16, 2006, ‘‘Consumer and
example, benzene is the most significant property on a street or highway.’’ Commercial Products: Schedule for Regulation’’.
of ‘‘any system or systems of regulation cancer and noncancer health risk from mobile sources to these risks.5, 6 NATA
as the Administrator may deem breathing outdoor air toxics, and that assessed 177 pollutants. It is worth
appropriate, including requirements for have a significant contribution from noting that NATA does not include
registration and labeling, self- mobile sources. Our understanding of indoor sources of air toxics. Also, it
monitoring and reporting * * * what compounds pose the greatest risk assumes uniform outdoor
concerning the manufacture, processing, will evolve over time, based on our concentrations within a census tract,
distribution, use, consumption, or understanding of the ambient levels and and therefore does not reflect elevated
disposal of the product.’’ We are issuing health effects associated with the concentrations and exposures near
a hydrocarbon standard for portable fuel compounds. roadways or other sources within a
containers under the authority of EPA has compiled a Master List of census tract. Additional limitations and
section 183(e). Compounds Emitted by Mobile Sources, uncertainties associated with NATA are
based on an extensive review of the discussed in Section 3.2.1.3 of the RIA.
3. Energy Policy Act Nevertheless, its findings are useful in
literature on exhaust and evaporative
Section 1504(b) of the Energy Policy emissions from onroad and nonroad providing a perspective on the
Act of 2005 requires EPA to adjust the equipment. The list currently includes magnitude of risks posed by outdoor
toxics emissions baselines for approximately 1,000 compounds, and it sources of air toxics generally, and in
individual refineries for reformulated is available in the public docket for this identifying what pollutants and sources
gasoline to reflect 2001–2002 fuel rule and on the Web (http:// are important contributors to these
qualities. However, the Act provides health risks. Some of NATA’s findings
www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm). Chapter
that this action becomes unnecessary if are discussed in the paragraphs below.
1 of the RIA provides a detailed
EPA takes action which results in For this rule, EPA also performed a
discussion of information sources for national-scale assessment for 1999 and
greater overall reductions of toxics identifying those compounds that have
emissions from vehicles in areas with future years using the same modeling
the potential for serious adverse health tools and approach as the 1999 NATA,
reformulated gasoline. As described in effects (i.e., could be considered
section VI of this preamble, we believe but with updated emissions inventories
‘‘MSATs’’). This discussion includes a and an updated exposure model. The
the benzene content standard we are list of those compounds that are emitted
finalizing today will in fact result in exposure model accounts for higher
by mobile sources and listed in EPA’s toxics concentrations near roads. This
greater overall reductions than would be Integrated Risk Information System
achieved by adjusting the individual updated national-scale analysis
(IRIS). examined only those toxics that are
baselines under the Energy Policy Act.
Accordingly, under the provisions of the MSATs are emitted by motor vehicles, emitted by mobile sources (i.e., a subset
Energy Policy Act, this rule obviates the nonroad engines (such as lawn and of the 177 pollutants included in
need for readjusting emissions baselines garden equipment, farming and NATA). However, the analysis includes
for reformulated gasoline. construction equipment, locomotives, all sources of those pollutants,
and ships), aircraft, and their fuels. including mobile, stationary, and area
B. Public Health Impacts of Mobile MSATs are emitted as a result of various sources. The analysis is discussed in
Source Air Toxics (MSATs) processes. Some MSATs are present in detail in Chapter 3 of the RIA, and some
1. What Are MSATs? fuel or fuel additives and are emitted to highlights of the findings are discussed
the air when the fuel evaporates or immediately below.
Section 202(l) refers to ‘‘hazardous air passes through the engine. Some In addition to national-scale analysis,
pollutants from motor vehicles and MSATs are formed through engine we have also evaluated more refined
motor vehicle fuels.’’ We use the term combustion processes. Some local-scale modeling, measured ambient
‘‘mobile source air toxics (MSATs)’’ to compounds, like formaldehyde and concentrations, personal exposure
refer to compounds that are emitted by acetaldehyde, are also formed through a measurements, and other data. This
mobile sources and have the potential secondary process when other mobile information is discussed in detail in
for serious adverse health effects. Some source pollutants undergo chemical Chapter 3 of the RIA. These data
MSATs are known or suspected to cause reactions in the atmosphere. Finally, collectively show that while levels of air
cancer. Some of these pollutants are also some air toxics, such as metals, result toxics are decreasing, potential public
known to have adverse health effects on from engine wear or from impurities in health risks remain a concern, and
people’s respiratory, cardiovascular, oil or fuel. ambient levels and personal exposure
neurological, immune, reproductive, or vary significantly. These data indicate
There are other sources of air toxics,
other organ systems, and they may also that concentrations of benzene and
including stationary sources, such as
have developmental effects. Some may other air toxics can be higher near high-
power plants, factories, oil refineries,
pose particular hazards to more traffic roads, inside vehicles, and in
dry cleaners, gas stations, and small
susceptible and sensitive populations, homes with attached garages.
manufacturers. They can also be
such as pregnant women, children, the
produced by combustion of wood and a. National Cancer Risk
elderly, or people with pre-existing
other organic materials. There are also
illnesses. According to NATA, the average
indoor sources of air toxics, such as
Some MSATs of particular concern national cancer risk in 1999 from all
solvent evaporation and outgassing from
include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, outdoor sources of air toxics was
furniture and building materials.
formaldehyde, acrolein, naphthalene, estimated to be 42 in a million. That is,
polycyclic organic matter, and diesel 2. Health Risk Associated With MSATs 42 out of one million people would be
particulate matter and diesel exhaust
organic gases. These are compounds EPA’s National-Scale Air Toxics 5 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/.
that EPA’s National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) for 1999 provides 6 NATA does not include a quantitative estimate
Assessment (NATA) for 1999 4 identifies some perspective on the average risk of of cancer risk for diesel particulate matter and
cancer and noncancer health effects diesel exhaust organic gases. EPA has concluded
as the most significant contributors to that while diesel exhaust is likely to be a human
associated with breathing air toxics from carcinogen, available data are not sufficient to
4 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/. outdoor sources, and the contribution of develop a confident estimate of cancer unit risk.
expected to contract cancer from a contributed to the risk of respiratory tract exposure concentration nationally
lifetime of breathing air toxics at 1999 health effects.9 is over 2 µg/m3.
levels. Mobile sources were responsible Although not included in NATA’s The potential population exposed to
for 44% of outdoor toxic emissions and estimates of noncancer risk, PM from elevated concentrations near major
almost 50% of the cancer risk. Benzene gasoline and diesel mobile sources roadways is large. A study of the
is the largest contributor to cancer risk contributes significantly to the health populations nationally indicated that
of all 133 pollutants quantitatively effects associated with ambient PM, for more than half of the population lives
assessed in the 1999 NATA, and mobile which EPA has established National within 200 meters of a major road.12 It
sources are the single largest source of Ambient Air Quality Standards. There should be noted that this analysis relied
ambient benzene. are extensive human data showing a on the Census Bureau definition of a
wide spectrum of adverse health effects major road, which is not based on traffic
According to the national-scale
associated with exposure to ambient volume. Thus, some of the roads
analysis performed for this rule, the
PM.10 designated as ‘‘major’’ may carry a low
national average cancer risk in 1999
volume of traffic. This estimate is
from breathing outdoor sources of c. Exposure Near Roads consistent with other studies that have
MSATs was about 25 in a million.7 Over
A substantial number of modeling examined the proximity of population
224 million people in 1999 were
assessment and air quality monitoring to major roads. These studies are
exposed to a risk level above 10 in a
studies show elevated concentrations of discussed in Section 3.5 of the RIA. In
million due to chronic inhalation
multiple MSATs in close proximity to addition, analysis of data from the
exposure to MSATs. About 130 million
major roads. Exposure studies also Census Bureau’s American Housing
people in 1999 were exposed to a risk Survey suggests that approximately 37
indicate that populations spending time
level above 10 in a million due to million people live within 300 feet
near major roadways likely experience
chronic inhalation exposure to benzene (∼100 meters) of a 4-or-more lane
elevated personal exposures to motor
alone. Mobile sources were responsible highway, railroad, or airport.13
vehicle-related pollutants. In addition,
for over 70% of benzene emissions in American Housing Survey statistics, as
these populations may experience
1999. well as epidemiology studies, indicate
exposures to differing physical and
Although air toxics emissions are chemical compositions of certain air that those houses located near major
projected to decline in the future as a toxic pollutants depending on the transportation sources are more likely to
result of standards EPA has previously amount of time spent in close proximity be lower in income or have minority
adopted, cancer risk will continue to be to motor vehicle emissions. Chapter 3.1 residents than houses not located near
a public health concern. Without of the RIA provides a detailed major transportation sources. These data
additional controls, the predicted discussion of air quality monitoring, are also discussed in detail in Section
national average cancer risk from personal exposure monitoring, and 3.5 of the RIA.
MSATs in 2030 is predicted to be above modeling assessments near major Other population studies also indicate
20 in a million. In fact, in 2030 there roadways. that a significant fraction of the
will be more people exposed to levels of As part of the analyses underlying the population resides in locations near
MSATs that result in the highest levels final rule, we employed a new version major roads. At present, the available
of risk. For instance, the number of of the Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure studies use different indicators of
Americans above the 10 in a million Model (HAPEM), the exposure model ‘‘major road’’ and of ‘‘proximity,’’ but
cancer risk level from exposure to used in NATA. HAPEM6 explicitly the estimates range from 12.4% of
MSATs is projected to increase from 223 accounts for the gradient in outdoor student enrollment in California
million in 1999 to 272 million in 2030. concentrations that occurs near major attending schools within 150 meters of
Mobile sources will continue to be a roads, and the fraction of the population roads with 25,000 vehicles per day or
significant contributor to risk in the living near major roads.11 The HAPEM6 more, to 13% of Massachusetts veterans
future, accounting for 43% of total air analysis highlights the fact that living within 50 meters of a road with
toxic emissions in 2020, and 55% of residence near a major road is a at least 10,000 vehicles per day.14, 15
benzene emissions. substantial contributor to overall Using a more general definition of a
differences in exposure to directly- ‘‘major road,’’ between 22% and 51% of
b. National Risk of Noncancer Health different study populations live near
emitted MSATs. As an example, while
Effects such roads.
the average of within-tract median
According to national-scale modeling annual census tract exposure d. Exposure From Attached Garages
for 1999 done for this rule, nearly the concentrations nationally is 1.4 µg/m3,
the average 90th percentile of within- People living in homes with attached
entire U.S. population was exposed to
garages are potentially exposed to
an average level of air toxics that has the
substantially higher overall
potential for adverse respiratory health 9 Acrolein was assigned an overall confidence
effects (noncancer).8 We estimated this level of ‘‘lower’’ based on consideration of the

12 Major roads are defined as those roads defined
combined uncertainties from the modeling
will continue to be the case in 2030, estimates. In contrast, formaldehyde was assigned by the U.S. Census as one of the following: ‘‘limited
even though toxics levels will be lower. an overall confidence level of ‘‘medium.’’ access highway,’’ ‘‘highway,’’ ‘‘major road (primary,
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) secondary and connecting roads ),’’ or ‘‘ramp.’’
Mobile sources were responsible for 13 United States Census Bureau. (2004) American
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Research
74% of the noncancer (respiratory) risk Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Housing Survey web page. [Online at http://
from outdoor air toxics in the 1999 Environmental Assessment—RTP Office; Report No. www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs03/
NATA. The majority of this risk was EPA/600/P–99/002aF, p. 8–318. ahs03.html ] Table IA–6.
14 Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.;
11 U.S. EPA. 2007. The HAPEM6 User’s Guide.

from acrolein, and formaldehyde also
Prepared for Ted Palma, Office of Air Quality McLaughlin, R.; Ostro, B. (2004) Proximity of
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, California public schools to busy roads. Environ.
7 This includes emissions from mobile and Health Perspect. 112: 61–66.
NC, by Arlene Rosenbaum and Michael Huang, ICF
stationary sources of these pollutants. International, January 2007. This document is 15 Garshick, E.; Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Caron, A.
8 That is, the respiratory hazard index exceeded available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. (2003) Residence near a major road and respiratory
1. See section III.B.3.a for more information. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/human_hapem.html. symptoms in U.S. veterans. Epidemiol. 14: 728–736.
concentrations of benzene, toluene, and perhaps an order of magnitude) of a number of adverse noncancer health
other VOCs from mobile source-related daily exposure to the human population effects including blood disorders and
emissions. EPA has conducted a (including sensitive subgroups) that is immunotoxicity have also been
modeling analysis to examine the likely to be without appreciable risk of associated with long-term occupational
influence of attached garages on deleterious effects during a lifetime. exposure to benzene.17
personal exposure to benzene (see Sources of uncertainty in the
Inhalation is the major source of
Appendix 3A of RIA). Compared to development of the RfCs and RfDs
human exposure to benzene in
national average exposure include interspecies extrapolation
concentrations modeled in 1999 NATA, (animal to human) and intraspecies occupational and non-occupational
which does not account for emissions extrapolation (average human to settings. Long-term occupational
originating in attached garages, average sensitive human). Additional sources of inhalation exposure to benzene has been
exposure concentrations for people with uncertainty can include the use of a shown to cause cancers of the
attached garages could more than lowest observed adverse effect level in hematopoetic (blood cell) system in
double. Other recent studies also place of a no observed adverse effect adults.18 Among these are acute
emphasize the substantial role of level, and other data deficiencies. A nonlymphocytic leukemia 19 and
attached garages in exposure to MSATs. statement regarding the confidence in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.20, 21
Chapter 3 of the RIA discusses the RfC and/or RfD is developed to Leukemias, lymphomas, and other
measurements of concentrations and reflect the confidence in the principal tumor types have been observed in
exposure associated with attached study or studies on which the RfC or experimental animals exposed to
garages and EPA’s modeling analysis. RfD are based and the confidence in the benzene by inhalation or oral
underlying database. Factors that affect administration. Exposure to benzene
3. What Are the Health Effects of Air
the confidence in the principal study and/or its metabolites has also been
Toxics?
include how well the study was linked with chromosomal changes in
a. Overview of Potential Cancer and designed, conducted and reported.
Noncancer Health Effects Factors that affect the confidence in the electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
Air toxics can cause of variety of database include an assessment of the 0276.htm.
cancer and noncancer health effects. availability of information regarding 17 U.S. EPA (2002). Toxicological Review of
Inhalation cancer risks are usually identification of the critical effect, Benzene (Noncancer Effects). National Center for
potentially susceptible populations and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
estimated by EPA as ‘‘unit risks,’’ which Report No. EPA/635/R–02/001F. http://
represent the excess lifetime cancer risk exposure scenarios relevant to
www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0276-tr.pdf.
estimated to result from continuous assessment of risk. 18 U.S. EPA (1998) Carcinogenic Effects of
exposure to an agent at a concentration The RfC may be used to estimate a Benzene: An Update, National Center for
of 1 mu g/m3 in air. Some air toxics are hazard quotient, which is the Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
known to be carcinogenic in animals but environmental exposure to a substance EPA600-P–97–001F. Enter report number at the
lack data in humans. Many of these divided by its RfC. A hazard quotient following search page, http://yosemite.epa.gov/
greater than one indicates adverse ncepihom/nsCatalog.nsf//SearchPubs?Openform.
have been assumed to be human 19 Leukemia is a blood disease in which the white
carcinogens. Also, in the absence of health effects are possible. The hazard
blood cells are abnormal in type or number.
evidence of a nonlinear dose-response quotient cannot be translated to a
Leukemia may be divided into nonlymphocytic
curve, EPA assumes these relationships probability that adverse health effects (granulocytic) leukemias and lymphocytic
between exposure and probability of will occur, and is unlikely to be leukemias. Nonlymphocytic leukemia generally
cancer are linear. These unit risks are proportional to risk. It is especially involves the types of white blood cells (leukocytes)
typically upper bound estimates. Upper important to note that a hazard quotient that are involved in engulfing, killing, and digesting
bound estimates are more likely to exceeding one does not necessarily bacteria and other parasites (phagocytosis) as well
mean that adverse health effects will as releasing chemicals involved in allergic and
overestimate than underestimate risk. immune responses. This type of leukemia may also
Where there are strong epidemiological occur. In NATA, hazard quotients for involve erythroblastic cell types (immature red
data, a maximum likelihood estimate different respiratory irritants were also blood cells). Lymphocytic leukemia involves the
(MLE) may be developed. An MLE is a combined into a hazard index (HI). A lymphocyte type of white blood cell that is
best scientific estimate of risk. The hazard index is the sum of hazard responsible for antibody and cell-mediated immune
benzene unit risk is an MLE. A quotients for substances that affect the responses. Both nonlymphocytic and lymphocytic
same target organ or organ system. leukemia may, in turn, be separated into acute
discussion of the confidence in a
(rapid and fatal) and chronic (lingering, lasting)
quantitative cancer risk estimate is Because different pollutants may cause
forms. For example in acute myeloid leukemia there
provided in the IRIS file for each similar adverse health effects, it is often is diminished production of normal red blood cells
compound. The discussion of the appropriate to combine hazard quotients (erythrocytes), granulocytes, and platelets (control
confidence in the cancer risk estimate associated with different substances. clotting), which leads to death by anemia, infection,
includes an assessment of the source of However, the HI is only an or hemorrhage. These events can be rapid. In
the data (human or animal), approximation of a combined effect chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) the leukemic cells
because substances may affect a target retain the ability to differentiate (i.e., be responsive
uncertainties in dose estimates, choice to stimulatory factors) and perform function; later
of the model used to fit the exposure organ in different ways. there is a loss of the ability to respond.
and response data and how b. Health Effects of Key MSATs 20 U.S. EPA (1985) Environmental Protection
uncertainties and potential confounders Agency, Interim quantitative cancer unit risk
are handled. i. Benzene estimates due to inhalation of benzene, prepared by
Potential noncancer chronic The EPA’s IRIS database lists the Office of Health and Environmental
inhalation health risks are quantified Assessment, Carcinogen Assessment Group,
benzene, an aromatic hydrocarbon, as a Washington, DC for the Office of Air Quality

using reference concentrations (RfCs) known human carcinogen (causing Planning and Standards, Washington, DC, 1985.
and noncancer chronic ingestion and leukemia) by all routes of exposure.16 A 21 U.S. EPA (1993) Motor Vehicle-Related Air
dermal health risks are quantified using Toxics Study. Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor,
reference doses (RfDs). The RfC is an 16 U.S. EPA (2000). Integrated Risk Information MI. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/
estimate (with uncertainty spanning System File for Benzene. This material is available tox_archive.htm.
humans and animals22, 23 and increased environmental levels of exposure and to underestimation of leukemia risks. This
proliferation of mouse bone marrow provide a sound scientific basis to is consistent with recent
cells.24, 25 choose any particular extrapolation/ epidemiological data which also suggest
The latest assessment by EPA exposure model to estimate human a supralinear exposure-response
estimates the excess risk of developing cancer risk at low doses. EPA risk relationship and which ‘‘[extend]
leukemia from inhalation exposure to assessment guidelines suggest using an evidence for hematopoietic cancer risks
benzene at 2.2 × 10¥6 to 7.8 × 10¥6 per assumption of linearity of dose response to levels substantially lower than had
µg/m3. In other words, there is an when (1) there is an absence of previously been established.’’ 33, 34, 35
estimated risk of about two to eight sufficient information on modes of These data are from the largest cohort
excess leukemia cases in one million action or (2) the mode of action studies done to date with individual
people exposed to 1 µg/m3 of benzene information indicates that the dose- worker exposure estimates. However,
over a lifetime.26 This range of unit risks response curve at low dose is or is these data have not yet been formally
reflects the MLEs calculated from expected to be linear.27 Since the mode evaluated by EPA as part of the IRIS
different exposure assumptions and of action for benzene carcinogenicity is review process, and it is not clear how
dose-response models that are linear at unknown, the current cancer unit risk they might influence low-dose risk
low doses. At present, the true cancer estimate assumes linearity of the low- estimates. A better understanding of the
risk from exposure to benzene cannot be dose response. Data that were biological mechanism of benzene-
ascertained, even though dose-response considered by EPA in its carcinogenic induced leukemia is needed.
data are used in the quantitative cancer update suggested that the dose-response Children may represent a
risk analysis, because of uncertainties in relationship at doses below those subpopulation at increased risk from
the low-dose exposure scenarios and examined in the studies reviewed in benzene exposure, due to factors that
lack of clear understanding of the mode EPA’s most recent benzene assessment could increase their susceptibility.
of action. A range of estimates of risk is may be supralinear. Such a relationship Children may have a higher unit body
recommended, each having equal could support the inference that cancer weight exposure because of their
scientific plausibility. There are risks are as high or are higher than the heightened activity patterns which can
confidence intervals associated with the estimates provided in the existing EPA increase their exposures, as well as
MLE range that reflect variation of the assessment.28 Data discussed in the EPA different ventilation tidal volumes and
observed data used to develop dose- IRIS assessment suggest that genetic frequencies, factors that influence
response values. For the upper end of abnormalities occur at low exposure in uptake. This could entail a greater
the MLE range, the 5th and 95th humans, and the formation of toxic lifetime risk of leukemia and other toxic
percentile values are about a factor of 5 metabolites plateaus above 25 ppm effects from exposures occurring during
lower and higher than the best fit value. (80,000 µ/m3).29 More recent data on childhood, if children are exposed to
The upper end of the MLE range was benzene adducts in humans, published benzene at similar levels as adults.
used in NATA. after the most recent IRIS assessment, There is limited information from two
It should be noted that not enough suggest that the enzymes involved in studies regarding an increased risk to
information is known to determine the benzene metabolism start to saturate at children whose parents have been
slope of the dose-response curve at exposure levels as low as 1 ppm.30, 31, 32 occupationally exposed to benzene.36, 37
These data highlight the importance of Data from animal studies have shown
22 International Agency for Research on Cancer ambient exposure levels and their benzene exposures result in damage to
(IARC) (1982) IARC monographs on the evaluation contribution to benzene-related adducts. the hematopoietic (blood cell formation)
of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Because there is a transition from linear system during development.38, 39, 40
Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and to saturable metabolism below 1 ppm,
dyestuffs, International Agency for Research on
Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France, the assumption of low-dose linearity 33 Hayes, R.B.; Yin, S.; Dosemeci, M.; Li, G.;
extrapolated from much higher Wacholder, S.; Travis, L.B.; Li, C.; Rothman, N.;
p. 345–389. Hoover, R.N.; and Linet, M.S. (1997) Benzene and
23 U.S. EPA (1998) Carcinogenic Effects of exposures could lead to substantial the dose-related incidence of hematologic
Benzene: An Update, National Center for neoplasms in China. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 89:1065–
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 27 U.S. EPA (2005) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 1071.
EPA600-P–97–001F. Enter report number at the Assessment. Report No. EPA/630/P–03/001F. 34 Hayes, R.B.; Songnian, Y.; Dosemeci, M.; and
following search page, http://yosemite.epa.gov/ http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/ Linet, M. (2001) Benzene and lymphohematopoietic
ncepihom/nsCatalog.nsf//SearchPubs?Openform. recordisplay.cfm?deid=116283. malignancies in humans. Am. J. Indust. Med.
24 Irons, R.D., W.S. Stillman, D.B. Colagiovanni,
28 U.S. EPA (1998) Carcinogenic Effects of 40:117–126.
and V.A. Henry (1992) Synergistic action of the Benzene: An Update. EPA/600/P–97/001F. 35 Lan, Q.; Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al.
benzene metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic 29 Rothman, N; Li, GL; Dosemeci, M; et al. (1996) (2004). Hematotoxicity in Workers Exposed to Low
stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774–1776.
colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad. exposed to benzene. Am. J. Indust. Med. 29:236– 36 Shu, X.O.; Gao, Y.T.; Brinton, L.A.; et al. (1988)
Sci. 89:3691–3695. 246. A population-based case-control study of childhood
25 U.S. EPA (1998) Carcinogenic Effects of 30 Rappaport, S.M.; Waidyanatha, S.; Qu, Q.; leukemia in Shanghai. Cancer 62:635–644.
Benzene: An Update, National Center for Shore, R.; Jin, X.; Cohen, B.; Chen, L.; Melikian, A.; 37 McKinney P.A.; Alexander, F.E.; Cartwright,
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. Li, G.; Yin, S.; Yan, H.; Xu, B.; Mu, R.; Li, Y.; Zhang, R.A.; et al. (1991) Parental occupations of children
EPA600-P–97–001F. Enter report number at the X.; and Li, K. (2002) Albumin adducts of benzene with leukemia in west Cumbria, north Humberside,
following search page, http://yosemite.epa.gov/ oxide and 1,4-benzoquinone as measures of human and Gateshead, Br. Med. J. 302:681–686.
ncepihom/nsCatalog.nsf//SearchPubs?Openform. benzene metabolism. Cancer Research 62:1330– 38 Keller, KA; Snyder, CA. (1986) Mice exposed
26 U.S. EPA (1998) Carcinogenic Effects of 1337. in utero to low concentrations of benzene exhibit
Benzene: An Update, National Center for 31 Rappaport, S.M.; Waidyanatha, S.; Qu, Q.; enduring changes in their colony forming
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. Yeowell-O’Connell, K.; Rothman, N.; Smith M.T.; hematopoietic cells. Toxicology 42:171–181.
EPA600-P–97–001F. Enter report number at the Zhang, L.; Qu, Q.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Yin, S. (2005) 39 Keller, KA; Snyder, CA. (1988) Mice exposed
following search page, http://yosemite.epa.gov/ Protein adducts as biomarkers of human enzene in utero to 20 ppm benzene exhibit altered numbers
ncepihom/nsCatalog.nsf//SearchPubs?Openform.
metabolism. Chem Biol Interact. 153–154:103–109. of recognizable hematopoietic cells up to seven

27 U.S. EPA (2005) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 32 Lin, Y–S., Vermeulen, R., Tsai, C.H., Suramya, weeks after exposure. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.
Assessment. Report No. EPA/630/P–03/001F. W., Lan, Q., Rothman, N., Smith, M.T., Zhang, L., 10:224–232.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/ Shen, M., Songnian, Y., Kim, S., Rappaport, S.M. 40 Corti, M; Snyder, CA. (1996) Influences of
recordisplay.cfm?deid=116283. (2006) Albumin adducts of electrophilic benzene gender, development, pregnancy and ethanol
28 U.S. EPA (1998) Carcinogenic Effects of metabolites in benzene-exposed and control consumption on the hematotoxicity of inhaled 10
workers. Environ Health Perspec. ppm benzene. Arch. Toxicol. 70:209–217.
Also, key changes related to the and thrombocytes (blood platelets).46, 47 evaluated these recent studies as part of
development of childhood leukemia Individuals that develop pancytopenia the IRIS review process to determine
occur in the developing fetus.41 Several and have continued exposure to whether or not they will lead to a
studies have reported that genetic benzene may develop aplastic anemia, change in the current RfC. EPA does not
changes related to eventual leukemia whereas others exhibit both currently have an acute reference
development occur before birth. For pancytopenia and bone marrow concentration for benzene. The Agency
example, there is one study of genetic hyperplasia (excessive cell formation), a for Toxic Substances and Disease
changes in twins who developed T cell condition that may indicate a Registry Minimal Risk Level for acute
leukemia at 9 years of age.42 An preleukemic state.48, 49 The most exposure to benzene is 160 µg/m3 for 1–
sensitive noncancer effect observed in 14 days exposure.
association between traffic volume,
humans, based on current data, is the
residential proximity to busy roads and ii. 1,3-Butadiene
depression of the absolute lymphocyte
occurrence of childhood leukemia has count in blood.50, 51 EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene,
also been identified in some studies, EPA’s inhalation reference a hydrocarbon, as a leukemogen,
although some studies show no concentration (RfC) for benzene is 30 carcinogenic to humans by
association. µg/m3, based on suppressed absolute inhalation.55 56 The specific mechanisms
A number of adverse noncancer lymphocyte counts as seen in humans of 1,3-butadiene-induced carcinogenesis
health effects, including blood disorders under occupational exposure are unknown; however, it is virtually
such as preleukemia and aplastic conditions. The overall confidence in certain that the carcinogenic effects are
anemia, have also been associated with this RfC is medium. Since development mediated by genotoxic metabolites of
long-term exposure to benzene.43, 44 of this RfC, human reports of benzene’s 1,3-butadiene. Animal data suggest that
hematotoxic effects have been published females may be more sensitive than
People with long-term occupational
in the literature that provides data males for cancer effects; nevertheless,
exposure to benzene have experienced
suggesting a wide range of there are insufficient data in humans
harmful effects on the blood-forming from which to draw any conclusions on
hematological endpoints that are
tissues, especially in the bone marrow. potentially sensitive subpopulations.
affected at occupational exposures of
These effects can disrupt normal blood less than 5 ppm (about 16 mg/m3)52 and The upper bound cancer unit risk
production and suppress the production at air levels of 1 ppm (about 3 mg/m3) estimate is 0.08 per ppm or 3 × 10 ¥5 per
of important blood components, such as or less among genetically susceptible µg/m3 (based primarily on linear
red and white blood cells and blood populations.53 One recent study found modeling and extrapolation of human
platelets, leading to anemia (a reduction benzene metabolites in mouse liver and data). In other words, it is estimated that
in the number of red blood cells), bone marrow at environmental doses, approximately 30 persons in one
leukopenia (a reduction in the number indicating that even concentrations in million exposed to 1 µg/m3 of 1,3-
of white blood cells), or urban air can elicit a biochemical butadiene continuously for their
thrombocytopenia (a reduction in the response in rodents that indicates lifetime would develop cancer as a
number of blood platelets, thus reducing toxicity.54 EPA has not formally result of this exposure. The human
the ability of blood to clot). Chronic incremental lifetime unit cancer risk
inhalation exposure to benzene in 46 Aksoy, M. (1991) Hematotoxicity, estimate is based on extrapolation from
leukemogenicity and carcinogenicity of chronic leukemias observed in an occupational
humans and animals results in exposure to benzene. In: Arinc, E.; Schenkman, J.B.;
pancytopenia,45 a condition Hodgson, E., Eds. Molecular Aspects of
epidemiologic study.57 58 This estimate
characterized by decreased numbers of Monooxygenases and Bioactivation of Toxic includes a two-fold adjustment to the
circulating erythrocytes (red blood Compounds. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 415–434. epidemiologic-based unit cancer risk
47 Goldstein, B.D. (1988) Benzene toxicity.
applied to reflect evidence from the
cells), leukocytes (white blood cells), Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews 3: rodent bioassays suggesting that the
541–554.
41 U.S. EPA. (2002). Toxicological Review of
48 Aksoy, M., S. Erdem, and G. Dincol. (1974) epidemiologic-based estimate (from
Benzene (Noncancer Effects). National Center for Leukemia in shoe-workers exposed chronically to males) may underestimate total cancer
benzene. Blood 44:837.
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 49 Aksoy, M. and K. Erdem. (1978) A follow-up
Report No. EPA/635/R–02/001F. http:// exposure from Urban Air. Res Rep Health Effect Inst
study on the mortality and the development of 113.
www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0276-tr.pdf.
leukemia in 44 pancytopenic patients associated 55 U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3-
42 Ford, AM; Pombo-de-Oliveira, MS; McCarthy,
with long-term exposure to benzene. Blood 52: 285– Butadiene. Office of Research and Development,
KP; MacLean, JM; Carrico, KC; Vincent, RF; 292. National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Greaves, M. (1997) Monoclonal origin of concordant 50 Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E.
Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No.
T-cell malignancy in identical twins. Blood 89:281– Bechtold, G.E. Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, EPA600–P–98–001F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/
285. W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-Holland, L.P. Zhang, cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54499.
43 Aksoy, M. (1989) Hematotoxicity and W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes (1996) 56 EPA 2005 ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-
carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0)’’ Environmental
Perspect. 82:193–197. exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29: 236–246. Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
51 EPA 2005 ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for Benzene
44 Goldstein, B.D. (1988) Benzene toxicity. System (IRIS), Office of Health and Environmental
Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews 3: (CASRN 71–43–2)’’ Environmental Protection Assessment, Environmental Criteria and
Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, http://
541–554.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
45 Pancytopenia is the reduction in the number of
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, 57 Delzell, E, N. Sathiakumar, M. Macaluso, et al.
all three major types of blood cells (erythrocytes, or Cincinnati, OH, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ (1995). A follow-up study of synthetic rubber
red blood cells, thrombocytes, or platelets, and 0276.htm. workers. Submitted to the International Institute of
leukocytes, or white blood cells). In adults, all three 52 Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B.
Synthetic Rubber Producers. University of Alabama
major types of blood cells are produced in the bone Cohen, et al. (2002). Hematological changes among at Birmingham. October 2, 1995.
marrow of the skeletal system. The bone marrow Chinese workers with a broad range of benzene
58 EPA 2005 ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-

contains immature cells, known as multipotent exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275–285. butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0)’’ Environmental
myeloid stem cells, that later differentiate into the 53 Lan, Q.; Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al.
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
various mature blood cells. Pancytopenia results (2004). Hematotoxicity in Workers Exposed to Low System (IRIS), Office of Health and Environmental
from a reduction in the ability of the red bone Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774–1776. Assessment, Environmental Criteria and
marrow to produce adequate numbers of these 54 Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, http://
mature blood cells. metabolism in rodents at doses relevant to human www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
risk from 1,3-butadiene exposure in the currently performing an update of these on formaldehyde. The risk assessment
general population, particularly for studies. A recent National Institute of analyzed carcinogenic risk from inhaled
breast cancer in females. A recent study Occupational Safety and Health formaldehyde using approaches that
extended the investigation of 1,3- (NIOSH) study of garment workers also were consistent with EPA’s draft
butadiene exposure and leukemia found increased risk of death due to guidelines for carcinogenic risk
among synthetic rubber industry leukemia among workers exposed to assessment. In 2001, Environment
workers.59 The results of this study formaldehyde.65 Extended follow-up of Canada relied on this cancer dose-
strengthen the evidence for the a cohort of British chemical workers did response assessment in their assessment
relationship between 1,3-butadiene not find evidence of an increase in of formaldehyde.71 In 2004, EPA also
exposure and lymphohematopoietic nasopharyngeal or relied on this cancer unit risk estimate
cancer. This relationship was found to lymphohematopoeitic cancers, but a during the development of the plywood
persist after controlling for exposure to continuing statistically significant and composite wood products national
other toxics in this work environment. excess in lung cancers was reported.66 emissions standards for hazardous air
1,3-Butadiene also causes a variety of Based on the developments of the last pollutants (NESHAPs).72 In these rules,
reproductive and developmental effects decade, in 2004, the working group of EPA concluded that the CIIT work
in mice; no human data on these effects the International Agency for Research represented the best available
are available. The most sensitive effect on Cancer concluded that formaldehyde application of the available mechanistic
was ovarian atrophy observed in a is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1 and dosimetric science on the dose-
lifetime bioassay of female mice.60 classification) on the basis of sufficient response for portal of entry cancers due
Based on this critical effect and the evidence in humans and sufficient to formaldehyde exposures. EPA is
benchmark concentration methodology, evidence in experimental animals—a reviewing the recent work cited above
an RfC was calculated. This RfC for higher classification than previous IARC from the NCI and NIOSH, as well as the
chronic health effects is 0.9 ppb, or evaluations. In addition, the National analysis by the CIIT Centers for Health
about 2 µg/m3. Confidence in the Institute of Environmental Health Research and other studies, as part of a
inhalation RfC is medium. Sciences recently nominated reassessment of the human hazard and
formaldehyde for reconsideration as a dose-response associated with
iii. Formaldehyde
known human carcinogen under the formaldehyde.
Since 1987, EPA has classified National Toxicology Program. Since Noncancer effects of formaldehyde
formaldehyde, a hydrocarbon, as a 1981 it has been listed as a ‘‘reasonably have been observed in humans and
probable human carcinogen based on anticipated human carcinogen.’’ several animal species and include
evidence in humans and in rats, mice, Recently the German Federal Institute irritation to eye, nose and throat tissues
hamsters, and monkeys.61 EPA’s current for Risk Assessment determined that in conjunction with increased mucous
IRIS summary provides an upper bound formaldehyde is a known human secretions.
cancer unit risk estimate of 1.3 × 10¥5 carcinogen.67
per µg/m3.62 In other words, there is an In the past 15 years there has been iv. Acetaldehyde
estimated risk of about thirteen excess substantial research on the inhalation Acetaldehyde, a hydrocarbon, is
leukemia cases in one million people dosimetry for formaldehyde in rodents classified in EPA’s IRIS database as a
exposed to 1 µg/m3 of formaldehyde and primates by the CIIT Centers for probable human carcinogen and is
over a lifetime. Health Research, with a focus on use of considered toxic by inhalation.73 Based
EPA is currently reviewing recently rodent data for refinement of the on nasal tumors in rodents, the upper
published epidemiological data. For quantitative cancer dose-response confidence limit estimate of a lifetime
instance, research conducted by the assessment.68 69 70 CIIT’s risk assessment extra cancer risk from continuous
National Cancer Institute (NCI) found an of formaldehyde incorporated acetaldehyde exposure is about 2.2 ×
increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer mechanistic and dosimetric information 10¥6 per µg/m3. In other words, it is
and lymphohematopoietic malignancies estimated that about 2 persons in one
such as leukemia among workers 65 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort million exposed to 1 µg/m3
exposed to formaldehyde.63 64 NCI is of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an acetaldehyde continuously for their
update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 193–200. lifetime (70 years) would develop
66 Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003.
59 Delzell, E., Sathiakumar, N., Graff, J., Macaluso,
Extended follow-up of a cohort of British chemical
cancer as a result of their exposure,
M., Maldonado, G., Matthews, R. (2006) An updated although the risk could be as low as
study of mortality among North American synthetic workers exposed to formaldehyde. J National
rubber industry workers. Health Effects Institute Cancer Inst. 95:1608–1615. zero. In short-term (4 week) rat studies,
67 Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR)
Report Number 132. compound-related histopathological
60 Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996) Toxicological Assessment of Formaldehyde. changes were observed only in the
Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in rats Opinion of BfR No. 023/2006 of 30 March 2006.
www.bfr.bund.de/cm/290/ respiratory system at various
and mice by inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.
32:1–10. toxicological_assessment_of_formaldehyde.pdf. concentration levels of exposure.74 75
61 U.S. EPA (1987). Assessment of Health Risks to 68 Conolly, RB, JS Kimbell, D Janszen, PM
Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents Schlosser, D Kalisak, J Preston, and FJ Miller. 2003. 71 Health Canada. 2001. Priority Substances List
From Exposure to Formaldehyde, Office of Biologically motivated computational modeling of Assessment Report. Formaldehyde. Environment
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987. formaldehyde carcinogenicity in the F344 rat. Tox. Canada, Health Canada, February 2001.
62 U.S. EPA (1989). Integrated Risk Information Sci. 75: 432–447. 72 U.S. EPA. 2004. National Emission Standards
69 Conolly, RB, JS Kimbell, D Janszen, PM
System File for Formaldehyde. This material is for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plywood and
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/ Schlosser, D Kalisak, J Preston, and FJ Miller. 2004. Composite Wood Products Manufacture: Final Rule.
subst/0419.htm. Human respiratory tract cancer risks of inhaled (69 FR 45943, 7/30/04).
63 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; formaldehyde: Dose-response predictions derived 73 U.S. EPA. 1988. Integrated Risk Information
Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from from biologically-motivated computational System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is
modeling of a combined rodent and human dataset.
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/

in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Tox. Sci. 82: 279–296. subst/0290.htm.
Cancer Institute 95: 1615–1623. 70 Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology 74 Appleman, L. M., R. A. Woutersen, V. J. Feron,
64 Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; (CIIT). 1999. Formaldehyde: Hazard R. N. Hooftman, and W. R. F. Notten. (1986). Effects
Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid characterization and dose-response assessment for of the variable versus fixed exposure levels on the
cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. carcinogenicity by the route of inhalation. CIIT, toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. J. Appl. Toxicol. 6:
American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117–1130. September 28, 1999. Research Triangle Park, NC. 331–336.
Data from these studies showing class of compounds known as POM are humans.84 Current risk estimates for
degeneration of the olfactory epithelium classified by EPA as probable human naphthalene are based on extrapolations
were found to be sufficient for EPA to carcinogens based on animal data. One from rodent studies conducted at higher
develop an RfC for acetaldehyde of 9 µg/ of these compounds, naphthalene, is doses. At present, human data are
m3. Confidence in the principal study is discussed separately below. inadequate for developing estimates.
medium and confidence in the database The current EPA IRIS assessment
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
is low, due to the lack of chronic data includes noncancer data on hyperplasia
(PAHs) are a chemical subset of POM.
establishing a no observed adverse effect and metaplasia in nasal tissue that form
In particular, EPA frequently obtains
level and due to the lack of reproductive the basis of an inhalation RfC of 3 µg/
data on 16 of these POM compounds.
and developmental toxicity data. m3.85 The principal study was given
Recent studies have found that maternal medium confidence because adequate
Therefore, there is low confidence in the exposures to PAHs in a population of
RfC. The agency is currently conducting numbers of animals were used, and the
pregnant women were associated with severity of nasal effects increased at the
a reassessment of risk from inhalation several adverse birth outcomes,
exposure to acetaldehyde. higher exposure concentration.
including low birth weight and reduced However, the study produced high
The primary acute effect of exposure length at birth, as well as impaired
to acetaldehyde vapors is irritation of mortality and hematological evaluation
cognitive development at age three.79, 80 was not conducted beyond 14 days. The
the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.76
These studies are discussed in the database was given a low-to-medium
Some asthmatics have been shown to be
Regulatory Impact Analysis. confidence rating because there are no
a sensitive subpopulation to decrements
in functional expiratory volume (FEV1 vii. Naphthalene chronic or subchronic inhalation studies
test) and bronchoconstriction upon in other animal species, and there are no
acetaldehyde inhalation.77 Naphthalene is a PAH compound reproductive or developmental studies
consisting of two benzene rings fused for inhalation exposure. In the absence
v. Acrolein together with two adjacent carbon atoms of human or primate toxicity data, the
Acrolein, a hydrocarbon, is intensely common to both rings. In 2004, EPA assumption is made that nasal responses
irritating to humans when inhaled, with released an external review draft of a in mice to inhaled naphthalene are
acute exposure resulting in upper reassessment of the inhalation relevant to humans; however, it cannot
respiratory tract irritation and carcinogenicity of naphthalene.81 The be said with certainty that this RfC for
congestion. The Agency has developed draft reassessment, External Review naphthalene based on nasal effects will
an RfC for acrolein of 0.02 µg/m3.78 The Draft, IRIS Reassessment of the be protective for hemolytic anemia and
overall confidence in the RfC Inhalation Carcinogenicity of cataracts, the more well-known human
assessment is judged to be medium. The Naphthalene, U.S. EPA, completed effects from naphthalene exposure. As a
Agency is also currently in the process external peer review in 2004 by Oak result, we have medium confidence in
of conducting an assessment of acute Ridge Institute for Science and the RfC.
health effects for acrolein. EPA Education.82 Based on external viii. Diesel Exhaust
determined in 2003 using the 1999 draft comments, additional analyses are being
In EPA’s Diesel Health Assessment
cancer guidelines that the human considered. California EPA has released
Document (HAD),86 diesel exhaust was
carcinogenic potential of acrolein could a new risk assessment for naphthalene
classified as likely to be carcinogenic to
not be determined because the available with a cancer unit risk estimate of
humans by inhalation at environmental
data were inadequate. No information 3×10 ¥5 per µg/m3.83 The California EPA
exposures, in accordance with the
was available on the carcinogenic effects value was used in the 1999 NATA and
revised draft 1996/1999 EPA cancer
of acrolein in humans and the animal in the analyses done for this rule. In guidelines. A number of other agencies
data provided inadequate evidence of addition, IARC has reevaluated (National Institute for Occupational
carcinogenicity. naphthalene and re-classified it as Safety and Health, the International
Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to Agency for Research on Cancer, the
vi. Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)
World Health Organization, California
POM is generally defined as a large 79 Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W-Y.; et al. (2002)
EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health
class of organic compounds which have Effect of transplacental exposure to environmental
pollutants on birth outcomes in a multiethnic and Human Services) have made similar
multiple benzene rings and a boiling
population. Environ Health Perspect. 111: 201–205. classifications. EPA concluded in the
point greater than 100 degrees Celsius. 80 Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai, W.Y.; Diesel HAD that it is not possible
Many of the compounds included in the Tang, D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu, Y.H.; currently to calculate a cancer unit risk
Camann, D.; Kinney, P. (2006) Effect of prenatal
75 Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic
for diesel exhaust due to a variety of
Feron. (1982). Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3 factors that limit the current studies,
rats. I. Acute and subacute studies. Toxicology. 23: years of life among inner-city children. Environ
293–297. Health Perspect 114: 1287–1292. 84 International Agency for Research on Cancer
76 U.S. EPA (1988). Integrated Risk Information 81 U.S. EPA (1998) Integrated Risk Information (IARC). (2002) Monographs on the Evaluation of the
System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is System (IRIS) summary on Naphthalene. National Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol.
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/ Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of 82. Lyon, France.
subst/0290.htm. Research and Development, Washington, D.C. 2003. 85 EPA 2005 ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for Naphthalene
77 Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and This material is available electronically at http:// (CASRN 91–20–3)’’ Environmental Protection
Matsuda, T. (1993) Aerosolized acetaldehyde www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm. Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
induces histamine-mediated bronchoconstriction in 82 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis.148(4 Pt 1): 940– (2004) External Peer Review for the IRIS Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
3. Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Cincinnati, OH http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ 0436.htm.
78 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003)
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=86019. 86 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document
Acrolein. National Center for Environmental 83 California EPA. (2004) Long Term Health for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–90/057F
Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Effects of Exposure to Naphthalene. Office of Office of Research and Development, Washington,
Washington, D.C. 2003. This material is available Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. http:// DC. This document is available electronically at
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ www.oehha.ca.gov/air/toxic_contaminants/ http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
0364.htm. draftnaphth.html. recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
such as limited quantitative exposure ubiquitous component of ambient PM, that emissions from gasoline engines are
histories in occupational groups there is an uncertainty about the mutagenic and can induce inflammation
investigated for lung cancer. adequacy of the existing DE [diesel and have cytotoxic effects.
However, in the absence of a cancer exhaust] noncancer database to identify EPA is working to improve the
unit risk, the EPA Diesel HAD sought to all of the pertinent DE-caused understanding of PM emissions from
provide additional insight into the noncancer health hazards’’ (p. 9–19). gasoline engines, including the potential
significance of the cancer hazard by The Diesel HAD also briefly range of emissions and factors that
estimating possible ranges of risk that summarizes health effects associated influence emissions. EPA led a
might be present in the population. An with ambient PM and discusses the cooperative test program that recently
exploratory analysis was used to EPA’s annual National Ambient Air completed testing approximately 500
characterize a possible risk range by Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 15 µg/m3. randomly procured vehicles in the
comparing a typical environmental There is a much more extensive body of Kansas City metropolitan area. The
exposure level for highway diesel human data showing a wide spectrum of purpose of this study was to determine
sources to a selected range of adverse health effects associated with the distribution of gasoline PM
occupational exposure levels. The exposure to ambient PM, of which emissions from the in-use light-duty
occupationally observed risks were then diesel exhaust is an important fleet. Results from this study are
proportionally scaled according to the component. The PM2.5 NAAQS is expected to be available shortly.
exposure ratios to obtain an estimate of designed to provide protection from the Preliminary results from this work show
the possible environmental risk. A noncancer and premature mortality the influence of high emitters on overall
number of calculations are needed to effects of PM2.5 as a whole, of which gasoline PM emissions and, also, that
accomplish this, and these can be seen diesel PM is a constituent. gasoline PM emissions increase at lower
in the EPA Diesel HAD. The outcome ambient temperatures in the in-use fleet.
c. Gasoline PM
was that environmental risks from Some source apportionment studies
diesel exhaust exposure could range Beyond the specific areas of
quantifiable risk discussed above in show gasoline and diesel PM can result
from a low of 10¥4 to 10¥5 to as high in larger contributions to ambient PM
as 10¥3, reflecting the range of section III.C, EPA is also currently
investigating gasoline PM. Gasoline than predicted by EPA emission
occupational exposures that could be
exhaust is a complex mixture that has inventories.94 95 These source
associated with the relative and absolute
not been evaluated in EPA’s IRIS. apportionment studies were one
risk levels observed in the occupational
Gasoline exhaust is a ubiquitous source impetus behind conducting the Kansas
studies. Because of uncertainties, the
of particulate matter, contributing to the City study.
analysis acknowledged that the risks
could be lower than 10¥4 or 10¥5, and health effects observed for ambient PM Another issue related to gasoline PM
a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure which is discussed extensively in the is the effect of gasoline vehicles and
was not ruled out. EPA Particulate Matter Criteria engines on ambient PM, especially
Noncancer health effects of acute and Document.91 The PM Criteria Document secondary PM. Ambient PM is
chronic exposure to diesel exhaust notes that the PM components of composed of primary PM emitted
emissions are also of concern to the gasoline and diesel engine exhaust are directly into the atmosphere and
Agency. EPA derived an RfC from hypothesized, important contributors to secondary PM that is formed from
consideration of four well-conducted the observed increases in lung cancer chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
chronic rat inhalation studies showing incidence and mortality associated with The issue of secondary organic aerosol
adverse pulmonary effects.87 88 89 90 The ambient PM2.5.92 Gasoline PM is also a formation from aromatic precursors
RfC is 5 µg/m3 for diesel exhaust as component of near-roadway emissions such as toluene is an important one to
measured by diesel PM. This RfC does that may be contributing to the health which EPA and others are paying
not consider allergenic effects such as effects observed in people who live near significant attention. This is discussed
those associated with asthma or roadways (see section III.F). There is in more detail in section 1.4.1 of the
immunologic effects. There is growing also emerging evidence for the RIA.
evidence, discussed in the Diesel HAD, mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of d. Near-Roadway Health Effects
that diesel exhaust can exacerbate these gasoline exhaust and gasoline PM.
effects, but the exposure-response data Seagrave et al. investigated the Another approach to investigating the
are presently lacking to derive an RfC. combined particulate and semivolatile collective health effects of mobile
The EPA Diesel HAD states, ‘‘With DPM organic fractions of gasoline engine source contaminants is to examine
[diesel particulate matter] being a emissions in various animal and associations between living near major
bioassay tests.93 The authors suggest roads and different adverse health
87 Ishinishi, N; Kuwabara, N; Takaki, Y; et al. endpoints. These studies generally
(1988) Long-term inhalation experiments on diesel 91 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for examine people living near heavily-
exhaust. In: Diesel exhaust and health risks. Results Particulate Matter: Volume 1. Research Triangle trafficked roadways, typically within
of the HERP studies. Ibaraki, Japan: Research Park, NC: National Center for Environmental
Committee for HERP Studies; pp. 11–84.
several hundred meters, where fresh
Assessment—RTP Office; Report No. EPA/600/P–
88 Heinrich, U; Fuhst, R; Rittinghausen, S; et al. 99/002aF. Enter report number at the following
(1995) Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats search page, http://yosemite.epa.gov/ncepihom/ Organic Fractions of Gasoline and Diesel Engine
and two different strains of mice to diesel engine nsCatalog.nsf//SearchPubs?Openform. Emissions. Toxicological Sciences 70:212–226.
exhaust, carbon black, and titanium dioxide. Inhal. 92 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for 94 Fujita, E.; Watson, M.J.; Chow, M.C.; et al.
Toxicol. 7:553–556. Particulate Matter: Volume 1. Research Triangle (1998) Northern Front Range Air Quality Study,
89 Mauderly, JL; Jones, RK; Griffith, WC; et al. Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Volume C: Source apportionment and simulation
(1987) Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in Assessment—RTP Office; Report No. EPA/600/P– methods and evaluation. Prepared for Colorado
rats exposed chronically by inhalation. Fundam. 99/002aF, p. 8–318. Enter report number at the State University, Cooperative Institute for Research
Appl. Toxicol. 9:208–221. following search page, http://yosemite.epa.gov/ in the Atmosphere, by Desert Research Institute,
90 Nikula, KJ; Snipes, MB; Barr, EB; et al. (1995) ncepihom/nsCatalog.nsf//SearchPubs?Openform. Reno, NV.
Comparative pulmonary toxicities and 93 Seagrave, J.; McDonald, J.D.; Gigliotti, A.P.; 95 Schauer, J.J.; Rogge, W.F.; Hildemann, L.M.; et
carcinogenicities of chronically inhaled diesel Nikula, K.J.; Seilkop, S.K.; Gurevich, M. and al. (1996) Source apportionment of airborne
exhaust and carbon black in F344 rats. Fundam. Mauderly, J.L. (2002) Mutagenicity and in Vivo particulate matter using organic compounds as
Appl. Toxicol. 25:80–94. Toxicity of Combined Particulate and Semivolatile tracers. Atmos. Environ. 30(22):3837–3855.
emissions from motor vehicles are not detailed discussion, see Chapter 3 of the established by EPA in 1997 has an 8-
yet fully diluted with background air. Regulatory Impact Analysis. hour averaging time.97 The 8-hour
Several studies have measured These studies provide qualitative ozone NAAQS is based on well-
elevated concentrations of pollutants evidence that reducing emissions from documented science demonstrating that
emitted directly by motor vehicles near on-road mobile sources will provide more people were experiencing adverse
roadways as compared to overall urban public health benefits beyond those that health effects at lower levels of exertion,
background levels. These elevated can be quantified using currently over longer periods, and at lower ozone
concentrations generally occur within available information. concentrations than addressed by the
approximately 200 meters of the road, C. Ozone previous one-hour ozone NAAQS. The
although the distance may vary current ozone NAAQS addresses ozone
depending on traffic and environmental Many MSATs are part of a larger exposures of concern for the general
conditions. Pollutants measured with category of mobile source emissions population and populations most at
elevated concentrations include known as volatile organic compounds risk, including children active outdoors,
benzene, polycyclic aromatic (VOCs), which contribute to the outdoor workers, and individuals with
formation of ozone. Mobile sources pre-existing respiratory disease, such as
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
contribute significantly to national asthma. The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
nitrogen dioxide, black carbon, and
emissions of VOCs. In addition, PFCs met at an ambient air quality monitoring
coarse, fine, and ultrafine particulate
are a source of VOCs. The vehicle and site when the average of the annual
matter. In addition, concentrations of
PFC standards in this final rule will fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
road dust, and wear particles from tire
help reduce emissions of VOCs. average ozone concentration over three
and brake use also show concentration
increases in proximity of major 1. Background years is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm.
roadways. Ground-level ozone pollution is 2. Health Effects of Ozone
The near-roadway health studies formed by the reaction of VOCs and
provide stronger evidence for some nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the lower The health and welfare effects of
health endpoints than others. Evidence atmosphere in the presence of heat and ozone are well documented and are
of adverse responses to traffic-related sunlight. These pollutants, often assessed in the EPA’s 2006 ozone Air
pollution is strongest for non-allergic referred to as ozone precursors, are Quality Criteria Document (ozone
respiratory symptoms, cardiovascular emitted by many types of pollution AQCD) and EPA staff papers.98 99 Ozone
effects, premature adult mortality, and sources, such as highway and nonroad can irritate the respiratory system,
adverse birth outcomes, including low motor vehicles and engines, power causing coughing, throat irritation, and/
birth weight and size. Some evidence plants, chemical plants, refineries, or uncomfortable sensation in the chest.
for new onset asthma is available, but makers of consumer and commercial Ozone can reduce lung function and
not all studies have significant products, industrial facilities, and make it more difficult to breathe deeply,
correlations. Lastly, among studies of smaller area sources. The PFC controls and breathing may become more rapid
childhood cancer, in particular being finalized in this action will help and shallow than normal, thereby
childhood leukemia, evidence is reduce VOC emissions by reducing limiting a person’s activity. Ozone can
inconsistent. Several small studies evaporation, permeation and spillage also aggravate asthma, leading to more
report positive associations, though from PFCs. The vehicle controls being asthma attacks that require a doctor’s
such effects have not been observed in finalized will also reduce VOC attention and/or the use of additional
two larger studies. As described above, emissions; however, because these medication. Animal toxicologic
benzene and 1,3-butadiene are both reductions will occur at cold evidence indicates that with repeated
known human leukemogens in adults. temperatures the ozone benefits will be exposure, ozone can inflame and
As previously mentioned, there is limited. damage the lining of the lungs, which
evidence of increased risk of leukemia The science of ozone formation, may lead to permanent changes in lung
among children whose parents have transport, and accumulation is tissue and irreversible reductions in
been occupationally exposed to complex.96 Ground-level ozone is lung function. People who are more
benzene. Though the near-roadway produced and destroyed in a cyclical set susceptible to effects associated with
studies are equivocal, taken together of chemical reactions, many of which exposure to ozone include children, the
with the laboratory studies and other are sensitive to temperature and elderly, and individuals with
exposure environments, the data suggest sunlight. When ambient temperatures respiratory disease such as asthma.
a potentially serious children’s health and sunlight levels remain high for There is also suggestive evidence that
concern could exist. Additional research several days and the air is relatively certain people may have greater genetic
is needed to determine the significance stagnant, ozone and its precursors can susceptibility. Those with greater
of this potential concern. build up and result in more ozone than exposures to ozone, for instance due to
Significant scientific uncertainties typically would occur on a single high- time spent outdoors (e.g., outdoor
remain in our understanding of the temperature day. Ozone also can be workers), are also of concern.
relationship between adverse health transported into an area from pollution
effects and near-road exposure, sources found hundreds of miles 97 EPA’s review of the ozone NAAQS is underway
including the exposures of greatest upwind, resulting in elevated ozone and a proposal is scheduled for June 2007 with a
concern, the importance of chronic levels even in areas with low VOC or final rule scheduled for March 2008.
98 U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
versus acute exposures, the role of fuel NOX emissions.
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S.
type (e.g. diesel or gasoline) and The current ozone National Ambient Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
composition (e.g., % aromatics), Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) EPA/600/R–05/004aF-cF, 2006. This document is
relevant traffic patterns, the role of co- available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.

96 U.S. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 99 U.S. EPA (2007) Review of National Ambient
stressors including noise and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Assessment of
socioeconomic status, and the role of Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff
differential susceptibility within the EPA/600/R–05/004aF-cF, 2006. This document is Paper, EPA–452/R–07–003. This document is
‘‘exposed’’ populations. For a more available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
The recent ozone AQCD also information on ozone effects on June 2007 with a final rule scheduled
examined relevant new scientific vegetation and ecosystems. for March 2008. If the ozone NAAQS is
information which has emerged in the revised, then new nonattainment areas
4. Current and Projected 8-hour Ozone
past decade, including the impact of could be designated. While EPA is not
Levels
ozone exposure on such health effects as relying on it for purposes of justifying
changes in lung structure and Currently, ozone concentrations this rule, the emission reductions from
biochemistry, inflammation of the exceeding the level of the 8-hour ozone this rulemaking would also be helpful to
lungs, exacerbation and causation of NAAQS occur over wide geographic states if there is an ozone NAAQS
asthma, respiratory illness-related areas, including most of the nation’s revision.
school absence, hospital admissions and major population centers.100 As of
D. Particulate Matter
premature mortality. Animal toxicologic October 2006 approximately 157 million
studies have suggested potential people live in the 116 areas that are The cold temperature vehicle controls
interactions between ozone and PM currently designated as not in being finalized here will result in
with increased responses observed to attainment with the 8-hour ozone reductions of primary PM being emitted
mixtures of the two pollutants NAAQS. There are 461 full or partial by vehicles. In addition, both the
compared to either ozone or PM alone. counties that make up the 116 8-hour vehicle controls and the PFC controls
The respiratory morbidity observed in ozone nonattainment areas. will reduce VOCs that react in the
animal studies along with the evidence EPA has already adopted many atmosphere to form secondary PM2.5,
from epidemiologic studies supports a emission control programs that are namely organic carbonaceous PM2.5.
causal relationship between acute expected to reduce ambient ozone 1. Background
ambient ozone exposures and increased levels. These control programs include
respiratory-related emergency room the Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR Particulate matter (PM) represents a
visits and hospitalizations in the warm 25162, May 12, 2005), as well as many broad class of chemically and physically
season. In addition, there is suggestive mobile source rules (many of which are diverse substances. It can be principally
evidence of a contribution of ozone to described in section V.D). As a result of characterized as discrete particles that
cardiovascular-related morbidity and these programs, the number of areas that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid)
non-accidental and cardiopulmonary fail to meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is phase spanning several orders of
mortality. expected to decrease. magnitude in size. PM is further
Based on the recent ozone modeling described by breaking it down into size
3. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone fractions. PM10 refers to particles
performed for the CAIR analysis,101
Ozone contributes to many barring additional local ozone precursor generally less than or equal to 10
environmental effects, with impacts to controls, we estimate 37 Eastern micrometers (µm) in diameter. PM2.5
plants and ecosystems being of most counties (where 24 million people are refers to fine particles, those particles
concern. Ozone can produce both acute projected to live) will exceed the 8-hour generally less than or equal to 2.5 µm in
and chronic injury in sensitive species ozone NAAQS in 2010. An additional diameter. Inhalable (or ‘‘thoracic’’)
depending on the concentration level 148 Eastern counties (where 61 million coarse particles refer to those particles
and the duration of the exposure. Ozone people are projected to live) are generally greater than 2.5 µm but less
effects also tend to accumulate over the expected to be within 10 percent of than or equal to 10 µm in diameter.
growing season of the plant, so that even violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Ultrafine PM refers to particles with
lower concentrations experienced for a 2010. diameters generally less than 100
longer duration have the potential to States with 8-hour ozone nanometers (0.1 µm). Larger particles
create chronic stress on vegetation. nonattainment areas will be required to (>10 µm) tend to be removed by the
Ozone damage to plants includes visible take action to bring these areas into respiratory clearance mechanisms,
injury to leaves and a reduction in food compliance in the future. Based on the whereas smaller particles are deposited
production through impaired final rule designating and classifying 8- deeper in the lungs.
photosynthesis, both of which can lead hour ozone nonattainment areas (69 FR Fine particles are produced primarily
to reduced crop yields, forestry 23951, April 30, 2004), most 8-hour by combustion processes and by
production, and use of sensitive ozone nonattainment areas will be transformations of gaseous emissions
ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, required to attain the 8-hour ozone (e.g., SOx, NOX and VOCs) in the
the reduced food production in plants NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame atmosphere. The chemical and physical
and subsequent reduced root growth and then be required to maintain the 8- properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly
and storage below ground, can result in hour ozone NAAQS thereafter.102 The with time, region, meteorology and
other, more subtle plant and ecosystems expected ozone inventory reductions source category. Thus, PM2.5 may
impacts. These include increased from the standards being finalized in include a complex mixture of different
susceptibility of plants to insect attack, this action may be useful to states in pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
disease, harsh weather, interspecies attaining or maintaining the 8-hour organic compounds, elemental carbon
competition and overall decreased plant ozone NAAQS. and metal compounds. These particles
vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on EPA’s review of the ozone NAAQS is can remain in the atmosphere for days
forest and other natural vegetation can currently underway and a proposed to weeks and travel through the
potentially lead to species shifts and decision in this review is scheduled for atmosphere hundreds to thousands of
loss from the affected ecosystems, kilometers.
resulting in a loss or reduction in 100 A map of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment EPA has recently amended the PM
associated ecosystem goods and areas is included in the RIA for this rule. NAAQS (71 FR 61144, October 17,
services. Lastly, visible ozone injury to 101 Technical Support Document for the Final 2006). The final rule, signed on
leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic Clean Air Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling. September 21, 2006 and published on
value in areas of special scenic This document is available in Docket EPA–HQ– October 17, 2006, addressed revisions to
OAR–2005–0036.
significance like national parks and 102 The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour the primary and secondary NAAQS for
wilderness areas. The final 2006 ozone ozone nonattainment area will have to attain before PM to provide increased protection of
AQCD presents more detailed June 15, 2021. public health and welfare, respectively.
The primary PM2.5 NAAQS include a 2005 PM Staff Paper.103, 104 Further 3. Welfare Effects of PM
short-term (24-hour) and a long-term discussion of health effects associated a. Visibility
(annual) standard. The level of the 24- with PM can also be found in the RIA
hour PM2.5 NAAQS has been revised for this final rule. i. Background
from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 to provide Health effects associated with short- Visibility can be defined as the degree
increased protection against health term exposures (e.g. hours to days) in to which the atmosphere is transparent
effects associated with short-term ambient PM2.5 include premature to visible light.108 Visibility impairment
exposures to fine particles. The current mortality, increased hospital manifests in two principal ways: as
form of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard was local visibility impairment and as
admissions, heart and lung diseases,
retained (e.g., based on the 98th regional haze.109 Local visibility
increased cough, adverse lower-
percentile concentration averaged over impairment may take the form of a
respiratory symptoms, decrements in localized plume, a band or layer of
three years). The level of the annual lung function and changes in heart rate
PM2.5 NAAQS was retained at 15 µg/m3 discoloration appearing well above the
rhythm and other cardiac effects. terrain as a result from complex local
continuing protection against health Studies examining populations exposed meteorological conditions.
effects associated with long-term to different levels of air pollution over Alternatively, local visibility
exposures. The current form of the a number of years, including the impairment may manifest as an urban
annual PM2.5 standard was retained as Harvard Six Cities Study and the haze, sometimes referred to as a ‘‘brown
an annual arithmetic mean averaged American Cancer Society Study, show cloud.’’ This urban haze is largely
over three years, however, the following associations between long-term caused by emissions from multiple
two aspects of the spatial averaging exposure to ambient PM2.5 and both sources in the urban areas and is not
criteria were narrowed: (1) The annual total and cardiorespiratory mortality. In typically attributable to only one nearby
mean concentration at each site shall be addition, the reanalysis of the American source or to long-range transport. The
within 10 percent of the spatially Cancer Society cohort shows an second type of visibility impairment,
averaged annual mean, and (2) the daily association between fine particle and regional haze, usually results from
values for each monitoring site pair sulfate concentrations and lung cancer multiple pollution sources spread over
shall yield a correlation coefficient of at mortality. a large geographic region. Regional haze
least 0.9 for each calendar quarter. With can impair visibility over large regions
Recently, several studies have
regard to the primary PM10 standards, and across states.
highlighted the adverse effects of PM Visibility is important because it has
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS was retained
specifically from mobile sources.105, 106
at a level of 150 µg/m3 not to be direct significance to people’s
Studies have also focused on health enjoyment of daily activities in all parts
exceeded more than once per year on
effects due to PM exposures on or near of the country. Individuals value good
average over a three-year period. Given
roadways.107 Although these studies visibility for the well-being it provides
that the available evidence does not
include all air pollution sources, them directly, where they live and
suggest an association between long-
including both spark-ignition (gasoline) work, and in places where they enjoy
term exposure to coarse particles at
and diesel powered vehicles, they recreational opportunities. Visibility is
current ambient levels and health
indicate that exposure to PM emissions also highly valued in significant natural
effects, EPA has revoked the annual
near roadways, thus dominated by areas such as national parks and
PM10 standard.
mobile sources, are associated with wilderness areas, and special emphasis
With regard to the secondary PM health effects. Additional information is given to protecting visibility in these
standards, EPA has revised these on near-roadway health effects can be areas. For more information on visibility
standards to be identical in all respects found in section III.B.2.d of this see the 2004 PM AQCD as well as the
to the revised primary standards. preamble. 2005 PM Staff Paper.110 111
Specifically, EPA has revised the Fine particles are the major cause of
current 24-hour PM2.5 secondary 103 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for reduced visibility in parts of the United
standard by making it identical to the Particulate Matter (Oct 2004), Volume I Document
108 National Research Council, 1993. Protecting
revised 24-hour PM2.5 primary standard, No. EPA600/P–99/002aF and Volume II Document
No. EPA600/P–99/002bF. This document is Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas.
retained the annual PM2.5 and 24-hour National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze
available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
PM10 secondary standards, and revoked 104 U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National
the annual PM10 secondary standards. Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Academy Press, Washington, DC. This document is
This suite of secondary PM standards is Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA– This book can be viewed on the National Academy
intended to provide protection against Press Web site at http://www.nap.edu/books/
452/R–05–005. This document is available in
PM-related public welfare effects, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
0309048443/html/.
109 See discussion in U.S. EPA, National Ambient
including visibility impairment, effects 105 Laden, F.; Neas, L.M.; Dockery, D.W.;
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
on vegetation and ecosystems, and Schwartz, J. (2000) Association of Fine Particulate Proposed Rule; January 17, 2006, Vol 71, p. 2676.
material damage and soiling. Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality This information is available electronically at
in Six U.S. Cities. Environmental Health http://epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-
2. Health Effects of PM Perspectives 108: 941–947. 17/a177.pdf.
106 Janssen, N.A.H.; Schwartz, J.; Zanobetti, A.; 110 U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for
Scientific studies show ambient PM is Suh, H.H. (2002) Air Conditioning and Source- Particulate Matter (Oct 2004), Volume I Document
associated with a series of adverse Specific Particles as Modifiers of the Effect of PM10 No. EPA600/P–99/002aF and Volume II Document
on Hospital Admissions for Heart and Lung Disease. No. EPA600/P–99/002bF. This document is
health effects. These health effects are Environmental Health Perspectives 110: 43–49. available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
discussed in detail in the 2004 107 Riediker, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R.; 111 U.S. EPA (2005) Review of the National
Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria Herbst, M.C.; Bromberg, P.A.; Neas, L.; Williams, Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate
Document (PM AQCD) as well as the R.W.; Devlin, R.B. (2003) Particulate Matter Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Exposures in Cars is Associated with Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–
Cardiovascular Effects in Healthy Young Men. Am. 452/R–05–005. This document is available in
J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 169: 934–940. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
States. To address the welfare effects of iii. Future Visibility Impairment atmospheric deposition represents a
PM on visibility, EPA set secondary Recent modeling for the Clean Air significant input to the total surface
PM2.5 standards which would act in Interstate Rule (CAIR) was used to water PAH burden.118 119 Emissions
conjunction with the establishment of a project visibility conditions in from mobile sources have been found to
regional haze program. In setting this mandatory class I federal areas across account for a percentage of the
secondary standard, EPA concluded that the country in 2015. The results for the atmospheric deposition of PAHs. For
PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility mandatory class I federal areas suggest instance, recent studies have reported
in various locations, depending on PM that these areas are predicted to gasoline and diesel vehicles as major
concentrations and factors such as continue to have annual average contributors in the atmospheric
chemical composition and average deciview levels above background in the deposition of PAHs to Chesapeake Bay,
relative humidity. The secondary future.116 Modeling done for the PM Massachusetts Bay and Casco Bay.120 121
(welfare-based) PM2.5 NAAQS was NAAQS also projected PM2.5 levels in The vehicle controls being finalized
established as equal to the suite of 2015. These projections include all may help to reduce deposition of heavy
primary (health-based) NAAQS. sources of PM2.5, including the engines metals and POM.
Furthermore, section 169 of the Act covered in this rule, and suggest that
provides additional authorities to c. Materials Damage and Soiling
PM2.5 levels above the NAAQS will
remedy existing visibility impairment persist into the future. The deposition of airborne particles
and prevent future visibility impairment The vehicles that will be subject to can also reduce the aesthetic appeal of
in the 156 national parks, forests and the standards contribute to visibility buildings and culturally important
wilderness areas categorized as concerns in these areas through both articles through soiling, and can
mandatory class I federal areas (62 FR their primary PM emissions and their contribute directly (or in conjunction
38680–81, July 18, 1997).112 In July VOC emissions, which contribute to the with other pollutants) to structural
1999 the regional haze rule (64 FR formation of secondary PM2.5. The PFCs damage by means of corrosion or
35714) was put in place to protect the that will be subject to the standards also erosion.122 Particles affect materials
visibility in mandatory class I federal contribute to visibility concerns through principally by promoting and
areas. Visibility can be said to be their VOC emissions. Reductions in accelerating the corrosion of metals, by
impaired in both PM2.5 nonattainment these direct PM and VOC emissions will degrading paints, and by deteriorating
areas and mandatory class I federal help to improve visibility across the building materials such as concrete and
areas. nation, including mandatory class I limestone. Particles contribute to these
federal areas. effects because of their electrolytic,
ii. Current Visibility Impairment
b. Atmospheric Deposition hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and
Recently designated PM2.5 their ability to sorb corrosive gases
nonattainment areas indicate that, as of Wet and dry deposition of ambient
(principally sulfur dioxide). The rate of
October 2006, almost 90 million people particulate matter delivers a complex
metal corrosion depends on a number of
live in nonattainment areas for the 1997 mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc,
lead, nickel, aluminum, cadmium), factors, including the deposition rate
PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, at least these and nature of the pollutant; the
populations would likely be organic compounds (e.g., POM, dioxins,
furans) and inorganic compounds (e.g., influence of the metal protective
experiencing visibility impairment, as corrosion film; the amount of moisture
well as many thousands of individuals nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. EPA’s Great Waters present; variability in the
who travel to these areas. In addition, electrochemical reactions; the presence
while visibility trends have improved in Program has identified 15 pollutants
whose deposition to water bodies has and concentration of other surface
mandatory class I federal areas, the most electrolytes; and the orientation of the
recent data show that these areas contributed to the overall contamination
loadings to these Great Waters. These 15 metal surface.
continue to suffer from visibility
impairment.113 In summary, visibility compounds include several heavy
118 Simcik, M.F.; Eisenrich, S.J.; Golden, K.A.;
impairment is experienced throughout metals and a group known as polycyclic
Liu, S.; Lipiatou, E.; Swackhamer, D.L.; and Long,
the U.S., in multi-state regions, urban organic matter (POM). Within POM are D.T. (1996) Atmospheric Loading of Polycyclic
areas, and remote mandatory class I the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan as
federal areas.114 115 The mandatory class (PAHs). PAHs in the environment may Recorded in the Sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol.
be present in the gas or particle phase, 30:3039–3046.
I federal areas are listed in Chapter 3 of 119 Simcik, M.F.; Eisenrich, S.J.; and Lioy, P.J.
the RIA for this action. The areas that although the bulk will be adsorbed onto
(1999) Source Apportionment and Source/Sink
have design values above the 1997 PM2.5 airborne particulate matter. In most Relationships of PAHs in the Coastal Atmosphere
NAAQS are also listed in Chapter 3 of cases, human-made sources of PAHs of Chicago and Lake Michigan. Atmospheric
the RIA for this action. account for the majority of PAHs Environment 33: 5071–5079.
120 Dickhut, R.M.; Canuel, E.A.; Gustafson, K.E.;
released to the environment. The PAHs
are usually the POMs of concern as Liu, K.; Arzayus, K.M.; Walker, S.E.; Edgecombe, G.;
112 These areas are defined in section 162 of the
Gaylor, M.O.; and McDonald, E.H. (2000)
Act as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, many PAHs are probable human Automotive Sources of Carcinogenic Polycyclic
wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding carcinogens.117 For some watersheds, Aromatic Hydrocarbons Associated with Particulate
5,000 acres, and all international parks which were Matter in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Environ. Sci.
in existence on August 7, 1977. 116 The deciview metric describes perceived Technol. 34: 4635–4640.
113 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 121 Golomb, D.; Barry, E.; Fisher, G.;
visual changes in a linear fashion over its entire
Final Clean Air Interstate Rule. This document is range, analogous to the decibel scale for sound. A Varanusupakul, P.; Koleda, M.; and Rooney, T.
available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. deciview of 0 represents pristine conditions. The (2001) Atmospheric Deposition of Polycyclic
114 U.S. EPA, Air Quality Designations and Aromatic Hydrocarbons near New England Coastal
higher the deciview value, the worse the visibility,
Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) Waters. Atmospheric Environment 35: 6245–6258.
and an improvement in visibility is a decrease in

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December deciview value. 122 U.S EPA (2005) Review of the National
17, 2004. (70 FR 943, January 5, 2005) This 117 Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
document is also available on the web at: http:// Waters—Third Report to Congress, Office of Air Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/. Quality Planning and Standards, June 2000, Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. This
115 U.S. EPA, Regional Haze Regulations, July 1, EPA453–R–00–005. This document is available in document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999) Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. 2005–0036.
4. Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels These areas are comprised of 208 full or designated as nonattainment for the
In 2005 EPA designated 39 partial counties with a total population 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the
nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 exceeding 88 million. As mentioned in number of additional counties which
NAAQS based on air quality design section III.D.1, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS have monitored data that is violating the
values (using 2001–2003 or 2002–2004 was recently revised and the 2006 PM2.5 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Nonattainment
measurements) and a number of other NAAQS became effective on December areas will be designated with respect to
factors.123 (See 70 FR 943, January 5, 18, 2006. Table III.D–1 presents the the new 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in early
2005; 70 FR 19844, April 14, 2005.) number of counties in areas currently 2010.
TABLE III.D–1.—PM2.5 STANDARDS: CURRENT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AND OTHER VIOLATING COUNTIES
Number of Population1
counties
1997 PM2.5 Standards: 39 areas currently designated ............................................................................................. 208 88,394,000

2006 PM2.5 Standards: Counties with violating monitors 2 ........................................................................................ 49 18,198,676
Total .................................................................................................................................................................... 257 106,592,676

1 Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
2 This table provides an estimate of the counties violating the 2006 PM
2.5 NAAQS based on 2003–05 air quality data. The areas designated as
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be based on 3 years of air quality data from later years. Also, the county numbers in the summary
table include only the counties with monitors violating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The monitored county violations may be an underestimate of the
number of counties and populations that will eventually be included in areas with multiple counties designated nonattainment.
Based on modeling performed for the nonattainment areas and their Northwest. This issue is discussed in
PM NAAQS analysis, we estimate that populations, as of October 2006. The more detail in the RIA.
52 counties (where 53 million people expected PM and VOC inventory
1. How Will MSAT Emissions Be
are projected to live) will exceed the reductions from the standards being
Reduced?
2006 PM2.5 standard in 2015.124 125 In finalized in this action could be useful
addition, 54 counties (where 27 million to states in maintaining the PM10 Figure IV.A–1 depicts the estimated
people are projected to live) are NAAQS. reduction in total air toxic emissions
expected to be within 10 percent of IV. What Are the Emissions, Air emitted by mobile sources between 1990
violating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in Quality, and Public Health Impacts of and 2030, with and without the
2015. This Rule? standards being finalized in this rule.
Areas designated as not attaining the These estimates do not include diesel
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS will need to attain A. Emissions Impacts of All Rule PM. Trends in diesel PM emissions are
these standards in the 2010 to 2015 time Provisions Combined discussed in the regulatory impact
frame, and then be required to maintain The emissions analysis presented in analysis for this rule. Without standards
the NAAQS thereafter. The attainment section IV.A of this preamble is being finalized in this rule, emissions of
dates associated with the potential described in more detail in Chapter air toxics from mobile sources will be
nonattainment areas based on the 2006 2.2.2. of the RIA. The emissions analysis reduced by about 70% percent between
PM2.5 NAAQS would likely be in the has been updated since the proposal, 1990 and 2030, from about 3.3 million
2015 to 2020 timeframe. The emissions largely to include the effects of the tons to 1.3 million tons. This will occur
standards being finalized in this action recently proposed Renewable Fuels despite a projected increase in vehicle
would become effective between 2009 Standard, which was required by the miles traveled of over 100 percent, and
and 2015, making the expected PM and Energy Policy Act. The emissions a projected 150% increase in nonroad
VOC inventory reductions useful to analysis examines the 0.62 vol% activity, based on units of work called
states in attaining or maintaining the standard but does not include the 1.3% horsepower hours. Without additional
PM2.5 NAAQS. maximum average, because of the lead controls, air toxic emissions from
time necessary to conduct inventory mobile sources would begin to increase
5. Current PM10 Levels after 2015. Similar trends are observed
modeling. Thus, the emission
Air quality monitoring data indicates reductions from highway vehicles and for benzene (see Figure IV.A–2), with a
that as of October 2006 approximately other sources attributable to the fuel reduction in emissions from about
28.5 million people live in 46 benzene standard are underestimated in 380,000 tons in 1990 to less than
designated PM10 nonattainment areas, many areas of the country, particularly 170,000 tons in 2030, but emissions
which include all or part of 46 counties. in areas where fuel benzene levels were from mobile sources begin to increase
The RIA for this rule lists the PM10 highest without control, such as the again after 2015.
123 The full details involved in calculating a PM designated in the future, some areas may include 125 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final PM
2.5
design value are given in Appendix N of 40 CFR additional contributing counties. Thus, the total NAAQS rule. This document is available in Docket
Part 50. number of counties designated in the future and the EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
124 Note that this analysis identifies only counties associated population would likely exceed these
projected to have a violating monitor; when estimates.
ER26FE07.000</GPH>
Total emissions of MSATs from 61,000 tons less than they would have 2030 (Figure IV.A–6), and benzene
mobile and stationary sources in 2030 been without this rule (Figure IV.A–4). emissions from gasoline distribution by
will be 330,000 tons less than they Table IV.A–2 depicts reductions in over 30% in 2030. For total MSAT
would have been without this rule benzene by source sector from this rule. emissions from on-road mobile sources,
(Figure IV.A–3). Of these 330,000 tons In 2030, annual benzene emissions there will be a 38% reduction in MSAT
of reductions, 310,000 will be from from gasoline on-road mobile sources emissions in 2030 (Figure IV.A–7), and
mobile sources, with the rest from will be 45% lower as a result of this rule a 65% reduction from 1999 levels.
portable fuel containers (PFCs) and (Figure IV.A–5), and over 60% lower
than they were in 1999. In addition, Table IV.A–3 provides estimated
gasoline distribution.126 Table IV.A–1 reductions in emissions from individual
benzene emissions from gasoline
summarizes MSAT reductions by source MSATs in 2015, 2020 and 2030, from
nonroad equipment will be 14% lower
sector in 2015, 2020, and 2030. In gasoline vehicles, gasoline nonroad
in 2030, and over 45% lower than they
addition, total benzene emissions from were in 1999. Benzene emissions from engines, and PFCs as a result of the
mobile and stationary sources will be PFCs will be reduced by almost 80% in controls being finalized in this rule.
ER26FE07.001</GPH>
126 Reduction in fuel benzene will reduce
emissions through the whole distribution chain.
ER26FE07.002</GPH>
TABLE IV.A–1.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN MSAT EMISSIONS FROM ALL CONTROL MEASURES BY SECTOR, 2015 TO
2030
2015 2020 2030
MSAT 1999 Without With Without Without

Reduction With rule Reduction With rule Reduction
rule rule rule rule
(tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons)
(tons) (tons) (tons) (tons)
Gasoline Onroad Mobile

Sources ........................ 1,452,739 675,781 558,666 117,115 693,189 507,782 185,408 808,141 505,074 303,067
Gasoline Nonroad Mobile
Sources ........................ 806,725 449,422 443,973 5,449 406,196 400,816 5,380 412,617 406,856 5,761
PFCs ............................... 37,166 27,355 9,893 17,462 29,338 10,672 18,666 33,430 12,264 21,166
Gasoline Distribution ....... 57,765 62,870 62,059 811 64,942 64,092 850 64,942 64,092 850
Total ......................... 2,354,395 1,215,428 1,074,591 140,837 1,193,665 983,362 210,303 1,319,130 988,286 330,844
TABLE IV.A–2.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM ALL CONTROL MEASURES BY SECTOR, 2015 TO
2030
2015 2020 2030
Benzene 1999 Without With Without Without

Reduction With rule Reduction With rule Reduction
rule rule rule rule
(tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons)
(tons) (tons) (tons) (tons)
Gasoline Onroad Mobile

Sources ........................ 183,660 97,789 71,688 26,101 101,514 65,878 35,636 119,016 65,601 53,415
Gasoline Nonroad Mobile
Sources ........................ 68,589 41,343 35,825 5,518 40,161 34,717 5,444 42,994 37,167 5,827
PFCs ............................... 853 992 215 777 1,063 232 831 1,210 267 944
Gasoline Distribution ....... 1,984 2,445 1,635 810 2,621 1,772 849 2,621 1,772 849
Total ......................... 255,086 142,569 109,363 33,206 145,359 102,599 42,760 165,841 104,807 61,035
ER26FE07.003</GPH>
ER26FE07.004</GPH>
ER26FE07.005</GPH>
TABLE IV.A–3.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL MSATS IN 2015, 2020 AND 2030, FROM GAS-
OLINE VEHICLES, GASOLINE NONROAD ENGINES, AND PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINERS, RESULTING FROM THE CUMU-
LATIVE IMPACTS OF THE CONTROLS IN THIS RULE 127
2015 2020 2030
1999
MSAT (tons) Without With rule Reductions Without With rule Reductions Without With rule Reductions
rule (tons) (tons) (tons) rule (tons) (tons) (tons) rule (tons) (tons) (tons)
1,3-Butadiene .................. 31,234 14,771 13,259 1,512 15,037 12,535 2,501 17,054 12,834 4,220
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane ... 296,310 166,270 149,178 17,091 159,892 133,578 26,314 174,824 132,763 42,061
Acetaldehyde ................... 27,800 21,223 18,154 3,069 22,156 17,011 5,145 25,754 17,213 8,541
Acrolein ........................... 3,835 1,650 1,457 193 1,665 1,347 317 1,889 1,360 529
Benzene .......................... 250,227 140,124 107,728 32,396 142,737 100,827 41,911 163,221 103,035 60,186
Ethyl Benzene ................. 120,150 61,300 54,805 6,495 59,963 49,968 9,995 66,823 50,830 15,992
Formaldehyde ................. 74,053 32,341 28,096 4,245 33,350 26,371 6,979 38,472 26,946 11,526
Hexane ............................ 106,464 57,852 52,042 5,810 54,673 46,926 7,747 59,152 48,029 11,124
MTBE .............................. 143,350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propionaldehyde ............. 4,142 2,195 1,965 231 2,249 1,869 380 2,565 1,932 633
Styrene ............................ 16,352 8,212 6,985 1,227 8,423 6,405 2,018 9,731 6,365 3,366
Toluene ........................... 729,908 390,688 347,363 43,325 380,420 312,542 67,878 420,534 310,654 109,880
Xylenes ............................ 487,768 252,993 228,561 24,432 245,180 206,913 38,267 270,775 208,839 61,936
Total MSATs ............ 2,291,593 1,149,618 1,009,592 140,026 1,125,744 916,291 209,453 1,250,794 920,800 329,994
both light-duty vehicles and PFCs. As reductions from both of these sources
2. How Will VOC Emissions Be
seen in the table and accompanying will be 34% lower in 2030 because of
Reduced?
figure below Table IV.A–4 and Figure this rule, and 59% lower than in 1999.
VOC emissions will be reduced by the IV.A–8, annual VOC emission
hydrocarbon emission standards for
127 Napthalene reductions from controls in this

ER26FE07.006</GPH>
rule are not quantified, due to limitations in

modeling tools.
TABLE IV.A–4. ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN VOC EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE VEHICLES AND PFCS, 1999 TO
2030
1999 2015 2020 2030
VOC Without Rule (tons) ................................................................................................. 5,224,921 2,944,491 2,892,134 3,281,752

VOC With Vehicle and PFC Standards (tons) ................................................................ .................... 2,420,860 2,146,476 2,153,735
VOC Reduction (tons) ..................................................................................................... .................... 523,631 745,658 1,128,017
3. How Will PM Emissions Be Reduced? temperature, with lower temperatures direct PM emissions at cold
corresponding to higher vehicle temperatures were estimated using a
EPA expects that the cold-temperature emissions. Additionally, the analysis constant PM to NMHC ratio. PM
vehicle standards will reduce exhaust shows the ratio of PM to total non- emission reductions were estimated by
emissions of direct PM2.5 by over 19,000 methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) to be assuming that NMHC reductions will
tons in 2030 nationwide (see Table independent of temperature.128 Our result in proportional reductions in PM.
IV.A–5 below). Our analysis of the data testing indicates that strategies which This assumption is supported by test
from vehicles meeting Tier 2 emission reduce NMHC start emissions at cold data. For more detail, see Chapter 2.1 of
standards indicate that PM emissions temperatures also reduce direct PM the RIA.
follow a monotonic relationship with emissions. Based on these findings,
TABLE IV.A–5. ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN DIRECT PM2.5 EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE
VEHICLES AND TRUCKS, 2015 TO 2030
2015 2020 2030
PM2.5 Reductions from Vehicle Standards (tons) ................................................................................................ 7,068 11,646 19,421
ER26FE07.007</GPH>
128 U.S. EPA. 2005. Cold-temperature exhaust
particulate matter emissions. Memorandum from

Chad Bailey to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.
B. Emission Impacts by Provision secondary PM. We are also finalizing result from the cold temperature
new evaporative emissions standards for hydrocarbon standard alone. The
1. Vehicle Controls
Tier 2 vehicles starting in 2009. These standards will reduce VOC emissions
We are finalizing a hydrocarbon new evaporative standards reflect the from these vehicles in 2030 by 31%.
standard for gasoline passenger vehicles emissions levels already being achieved Overall VOC emissions from these
at cold temperatures. This standard will by manufacturers. vehicles will be reduced by 82%
reduce VOC at temperatures below 75
a. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) between 1999 and 2030 (including the
°F, including air toxics such as benzene,
effects of these standards as well as
1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, Table IV.B–1 shows the VOC exhaust
acetaldehyde, and acrolein, and will emission reductions from light-duty other standards in place, such as Tier 2).
also reduce emissions of direct and gasoline vehicles and trucks that will
TABLE IV.B.–1. ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN EXHAUST VOC EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE VEHICLES
AND TRUCKS, 1999 TO 2030.
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
VOC Without Rule (tons) ............................................................... 4,899,891 2,990,760 2,614,987 2,538,664 2,878,836
VOC With Proposed Vehicle Standards (tons) ............................. ...................... 2,839,012 2,293,703 2,009,301 1,996,074
VOC Reductions from Vehicle Standards (tons) ........................... ...................... 151,748 321,284 529,363 882,762
Percentage Reduction ................................................................... ...................... 5 12 21 31
b. Toxics in total emissions of the MSATs and a 1999 and 2030, total MSATs from light-
39% reduction in benzene emissions duty gasoline vehicles and trucks will
In 2030, we estimate that the vehicle from light-duty vehicles and trucks (see be reduced by 64%, and benzene by
standards will result in a 38% reduction Tables IV.B–1 and IV.B–2). Between 59%.
TABLE IV.B.–1. ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN EXHAUST MSAT EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE
VEHICLES AND TRUCKS, 1999 TO 2030
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
MSATs Without Rule (tons) ........................................................... 1,376,002 695,408 650,012 669,707 783,648
MSATs With Vehicle Standards (tons) .......................................... ...................... 644,312 542,281 492,700 488,824
MSAT Reductions from Vehicle Standards (tons) ......................... ...................... 51,987 107,731 177,007 294,824
Percentage Reduction ................................................................... ...................... 7 17 26 38
TABLE IV.B–2.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN BENZENE EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE
VEHICLES AND TRUCKS, 1999 TO 2030.
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
Benzene Without Rule (tons) ............................................................................. 173,474 99,559 95,234 99,225 116,742
Benzene With Vehicle Standards (tons) ............................................................ .................. 91,621 78,664 72,128 71,704
Benzene Reductions from Vehicle Standards (tons) ........................................ .................. 7,939 16,570 27,097 45,037
Percentage Reduction ....................................................................................... .................. 8 17 27 39
c. PM2.5 by gasoline. In addition, the fuel from these source sectors with and
As discussed in Section IV.A.3, EPA benzene standard will reduce without the fuel benzene standard in
expects that the cold-temperature evaporative emissions from gasoline 2015. These estimates do not include
vehicle standards will reduce exhaust distribution and PFCs. Impacts on 1,3- effects of the vehicle or PFC standards
emissions of direct PM2.5 by over 19,000 butadiene, formaldehyde, and (see section IV.A.1 for the combined
tons in 2030 nationwide (see Table acetaldehyde emissions are not effects of the controls). They also
IV.A–5). significant, but are presented in Chapter assume that the fuel program is fully
2 of the RIA. We do not expect the fuel phased in, which is a simplification of
2. Fuel Benzene Standard benzene standard to have quantifiable the actual phase-in. The fuel benzene
The fuel benzene standard will reduce impacts on any other air toxics, total standard will reduce total benzene
benzene exhaust and evaporative VOCs, or direct PM. emissions from on-road and nonroad
emissions from both on-road and Table IV.B–3 shows national gasoline mobile sources, PFCs, and
nonroad mobile sources that are fueled estimates of total benzene emissions gasoline distribution by 12% in 2015.
TABLE IV.B–3.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE STANDARD BY SECTOR IN 2015
Gasoline Gasoline
on-road nonroad Gasoline dis-
PFCs Total
mobile mobile tribution
sources sources
Benzene Without Rule (tons) ........................................................................... 97,789 41,343 992 2,445 142,569
Benzene With Gasoline Standard (tons) ......................................................... 86,875 35,825 619 1,635 124,954
Benzene Reductions from Gasoline Standard (tons) ...................................... 10,914 5,518 373 810 17,615
Percentage Reduction ..................................................................................... 11 13 38 33 12
3. PFC Standards PFC standard. In 2015, VOC emissions

a. VOC From PFCs will be reduced by 61%
because of reduced permeation, spillage,
Table IV.B–4 shows the reductions in and evaporative losses.
VOC emissions that we expect from the
TABLE IV.B–4.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN VOC EMISSIONS FROM PFCS, 1999 TO 2030
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
VOC Without Rule (tons) ................................................................................... 325,030 316,756 329,504 353,470 402,916
VOC With PFC Standard (tons) ........................................................................ .................. 256,175 127,157 137,175 216,294
VOC Reductions from PFC Standard (tons) ..................................................... .................. 60,580 202,347 216,294 245,255
Percentage Reduction ....................................................................................... .................. 19 61 61 61
b. Toxics estimate that benzene emissions from standard (see section IV.A–1 for the
PFCs will be reduced by 68% (see Table combined effects of the controls).
The PFC standard will reduce IV.B–5) and, more broadly, air toxic Chapter 2 of the RIA provides details on
emissions of benzene, toluene, xylenes, emissions by 63% (see Table IV.B–6) in the emission reductions of the other
ethylbenzene, n-hexane, 2,2,4- year 2015. These reductions do not toxics.
trimethylpentane, and MTBE. We include effects of the fuel benzene
TABLE IV.B–5.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM PFCS, 1999 TO 2030
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
Benzene Without Rule (tons) ........................................................................................................... 853 943 992 1063 1210
Benzene With PFC Standard (tons) ................................................................................................ ............ 743 320 345 396
Benzene Reductions from PFC Standard (tons) ............................................................................. ............ 200 672 718 814
Percentage Reduction ..................................................................................................................... ............ 21 68 68 67
TABLE IV.B–6.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL REDUCTIONS IN TOTAL MSAT EMISSIONS FROM PFCS, 1999 TO 2030
1999 2010 2015 2020 2030
MSATs Without Rule (tons) ............................................................................................................. 37,167 26,189 27,355 29,338 33,430
MSATs With PFC Standard (tons) .................................................................................................. ............ 21,010 9,998 10,785 12,394
MSAT Reductions from PFC Standard (tons) ................................................................................. ............ 5,179 17,357 18,553 21,036
Percentage Reduction ..................................................................................................................... ............ 20 63 63 63
C. What Are the Air Quality, Exposure, attached garages, operating nonroad outdoor concentrations of air toxics due
and Public Health Impacts of This Rule? equipment, and living or working near to higher concentrations near roadways.
sources of gasoline distribution This is a significant improvement over
1. Mobile Source Air Toxics
emissions (such as bulk terminals, bulk exposure modeling done for the
The controls being finalized in this plants, tankers, marine vessels, and proposal, and is discussed in more
rule will reduce both evaporative and service stations). Section III.B of this detail in Chapter 3 of the RIA. However,
exhaust emissions from motor vehicles preamble and Chapter 3 of the RIA in addition to the limitations of the
and nonroad equipment. They will also provide more details on these types of national-scale modeling tools (discussed
reduce emissions from PFCs and exposures. in Chapter 3 of the RIA), this modeling
stationary source emissions associated We performed national-scale air did not account for the impacts of the
with gasoline distribution. Therefore, quality, exposure, and risk modeling in recently proposed renewable fuel
they will reduce exposure to mobile order to quantitatively assess the standard, as this standard was proposed
source air toxics for the general impacts of the standards being finalized. subsequent to the development of
population, and also for people near The exposure modeling for the final rule inventories for air quality modeling. In
roadways, in vehicles, in homes with accounted for the spatial variability of addition, while the model includes the
0.62 vol% fuel benzene standard, it does impacts of the standard on mobile source benzene will be reduced
not include the 1.3% maximum average. ‘‘background’’ concentrations 129, the by 37%. In 2030, the highway vehicle
The standards being finalized in this estimated overall risk reductions would contribution to MSAT cancer risk will
rule will reduce both the number of be even larger. The standards will also be reduced on average 36% across the
people above the 1 in 100,000 cancer reduce the number of people with a U.S., and the highway vehicle
risk level, and the average population respiratory hazard index (HI) greater contribution to benzene cancer risk will
cancer risk, by reducing exposures to than one by about 10 million in 2020, be reduced on average by 43% across
mobile source air toxics. The number of and 17 million in 2030. As previously the U.S. The methods and assumptions
people above the 1 in 100,000 cancer discussed, a value of the HI greater than used to model the impact of the controls
risk level due to exposure to all mobile 1.0 can be best described as indicating are described in more detail in Chapter
source air toxics from all sources will that a potential may exist for adverse 3 of the RIA.
decrease by over 11 million in 2020 and health effects.
by almost 17 million in 2030. The Figure IV.C–1 depicts the impact on Figure IV.C–2 depicts the impact on
number of people above the 1 in the mobile source contribution to the mobile source contribution to
100,000 cancer risk level from exposure nationwide average population cancer nationwide average respiratory hazard
to benzene from all sources will risk from total MSATs and benzene in index (HI) in 2030. Nationwide, the
decrease by about 30 million in 2020 2030. Nationwide, the cancer risk mobile source contribution to the
and 46 million in 2030. It should be attributable to total MSATs will be respiratory hazard index will be
noted that if it were possible to estimate reduced by 30%, and the risk from reduced by 23%.
129 ‘‘Background represents the contribution to away than 50 kilometers, as well as the contribution
ER26FE07.008</GPH>
ambient levels of air toxics from sources further from uninventoried sources.
Table IV.C–1 summarizes the change would be larger if the modeling fully transport. Reductions are significantly
in median and 95th percentile accounted for a number of factors, larger for individuals in the 95th
inhalation cancer risks from benzene including exposure to benzene percentile than in the 50th percentile.
and all MSATs attributable to all emissions from vehicles, equipment, Thus, this rule is providing bigger
outdoor sources in 2015, 2020, and and PFCs in attached garages and the benefits to individuals experiencing the
2030, with the controls being finalized impacts of the control program on highest levels of risk.
in this rule. The reductions in risk ‘‘background’’ levels attributable to
TABLE IV.C—1. CHANGE IN MEDIAN AND 95TH PERCENTILE INHALATION CANCER RISK FROM BENZENE AND ALL MSATS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO OUTDOOR SOURCES IN 2015, 2020, AND 2030 WITH THE CONTROLS BEING FINALIZED IN THIS RULE
2015 2020 2030
Median 95th Median 95th Median 95th
All MSATs:
Without Controls ................... 1.50×10¥5 4.75×10¥5 1.53×10¥5 4.93×10¥5 1.61×10¥5 5.28×10¥5
With Controls ........................ 1.41×10¥5 4.37×10¥5 1.40×10¥5 4.40×10¥5 1.42×10¥5 4.49×10¥5
Percent Change .................... 6 8 8 11 12 15
Benzene:
Without Controls ................... 6.86×10¥6 1.82×10¥5 6.93×10¥6 1.86×10¥5 7.37×10¥6 2.06×10¥5
With Controls ........................ 6.17×10¥6 1.53×10¥5 6.02×10¥6 1.47×10¥5 6.06×10¥6 1.49×10¥5
Percent Change .................... 10 16 13 21 18 28
2. Ozone reductions. The ozone response surface the RIA for this final rule or the Air
metamodel was created using multiple Quality Modeling Technical Support
The vehicle and PFC standards will runs of the Comprehensive Air Quality Document (TSD).
also reduce VOC emissions, which are Model with Extensions (CAMx). Base
a precursor to ozone. We have modeled We have made estimates using the
and control CAMx metamodeling was ozone response surface metamodel to
the ozone impacts of the PFC standards.
completed for two future years (2020, illustrate the types of change in future
As described in more detail in Chapter
2030) over a modeling domain that ozone levels that we would expect to
3.3 of the RIA, a metamodeling tool
includes all or part of 37 Eastern U.S. result from this rule, as described in
developed at EPA, the ozone response
states. For more information on the Chapter 3 of the RIA. The PFC controls
surface metamodel, was used to
response surface metamodel, please see are projected to result in a very small
ER26FE07.009</GPH>
estimate the effects of the emission
net improvement in future ozone, after levels in gasoline could be no higher reducing PM emissions from current
weighting for population. Although the than 80 ppm as a per-gallon cap, and diesel vehicles and engines.
net future ozone improvement is small, must average 30 ppm annually. When
d. Phase-Out of Lead in Gasoline
some VOC-limited areas in the Eastern fully effective, gasoline will have 90
U.S. are projected to have non-negligible percent less sulfur than before the One of the first programs to control
improvements in projected 8-hour program. Reduced sulfur levels are toxic emissions from motor vehicles was
ozone design values due to the PFC necessary to ensure that vehicle the removal of lead from gasoline.
controls. We view these improvements emission control systems are not Beginning in the mid-1970s, unleaded
as useful in meeting the 8-hour ozone impaired. These systems effectively gasoline was phased in to replace
NAAQS. These net ozone improvements reduce non-methane organic gas leaded gasoline. The phase-out of
are in addition to reductions in levels of (NMOG) emissions, of which some are leaded gasoline was completed January
benzene, a toxic ozone precursor, due to air toxics, as well as emissions of NOX. 1, 1996, when lead was banned from
the PFC controls. With lower sulfur levels, emission motor vehicle gasoline. The removal of
control technologies can work longer lead from gasoline has essentially
3. PM eliminated on-highway mobile source
and more efficiently. Both new and
As described in section IV.A, the older vehicles benefit from reduced emissions of this highly toxic substance.
vehicle standards will reduce emissions gasoline sulfur levels. 2. Highway Vehicle and Engine
of direct PM. The PM health benefits Programs
that would be associated with these b. Gasoline Volatility
reductions in PM emissions and A fuel’s volatility defines its The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
exposure are discussed in section VIII.E evaporation characteristics. A gasoline’s set specific emission standards for
of this preamble. The vehicle and PFC volatility is commonly referred to as its hydrocarbons and for PM. Air toxics are
standards will also reduce VOC Reid vapor pressure, or RVP. Gasoline present in both of these pollutant
emissions, which contribute to the summertime RVP ranges from about 6– categories. As vehicle manufacturers
secondary formation of PM. In this rule 9 psi, and wintertime RVP ranges from develop technologies to comply with
we have not quantified the impact of the about 9–14 psi, when additional the hydrocarbon (HC) and particulate
VOC emission reductions on ambient volatility is required for starting in cold standards (e.g., more efficient catalytic
PM or associated health effects. temperatures. Gasoline vapors contain a converters), air toxics are reduced as
subset of the liquid gasoline well. Since 1990, we have developed a
D. What Other Mobile Source Emissions number of programs to address exhaust
components, and thus can contain
Control Programs Reduce MSATs? and evaporative hydrocarbon emissions
toxics compounds such as benzene.
As described in section IV.A, existing Since 1989, EPA has controlled and PM emissions.
mobile source control programs in summertime gasoline RVP primarily as Two of our recent initiatives to
combination with this rule will reduce a VOC and ozone precursor control, control emissions from motor vehicles
MSAT emissions (not including diesel resulting in additional toxics pollutant and their fuels are the Tier 2 control
PM) by 45% between 1999 and 2030. reductions. program for light-duty vehicles and the
The existing mobile source programs 2007 heavy-duty engine rule. Together
include controls on fuels, highway c. Diesel Fuel these two initiatives define a set of
vehicles, and nonroad engines and In early 2001, EPA issued rules comprehensive standards for light-duty
equipment. These programs are also requiring that diesel fuel for use in and heavy-duty motor vehicles and their
reducing hydrocarbons and PM more highway vehicles contain no more than fuels. In both of these initiatives, we
generally, as well as oxides of nitrogen. 15 ppm sulfur beginning June 1, treat vehicles and fuels as a system. The
The sections immediately below 2006.131 This program contains Tier 2 control program establishes
provide general descriptions of these averaging, banking and trading stringent tailpipe and evaporative
programs that will be providing MSAT provisions during the transition to the emission standards for light-duty
emission reductions, as well as 15 ppm level, as well as other vehicles and a reduction in sulfur levels
voluntary programs such as the National compliance flexibilities. In June 2004, in gasoline fuel beginning in 2004.133
Clean Diesel Campaign and Best EPA issued rules governing the sulfur The 2007 heavy-duty engine rule
Workplaces for Commuters. We also content of diesel fuel used in nonroad establishes stringent exhaust emission
discuss some programs that are diesel engines.132 In the nonroad rule, standards for new heavy-duty engines
currently being developed. A more sulfur levels are limited to a maximum and vehicles for the 2007 model year as
detailed description of mobile source of 500 ppm sulfur beginning in 2007 well as reductions in diesel fuel sulfur
programs is provided in Chapter 2 of the (current levels are approximately 3000 levels starting in 2006.134 Both of these
RIA. ppm). In 2010, nonroad diesel sulfur programs will provide substantial
levels must not exceed 15 ppm. emissions reductions through the
1. Fuels Programs EPA’s diesel fuel requirements are application of advanced technologies.
As described in section VI of this part of a comprehensive program to We expect 90% reductions in PM from
preamble, this rule would supersede the combine engine and fuel controls to new diesel engines compared to engines
2001 MSAT rule and certain provisions achieve the greatest emission under current standards.
of the reformulated gasoline program reductions. The diesel fuel provisions Some of the key earlier programs
and anti-dumping programs. These enable the use of advanced emission- controlling highway vehicle and engine
programs are described in Chapter 2 of control technologies on diesel vehicles emissions are the Tier 1 and NLEV
the RIA. and engines. The diesel fuel standards for light-duty vehicles and
trucks; enhanced evaporative emissions
a. Gasoline Sulfur requirements will also provide

immediate public health benefits by standards; the supplemental federal test
EPA’s gasoline sulfur program 130 procedures (SFTP); urban bus standards;
requires, beginning in 2006, that sulfur 131 66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001. See http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/index.htm. 133 65 FR 6697, February 10, 2000.

130 65 FR 6822 (February 10, 2000). 132 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004. 134 66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001.
and heavy-duty diesel and gasoline the existing fleet of engines through a Commuters. These companies offer
standards for the 2004/2005 time frame. variety of cost-effective and innovative superior commuter benefits such as
strategies. The goal of the Campaign is transit subsidies for rail, bus, and
3. Nonroad Engine Programs
to reduce emissions from the 11 million vanpools and promote flexi-place and
There are various categories of existing engines by 2014. Emission telework. Emergency Ride Home
nonroad engines, including land-based reduction strategies include switching programs provide a safety net for
diesel engines (e.g., farm and to cleaner fuels, retrofitting engines participants. More than 1,600 employers
construction equipment), small land- through the addition of emission control representing 3.5 million U.S. workers
based spark-ignition (SI) engines (e.g., devices and engine replacement. For
lawn and garden equipment, string have been designated Best Workplaces
example, installing a diesel particulate
trimmers), large land-based SI engines for Commuters.
filter achieves diesel particulate matter
(e.g., forklifts, airport ground service reductions of approximately 90 percent Much of the growth in the Best
equipment), marine engines (including (when combined with the use of ultra Workplaces for Commuters program has
diesel and SI, propulsion and auxiliary, low sulfur diesel fuel). The Energy been through metro area-wide
commercial and recreational), Policy Act of 2005 includes grant campaigns. Since 2002, EPA has worked
locomotives, aircraft, and recreational authorizations and other incentives to with coalitions in over 14 major
vehicles (off-road motorcycles, ‘‘all help facilitate voluntary clean diesel metropolitan areas to increase the
terrain’’ vehicles and snowmobiles). actions nationwide. penetration of commuter benefits in the
Chapter 2 of the RIA provides more The National Clean Diesel Campaign marketplace and the visibility of the
information about these programs. is focused on leveraging local, state, and companies that have received this
As with highway vehicles, the VOC federal resources to retrofit or replace distinguished designation. Another
standards we have established for diesel engines, adopt best practices and significant path by which the program
nonroad engines will also significantly track and report results. The Campaign
reduce VOC-based toxics from nonroad has grown is through Commuter
targets five key sectors: school buses,
engines. In addition, the standards for Districts including corporate and
ports, construction, freight and
diesel engines (in combination with the industrial business parks, shopping
agriculture. Almost 300 clean diesel
stringent sulfur controls on nonroad projects have been initiated through the malls, business improvement districts
diesel fuel) will significantly reduce Campaign. These projects will reduce and downtown commercial areas. To
diesel PM and exhaust organic gases, more than 20,000 PM lifetime tons. PM date EPA has granted the Best
which are mobile source air toxics. and NOX reductions from these Workplaces for Commuters ‘‘District’’
In addition to the engine-based programs will provide nearly $5 billion designation to over twenty locations
emission control programs described in health benefits. across the country including sites in
below, fuel controls will also reduce Reducing vehicle idling provides downtown Denver, Houston,
emissions of air toxics from nonroad important environmental benefits. As a Minneapolis, Tampa and Boulder.
engines. For example, restrictions on part of their daily routine, truck drivers
gasoline formulation (the removal of often keep their vehicles running at idle 5. Additional Programs Under
lead, limits on gasoline volatility and during stops to provide power, heat and Development That Will Reduce MSATs
RFG) are projected to reduce nonroad air conditioning. EPA’s SmartWay SM a. On-Board Diagnostics for Heavy-Duty
MSAT emissions because most gasoline- Transport Partnership is helping the Vehicles Over 14,000 Pounds
fueled nonroad vehicles are fueled with freight industry to adopt innovative idle
the same gasoline used in on-highway reduction technologies and to take The Agency has proposed on-board
vehicles. An exception to this is lead in advantage of proven systems that diagnostics (OBD) requirements for
aviation gasoline. Aviation gasoline, provide drivers with basic necessities heavy-duty vehicles over 14,000
used in general (as opposed to without idling the main engine. To date, pounds.135 In general, OBD systems
commercial) aviation, is a high octane there are 80 mobile and stationary idle- monitor the operation of key emissions
fuel used in a relatively small number reduction projects throughout the controls to detect any failure that would
of aircraft (those with piston engines). country. Emission reductions, on an lead to emissions above the standards
Such aircraft are generally used for annual basis, from these programs are in during the life of the vehicle. Given the
personal transportation, sightseeing, excess of 157,000 tons of CO2, 2,000 nature of the heavy-duty trucking
crop dusting, and similar activities. tons of NOX and 60 tons of PM; over 14 industry, 50-state harmonization of
million gallons of fuel are being saved emissions requirement is an important
4. Voluntary Programs
annually. The SmartWay Transport consideration. Initially, the Agency
In addition to the fuel and engine Partnership also works with the freight signed a Memorandum of Agreement in
control programs described above, we industry by promoting a wide range of 2004 with the California Air Resources
are actively promoting several voluntary new technologies such as advanced
programs to reduce emissions from Board which expressed both agencies’
aerodynamics, single-wide tires, weight
mobile sources, such as the National interest in working towards a single,
reduction, speed control and intermodal
Clean Diesel Campaign, anti-idling nationwide program for heavy-duty
shipping.
measures, and Best Workplaces for Daily commuting represents another OBD. Since that time, California has
Commuters SM. While the stringent significant source of emissions from established their heavy-duty OBD
emissions standards described above motor vehicles. EPA’s Best Workplaces program, which will begin
apply to new highway and nonroad for Commuters SM program is working implementation in 2010. EPA’s program
diesel engines, it is also important to with employers across the country to will also begin in 2010. These
reduce emissions from the existing fleet reverse the trend of longer, single- requirements will help ensure that the
of about 11 million diesel engines. EPA occupancy vehicle commuting. OTAQ emission reductions we projected in the
has launched a comprehensive initiative recognizes employers that have met the 2007 rulemaking for heavy-duty engines
called the National Clean Diesel National Standard of Excellence for occur in-use.
Campaign, one component of which is Commuter Benefits by adding them to
to promote the reduction of emissions in the List of Best Workplaces for 135 http://epa.gov/obd/regtech/heavy.htm.
b. Standards for Small Nonroad Spark- listed in section 202(l)(2). This currently, particulate matter traps, in
Ignition Engines conclusion applies whether one combination with engine-out control,
We are developing a proposal for considers just the compounds listed in represent the maximum feasible
small nonroad spark-ignition engines, Table 1.1–1 of the RIA, or consider all reduction of both motor vehicle
those typically used in lawn and garden of the compounds on the Master List of particulate matter and toxic metals
equipment and in spark-ignition marine emissions, given the breadth of EPA’s present as a component of the
engines. This proposal is being current control programs and the broad particulate matter.
developed in response to Section 428 of groups of emissions that many of the The mobile source contribution to the
the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for control technologies reduce. For national inventory for metal compounds
2004, which requires EPA to propose example, EPA has already taken is generally small. In fact, the emission
regulations under Clean Air Act section significant steps to reduce diesel rate for most metals from motor vehicles
213 for new nonroad spark-ignition emissions from motor vehicles (as well is small enough that quantitative
engines under 50 horsepower. We plan as other mobile sources). As explained measurement requires state-of-the art
to propose standards that would further above, we have adopted stringent analytical techniques that are only
reduce engine and equipment emissions standards for on-highway diesel trucks recently being applied to this source
for these nonroad categories. We and buses and these standards control category. We have efforts underway to
anticipate that any new standards the air toxics emitted by these motor gather information regarding trace metal
would provide significant additional vehicles to the extent feasible. emissions, including mercury
reductions in exhaust and evaporative Emissions from motor vehicles can be emissions, from motor vehicles (see
HC (and VOC-based toxics) emissions. chemically categorized as hydrocarbons, Chapter 1 of the RIA for more details).
trace elements (including metals) and a A few metals and other elements are
c. Standards for Locomotive and Marine few additional compounds containing used as fuel additives. These additives
Diesel Engines carbon, nitrogen and/or halogens (e.g., are designed to reduce the emission of
We are planning to propose more chlorine). For the hydrocarbons, which regulated pollutants either in
stringent standards for large diesel are the vast majority of these combination with or without an
engines used in locomotive and marine compounds, we believe that with the emission control device (e.g., a passive
applications, as discussed in a recent controls finalized today, we will control particulate matter trap). Clean Air Act
Advance Notice of Proposed the emissions of these compounds from section 211 (a) and (b) provide EPA with
Rulemaking.136 New standards for motor vehicles to the maximum amount various authorities to require the
marine diesel engines would apply to currently feasible or currently registration of fuel additives by their
engines less than 30 liters per cylinder identifiable with available information. manufacturers before their introduction
in displacement (all engines except for Section V of this preamble provides into commerce. Registration involves
Category 3). We are considering more details about why the standards certain data requirements that enable
standards modeled after our Tier 4 represent maximum achievable EPA to identify products whose
nonroad diesel engine program, which reduction of hydrocarbons from motor emissions may pose an unreasonable
achieve substantial reductions in PM, vehicles. Motor vehicle controls do not risk to public health. In addition, this
HC, and NOX emissions. These reduce individual hydrocarbons section provides EPA with authority to
standards would be based on the use of selectively; instead, the maximum require health effects testing to fill any
high efficiency catalyst aftertreatment emission reductions are achieved by gaps in the data that would prevent a
and would also require fuel sulfur controls on hydrocarbons as a group. determination regarding the potential
control. There are fuel controls that could for risk to the public. It is under the
selectively reduce individual air toxics section 211 registration program that
E. How Do These Mobile Source (e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3- EPA is currently generating the
Programs Satisfy the Requirements of butadiene), as well as controls that information needed to update an
Clean Air Act Section 202(l)? reduce hydrocarbons more generally. assessment of the potential human
The benzene and hydrocarbon Section VI of this preamble describes health risks related to having manganese
standards in this action will reduce why the standards we are finalizing in the national fuel supply. Clean Air
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, today represent the maximum emission Act section 211(c) provides the primary
acrolein, polycyclic organic matter, and reductions achievable through fuel mechanism by which EPA would take
naphthalene, as well as many other controls, after considering the factors actions necessary to minimize exposure
hydrocarbon compounds that are enumerated in section 202(l)(2) of the to emissions of metals or other additives
emitted by motor vehicles, including Clean Air Act. to diesel and gasoline.
those that are discussed in more detail Motor vehicle emissions also contain Existing regulations limit sulfur in
in Chapter 1 of the RIA. The emission trace elements, including metals, which gasoline and diesel fuel to the maximum
reductions expected from today’s originate primarily from engine wear amount feasible and will reduce
controls are set out in section IV.A and and impurities in engine oil and emissions of all sulfur-containing
B of this preamble and Chapter 2 of the gasoline or diesel fuel. EPA does not compounds (e.g., hydrogen sulfide,
RIA. have authority to regulate engine oil, carbon disulfide) to the greatest degree
EPA believes that the emission and there are no feasible motor vehicle achievable.137 138 139 For the remaining
reductions from the standards finalized controls to directly prevent engine wear. compounds (e.g., chlorinated
today for motor vehicles and their fuels, Nevertheless, oil consumption and
combined with the standards currently engine wear have decreased over the 137 65 FR 6697, February 10, 2000.
in place, represent the maximum years, decreasing emission of metals 138 66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001.
achievable reductions of emissions from from these sources. Metals associated
139 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004 (standards for non-
motor vehicles through the application with particulate matter will be captured road diesel engines and fuels). Although non-road
of technology that will be available, in emission control systems employing vehicles are not ‘‘motor vehicles,’’ and so are not
subject to section 202(1)(2), EPA nevertheless has
considering costs and the other factors a particulate matter trap, such as will be adopted standards resulting in the greatest feasible
used in heavy-duty vehicles meeting the reductions of mobile source air toxics from these
136 69 FR 39276, June 29, 2004. 2007 standards. We believe that engines.
compounds), we currently have very and not criteria pollutants like PM, this emissions would occur at other colder
little information regarding emission co-benefit of cold temperature control is start temperatures as a result of the more
rates and conditions that impact significant. stringent standards. We believe that
emissions. This information would be We are finalizing the new cold there is no engineering reason why
necessary in order to evaluate potential temperature standards and proportional control should not be
controls under section 202(l). Emissions implementation schedule essentially as occurring on a widespread basis.
of hydrocarbons containing chlorine proposed. We are also adopting several In some cases, certification data for
(e.g., dioxins/furans) would likely be other related provisions and recent model year light-duty vehicles
reduced with control measures that requirements largely as proposed. Many indicate that individual vehicles did
reduce total hydrocarbons, just as these of these provisions will help the demonstrate proportional improvements
emissions were reduced with the use of manufacturers smoothly transition to in hydrocarbon emission results at 20 °F
catalytic controls that lowered exhaust the new standards in the shortest lead relative to their 75 °F results, confirming
hydrocarbons. time possible. They include corporate our belief that proportional control is
average emissions standards, emissions feasible and indeed is practiced at least
V. New Light-Duty Vehicle Standards
credits, options for alternative phase-in occasionally. One manufacturer’s
A. Introduction schedules, and special provisions for certification results reflected
The program we are establishing for small businesses. The program also proportional improvements across
vehicles will achieve the same includes certification and compliance almost its entire vehicle lines, further
significant toxics reductions that we provisions. supporting that proportional control is
projected for the proposed rule (see We are also adopting new evaporative feasible. However, for most vehicles,
generally 71 FR 15845–15848). The emissions standards, beginning in certification reports show a sharp rise in
program is very similar to that proposed model year 2009. The new standards are hydrocarbon 140 emissions at 20 ° F
except for a few minor changes made in essentially the same as those contained when compared to the reported 75 ° F
response to comments we received. in the California LEVII program. hydrocarbon emission levels. Any rise
These changes will improve the Manufacturers have been selling 50- in hydrocarbon emissions, specifically
implementation of the program without state evaporative systems that meet both nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC),
significantly changing the program’s the Tier 2 and LEVII requirements. will result in proportional rise in VOC-
overall emission reductions and Today’s final rule will ensure that based air toxics.141 While some increase
environmental benefits. As described in industry continues this practice. in NMHC emissions can be expected
this section, we are adopting stringent Sections V.B. and V.C. provide the simply due to combustion limitations of
new nonmethane hydrocarbon details of the new cold temperature and gasoline engines at colder temperatures,
standards for vehicles to reduce evaporative emissions standards, the reported levels of hydrocarbon
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions during respectively, and briefly discuss some of emissions seem to indicate a
vehicle cold temperature operation. As the comments we received on the significantly diminished use of
discussed in the proposal, the current proposed vehicles program. We have hydrocarbon emissions controls
HC emissions standards are measured seriously considered all of the input occurring at colder temperatures. Thus,
within a range of specified warm from stakeholders in developing the although all vehicle manufacturers have
temperatures, and the test procedure final vehicles program and believe that been highly successful at reducing
does not include cold temperatures. the final rule appropriately addresses emissions at the test start temperature
Data indicate that cold HC emissions the concerns of all stakeholders. We range, in general, they do not appear to
currently are very high for many provide a full discussion of the be capitalizing on NMHC emission
vehicles compared to emissions at comments we received on vehicles in control strategies and technologies at
normal test temperatures. The new cold Chapter 3 of the Summary and Analysis lower temperatures. This is likely
temperature standards and program of Comments for this rule. because compliance with hydrocarbon
requirements will be phased in starting B. What Cold Temperature standards is not required at 20 degree F
in 2010. When fully phased in, the new Requirements Are We Adopting? temperatures. (see 71 FR at 15845.)
standards will further reduce overall Today’s rule remedies this by requiring
vehicle HC emissions by about 31%, or 1. Why Are We Adopting a New Cold such compliance.
by about 883,000 tons in 2030. Temperature NMHC Standard?
2. What Are the New NMHC Exhaust
By reducing overall HC emissions As emissions standards have become Emissions Standards?
from vehicles, we will be significantly more stringent, manufacturers have
reducing several gaseous toxics concentrated primarily on controlling We are finalizing a set of standards
including benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3- emissions performance just after the that will achieve proportional NMHC
butadiene, and acetaldehyde. We also start of the engine in order to further control from the 75 °F Tier 2 standards
project that the cold temperature reduce emissions. To comply with to the 20 °F test point. We expect that
standard will provide concurrent stringent hydrocarbon emission by fully utilizing available Tier 2
reductions in direct PM emissions from standards at 75 °F, manufacturers hardware and software control
vehicles, since the strategies developed new emission control strategies, manufacturers will be able to
manufacturers are expected to employ strategies and practices that resulted in achieve this standard without major
to reduce cold HC will reduce PM as significant emissions reductions at that changes to Tier 2 vehicle designs or the
well. Although Clean Air Act section start temperature. We expected that use of additional technology. Table V.B–
202(l) deals with control of air toxics, proportional reductions in hydrocarbon 1 contains the final standards.
140 Most certification 20 °F hydrocarbon levels are results with both THC and NMHC levels reported. 141 ‘‘VOC/PM Cold Temperature Characterization
reported as total hydrocarbon (THC), but NMHC This relationship also is confirmed in EPA test and Interior Climate Control Emissions/Fuel
accounts for approximately 95% of THC as seen in programs supporting this rulemaking. Economy Impact,’’ Volume I and II, October 2005.
TABLE V.B–1.—20 °F FTP EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

NMHC sales-weighted fleet
Vehicle GVWR and category average standard
(grams/mile)
≤6000 lbs: Light-duty vehicles (LDV) & Light light-duty trucks (LLDT) ......................................................................... 0.3
>6000 lbs: Heavy light-duty trucks (HLDT) up to 8,500 lbs & Medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV) up to
10,000 lbs ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.5
As shown in the table, we are towing) that can negatively affect standards. One manufacturer with a
finalizing, as proposed, two separate emissions, particularly during 20° F product line limited to vehicles below
sales-weighted fleet average NMHC cold starts. For example, since the 6,000 lbs GVWR suggested that the 0.3
standards: 0.3 grams/mile for vehicles at catalyst may be located further away g/mile standard was too stringent and
or below 6,000 pounds (lbs) GVWR and from the engine for protection from high unreasonable based on an assessment of
0.5 grams/mile for vehicles over 6,000 exhaust temperatures during design- their current vehicle emission levels.
lbs, including MDPVs.142 NMHC specific duty cycles, warm-up of the The manufacturer’s comments did not
emissions will be measured during the catalyst is typically delayed, especially provide data or further technical
Cold Federal Test Procedure (FTP) test, at colder temperatures. Therefore, we analysis to substantiate this claim. We
which already requires hydrocarbon believe the 0.3 g/mile fleet average know of no engineering basis for the
measurement.143 The new standard does standard for vehicles below 6,000 lbs standards not being technically
not require additional certification GVWR is not technically feasible at this achievable. Moreover, there are about
testing beyond what is required today time for heavier vehicles. We are thus nine other manufacturers with similar
with ‘‘worst case’’ model selection of a finalizing a 0.5 g/mile standard for product lines exclusively below 6,000
durability test group.144 vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR, including lbs GVWR, and they did not provide
The separate fleet average standards both HLDTs (6000 lbs to 8500 lbs) and similar comments. We continue to
we are finalizing account for challenges MDPVs. believe that with careful examination of
related to vehicle weight. We examined We are finalizing the sales-weighted existing emission control opportunities
certification data from Tier 2 and fleet average approach as proposed, as at colder temperatures on Tier 2
interim non-Tier 2 vehicles (i.e., the way to achieve the greatest degree of compliant vehicles, especially given the
vehicles not yet phased into the final emission control for Tier 2 vehicles. At lead time provided, manufacturers will
Tier 2 program, but meeting interim the same time, this approach allows identify strategies to comply with the
standards established by Tier 2), and manufacturers sufficient lead time and new standards across their product
saw a general trend of increased flexibility to certify different vehicle lines.
hydrocarbon levels with heavier GVWR groups to different levels, thus lowering We are establishing a Family
vehicles. Some comments suggested that the costs of the program. A fleet average Emissions Limit (FEL) structure in
the standard for HLDT/MDPVs should provides manufacturers with flexibility which manufacturers will determine
be the same standard as applies to LDVs to balance challenging vehicle families individual FELs for each group of
or contain a second future phase that with ones that more easily achieve the vehicles certified. These FELs are the
reduces emissions to those levels. At standards. We believe this approach is standard for each individual group, and
this time, we continue to believe that appropriate because the base Tier 2 are averaged on a sales-weighted basis
heavier vehicles have application- program is also based on emissions to demonstrate overall compliance with
specific design limitations. Heavier averaging, and will result in a mix of the fleet average standards. We are using
vehicles generally produce higher emissions control strategies across the the FEL-based approach for the new
emissions for several reasons. First, fleet that have varying cold temperature cold temperature NMHC standards
added weight requires additional work capabilities. While the Tier 2 program because we believe it results in the same
to accelerate the vehicle mass, generally continues to phase in, manufacturers are level of environmental benefit but adds
resulting in higher emissions, concurrently developing emissions flexibility and leads to cost-effective
particularly soon after engine start-up. control packages. The capabilities of compliance strategies. The FEL
Second, the design of these emission each Tier 2 package will not be fully approach is discussed further in section
control systems may incorporate designs understood until manufacturers are able V.B.4 below.
for specific duty cycles (i.e., trailer to evaluate the potential of the We are applying the new cold
142 Tier 2 created the medium-duty passenger
individual designs to control cold temperature NMHC standards to light-
vehicle (MDPV) category to include larger complete
temperature emissions. duty gasoline-fueled vehicles. However,
passenger vehicles, such as SUVs and vans, with a We received several comments from diesel vehicles, alternative-fueled
GVWR of 8,501–10,000 pounds GVWR. Large pick- state and environmental groups vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles will
ups above 8,500 pounds are not included in the supporting the new cold temperature not be subject to these standards, since
MDPV category but are included in the heavy-duty
vehicle category.
standards. Manufacturers indicated we lack data on which to base
143 40 CFR Subpart C, § 86.244–94 requires the their support of the Agency’s initiative standards. Section V.B.6.a provides a
measurement of all pollutants measured over the to seek reductions in MSATs, and one detailed discussion of applicability and
FTP except NOX. manufacturer commented that cold comments received.
144 The existing cold FTP test procedures are
temperature hydrocarbon control is both
specified in 40 CFR Subpart C. In the final rule for 3. Feasibility of the Cold Temperature
effective and logical. Manufacturers
fuel economy labeling, (71 FR 77872, December 27,

2006), EPA revised the cold FTP test protocol to commented that the new standards NMHC Standards
require manufacturers to run the heater and/or would be very challenging, but that the We believe the new standards will be
defroster while conducting the cold FTP test. This
had previously been an optional provision. We do
flexibilities incorporated into the final challenging but are attainable and
not believe this requirement will have a significant rule will significantly help provide the greatest emission reductions
impact on emissions. manufacturers achieve the new using technology that will be available.
The feasibility assessment described program, phase-in, emissions credits, Vehicle (NLEV) 146 level hardware and
below is based on our analysis of the deficit carry-forward, and in-use supplementing it with advanced cold
standard’s stringency given current standards that provide manufacturers start emission control strategies. The EU
emission levels at certification with flexibility in transitioning to the similarly determined that heavier
(considering deterioration, compliance new standards. weight vehicles may have duty-cycle
margin, and vehicle weight), available based design limitations and also
emission control techniques, and our a. Currently Available Emission Control adopted a separate unique emission
own feasibility testing. In addition, Technologies standard for these vehicles. Many
sections V.B.3–6 describe the lead time We believe that the cold temperature manufacturers offer common vehicle
and flexibility within the program NMHC standards for gasoline-fueled models in both European and U.S.
structure, which also contribute to the vehicles being finalized today are markets. Such manufacturers can
achievability of the standards. There are challenging but attainable with Tier 2 leverage European models to transfer
a number of technologies discussed (i.e., existing) level emission control emission control technologies
below that can be utilized to achieve technologies. Our determination of successfully used for 20 °F hydrocarbon
these standards. We expect that feasibility is based on the emission control in Europe to their U.S. model
manufacturers will employ these control hardware and calibration counterparts.
technologies in various combinations, strategies used today on Tier 2 vehicles. There are several strategies used in
which will likely vary from vehicle to These emission control technologies are the vehicles that are achieving
vehicle depending on a vehicle’s base utilized to meet the stringent Tier 2 proportional improvements in NMHC
emission control package developed for emissions at 20 °F FTP. Calibration and
standards for HC at the FTP temperature
Tier 2 compliance. Moreover, as software strategies that can be used
range of 68 °F to 86 °F, but are not
discussed in section V.D, due to current include lean limit fuel strategies, fuel
generally used or activated at colder
Tier 2 phase-in schedules, we are not injection timing,147 elevated idle
temperatures. As discussed in section
yet in a position to evaluate fully the speeds, retarded spark timing,
V.D, the standards we are finalizing
achievability of standards based on new redundant spark timing, and accelerated
today will not force changes to Tier 2
technologies that may result when Tier closed loop times. These strategies are
compliance strategies. Many current
2 is fully phased in in model year 2009. consistently and successfully used at 75
engine families already achieve
Thus, we are not considering more °F to meet stringent Tier 2 standards.
emissions levels at or below the
stringent cold temperature NMHC We expect that software and/or
emission standards being adopted (see calibration changes will perform as well
standards that would require the
RIA Chapter 5) and accomplish this or better than added hardware. This is
application of new technology to Tier 2
through software and calibration control because some hardware such as the
vehicles.
Chapter 8 of the RIA contains vehicle technologies. However, a significant improved catalyst system may not be
and nationwide cost estimates, number of engine families emit more usable immediately following the cold
including capital and development than twice the level of the new start because it must warm-up to operate
costs. We believe the estimated costs are standards most likely because they fail efficiently. Calibration and software
reasonable and the rule is cost-effective, to use the Tier 2 control technologies at strategies that minimize emissions
as shown in section XIII, below. Given colder temperatures. We believe the produced by the engine during this
the emission control strategies currently new standards can be met by the period while simultaneously
available, we expect manufacturers to application of calibration and software accelerating usage of the catalyst will be
implement these technologies approaches similar to those currently more effective than most new hardware
successfully without a significant used at 75 °F. Although manufacturers options. See RIA Chapter 5 for further
impact on vehicle noise, energy could use additional hardware to discussion.
consumption, or safety factors. facilitate compliance with the new In addition to calibration strategies,
Although new emissions control standard, we are not projecting that they some manufacturers may comply with
strategies are necessary at cold would choose to do so because the the new standards by extending the use
temperatures, we do not expect standards can be achieved through of existing Tier 2 hardware to 20 °F. An
fundamental Tier 2 vehicle hardware to lower-cost calibration and software example of this is secondary air
change. strategies. As described in section systems. Several European models sold
Manufacturers commented that the V.B.2.c, our own feasibility testing of a in the U.S. market demonstrate
standards will be extremely challenging vehicle over 6000 lbs GVWR achieved excellent cold HC performance and
because the standards are based on full NMHC reductions consistent with the utilize secondary air systems from 75 °F
useful life performance and standard through calibration approaches to 20 °F start temperatures. The
manufacturers must account for fuel alone. secondary air systems reduce emissions
quality in the field to ensure adequate In 2002, the European Union (EU) by injecting ambient air into the
performance. Manufacturers also noted finalized a ¥7 °C (20 °F) cold HC exhaust, thus supplying oxygen for
that they must account for a host of requirement.145 While the European more complete combustion. This also
requirements in addition to the new standard is based on a different drive supplies supplemental heat to the
cold temperature standards, including cycle, manufacturers have developed catalyst. These systems have been used
Tier 2 and SFTP standards. In response, individual strategies to comply with this extensively to reduce hydrocarbon
we understand the challenges involved standard. When the EU implemented emissions at 75 °F starts. Currently, auto
in complying with the new cold the new cold HC standard in
temperature standards and we are conjunction with a new 75 °F standard 146 NLEV voluntary program introduced
providing the essential lead time for California low emission cars and light-duty trucks
(Euro4), many manufacturers responded

manufacturers to identify and resolve by employing National Low Emission (0–6000 lbs. GVW) into other states beginning in
any related issues as part of overall 1999.
147 Meyer, Robert and John B. Heywood, ‘‘Liquid
vehicle development. We are also 145 European Union (EU) Type VI Test (¥7°C) Fuel Transport Mechanisms into the Cylinder of a
including several other provisions required for new vehicle models certified as of 1/ Firing Port-Injected SI Engine During Start-up,’’
discussed below, including an averaging 1/2002. SAE 970865, 1997.
makers are equipping a portion of the account for in-use issues that may cause control methods already practiced in the
Tier 2 fleet with secondary air systems emissions variability. See RIA Chapter 5 production European version of the
for compliance with Tier 2 standards. for further discussion and details vehicle tested, helping to demonstrate
Some manufacturers with vehicles regarding current certification levels. that significant emission controls
containing secondary air systems through calibration are available to
claimed that they are not utilizing them c. Feasibility and Test Programs
manufacturers today. Simply utilizing
at temperatures below freezing simply While a few of the heavier vehicles the European emission controls resulted
because of past engineering issues. achieved emission levels below the 0.5 in a 32% reduction in NMHC emissions.
Those successfully using secondary air g/mile level, there are only limited 20 °F The findings from both studies are
at 20 °F (mainly European companies) certification results for Tier 2 compliant provided in detail in the RIA.
indicated that these challenges have vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR because While the auto industry did not
been addressed through design changes. the Tier 2 standards are still phasing in question the feasibility of the standards,
The robustness of these systems below for these vehicles. Prior to proposal, we they expressed concerns that EPA was
freezing has also been confirmed with conducted a feasibility study in 20 °F not conveying the complexity of effort
the manufacturers and with the conditions for Tier 2 vehicles over 6000 required for full product line
suppliers of the secondary air lbs GVWR. The test program further manufacturers to meet the new
components.148 While alternative investigated the feasibility of standards. We believe that the feasibility
technologies are available and produce compliance for heavier vehicles and program demonstrated that Tier 2
comparable results, vehicles equipped assessed their capabilities with typical vehicles, including higher weight
with secondary air technology should Tier 2 hardware. For one vehicle with vehicles, currently have existing
meet the new 20 °F standard by utilizing models above and below 6,000 lbs emission control capabilities to achieve
it at colder temperatures. GVWR, we reduced HC emissions by the new standards. The extensive
60–70%, depending on the control emission data from certification tests
b. Feasibility Considering Current strategy. This vehicle had a baseline
Certification Levels, Deterioration and detailed in RIA Chapter 5 provides
level of about 1.0 g/mile. The results are substantial support to the assessment
Compliance Margin well within the 0.5 g/mile standard that Tier 2 vehicles generally possess
The standards we are finalizing will including compliance margin, and the necessary technology to achieve the
have a full useful life of 120,000 miles, within a 0.3 g/mile level on some tests. new standards. In most cases, the
consistent with Tier 2 standards. We We achieved these reductions through technologies need to be activated and
believe the 0.3 g/mile FEL standard recalibration without the use of new optimized at colder temperatures
leaves adequate flexibility for hardware. through calibration strategies. However,
compliance margins and any emissions Comments from the auto industry
we recognize that manufacturers,
deterioration concerns. Of the vehicles suggested that the original single vehicle
particularly full line manufacturers, will
certified to Tier 2 with available cold feasibility test program and the
have to do significant development
temperature certification data, approach used to reduce emission levels
work to bring their expansive Tier 2
approximately 20% of vehicles below on the feasibility vehicle were too
product line into compliance with the
6,000 lbs GVWR had HC levels in the simplistic and did not fully account for
new standards over the vehicles’ full
range of 0.18 to 0.27 g/mile, which is competing requirements. The
useful life. This is why we have
two to three times the 75 °F Tier 2 bin commenter stated that that Tier 2 FTP
included a phase-in of the standards
5 full useful life standard. These and SFTP requirements have affected
over 6 model years.
reported HC levels are from Cold CO hardware decisions, such as catalyst
test results for certification test vehicles location, and make it more difficult to 4. Standards Timing and Phase-In
with typically only 4,000 mile aged simultaneously obtain optimal a. Phase-In Schedule
systems, without full useful life performance at colder temperatures. For
deterioration applied. Rapid advances the final rule, we completed a second As proposed, we will begin
in emission control hardware feasibility program to help address the implementing the standard in the 2010
technology have lowered deterioration comments regarding the first feasibility model year (MY) for LDV/LLDTs and
factors used by manufacturers to program. For the second feasibility test 2012 MY for HLDT/MDPVs. The
demonstrate full useful life compliance, program, we tested a vehicle with some implementation schedule, in Table V.B–
usually indicating little or no of the specific challenges listed by the 2, begins three model years after the
deterioration over a vehicle’s lifetime. auto industry which represented a worst Tier 2 phase-in is complete for each
These deterioration factors are common case vehicle from the perspective of vehicle class. Manufacturers will
across all required test cycles including cold temperature emissions control demonstrate compliance with phase-in
cold temperature testing. Additionally, including catalyst location and a large requirements through sales projections,
manufacturers typically incorporate a displacement engine. The second similar to Tier 2, as discussed below in
20% to 30% compliance margin to feasibility program utilized emission Section V.B.7.
TABLE V.B–2.—PHASE-IN SCHEDULE FOR 20 °F NMHC STANDARD BY MODEL YEAR

Vehicle GVWR (category) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
≤6000 lbs (LDV/LLDT) ..................................................................................................... 25% 50% 75% 100% ............ ............
>6000 lbs HLDT and MDPV ............................................................................................ ............ ............ 25% 50% 75% 100%
148 Memo to docket ‘‘Discussions Regarding Automotive Manufacturers and Suppliers of

Secondary Air System Usage at 20°F with European Secondary Air Systems,’’ December 2005.
We requested comments on the manufacturers must do development on the lead time and phase in provided,
proposed start date and duration of the all vehicle combinations to ensure full commenting that these program
phase-in schedule. Generally, compliance within the durability test elements are needed to avoid high test
manufacturers supported the phase-in group. A phase-in is needed because facility costs.
schedule. Commenters indicated that manufacturers must develop control
b. Alternative Phase-In Schedules
the stringency of the standards will strategies for several vehicle lines. Since
increase the development workload and manufacturers cannot be expected to We are finalizing provisions, as
facility demands, but that the proposed implement the standard over their entire proposed, that allow manufacturers to
rule recognized these cost issues and product line in 2010, we believe a introduce vehicles earlier than required
provided sufficient mechanisms for phase-in allows the program to begin in exchange for flexibility to make
phase-in flexibility to help sooner than would otherwise be offsetting adjustments, on a one-for-one
manufacturers transition to the new feasible. basis, to the phase-in percentages in
program. One manufacturer with only As noted at proposal, the lead time later years. Alternative phase-in
LDV and LLDT vehicles in their product and phase-in are also needed to address schedules essentially credit the
line commented that the required phase- test facility availability issues (see 71 FR manufacturer for its early or accelerated
in percentage affects a larger portion of 15849). Prior to proposal, manufacturers efforts and allow the manufacturer
their products compared with other raised concerns that a rapid phase-in greater flexibility in subsequent years
manufacturers with heavier vehicles, schedule would lead to a significant during the phase-in. Under these
and therefore the phase-in should be increase in the demand for their cold alternative schedules, manufacturers
extended to accommodate construction testing facilities, which could would have to introduce vehicles that
of new facilities. Conversely, a non- necessitate substantial capital meet or surpass the NHMC average
profit organization commented that EPA investment in new cold test facilities to standards before they are required to do
should begin the program earlier than meet development needs. This is so, or else introduce vehicles that meet
we proposed. The organization cited our because manufacturers would need to or surpass the standard in greater
assessment that manufacturers could use their cold testing facilities not only quantities than required.
utilize primarily calibration and for certification but also for vehicle As proposed, we are finalizing
software changes, and not hardware development. Durability test groups provisions allowing manufacturers to
changes, to achieve compliance. may be large and diverse and therefore apply for an alternative phase-in
However, as discussed below, we require significant development effort schedule that would still result in 100%
believe that the finalized start date and and cold test facility usage for each phase-in by 2013 and 2015,
phase-in schedule will achieve the model. If vehicle development is respectively, for the lighter and heavier
greatest amount of emissions reductions compressed into too narrow a time weight categories. As with the primary
in the shortest feasible amount of time. window, significant numbers of new phase-in, manufacturers would base an
EPA must consider lead time in facilities would be needed. alternative phase-in on their projected
determining the greatest degree of Manufacturers were also concerned that sales estimates. An alternate phase-in
emission reduction achievable under investment in new test facilities would schedule submitted by a manufacturer
section 202(l) of the Clean Air Act. Also, be stranded at the completion of the would be subject to EPA approval and
for vehicles above 6,000 GVWR, section initial development and phase-in would need to provide the same
202(a) of the Act requires that four years period. emissions reductions as the primary
of lead time be provided to We took these concerns into
phase-in schedule. The alternative
manufacturers. We believe that lead consideration when drafting our
phase-in cannot be used to delay full
time and phase-in schedule is needed to proposed rule and are finalizing the
implementation past the last year of the
allow manufacturers to develop start date and phase-in as proposed
primary phase-in schedule (2013 for
compliant vehicles without significant because we continue to believe they
LDVs/LDTs and 2015 for HLDTs/
disruptions in their product address these issues adequately. Our
MDPVs).
development cycles. The three-year finalized phase-in period accommodates
test facilities and work load concerns by As proposed, this alternative phase-in
period between completion of the Tier
distributing these fleet phase-in schedule will be acceptable if it passes
2 phase-in and the start of the new cold
percentage requirements over a four- a specific mathematical test (see 71 FR
NMHC standard should provide vehicle
year period for each vehicle weight 15849). We have designed the test to
manufacturers sufficient lead time to
category (six years total). The staggered provide manufacturers a benefit from
design their compliance strategies and
to determine the product development start dates for the phase-in schedule certifying to the standards early, while
plans necessary to meet the new between the two weight categories ensuring that significant numbers of
standards. should further alleviate manufacturers’ vehicles are introduced during each
We recognize that the new cold burden regarding construction of new year of the alternative phase-in
temperature standards we are finalizing test facilities. We recognize that some schedule. Manufacturers will multiply
could represent a significant new manufacturers may still determine that their percent phase-in by the number of
challenge for many manufacturers and upgrades to their current cold facility years the vehicles are phased in prior to
development time will be needed. The are needed to handle increased the second full phase-in year. The sum
issue of NMHC control at cold workload, or that additional shifts must of the calculation will need to be greater
temperatures was not anticipated by be added to their facility work than or equal to 500, which is the sum
many entities, and research and schedules that are not in place today. from the primary phase-in schedule (4
development to address the issue is The lead time provided and the four- × 25 + 3 × 50 + 2 × 75 + 1 × 100 = 500).
consequently at a rudimentary stage for year phase-in period provides needed For example, the equation for LDVs/
some manufacturers. Lead time is time for vehicle manufacturers to LLDTs will be as follows:
therefore necessary before compliance develop a compliance schedule that (6 × API2008) + (5 × API2009) + (4 ×
can be demonstrated. While certification does not significantly interfere with API2010) + (3 ×API2011) + (2 ×
will only require one vehicle model of their future product plans. API2012) + (1 × API2013) ≥ 500%,
a durability group to be tested, Manufacturers commented in support of where ‘‘API’’ is the anticipated
phase-in percentage for the manufacturers introduce complying MDPV family and achieves 100% phase-
referenced model year vehicles early in the phase-in. The in in 2013 would have a sum of 600%
As described above, the final sum of alternative phase-in is not intended to in the equation:
percentages for LDVs/LDTs must equal postpone introduction of compliant (6 × 0) + (5 × 0) + (4 × 0) + (3 × 100%)
or exceed 500 ¥ the sum that results vehicles; instead, it is to allow an + (2 × 100%) + (1 × 100%) = 600%
from a 25/50/75/100 percent phase-in. accelerated introduction of vehicles and As noted above, phase-in schedules,
For example, a 10/25/50/55/100 percent to allow manufacturers the flexibility of in general, add little flexibility for
phase-in for LDVs/LDTs that begins in aligning compliance with production manufacturers with limited product
2009 will have a sum of 510 percent and schedules. The commenter’s suggestion offerings because a manufacturer with
is acceptable. A 10/20/40/70/100 of removing the sum of 100 provision only one or two test groups cannot take
percent phase-in that begins the same for MY 2010 and earlier vehicles would full advantage of a 25/50/75/100 percent
year has a sum of 490 percent and is not essentially amount to delaying the or similar phase-in. Therefore,
acceptable. program by one year. Since all consistent with our proposal which
To ensure that significant numbers of manufacturers make LDV/LDTs, the reflected the recommendations of the
compliant LDVs/LDTs are introduced in sum of 100 provision ensures that Small Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR
the 2010 time frame (2012 for HLDT/ environmental benefits are achieved as Panel), which we discuss in more detail
MDPVs), manufacturers would not be soon as possible, while the alternative later in section V.E, manufacturers
allowed to use alternative phase-in phase-in provision as a whole provides meeting EPA’s definition of ‘‘small
schedules that delay the additional flexibility to manufacturers. volume manufacturer’’ will be exempt
implementation of the requirements, As described above, we proposed an from the phase-in schedules and will be
even if the sum of the phase-in early-year requirement for alternative required simply to comply with the
percentages ultimately meets or exceeds phase-in schedules for HLDTs/MDPVs final 100% compliance requirement.
500. Such a situation could occur if a (see 71 FR 15850). Similar to the LDV/ This provision will only apply to small
manufacturer delayed implementation LDT requirement, we proposed that the volume manufacturers and not to small
of its compliant production until 2011 API × year factors from the 2012 and test groups of larger manufacturers.
and began an 80/85/100 percent phase- earlier model years sum to at least 100.
in that year for LDVs/LDTs. To protect We are finalizing the option of electing 5. Certification Levels
against this possibility, we are an HLDT/MDPV alternative phase-in Manufacturers typically certify
finalizing, as proposed, that for any that meets the 500% criteria, including groupings of vehicles called durability
alternative phase-in schedule, the the 100% criteria for model years 2012 groups and test groups, and they have
manufacturer’s API × year factors for and earlier, as proposed. However, some discretion on what vehicle models
LDV/LLDTs from the 2010 and earlier based upon comments received, we are are placed in each group. A durability
model years (2012 and earlier for HLDT/ revising this provision to allow group is the basic classification used by
MDPVs) sum to at least 100. The early additional flexibilities. The comments manufacturers to group vehicles to
phase-in also encourages the early pointed out that such a requirement demonstrate durability and to predict
introduction of vehicles meeting the would pose significant hardship for deterioration. A test group is a basic
new standard or the introduction of limited-line manufacturers who produce classification within a durability group
such vehicles in greater quantity than only a narrow range of HLDTs/MDPVs. used to demonstrate compliance with
required, achieving early emissions For example, a manufacturer who only FTP 75 °F standards.149 For Cold CO,
reductions. sells one configuration in the HLDT/ manufacturers certify on a durability
One commenter recommended that MDPV category would not have the group basis, whereas for 75 °F FTP
EPA carefully consider the added option of certifying only 25% of these testing, manufacturers certify on a test
complexity of allowing alternative vehicles in 2012. To meet our proposed group basis. In keeping with the current
phase-in schedules before including criteria, that manufacturer would have cold CO standards, we are requiring
these provisions in the final rule. In to ensure that the model is fully testing on a durability group basis for
response, we allowed manufacturers the compliant in 2012 (i.e., 100% of their the cold temperature NMHC standard,
option of using similar alternative HLDTs/MDPVs), eliminating any as proposed (see 71 FR 15850).
phase-ins for Tier 2 and these flexibility for these manufacturers. To Manufacturers will have the option of
provisions have not proven to be address this concern, we are allowing certifying on the smaller test group
detrimental in the implementation of HLDT/MDPV manufacturers the basis, as is allowed under current cold
the Tier 2 program. We believe the additional option of employing a phase- CO standards. Testing on a test group
added flexibility provided to in not meeting the early year basis will require more tests to be run
manufacturers helps them to meet the requirement (sum of 100 in 2012) as by manufacturers but may provide them
new requirements as soon as possible long as their full phase-in is accelerated. with more flexibility within the
while also helping to minimize Under this option, we are requiring only averaging program. In either case, the
disruptions to their product plans. that the full alternative phase-in worst-case vehicle within the group
These benefits offset the complexity equation may meet or exceed 600% for from an NMHC emissions standpoint
added by the alternative phase-in HLDTs/MDPVs. We believe this will must be tested for certification.
option. still yield environmental benefits as For the new standard (and consistent
Manufacturers commented that EPA quickly as possible, while not putting an with certification for most section 202
should remove the requirement for 2010 unreasonable burden on limited-line standards), manufacturers will declare a
to have a sum of 100 because it limits manufacturers of HLDTs/MDPVs. family emission limit (FEL) for each
flexibility and could cause Manufacturers with limited HLDT/ group either at, above, or below the fleet
manufacturers to run a deficit early in MDPV product offerings will still averaging standard. The FEL must be
the program. We are retaining this achieve 100 percent phase-in of the based on the certification NMHC level,
requirement as proposed, except for the HLDTs/MDPVs before the end of the including deterioration factor, plus the
option discussed in the next paragraph. phase-in schedule in 2015. For example,
In general, this requirement ensures that a manufacturer that only has one HLDT/ 149 40 CFR 86.1803–01.
compliance margin manufacturers feel be particularly costly or have a b. Credits Earned Prior to Primary
is needed to ensure in-use compliance. particularly hard time coming into Phase-In Schedule
The FEL becomes the standard for each compliance with the standard, the ABT As proposed, we are finalizing
group, and each group could have a program allows a manufacturer to adjust provisions allowing manufacturers to
different FEL so long as the projected the compliance schedule accordingly, earn early emissions credits if they
sales-weighted average level met the without special delays or exceptions introduce vehicles that comply with the
fleet average standard at time of having to be written into the rule. This new standards early and the corporate
certification. Like the standard, the FEL is an important flexibility especially average of those vehicles is below the
will be set at one significant digit to the given the current uncertainty regarding applicable standard. Early credits could
right of the decimal point. optimal technology strategies for any be earned starting in model year 2008
Manufacturers will compute a sales- given vehicle line. In these for vehicles meeting the 0.3 g/mile
weighted average for the NMHC circumstances, ABT allows us to standard and in 2010 for vehicles
emissions at the end of the model year consider a more stringent emission meeting the 0.5 g/mile standard. These
and then determine credits generated or standard than might otherwise be emissions credits generated before the
needed based on how much the average achievable under the Clean Air Act, start of the phase-in could be used both
is above or below the standard. since ABT reduces the cost and
One commenter questioned if the FEL during and after the phase-in period and
approach would interfere with the Tier improves the technological feasibility of have all the same properties as credits
2 program, which uses bins rather than achieving the standard. By enhancing generated by vehicles subject to the
FELs. We do not believe that the two the technological feasibility and cost- primary phase-in schedule. As
approaches create a conflict because effectiveness of the new standard, ABT mentioned in section V.B.4.b above, we
compliance with Tier 2 and the cold allows the standard to be attainable are also finalizing a provision that
temperature standards operate earlier than might otherwise be possible. allows manufacturers to apply for an
independent of one another. Tier 2 Also see, e.g., 69 FR 38996–97, (June 19, alternative phase-in schedule for
standards and bins are not a factor when 2004), which discusses an ABT program vehicles that are introduced early. The
manufacturers demonstrate compliance for nonroad diesel engines, which alternative phase-in and early credits
with the cold temperature standards. allows for use of credits across engine provisions would operate independent
families. This type of credit use can be of one another.
6. Credit Program important in enhancing standards’ c. How Credits Can Be Used
As described above, we are finalizing overall technical feasibility, cost-
proposed provisions allowing effectiveness, and pace of A manufacturer can use credits in any
manufacturers to average the FELs for implementation. future year when its corporate average is
NMHC emissions by sales of their above the standard, or it can trade
vehicles and comply with a corporate a. How Credits Are Calculated (transfer) the credits to other
average NMHC standard (see 71 FR manufacturers. Because of separate sets
As proposed, the corporate average for of standards for the different weight
15850). In addition, we are finalizing, as
each weight class will be calculated by categories, we are finalizing as proposed
proposed, banking and trading
computing a sales-weighted average of that manufacturers compute their
provisions: when a manufacturer’s
the FEL NMHC levels to which each corporate NMHC averages separately for
average NMHC emissions from vehicles
group was certified. As discussed above, LDV/LLDTs and HLDTs/MDPVs. Credit
certified and sold falls below the
manufacturers will group vehicles into exchanges between LDVs/LLDTs and
corporate average standard, the
manufacturer may generate credits that durability groups or test groups and HLDTs/MDPVs will be allowed. This
it could save for later use (banking) or establish an FEL for each group. This will provide added flexibility for fuller-
transfer to another manufacturer FEL becomes the standard for that line manufacturers who may have the
(trading). Manufacturers must consume group. Consistent with FEL practices in greatest challenge in meeting the new
any credits if their corporate average other vehicle standards, manufacturers standards due to their wide disparity of
NMHC emissions were above the may opt to select an FEL above the test vehicle types/weights and emissions
applicable standard for the weight class. level. The FEL will be used in levels.
As proposed, credits may be calculating credits. The number of
credits or debits will then be d. Discounting and Unlimited Life
generated prior to, during, and after the
phase-in period. Manufacturers could determined using the following Credits will allow manufacturers a
certify LDVs/LLDTs to standards as equation: way to address unexpected shifts in
early as the 2008 model year (2010 for Credits or Debits = (Standard ¥ Sales- their sales mix. The NMHC emission
HLDTs/MDPVs) and receive early weighted average of FELs to nearest standards in this program are quite
NMHC credits for their efforts. They tenth) × Actual Sales stringent and do not present easy
could use credits generated under these opportunities to generate credits.
‘‘early banking’’ provisions after the If a manufacturer’s average was below Therefore, we will not discount unused
phase-in begins in 2010 (2012 for the 0.3 g/mi corporate average standard credits. Further, the degree to which
HLDTs/MDPVs). for LDVs/LDTs (below 0.5 g/mi for manufacturers invest the resources to
One organization opposed the use of HLDTs/MDPVs), credits would be achieve extra NMHC reductions
credits from one weight class to offset generated. These credits could then be provides true value to the manufacturer
debits in another weight class. However, used in a future model year when its and to the environment. We do not want
EPA views the averaging, banking, and average NMHC might exceed the 0.3 or to take measures to reduce the incentive
trading (ABT) provisions as an the 0.5 standard. Conversely, if the for manufacturers to bank credits, nor
important element in setting emission manufacturer’s fleet average was above do we want to take measures to
standards reflecting the greatest degree the corporate average standard, banked encourage unnecessary credit use.
of emission reduction achievable, credits could offset the difference, or Consequently, NMHC credits will not
considering factors including cost and credits could be purchased from another have a credit life limit. However, credits
lead time. If there are vehicles that will manufacturer. may only be used to offset deficits
accrued with respect to the new 0.3/0.5 creation of NMHC credits applicable to as feasibility and costs. While we have
g/mile cold temperature standards, and other vehicle categories generated by significant amounts of data on which to
cannot be used in Tier 2 or other reductions from heavy-duty vehicles. In base our final standards for light-duty
programs. light of this lack of support, as well as gasoline vehicles, we have very little
insufficient data, we are not including a data for light-duty diesels. Currently,
e. Deficits Can Be Carried Forward
heavy-duty standard or credit program diesel vehicles are not subject to the
When a manufacturer has an NMHC at this time. We plan to revisit the need cold CO standard, so, unlike the
deficit at the end of a model year—that for and feasibility of standards as data situation for gasoline motor vehicles
is, its corporate average NMHC level is become available. where some certification data under
above the required corporate average cold temperature conditions are
NMHC standard—the manufacturer will 7. Additional Vehicle Cold Temperature
available, there is very limited data
be allowed to carry that deficit forward Standard Provisions
available on diesel cold temperature
into the next model year. To prevent a. Applicability emissions. Also, many manufacturers
deficits from being carried forward As proposed, the new cold are currently in the process of
indefinitely, we are finalizing, as temperature NMHC standards apply to developing their diesel product
proposed, that manufacturers will not all gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles offerings and the cold temperature
be permitted to run a deficit for two and MDPVs sold nationwide. The cold performance of these vehicles cannot
years in a row. A deficit carry-forward NMHC standards do not apply to diesel yet be evaluated.
may only occur after the manufacturer vehicles, alternative-fueled vehicles, or Therefore, at this time, the cold
used any banked credits. If the deficit to the non-gasoline portion of flex fuel NMHC standards will not apply to light-
still exists and the manufacturer vehicles (FFVs).150 We are finalizing as duty diesel vehicles. We will continue
chooses not to, or is unable to, purchase proposed that FFVs will still require to evaluate data for these vehicles as
credits, the deficit will be carried over. certification to the applicable cold they enter the fleet and will reconsider
At the end of that next model year, the NMHC standard, though only when the need for standards. We have
deficit must be covered with an operated on gasoline. FFVs operating on adopted cold temperature FTP testing
appropriate number of credits that the ethanol are not subject to the cold for diesels as part of the Fuel Economy
manufacturer generated or purchased. standard. When manufacturers submit Labeling rulemaking, including NMHC
Any remaining deficit means that the their application for certification for measurement.152 These testing data
manufacturer is not in compliance and FFVs (such as FFVs that can run on would allow us to assess diesel NMHC
can be subject to an enforcement action. gasoline or E85 151), the FFVs must have certification levels over time. There are
We believe that it is reasonable to been tested using gasoline. The sound engineering reasons, however, to
provide this flexibility to carry a deficit application must also include a expect cold NMHC emissions for diesel
for one year given the uncertainties that statement that either confirms the same vehicles to be as low as or even lower
manufacturers face with changing control strategies used with gasoline than those required for gasoline vehicles
market forces and consumer will be used when operating on ethanol, in the finalized standards. This is
preferences, especially during the or that identifies any differences as an because diesel engines operate with
introduction of new technologies. These Auxiliary Emission Control Device leaner air-fuel mixtures compared to
uncertainties can make it hard for (AECD). Again, dedicated alternative- gasoline engines. Therefore diesels have
manufacturers to accurately predict fueled vehicles are not covered. fewer engine-out NMHC emissions due
sales trends of different vehicle models. We requested comment on standards to the abundance of oxygen and more
f. Voluntary Heavy-Duty Vehicle Credit for vehicles operating on fuels other complete combustion. A very limited
Program than gasoline. Vehicle manufacturers amount of confidential manufacturer-
agreed that the cold NMHC standards furnished information is consistent with
In addition to MDPV requirements in this engineering hypothesis.
should not apply to diesels and
Tier 2, we also currently have chassis- With respect to FFVs, although FFVs
alternative fuel vehicles, stating that the
based emissions standards for other are currently required to certify to the
standard would capture all but a very
complete heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., large
small percentage of air toxics emissions cold CO standards at 20 °F while
pick-ups and cargo vans) above 8,500 operating on gasoline, there is no cold
from the light-duty onroad fleet. We also
pound GVWR. However, these testing requirement for these vehicles
received comments in support of a
standards do not include cold while operating on the alternative fuel
standard for diesel vehicles. One
temperature CO standards. As noted at 20 °F. There are little data upon
organization argued that the EPA must
below in section V.B.6.a, we did not which to evaluate NMHC emissions
exercise its authority to gather the
propose to apply cold temperature when operating on alternative fuels at
necessary data and establish a cold
NMHC standards to heavy-duty gasoline cold temperatures. For FFVs operating
temperature NMHC standard for diesel,
vehicles due to a current lack of on E85,153 it is difficult to develop a
alternative fuel, and FFVs, or explain
emissions data on which to base such reasonable standard due to a lack of fuel
why such standards are not needed.
standards. Accordingly, the final rule specifications, testing protocols, and test
A comprehensive assessment of
does not contain any provisions for
appropriate standards for diesel vehicles data for the 20 °F cold CO cycle.
heavy-duty vehicle standards or credit Standards reflecting use of other fuels
will require a significant amount of
program. such as methanol and natural gas pose
investigation and analysis of issues such
Our proposal discussed a few ideas similar uncertainty. As in the case of
for voluntary approaches where 150 In this preamble, we use the term flex fuel diesels, it will take time to gain an
manufacturers could earn credits by vehicle (FFV) to mean a vehicle capable of
including heavy-duty gasoline vehicles operating on two or more different fuel types, either 152 ‘‘Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles;
in the program. We only received one separately or simultaneously. Most FFVs available Revisions to Improve Calculations of Fuel Economy
comment regarding a voluntary credit today run on gasoline and ethanol mixtures. EPA Estimates,’’ Final Rule, 71 FR 77872, December 27,
regulations use the term ‘‘multi-fuel vehicle’’ when 2006.
program for heavy-duty gasoline referring to these vehicles. 153 E85 is a fuel mixture consisting of 85%
vehicles. The organization that 151 E85 is a fuel mixture consisting of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline typical of a summer
submitted the comment opposed the ethanol and 15% gasoline. blend of an ethanol based alternative fuel.
understanding of these other emissions from gasoline-fueled vehicles, standards to have the same useful life as
technologies in sufficient detail to since it is a byproduct of partial (i.e., the Tier 2 standards. For LDV/LLDT, the
support a rulemaking. Therefore, as incomplete) ethanol combustion. In full useful life values will be 120,000
proposed, we are not adopting a cold addition, some other VOC-based toxics miles or 10 years, whichever comes
NMHC testing requirement for FFVs emissions were generally lower with the first, and for HLDT/MDPV, full useful
while operating on the non-gasoline fuel vehicles running on E85 and E70 life is 120,000 miles or 11 years,
or for alternative fuel vehicles under compared with gasoline. whichever comes first.157 We did not
this final rulemaking. However, for There are many issues that must be receive any comments regarding these
FFVs, we are requiring confirmation resolved before we are able to establish useful life provisions.
that emission controls used when a cold temperature standard for FFVs
operating on gasoline are also used when run on E85 (and E70 at cold c. High Altitude
when operating on the non-gasoline fuel temperatures). These include feasibility We do not expect emissions to be
unless a reasonable exception why they (i.e., levels that are technically significantly different at high altitude
cannot be used is declared. We will achievable), cost, test procedures, test due to the use of common emissions
continue to investigate these other fuel specifications and the appropriate control calibrations. Limited data
technologies. form of the standard. For example, submitted by a manufacturer suggest
Between the proposed rule and because much of the VOC emissions that FTP emissions performance at high
today’s final rule, we conducted an from FFVs operating on the high ethanol altitude generally follows sea level
initial emissions testing program on a blends at cold temperatures is unburned performance. Furthermore, there are
limited number of FFVs operated on ethanol, we may need to consider very limited cold temperature testing
several blends of gasoline and ethanol at whether higher NMHC level would be facilities at high altitudes. Therefore,
normal test temperatures and 20 °F. 154 justified or whether an NMHC minus under normal circumstances,
These vehicles were tested on summer ethanol standard would have merit. We manufacturers will not be required to
gasoline and E85 under normal test plan to address these issues as part of submit vehicle test data for high
temperatures and on winter gasoline a broader assessment of E85 emissions altitude. Instead, manufacturers will be
and E70 155 at 20 °F. At 20 °F, HC regulatory issues in the future. required to submit an engineering
emissions were significantly higher with One organization commented that evaluation indicating that common
E70 fuel than with gasoline, with the HC EPA must establish cold temperature calibration approaches will be utilized
emissions largely consisting of standards for heavy-duty vehicles. Since at high altitude. Any deviation from sea
unburned ethanol generated during the there is no 20 °F cold standard for level in emissions control practices
cold start. The reason for the elevated heavy-duty vehicles, we have no data must be included in the auxiliary
HC emission levels is that during cold for heavy-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles, emission control device (AECD)
starts, ethanol, which is an MSAT, does but we would expect a range of descriptions submitted by
not readily burn in the combustion emissions performance similar to that of manufacturers at certification. In
chamber due to its higher boiling point lighter gasoline-fueled trucks. Due to the addition, any AECD specific to high
(approximately 180 °F). FFVs must start lack of test data on which to base altitude must include engineering
on the gasoline portion of the alternative feasibility and cost analyses, we did not emission data for EPA evaluation to
fuel, which can compose as little as propose cold temperature NMHC quantify any emission impact and
15% of the alternative fuel. Ethanol standards for these vehicles. As validity of the AECD. We did not
emissions are further increased at colder mentioned previously, we plan to revisit receive any comments regarding these
temperatures because the lower engine this issue when sufficient data become provisions relating to altitude.
start temperature will require an available.
increasing amount of the fuel mixture to d. In-Use Standards for Vehicles
start the vehicle and subsequently more b. Useful Life Produced During Phase-In
unburned ethanol can escape the We are adopting the proposed As proposed, we are finalizing
combustion process. However, the requirement that the new cold provisions for an in-use standard that is
testing also indicates significantly lower temperature standards must be met over 0.1 g/mile higher than the certification
benzene emission levels for FFVs when the full useful life of the vehicle, FEL for any given test group for a
operating on the high ethanol blends. consistent with other emissions limited number of model years. For
Benzene was 30% to 90% lower on E85 standards for Tier 2 vehicles. The example, a test group with a 0.2 g/mile
and approximately 30% lower on E70 ‘‘useful life’’ of a vehicle means the FEL would have an in-use standard of
compared to the levels when run on period of use or time during which an 0.3 g/mile. This would not change the
gasoline. Acetaldehyde emissions are emission standard applies to light-duty FEL or averaging approaches and would
significantly higher with E85 relative to vehicles and light-duty trucks.156 Given only apply in cases where EPA tests
that we expect that manufacturers will vehicles in-use to ensure emissions
154 ‘‘Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) VOC/PM Cold
make calibration or software changes to compliance. Tables V.B–3 and V.B–4
Temperature Characterization When Operating on
Ethanol (E10, E70, E85)’’ February, 2007.
existing Tier 2 technologies, it is provide the finalized schedule for the
155 E70 is a fuel mixture consisting of 70% reasonable for the new cold temperature availability of the in-use standards.
ethanol and 30% gasoline typical of a winter blend
of an ethanol based alternative fuel. 156 40 CFR 86.1803–01. 157 40 CFR 86.1805–04.
TABLE V.B–3.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE STANDARDS FOR LDVS/LLDTS

Model year of introduction 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Models years that the in-use standard is available for carry-over test groups ............... 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2011 2012 2013
TABLE V.B–4.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE STANDARDS FOR HLDVS/MDPVS

Model year of introduction 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Models years that the in-use standard is available for carry-over test groups ............... 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2013 2014 2015
This approach is similar to the one not receive any data that supported the average standard. We will designate as
adopted in the Tier 2 rulemaking.158 As manufacturer’s assertion, nor any nonconforming those vehicles in those
we have indicated, the standards we are indication of an acceptable increase test groups with the highest certification
finalizing will be more challenging for beyond the 0.1 g/mi increment. emission values first, continuing until
some vehicles than for others. With any Furthermore, no other manufacturers we reach a number of vehicles equal to
new technology, or even with new commented on this provision. We the calculated number of noncomplying
calibrations of existing technology, there believe the 0.1 g/mi increment is vehicles, as determined above. In a test
are risks of in-use compliance problems sufficient and that anything greater may group where only a portion of vehicles
that may not appear in the certification result in a reduction of emission are deemed nonconforming, we will
process. In-use compliance concerns control. Therefore, the interim in-use determine the actual nonconforming
may discourage manufacturers from standard is finalized as proposed. vehicles by counting backwards from
applying new calibrations or the last vehicle produced in that test
8. Monitoring and Enforcement
technologies. Thus, we believe it is group number. Manufacturers will be
appropriate, for the first few years, for As proposed, manufacturers must liable for penalties for each vehicle sold
those vehicles most likely to require the either report that they met the relevant that is not covered by a certificate.
greatest applications of effort to provide corporate average standard in their As proposed, we will condition
assurance to the manufacturers that they annual reports to the Agency, or show certificates to enforce the requirements
will not face recall if they exceed via the use of credits that they have that manufacturers not sell credits that
standards in use by a specified amount. offset any exceedance of the corporate they have not generated. A
The in-use standards will be available average standard. Manufacturers must manufacturer that transfers credits it
for the first few model years of sales also report their credit balances or does not have will create an equivalent
after a test group meeting the new deficits. EPA will monitor the program. negative credit balance or deficit that
As in Tier 2, the averaging, banking the manufacturer must make up by the
standards is introduced, according to a
and trading program will be enforced reporting deadline for the same model
schedule that provides more years for
through the certificate of conformity year. A credit deficit in such cases at the
test groups introduced earlier in the
that manufacturers must obtain in order reporting deadline will be a violation of
phase-in. This schedule provides
to introduce any regulated vehicles into the conditions under which EPA issued
manufacturers with time to determine
commerce.159 The certificate for each the certificate of conformity. EPA will
the in-use performance of vehicles and
test group will require all vehicles to identify the nonconforming vehicles in
learn from the earliest years of the meet the emissions level to which the
program to help ensure that vehicles the same manner described above and
vehicles were certified, and will be nonconforming vehicles will not be
introduced after the phase-in period conditioned upon the manufacturer
meet the final standards in-use. The in- covered by the certificate.
meeting the corporate average standard In the case of a trade that resulted in
use compliance margin only applies to within the required time frame. If a
carry-over models. That is, once a test a negative credit balance that a
manufacturer fails to meet this manufacturer could not cover by the
group is certified to the new standards, condition, the vehicles causing the
it will be carried over to future model reporting deadline for the model year in
corporate average exceedance will be which the trade occurred, both the
years. considered to be not covered by the
We received one comment on the buyer and the seller will be liable,
certificate of conformity for that engine except in cases involving fraud. We
provisions for an interim in-use family. A manufacturer will be subject
standard. A manufacturer commented believe that holding both parties liable
to penalties on an individual vehicle will induce the buyer to exercise
that the EPA should consider allowing basis for sale of vehicles not covered by
an interim in-use increment greater than diligence in assuring that the seller has
a certificate. or will be able to generate appropriate
0.1 g/mi to account for known EPA will review the manufacturer’s
variability in in-use conditions and credits and will help to ensure that
sales to designate the vehicles that inappropriate trades do not occur.
vehicle technologies. However, we did caused the exceedance of the corporate We did not propose any new
158 ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from New Motor 159 ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
compliance monitoring activities or
Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards
programs for vehicles. These vehicles
and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements,’’ Final and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements,’’ Final will be subject to the certification
Rule, 65 FR 6796, February 10, 2000. Rule, 65 FR 6797, February 10, 2000. testing provisions of the CAP2000
rule.160 We are not requiring The use of credits will not be Selective Enforcement Auditing or
manufacturer in-use testing to verify permitted to address Selective conditions of certification.
compliance. There is no cold CO Enforcement Auditing or in-use testing C. What Evaporative Emissions
manufacturer in-use testing requirement failures. The enforcement of the Standards Are We Finalizing?
today (similarly, we do not require averaging standard will occur through
manufacturer in-use testing for SCO3 the vehicle’s certificate of conformity. A We are finalizing as proposed a set of
standards under the Supplemental manufacturer’s certificate of conformity numerically more stringent evaporative
Federal Test Procedures (SFTP) program will be conditioned upon compliance emission standards for all light-duty
largely due to the limited availability of with the averaging provisions. If a vehicles, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty passenger vehicles. The
the test facilities). As noted earlier, manufacturer failed to meet the
standards we are finalizing are
manufacturers have limited cold corporate average standard and did not
equivalent to California’s LEV II
temperature testing capabilities and we obtain appropriate credits to cover its
standards, and these standards are
believe these facilities will be needed shortfalls in that model year or in the shown in Table V.C–1. The new
for product development and subsequent model year (see deficit carry standards represent about a 20 to 50
certification testing. However, we have forward provision in section V.B.5.e.), percent reduction (depending on
the authority to conduct our own in-use then the certificate for the affected test vehicle weight class and type of test) in
testing program for exhaust emissions to groups will be void for all past, present, the diurnal plus hot soak standards
ensure that vehicles meet standards over and future sales related to that currently in place for Tier 2 vehicles.161
their full useful life. We will pursue certificate. Manufacturers will need to As with the current Tier 2 evaporative
remedial actions when substantial track their certification levels and sales emission standards, the standards we
numbers of properly maintained and unless they produced only vehicles are finalizing vary by vehicle weight
used vehicles fail any standard in-use. certified to NMHC levels below the class. The increasingly higher standards
We also retain the right to conduct standard and did not plan to bank for heavier weight class vehicles
Selective Enforcement Auditing of new credits. We did not receive any account for larger vehicle sizes and fuel
vehicles at manufacturers’ facilities. comments on the provisions regarding tanks (non-fuel and fuel emissions).162
TABLE V.C–1.—FINAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

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

LLDTs .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.65 0.85
HLDTs .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.90 1.15
MDPVs ............................................................................................................................................................. 1.00 1.25
1. Current Controls and Feasibility of current industry practices. Based on this standards will assure that manufacturers
the New Standards understanding, we do not project continue to use available fuel system
As described earlier, we are reducing additional VOC or air toxics reductions materials to minimize evaporative
the numerical level of the evaporative from the evaporative standards we are emissions.
emission standards applicable to finalizing today.163 Also, we do not In the proposal, we considered but
diurnal and hot soak emissions from expect additional costs since we expect did not propose more stringent
light-duty vehicles and trucks by about that manufacturers will continue to evaporative requirements contained in
20 to 50 percent. These new standards produce 50-state evaporative systems. the partial zero-emission vehicle (PZEV)
are meant to be effectively the same as Therefore, harmonizing the federal and portion of California’s LEV II program.
the evaporative emission standards in California LEV–II evaporative emission The LEV II program includes PZEV
the California LEV II program. Although standards will codify (i.e., lock in) the credits for vehicles that achieve near
the new standards are numerically more approach manufacturers have already zero emissions (e.g., LDV evaporative
stringent, as we explained at proposal, indicated they are taking for 50-state emission standards for both the 2-day
we believe they are essentially evaporative systems. and 3-day diurnal plus hot soak tests are
equivalent to the current Tier 2 We believe this action is an important 0.35 grams/test, which are more
standards because of differences in step to ensure that the federal standards stringent than the standards finalized
testing requirements (see 71 FR 15854; reflect the lowest possible evaporative today). State and local air quality
also see section V.C.5 below for further emissions, and it also will provide states organizations commented that EPA
discussion of such test differences, e.g., with certainty that the emissions should adopt the PZEV evaporative
test temperatures and fuel volatilies). As reductions we project to occur due to standards. In addition, they indicated
discussed in the proposal, this view is 50-state compliance strategies will in that California Air Resources Board
supported by manufacturers and by fact occur. In addition, the new estimates the additional per vehicle cost
160 71 FR 2810, January 17, 2006. the hot engine. For the evaporative emissions test amount of interior trim, vehicle body surface area,
161 Diurnal emissions (or diurnal breathing losses) procedure, diurnal and hot soak emissions are and larger tires.
means evaporative emissions as a result of daily measured in an enclosure commonly called the 163 U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Update
temperature cycles or fluctuations for successive SHED (Sealed Housing for Evaporative
to the Accounting for the Tier 2 and Heavy-Duty
days of parking in hot weather. Hot soak emissions Determination).
2005/2007 Requirements in MOBILE6, EPA420–R–
(or hot soak losses) are the evaporative emissions 162 Larger vehicles may have greater non-fuel
from a parked vehicle immediately after turning off evaporative emissions, probably due to an increased 03–012, September 2003.
for a PZEV evaporative emission system Many manufacturers already have begun additional three years of lead time
to be about $10.20. They commented or completed model year 2008 would provide sufficient time for
that EPA should consider the certification. Thus, model year 2009 is manufacturers to make adjustments to
introduction of a similar standard for the earliest practical start date of new their new evaporative systems for FFVs,
some vehicles. Moreover, they urged us standards for LDVs/LLDTs. For HLDTs/ which are limited product lines.
to commit in the final rule to pursue MDPVs, the phase-in of the existing Tier Auto manufacturers commented that
actions to achieve further evaporative 2 evaporative emission standards ends additional lead time and flexibility
emission reductions in the future. in model year 2009. Thus, the model beyond that proposed is needed for the
However, auto manufacturers year 2010 is the earliest start date non-gasoline portion of FFVs.
supported the proposed evaporative possible for HLDTs/MDPVs. As Manufacturers requested the following
emission standards. They indicated that, discussed earlier, since we believe that revisions to the proposed timing of the
as EPA tentatively concluded in the manufacturers already meet these new evaporative emission standards for
proposed rule, it would be standards, there is no need for the non-gasoline portion of FFVs:
inappropriate for EPA to propose more additional lead time beyond the —combine the LDV/LLDT and HLDT/
stringent standards. Manufacturers implementation dates we are finalizing. MDPV fleets,
noted that PZEVs have been limited to —implement the phase-in of this
a small fraction of the light-duty fleet, 3. Timing for Flex Fuel Vehicles
combined fleet starting in 2013, and
mainly small 4-cylinder passenger cars, For FFVs, the phase-in schedule we —permit a three-year phase-in of 30
and that the PZEV standard has not are finalizing for the new evaporative percent/60 percent/100 percent for
proven feasible across the light-duty standards is somewhat different than this combined fleet.
fleet. Furthermore, it is significantly the phase-in schedule we proposed for
these vehicles. In the proposal, we The auto industry indicated that for
more costly to comply with the PZEV
recognized that manufacturers will need many manufacturers of FFVs, the new
evaporative emission standard because
a few additional years of lead time to standards are considered new emission
of significant modifications needed to
the evaporative emission control system adjust their evaporative systems to requirements for their FFVs. This is
and fuel system. Also, the auto comply with the new evaporative unlike the situation for gasoline
manufacturers suggested that emission emission standards for FFVs operating vehicles, where EPA intends to codify
benefits, if any, of the PZEV standard on the non-gasoline fuel, typically E85 what is already being done in practice
would be minimal. (see 71 FR 15855). The existing rather than imposing any new
We have decided not to set more regulations require that FFVs or E85 requirements on gasoline vehicles. For
stringent PZEV-equivalent evaporative vehicles (vehicles designed to operate most manufacturers of FFVs, there is no
standards at this time. The limited on fuel that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 demonstrated capability at this time to
PZEV vehicles available today require percent gasoline) certify on both meet the new evaporative emission
additional evaporative emissions gasoline and E10 (E10 is a fuel standards from which to begin planning
technology or hardware (e.g., containing 10 percent ethanol and 90 compliance to the new standards. Also,
modifications to fuel tank and percent gasoline) for the evaporative manufacturers expressed that there are
secondary canister) beyond what will be emissions test procedure. E10 is important enough differences between
needed for vehicles meeting the new considered the ‘‘worst case’’ test fuel for fuels in the gasoline and FFVs (or the
standards that we are adopting today. evaporative emissions, because it is the non-gasoline portion of FFVs) that
As we described in the proposed rule, ethanol blend that results in greater independent evaluations of FFVs on
at this time, we need to better evaporative emissions. Thus, E10 is the gasoline and the non-gasoline fuel are
understand the evaporative system evaporative certification test fuel for E85 warranted.
modifications (i.e., technology, costs, vehicles. Thus far, only a few FFV In addition, auto manufacturers stated
lead time, etc.) potentially needed systems have been certified to California that as interest in alternative fuels has
across the vehicle fleet to meet PZEV- LEV–II standards on E10 fuel. Vehicles increased due to energy supply
level standards before we can fully not certified with E10 in California are concerns, they are suddenly considering
evaluate whether it is feasible to sold as gasoline-fueled only vehicles widespread introduction of FFV models,
consider more stringent standards. For rather than FFVs. Some manufacturers across entire product lines. What was at
example, at this point we cannot are still developing FFVs for future first a limited offering of a few models
determine whether the PZEV introduction and the evaporative control may become more offerings across a
technologies could be used fleetwide or systems in some cases have not been manufacturer’s full line of products in
on only a limited set of vehicles. Thus, fully field tested and certified on the the timeframe of this rulemaking. The
in the near term, we lack any of the E10 fuel. Therefore, certifying FFVs to auto industry argues that these new
information necessary to determine if the new standards on the E10 fuel developments justify lead time
further reductions are feasible, and if (which is required by Tier 2) represents provisions commensurate with those
they could be achievable considering a new requirement for manufacturers. when a new emission requirement
cost, energy and safety issues. Moreover, We proposed that FFVs would need to applies across a manufacturer’s light-
sufficient new information or data was meet the new evaporative emission duty product line.
not provided from commenters on the certification standards on the non- They also indicated that model
proposed rule to close these gaps in our gasoline fuel beginning in the fourth renewals provide the most cost-effective
understanding. However, we intend to year of the program—2012 for LDVs/ timing for the introduction of new
consider more stringent evaporative LLDTs and 2013 for HLDTs/MDPVs. We emissions capability to meet the new
emission standards in the future. proposed that the evaporative emission standards. At this time, some
standards would be implemented in manufacturers plan model renewals for
2. Evaporative Standards Timing 2009 for LDVs/LLDTs and 2010 for multiple vehicle lines from model years
As proposed, we will implement HLDTs/MDPVs for the FFVs when run 2013 to 2015. Allowing a three-year
today’s evaporative emission standards on gasoline (along with gasoline phase-in for the non-gasoline portion of
in model year 2009 for LDVs/LLDTs and vehicles that are not flex fuel). At the FFVs provides more opportunities for
model year 2010 for HLDTs/MDPVs. time of proposal, we believed this scheduled model renewals to coincide
with implementation dates for the new gasoline vehicles. The new standards production of FFVs. There is enough
standards. Planning, engineering, and will apply beginning in model year 2012 time between now and the
development activities needed to meet with a three-year phase-in, 30/60/100 implementation dates or phase-in
these new standards can be percent, for LDVs/LLDTs and HLDTs/ schedule (2012 through 2014) for
incorporated into the model redesign MDPVs grouped together (see Table manufacturers to coordinate model
activities. V.C–2). Although auto manufacturers renewals with the introduction of
We believe that many of the concerns requested a start date of 2013 for a broader product offerings of FFVs. See
presented by manufacturers supporting combined fleet, we believe the the Summary and Analysis of
additional lead time are valid. Most additional flexibilities we are providing Comments of this rulemaking for further
manufacturers have less experience (three-year phase-in and grouping discussion of comments and our
meeting the new standards on the non- LDVs/LLDTs and HLDTs/MDPVs
responses to comments.
gasoline portion of FFVs compared to together) is sufficient flexibility for the
TABLE V.C–2.—PHASE-IN SCHEDULE FOR NON-GASOLINE PORTION OF FFVS: EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS*
Vehicle GVWR (Category) 2012 2013 2014
≤6000 lbs (LDVs/LLDTs) and > 6000 lbs (HLDTs and MDPVs) ................................................ 30% 60% 100%
*Phase-in schedules are grouped together for LDVs/LLDTs and HLDTs/MDPVs.
Provisions for in-use evaporative standards are the same for certification family. We believe that a three-year
emission standards similar to those and in-use vehicles. However, the period is enough time to resolve these
described below in section V.C.4 do not California LEV II program permits problems, because it allows
apply to the non-gasoline portion of manufacturers to meet less stringent manufacturers to gain real world
FFVs. We believe that three to five standards in-use for a short time in experience and to make adjustments to
additional years to prepare vehicles (or order to account for potential variability a vehicle within a typical product cycle.
evaporative families) to meet the in-use during the initial years of the Depending on the vehicle weight class
certification standards, and to program when technical issues are most and type of test, the Tier 2 certification
simultaneously make vehicle likely to arise.164 The LEV II program standards are 1.3 to 1.9 times the LEV
adjustments from the federal in-use specifies that in-use evaporative II certification standards. On average the
experience of other vehicles (including emission standards of 1.75 times the Tier 2 standards are 1.51 times the LEV
those that are not FFVs) is sufficient to certification standards will apply for the II certification standards. Thus, to
resolve any issues for FFVs. Also, we first three model years after an
did not receive comments requesting maintain the same level of stringency
evaporative family is first certified to for the in-use evaporative emission
additional flexibility beyond the phase- the LEV II standards (only for vehicles
in schedule for certification vehicles standards provided by the Tier 2
introduced prior to model year 2007, the program, we will apply the Tier 2
discussed earlier. Therefore, we are year after 100 percent phase-in).165 166
finalizing our proposal not to provide standards in-use for only the first three
An interim three-year period was model years after an evaporative family
additional in-use compliance margin to considered sufficient to accommodate
FFVs. According to the phase-in is first certified under today’s new
any technical issues that may arise. standards, instead of using the LEV II
schedule for a combined fleet in Table
V.C–2, the evaporative emission Federal in-use conditions may raise 1.75 multiplier approach described
standards will apply both for unique issues (e.g., salt/ice exposure) for above. Since the new evaporative
certification and in-use beginning in evaporative systems certified to the new emission certification standards
2012 for LDVs/LLDTs and HLDTs/ standards (which are equivalent to the (equivalent to LEV II standards) will be
MDPVs. LEV II standards), and thus, we will implemented in model year 2009 for
adopt a similar, interim in-use LDVs/LLDTs and model year 2010 for
4. In-Use Evaporative Emission compliance provision for vehicles HLDTs/MDPVs, these same certification
Standards subject to these new federal standards. standards will apply in-use beginning in
As described earlier in this section, As with the LEV II program, this model year 2012 for LDVs/LLDTs and
we are adopting evaporative emission provision will enable manufacturers to model year 2013 for HLDTs/MDPVs.167
standards that are equivalent to make adjustments for unforeseen The schedule for in-use evaporative
California’s LEV II standards. Currently, problems that may occur in-use during emissions standards are shown in
the Tier 2 evaporative emission the first three years of a new evaporative Tables V.C.–3 and V.C.–4 below.
TABLE V.C–3.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LDVS/LLDTS

Model year of introduction 2009 2010 2011
Models Years That Tier 2 2009 2010 2011
164 California Air Resources Board, ‘‘LEV II’’ and 166 For example, evaporative families first emission standards in-use for 2011, 2012, and 2013
‘‘CAP 2000’’ Amendments to the California Exhaust certified to LEV II standards in the 2005 model year model year vehicles (applying Tier 2 standards in-
and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test shall meet in-use standards of 1.75 times the use will be limited to the first three years after
Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks evaporative certification standards for 2005, 2006, introduction of a vehicle), and 2014 and later model
and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative and 2007 model year vehicles.
year vehicles of such evaporative families will be
Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 167 For example, evaporative families first
Final Statement of Reasons, September 1999. required to meet the new LDV/LLDT evaporative
certified to the new LDV/LLDT evaporative
165 1.75 times the 3-day diurnal plus hot soak and emission standards in the 2011 model year will be emission standards in-use.
2-day diurnal plus hot soak standards. required to meet the Tier 2 LDV/LLDT evaporative
TABLE V.C–3.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LDVS/LLDTS—Continued

Standards Apply to In-use Vehicles ............................................................................................ 2010 2011 2012

2011 2012 2013
TABLE V.C–4.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HLDTS/MDPVS

Models Years That Tier 2 Standards Apply to In-use Vehicles .................................................. 2010 2011 2012
2011 2012 2013
2012 2013 2014
5. Existing Differences Between high end of EPA’s diurnal temperature California results. Thus, we are
California and Federal Evaporative range is 9° F lower than that of finalizing provisions that would allow
Emission Test Procedures California. Also, EPA’s running loss certification to the new evaporative
As described above, the levels of the temperature is 10° F lower than emission standards in accordance with
California LEV II evaporative emission California’s. California test conditions and test
standards are seemingly more stringent procedures without pre-approval from
than EPA’s Tier 2 standards, but due to TABLE V.C–3.—DIFFERENCES IN TIER EPA.
differences in California and EPA 2 AND LEV II EVAPORATIVE EMIS- D. Additional Exhaust Control Under
evaporative test requirements, EPA and SION TEST REQUIREMENTS Normal Conditions
most manufacturers view the programs
EPA We received comments
California
as similar in stringency. The Tier 2 Test Requirement Tier 2 recommending that EPA harmonize
LEV II
evaporative program requires
exhaust emissions standards with the
manufacturers to certify the durability Fuel volatility (Reid California LEV II program. We also
of their evaporative emission systems Vapor Pressure in received comments from manufacturers
using a fuel containing the maximum psi): ....................... 9 7 stating that more stringent tailpipe
allowable concentration of alcohols Diurnal temperature
standards beyond Tier 2 were not
(highest alcohol level allowed by EPA in cycle (degrees F): 72–96 65–105
Running loss test warranted and that the difference
the fuel on which the vehicle is
temperature (de- between Tier 2 and LEV II would not be
intended to operate, i.e., a ‘‘worst case’’
test fuel). Under current requirements, grees F): ................ 95 105 meaningful. As discussed in the
proposal (71 FR 15856), we did not
this fuel would be about 10 percent
Currently, California accepts propose to further align the federal
ethanol by volume.168 We are retaining
evaporative emission results generated light-duty exhaust emissions control
these Tier 2 durability requirements for
on the federal test procedure (using program with that of California. We
the new evaporative emissions program.
federal test fuel), because available data continue to believe, for reasons
California does not require this
indicates the federal procedure to be a discussed below, that it would not be
provision. To compensate for the
‘‘worst case’’ procedure. In addition, appropriate to adopt more stringent
increased vulnerability of system
manufacturers can currently obtain tailpipe standards under normal test
components to alcohol fuel,
federal evaporative certification based conditions beyond those contained in
manufacturers have indicated that they
upon California results (meeting LEV II Tier 2. It is possible that a future
will produce a more durable evaporative
standards under California fuels and test evaluation could result in EPA
emission system than the Tier 2
conditions), if they obtain advance reconsidering the option of harmonizing
numerical standards would imply, using
approval from EPA.170 the Tier 2 program with California’s
the same low permeability hoses and
Auto manufacturers commented that LEV-II program or otherwise seeking
low loss connections and seals planned
meeting the new standards can be emission reductions beyond those of the
for California LEV II vehicles.
As shown in Table V.C–3, in addition achieved more effectively if they are Tier 2 program and those being finalized
to the maximum alcohol fuel content for provided greater flexibility in the today.171 A full analysis of the
durability testing, the other key certification process. They comments is available in the Summary
differences between the federal and recommended that EPA allow federal and Analysis of Comments document
California test requirements are fuel evaporative certification to the new for this final rule.
standards, which are equivalent to As explained earlier, section 202(l)(2)
volatilities, diurnal temperature cycles,
California’s LEV II standards, through requires EPA to adopt regulations that
and running loss test temperatures.169
California evaporative testing results contain standards which reflect the
The EPA fuel volatility requirement is 2
without obtaining advance approval. greatest degree of emissions reductions
psi greater than that of California. The
Since we are harmonizing federal achievable through the application of
168 Manufacturers are required to develop evaporative standards with the LEV II technology that will be available, taking
deterioration factors using a fuel that contains the evaporative emission standards in into consideration existing motor
highest legal quantity of ethanol available in the today’s rule, we believe that for the new
U.S. standards it is unnecessary to continue 171 See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d at 480 (EPA
169 Running loss emissions means evaporative can reasonably determine that no further reductions
emissions as a result of sustained vehicle operation
to require this advance approval for in MSATs are presently achievable due to
(average trip in an urban area) on a hot day. The uncertainties created by other recently promulgated
running loss test requirement is part of the 3-day 170 Currently,
EPA may require comparative data regulatory provisions applicable to the same
diurnal plus hot soak test sequence. from both federal and California tests. vehicles).
vehicle standards, the availability and be fully phased into the program with convened a Small Business Advocacy
costs of the technology, and noise, the 2007 model year, and the heavier Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or ‘‘the
energy and safety factors. The cold trucks won’t be fully entered into the Panel’’). During the Panel process, we
temperature NMHC program finalized program until the 2009 model year. gathered information and
today is appropriate under section Even though the lighter vehicles will be recommendations from Small Entity
202(l)(2) as a near-term control: that is, fully phased in by 2007, we expect the Representatives (SERs) on how to
a control that can be implemented characteristics of this segment of the reduce the impact of the rule on small
relatively soon and without disruption fleet to remain in a state of transition at entities, and those comments are
to the existing vehicle emissions control least through 2009, because detailed in the Final Panel Report which
program. We did not propose additional manufacturers will be making is located in the public record for this
long-term controls (i.e., controls that adjustments to their fleets as the larger rulemaking (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
require longer lead time to implement) trucks phase in. The Tier 2 program is 2005–0036). Based on these comments,
because we lack the information designed to enable vehicles certified to we proposed lead time transition and
necessary to assess their the LEV–II program to cross over to the hardship provisions that will be
appropriateness. We believe it will be federal Tier 2 program. At this point in applicable to small volume
important to address the time, however, it is difficult to predict manufacturers as described below in
appropriateness of further MSAT the degree to which this will occur. The
section V.E.1 and V.E.2. For further
controls in the context of compliance fleetwide NMOG levels of the Tier 2
discussion of the Panel process, see
with other significant vehicle emissions program will ultimately be affected by
section XII.C of this rule and/or the
regulations (discussed below). the manner in which LEV–II vehicles
In the late 1990’s both the EPA and are certified within the Tier 2 bin Final Panel Report. We received no
the California Air Resources Board structure, and vice versa. We intend to comments on this section in response to
finalized new and technologically carefully assess these two programs as the proposed rulemaking.
challenging light-duty vehicle/truck they evolve and periodically evaluate As discussed in more detail in section
emission control programs. The EPA the relative emission reductions and the XII.C, in addition to the major vehicle
Tier 2 program focuses on reducing NOX integration of the two programs. manufacturers, three distinct categories
emissions from the light-duty fleet. In Today’s final rule addresses toxics of businesses relating to highway light-
contrast, the California LEV–II program emissions from vehicles operating at duty vehicles would be covered by the
focuses primarily on reducing cold temperatures. The technology to new vehicle standards: small volume
hydrocarbons by tightening the light- achieve this is already available and we manufacturers (SVMs), independent
duty nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) project that compliance will not be commercial importers (ICIs),173 and
standards.172 Both programs will require costly. However, we do not believe that alternative fuel vehicle converters.174
the use of hardware and emission we could reasonably propose further We define small volume manufacturers
control strategies not used in the fleet controls at this time. There is enough as those with total U.S. sales less than
under previously existing programs. uncertainty regarding the interaction of 15,000 vehicles per year, and this status
Both programs will achieve significant the Tier 2 and LEV–II programs to make allows vehicle models to be certified
reductions in emissions. Taken as a it difficult to evaluate today what might under a slightly simpler certification
whole, the Tier 2 program presents the be achievable in the future. Depending
process. For certification purposes,
manufacturers with significant on the assumptions one makes, the
SVMs include ICIs and alternative fuel
engineering challenges in the coming LEV–II and Tier 2 programs may or may
vehicle converters since they sell less
years. Manufacturers must bring not achieve very similar NMOG
essentially all passenger vehicles under emission levels. Therefore, the eventual than 15,000 vehicles per year.
the same emission control program Tier 2 baseline technologies and About 34 out of 50 entities that certify
regardless of their size, weight, and emissions upon which new standards vehicles are SVMs, and the Panel
application. The Tier 2 program would necessarily be based are not identified 21 of these 34 SVMs that are
represents a comprehensive, integrated known today. Additionally, we believe small businesses as defined by the
package of exhaust, evaporative, and it is important for manufacturers to Small Business Administration criteria
fuel quality standards which will focus in the near term on developing (5 manufacturers, 10 ICIs, and 6
achieve significant reductions in and implementing robust technological converters). Since a majority of the
NMHC, NOX, and PM emissions from all responses to the Tier 2 program without SVMs are small businesses and all
light-duty vehicles in the program. the distraction or disruption that could SVMs have similar characteristics as
These reductions will include result from changing the program in the described below in section V.E.1, the
significant reductions in MSATs. midst of its phase-in. We believe that it Panel recommended that we apply the
Emission control in the Tier 2 program may be feasible in the longer term to lead time transition and hardship
will be based on the widespread seek additional emission reductions provisions to all SVMs. These
implementation of advanced catalyst from the base Tier 2 program, and the manufacturers represent just a fraction
and related control system technology. next several years will allow an of one percent of the light-duty vehicle
The standards are very stringent and evaluation based on facts rather than and light-duty truck sales. Our final rule
will require manufacturers to make full assumptions. For these reasons, we are today is consistent with the Panel’s
use of nearly all available emission deferring a decision on seeking recommendation.
control technologies. additional NMOG reductions from the
Today, the Tier 2 program remains in base Tier 2 program. 173 ICIs are companies that hold a Certificate (or
its phase-in. Cars and lighter trucks will certificates) of Conformity permitting them to
E. Vehicle Provisions for Small Volume import nonconforming vehicles and to modify these
172 NMOG includes emissions of nonmethane Manufacturers vehicles to meet U.S. emission standards.
hydrocarbons plus all other nonmethane organic air Before issuing a proposal for this 174 Alternative fuel vehicle converters are
pollutants (for example, aldehydes), which are businesses that convert gasoline or diesel vehicles
ozone precursors. For gasoline and diesel vehicles,
rulemaking, we analyzed the potential to operate on alternative fuel (e.g., compressed
NMHC and NMOG emissions levels are very impacts of these regulations on small natural gas), and converters must seek a certificate
similar. entities. As a part of this analysis, we for all of their vehicle models.
1. Lead Time Transition Provisions since the new evaporative emissions applicable implementation dates in
In these types of vehicle businesses, standards would not have phase-in today’s rule.
predicting sales is difficult and it is years, we allow SVMs to simply comply
3. Special Provisions for Independent
often necessary to rely on other entities with standards during the third year of
Commercial Importers (ICIs)
for technology (see earlier discussions the program. We have implemented
similar provisions in past rulemakings. Although the SBAR panel did not
in section V on technology needed to
Given the additional challenges that specifically recommend it, we are
meet the new standards).175 176
SVMs face, as noted above, we believe finalizing as proposed provisions
Moreover, percentage phase-in
that this recommendation is reasonable. allowing ICIs to participate in the
requirements pose a dilemma for an
Therefore, for a 2009 model year start averaging, banking, and trading program
entity such as an SVM that has a limited
date for LDVs and LLDTs, we are for cold temperature NMHC fleet
product line. For example, it is
finalizing, as proposed, a provision average standards (as described in Table
challenging for an SVM to address
requiring that SVMs meet the IV.B.–1), but with appropriate
percentage phase-in requirements if the
evaporative emission standards in constraints to ensure that fleet averages
manufacturer makes vehicles in only
model year 2011. For a model year 2010 will be met. The existing regulations for
one or two test groups. Because of its
implementation date for HLDTs and ICIs specifically prohibit ICIs from
very limited product lines, a SVM could
MDPVs, we are finalizing the proposed participating in emission-related
be required to certify all their vehicles
provision requiring that SVMs comply averaging, banking, and trading
to the new standards in the first year of
in model year 2012. programs unless specific exceptions are
the phase-in period, whereas a full-line
provided (see 40 CFR 85.1515(d)). The
manufacturer (or major manufacturer) 2. Hardship Provisions concern is that they may not be able to
could utilize all four years of the phase-
In addition, the Panel recommended predict their sales and control their fleet
in. Thus, similar to the flexibility
that case-by-case hardship provisions be average emissions because they are
provisions implemented in the Tier 2
dependent upon vehicles brought to
rule, the Panel recommended that we extended to SVMs for the cold
them by individuals attempting to
allow SVMs (includes all vehicle small temperature NMHC and evaporative
import uncertified vehicles. However,
entities that would be affected by this emission standards as an aspect of
an exception for ICIs to participate in an
rule, which are the majority of SVMs) determining the greatest emission
averaging, banking, and trading program
the following options for meeting cold reductions feasible. These entities
was made for the Tier 2 NOX fleet
temperature NMHC standards and could, on a case-by-case basis, face
average standards (65 FR 6794, February
evaporative emission standards as an hardship more than major
10, 2000), and today we are finalizing,
element of determining appropriate lead manufacturers (manufacturers with
as proposed, a similar exception for the
time for these entities to comply with sales of 15,000 vehicles or more per
cold temperature NMHC fleet average
the standards. year), and we are finalizing as proposed
For cold NMHC standards, the Panel standards.
this provision to provide what could If an ICI is able to purchase credits or
recommended that SVMs simply prove to be a needed safety valve for to certify a test group to a family
comply with the standards with 100 these entities. SVMs will be allowed to emission level (FEL) below the
percent of their vehicles during the last apply for up to an additional 2 years to applicable cold temperature NMHC fleet
year of the four-year phase-in period. meet the 100 percent phase-in average standard, the rule allows the ICI
Since these entities could need requirements for cold NMHC and the to bank credits for future use. Where an
additional lead time and the new delayed requirement for evaporative ICI desires to certify a test group to a
standards for LDVs and LLDTs would emissions. As with hardship provisions FEL above the applicable fleet average
begin in model year 2010 and would for the Tier 2 rule, we are finalizing, as standard, the rule allows them to do so
end in model year 2013 (25%, 50%, proposed, a provision providing that if they have adequate and appropriate
75%, 100% phase-in over four years), applications for such hardship relief credits. Where an ICI desires to certify
we are finalizing, as proposed, a must be made in writing, must be to an FEL above the fleet average
provision requiring only that SVMs submitted before the earliest date of standard and does not have adequate or
certify 100 percent of their LDVs and noncompliance, must include evidence appropriate credits to offset the
LLDTs in model year 2013. Also, since that the noncompliance will occur vehicles, we will permit the
the new standard for HLDTs and despite the manufacturer’s best efforts to manufacturer to obtain a certificate for
MDPVs would start in 2012 (25%, 50%, comply, and must include evidence that vehicles using such a FEL, but will
75%, 100% phase-in over four years), severe economic hardship will be faced condition the certificate such that the
we are finalizing, again as proposed, a by the company if the relief is not manufacturer can only produce vehicles
provision requiring that the SVMs granted. if it first obtains credits from other
certify 100 percent of their HLDTs and
We will work with the applicant to manufacturers or from other vehicles
MDPVs in model year 2015.
In regard to evaporative emission ensure that all other remedies available certified to a FEL lower than the fleet
standards, the Panel recommended that under this rule are exhausted before average standard during that model
granting additional relief. To avoid any year.
175 For example, as described later in section perception that the existence of the Our experience over the years through
V.E.3, ICIs may not be able to predict their sales hardship provision could prompt SVMs certification indicates that the nature of
because they are dependent upon vehicles brought to delay development, acquisition and the ICI business is such that these
to them by individuals attempting to import application of new technology, we want companies cannot predict or estimate
uncertified vehicles.
176 SMVs (those with sales less than 15,000
to make clear that we expect this their sales of various vehicles well.
provision to be rarely invoked, and that Therefore, we do not have confidence in
vehicles per year) include ICIs, alternative fuel

vehicle converters, companies that produce relief would rarely be granted. Today’s their ability to certify compliance under
specialty vehicles by modifying vehicles produced rule contains numerous flexibilities for a program that will allow them leeway
by others, and companies that produce small
quantities of their own vehicles, but rely on major
all manufacturers and it delays to produce some vehicles to a higher
manufacturers for engines and other vital emission implementation dates for SVMs. We FEL now but sell vehicles with lower
related components. would expect SVMs to prepare for the FELs later, such that they were able to
comply with the fleet average standard. standard. While credits may not be The 0.62 vol% average benzene
We also cannot reasonably assume that used to demonstrate compliance with standard and the 1.3 vol% maximum
an ICI that certifies and produces the 1.3 vol% maximum average average standard result in air toxics
vehicles one year, will certify or even be standard, the ABT program in its emissions reductions that are greater
in business the next. Consequently, we entirety provides the refining industry than required under all existing
are finalizing the proposed provision with significant compliance gasoline-related MSAT programs. As a
barring ICIs from utilizing the deficit flexibility. To achieve compliance result, upon implementation in 2011,
carry forward provisions of the ABT with the 0.62 vol% average standard the regulatory provisions for this
program. in 2011 and beyond, refiners and gasoline benzene control program will
importers may use credits generated become the regulatory mechanism used
VI. Gasoline Benzene Control Program
and/or obtained under the ABT to implement the RFG and CG (Anti-
A. Description of and Rationale for the program, reduce their gasoline Dumping) annual average toxics
Gasoline Benzene Control Program benzene levels, or any combination of performance requirements and the
We received comments on a wide these. annual average benzene content
range of issues regarding our proposal of —Provisions for refiners facing requirement for RFG. The current RFG
a gasoline benzene control program. We and Anti-Dumping annual average
economic hardship. Refiners
have considered these comments toxics provisions thus will be replaced
approved as ‘‘small refiners’’ will
carefully. This notice finalizes a by this benzene control program. This
have access to special temporary relief
gasoline benzene control program that is final benzene control program will also
provisions. In addition, any refiner
very similar to the proposed program, replace the requirements of the 2001
facing extreme unforeseen
with the inclusion of an upper limit MSAT rule (‘‘MSAT1’’). In addition, the
circumstances or extreme hardship
benzene standard on which we sought program will satisfy certain conditions
circumstances can apply for
comment. of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct)
temporary relief.
The gasoline benzene control program and thus remove the need to revise
has three main components, each of 1. Gasoline Benzene Content Standard individual MSAT1 toxics baselines for
which is discussed in this section: RFG otherwise required by the EPAct. In
a. Description of the Average Benzene
—A gasoline benzene content standard. all of these ways, this program will
Content Standard
In general, refiners and importers will significantly consolidate and simplify
be subject to an annual average The program finalized in this rule the existing national fuel-related MSAT
gasoline benzene standard of 0.62 requires significant reductions in the regulatory program while achieving
volume percent (vol%), beginning average levels of benzene in gasoline greater overall emission reductions.178
January 1, 2011. This single standard sold in the U.S. Beginning in 2011, the See Section VI.C below for additional
will apply to all gasoline, both average benzene level of all batches of discussion of this issue.
reformulated gasoline (RFG) and gasoline produced during a calendar b. Why Are We Finalizing a Benzene
conventional gasoline (CG) year at each refinery will need to be at Content Standard?
nationwide (except for gasoline sold or below a standard of 0.62 vol%
in California, which is already benzene. Approved small refiners must As discussed in the proposal, we
covered by a similar state program). comply with this requirement by 2015. believe a benzene content standard is
—An upper limit benzene standard. In Each gasoline importer will need to the most cost-effective and most certain
general, this ‘‘maximum average meet the 0.62 vol% standard on average way to reduce gasoline benzene
standard’’ will require that the annual for its imported gasoline during each emissions from vehicles. Fuel benzene
average of actual benzene levels that year. The 0.62 vol% average standard reductions directly and demonstrably
each refinery produces be less than or may be met through actual production/ result in benzene emissions reductions
equal to 1.3 vol% without the use of importation of fuel with a benzene which also results in overall MSAT
credits, beginning July 1, 2012.177 content of 0.62 vol% or less, on average, emission reductions. Focusing MSAT
—An averaging, banking, and trading and/or by using benzene credits. A control on benzene alone means that the
(ABT) program. The ABT program deficit is created when compliance is effectiveness of the control will not be
allows refiners and importers to not achieved in a given year. This affected by changes in fuel composition
choose the most economical deficit may be carried forward without or vehicle technology. Because benzene
compliance strategy (investment in regulatory approval but must be made is a small component of gasoline
technology, credits, or both) for up the next year. (See VI.B (around 1 vol%), gasoline octane is not
meeting the 0.62 vol% annual average (Implementation), below.) While this significantly affected by a reduction in
benzene standard. The program subsection focuses on the 0.62 vol% benzene content. Other fuel changes
allows refiners to generate ‘‘early average standard, refiners and importers that could be undertaken to reduce
credits’’ for making qualifying will also be subject to a ‘‘maximum MSATs would significantly impact
benzene reductions earlier than average benzene standard’’ of 1.3 vol%, octane, and replacing that octane would
required and allows refiners and which is discussed below in section be costly and could increase emissions
importers to generate ‘‘standard VI.A.1.d. of MSATs other than benzene.
credits’’ for overcomplying with the Nonetheless, in addition to proposing to
0.62 vol% benzene standard in 2011 The 0.62 vol% average benzene control fuel-related MSAT emissions by
and beyond. Credits may be used standard applies to all gasoline, both means of a gasoline benzene content
interchangeably towards compliance RFG and CG. Gasoline sold nationwide standard, we sought comment on a
with the 0.62 vol% standard, is covered by the standard, with the
‘‘banked’’ for future use, and/or exception of gasoline sold in California.
178 Although this program will supersede several
transferred nationwide to other California gasoline is covered by compliance requirements from other programs, we
existing State of California benzene are retaining certain recordkeeping and reporting
refiners/importers subject to the requirements from these programs. For example,
requirements that result in benzene refiners will need to continue to provide gasoline
177 The per-gallon benzene cap (1.3 vol%) in the reductions similar to the federal fuel property data for more than just benzene. This
RFG program will continue to apply separately. program finalized here. is discussed in more detail in VI.B below.
number of alternative approaches, operations such that increases will acetaldehyde increasing would be
including control of toxics in addition occur in emissions of the other MSATs through benzene control, which we are
to benzene and more stringent limits on currently controlled under the toxics already requiring to be controlled to the
gasoline sulfur and volatility. A number performance standards. These other maximum extent possible. The EPAct,
of commenters expressed support for MSATs are acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, which charged EPA with developing the
some of these alternatives and others POM, and 1,3-butadiene, and they are RFS program, also requires an
opposed them. In reaching our decision all affected to varying degrees by VOC evaluation of that Act’s impacts on air
to finalize a benzene content standard, emissions control. VOC emissions are quality. Any future control of
we evaluated the comments on each of generally decreasing due to the gasoline acetaldehyde emissions will be based
the alternative approaches, and we sulfur controls recently phased in along primarily on the results of that study.
discuss these next. with tighter vehicle controls under the EPA thus believes it premature to act
Tier 2 program, as well as the vehicle until we determine a course of future
i. Standards That Would Include Toxics
controls being finalized under this action reflecting the EPAct study, a draft
Other Than Benzene
program (see section V above). In of which is due to Congress in 2009.
We considered separate standards for combination, these changes are As described above, with the
each of the key fuel-related toxics (we expected to decrease VOC-based MSAT exception of acetaldehyde, the benzene
discuss control of aromatic compounds emissions substantially. control program will ensure the
separately) as well as a total toxics In addition to reductions because of certainty of additional MSAT
performance standard. declining VOC emissions, formaldehyde reductions. Other MSAT emissions are
A Standard for Total Toxics emissions are currently, and for the thus unlikely to increase under this
Performance foreseeable future, declining as MTBE program. Because an air toxics standard
use ends. See 71 FR 15860. would not provide any additional
Several commenters advocated a According to the Complex Model, the emission reductions, we believe that the
standard in the form of a toxics Agency’s current gasoline emissions regulatory controls, and the associated
emissions performance standard, compliance model, POM emissions paperwork and the other administrative
analogous to the current MSAT1 and correlate directly with VOC emissions costs that would result if standards
RFG standards. Some commenters (see 40 CFR 80.45(e)(8). Therefore, we explicitly including these other MSATs
requested an air toxics standard in expect significant POM emission were adopted, are not necessary. The
addition to the fuel benzene content reductions as VOC emissions decline. benzene control program will thus
standard we are finalizing. In general, For 1,3-butadiene, the fuel parameter ensure the certainty of additional MSAT
these commenters expressed concern of interest is olefins. Increasing olefins reductions. A toxics emissions
that if toxics other than benzene are not increases 1,3-butadiene emissions. performance standard that would
also controlled simultaneously, refiners However, olefins are expected to effectively achieve the same level of
may allow the emissions of these other decrease as a result of the MSAT reduction would be more costly
compounds to increase, even while implementation of the gasoline sulfur and complex. For all of these reasons,
benzene is being reduced. Other program because they are reduced along we believe a standard in the form of a
commenters requested a toxics standard with sulfur during the desulfurization benzene content standard will produce
instead of fuel benzene control (or as an process. Olefins are also often used for more certain environmental results with
alternative compliance option). These their octane value, but because of less complexity than a toxics emissions
commenters felt that a toxics increased ethanol use, this need should performance standard, and we are
performance standard offered more be reduced. As a result, we do not therefore finalizing only a benzene
compliance flexibility. Other expect refiners to take actions to content standard.
commenters supported our proposed increase olefins, and thus 1,3-butadiene
benzene-only standard, stating that a emissions should not increase. Also, A Standard for Aromatic Compounds in
total toxics standard would add 1,3-butadiene, like other MSATs, is Addition to Benzene
complexity without additional benefit. reduced when VOC is reduced due to In the proposal, we considered MSAT
For several reasons, we continue to fuel and vehicles standards being control through the reduction of the
believe that a benzene-only standard is implemented (see 71 FR 15860). content of aromatics in addition to
superior to a toxics emissions The one MSAT likely to increase in benzene in gasoline. For a number of
performance standard. First, because the future is acetaldehyde. Current reasons, we did not propose such
controlling benzene is much more cost- market forces, along with state and control (see 71 FR 15860 and 15864).
effective than controlling emissions of federal policies and requirements such During the comment period, we
other MSATs, refiners historically have as the proposed Renewable Fuels received comments urging EPA to
preferentially reduced benzene under Standard (RFS) Program,179 ensure that impose controls on non-benzene
the MSAT1 and other air toxics control ethanol use will increase, and thus gasoline aromatic compounds, in
programs. This is despite the theoretical acetaldehyde as well, since that MSAT addition to controlling benzene. These
flexibility that refiners have under a is directly and substantially affected by commenters believe aromatics control
toxics performance standard to change ethanol use. Acetaldehyde emissions are would provide more toxics emissions
other fuel parameters instead of currently about one-seventh the reductions than a benzene-only control
benzene. Thus, even if we were to magnitude of benzene emissions from program, and they also believe it would
express the proposed standard as an air motor vehicles, but are increasing improve air quality by significantly
toxics performance standard, we would (while formaldehyde emissions are reducing fine particulate matter.
expect the outcome to be the same— decreasing) due to the substitution of Expanded use of E85 and flexible-fuel
refiners would reduce benzene content ethanol for MTBE in RFG as a result of vehicles and ETBE were suggested as
and leave unchanged the levels of other state MTBE bans. Any action that ways to replace the octane value which
MSATs. refiners could take to offset the total would be lost if aromatics were reduced.
Even with, or as a result of, this fuel toxics increase as a result of They also cited other benefits such as
benzene control, we do not expect energy independence and reduction of
refiners to actively modify their refinery 179 71 FR 55552, September 22, 2006. trade deficits, and stated that costs to
the refining industry would not be Second, aromatics levels vary build new hydrogen production
significant. A significant rebuttal to this dramatically across refineries based on facilities.
request for aromatics control was a number of factors, including refinery Reducing aromatics would also raise
presented by the refining industry. configuration and complexity, access to other environmental concerns that
We note first that regardless of other high octane feedstocks, access to would need to be addressed in any
specific regulatory action to control the chemicals market, crude sources,
aromatics, the increased use of ethanol regulation. Actions available to
and premium grade versus regular grade refineries for replacing octane,
in response to current market forces and production volumes. Third, without
state and federal policies (including the including adding ethanol, can increase
knowing with some certainty the range other MSATs, as mentioned above. In
RFS program) will contribute to lower of aromatics contents of refineries’
aromatics levels. This will occur for two addition, some commenters encouraged
gasoline, we cannot determine the the use of the ether derived from
reasons. First, ethanol has historically greatest degree of emission reduction
been blended downstream of refineries, ethanol, ETBE, to make up octane. Any
achievable, and also cannot make regulatory action that required or was
either as a ‘‘splash blend’’ or as a
reasonable estimates regarding cost, lead based on the use of ETBE would likely
‘‘match blend.’’ In a splash blend, the
time, safety, energy impacts, etc. As a raise issues of potential groundwater
ethanol is mixed with finished gasoline.
result, at this time we would not be able contamination given the groundwater
In a match blend, refiners prepare a
special subgrade of gasoline that, when to determine an appropriate or contamination caused by the use of the
blended with ethanol, becomes finished meaningful aromatics standard.
chemically similar MTBE.
gasoline. In recent years, match For the purpose of reducing total
There may be compelling reasons to
blending has increased as refiners have toxics emissions, fuel benzene control is
consider aromatics control in the future,
been producing RFG with ethanol, and far more cost-effective than control of
especially regarding reduction in
it is expected to increase even more as total aromatics, for a number of reasons.
secondary PM2.5 emissions, to the extent
ethanol use expands. A splash blend As we explained in the proposal,
that evidence supports a role for
will reduce aromatics by about 3 vol% reducing the content of other aromatics
by simple dilution.180 A match blend aromatics in secondary PM2.5
in gasoline is much less effective at
will reduce aromatics by about 5 formation.183 Unfortunately, there are
reducing benzene emissions than
vol%.181 With ethanol use expected to limitations in both primary and
reducing fuel benzene content. Based on
more than double, we expect a the Complex Model,182 roughly 20 times secondary PM science and modeling
significant reduction in aromatics greater reduction in total aromatics tools that limit our present ability to
levels. Second, with all of this ethanol content is needed to achieve the same quantitatively predict what would
there will be excess octane in the benzene emission reduction as is happen for a given fuel control. Thus, at
gasoline pool. Thus, not only will achieved by fuel benzene reductions. At this point, we do not feel that the
increased ethanol use decrease the same time, to broaden the program existing body of information and
aromatics concentrations through to control other aromatics would result analytical tools provide a sufficient
dilution, but refiners will make the in a significant octane loss. While we basis to determine if further fuel
economic decision to use ethanol to have not yet conducted a thorough aromatics control is warranted.
reduce or avoid producing aromatics for refinery modeling evaluation, based on However, we do feel that additional
the purpose of increasing octane. existing refinery and market information research is very important. Test
Because of differences in how refiners the alternative sources of octane (other programs and analyses are planned to
will respond to the rapid increase in address primary PM issues, including
than ethanol) appear to be of limited
ethanol use, it would be difficult to those examining the role of aromatics.
supply and would be of limited
determine an appropriate level for an Also, more work is underway on how
effectiveness in replacing the octane lost
aromatics standard at this time. The fuel aromatics, including toluene, affect
from any fuel aromatics reductions.
gasoline market is going through an secondary PM formation, and how
historic transition now due to the Furthermore, as noted above, the
uncertainty in the extent to which aromatics control should be
removal of MTBE, conversion of some
ethanol will penetrate the market makes incorporated into air quality predictive
portion of the MTBE production volume
it difficult to project the potential models.184
to other high octane blendstock
production, growth of ethanol use, and replacement of aromatics with ethanol. In summary, we believe that
the rise in crude oil prices. Any significant reduction in aromatics aromatics levels will be falling even
Consequently, it is difficult to reliably would also affect the gasoline and diesel without an aromatics standard, and
project a baseline level of aromatics for sulfur reduction programs because aromatics control will need to be
the gasoline pool with any confidence. hydrogen, which is used in the evaluated in the context of what might
This is compounded by a great deal of desulfurization process, is produced be possible beyond what will occur
uncertainty in knowing how much of when aromatics are produced. If refiners through the expanded use of ethanol.
the market ethanol will capture. were required to reduce their aromatics Furthermore, any additional control
Projections by EIA are significantly levels, costs would increase further would be costly and raise a number of
higher now than just a few months ago, because some would have to expand or other issues which need further
and Presidential and Congressional investigation before EPA could
182 Total toxics emissions are as calculated by the
proposals could easily result in 100% of responsibly initiate such a control effort.
Complex Model. This model is the tool used to
gasoline being blended with ethanol. determine compliance with the toxics emissions Thus, we have concluded that
controls in the RFG, Anti-dumping, and MSAT1 additional aromatics control for MSAT
180 If the aromatics content of a gallon of gasoline
programs. Cost estimates for aromatics control and purposes is not warranted at this time.
is 30 vol%, adding 10% ethanol dilutes the analysis of relative benzene emissions with control
aromatic content to about 27 vol%. of aromatics and benzene are found in Regulation
181 Section 2.2 ‘‘Effects of Ethanol and MTBE on 183 See Chapter 1 in the RIA for more on current
of Fuels and Fuel Additives; Standards for
Gasoline Fuel Properties’’ in the Renewable Fuel Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline; Final studies on this subject.
Standard Program: Draft Regulatory Impact rule, Table VI–A6 of the Regulatory Impact 184 See Chapter 1 in the RIA for more on current
Analysis, September, 2006. Analysis, February 16, 1994. studies on this subject.
ii. Control of Gasoline Sulfur and/or said that we were unaware of other for small refiners if EPA went forward
Volatility for MSAT Reduction changes to diesel fuel that could have a with such a program. One commenter,
In the proposal, we outlined a number significant effect on MSAT emissions, an importer, proposed a standard of 1.0
of issues related to further control of and requested comment about limiting vol%. None of the commenters
gasoline sulfur content and volatility this action to gasoline benzene. opposing the 0.62 vol% standard
(usually described as Reid vapor One group of commenters stated in provided analytical support for a less
pressure, or RVP) as a means of MSAT joint comments that they believe that stringent standard, or addressed how a
emissions reduction.185 (See 71 FR EPA needs to do more to protect human less stringent standard might reflect the
15861–62.) In both cases, there was health and the environment from the greatest emission reductions achievable
insufficient data on newest technology effects of diesel exhaust emissions. based on the statutory factors. We have
vehicles at that time to evaluate their While they specifically mention actions considered all of these comments and
effectiveness as MSAT controls. to accelerate the introduction of cleaner reassessed the level of the standard in
Therefore, we did not propose changes diesel engines, they do not suggest any light of the key factors we are required
to existing standards. additional changes to diesel fuel. to consider, and have concluded that, as
We received several comments related Another commenter, a refiner, believes proposed, 0.62 vol% is the appropriate
to sulfur and RVP control, but there was that further diesel fuel controls are not level for the average standard, because
general agreement in the comments warranted. it achieves the greatest achievable
from auto manufacturers and refiners Some commenters support control of emission reductions through the
that sufficient data does not yet exist for the polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) application of technology that will be
EPA to take action as a part of this rule. content of diesel fuel. The actions available, considering cost, energy,
Consequently, we are not taking action refiners are taking to produce ultra-low safety, and lead time.188 As discussed in
to adopt additional control of gasoline sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppm sulfur) are section VI.A.1.d below, we have drawn
sulfur or RVP. However, since the expected to reduce the PAH content in this conclusion in the context of the 1.3
proposal, we have completed a small diesel fuel.186 In addition, available data vol% maximum average benzene
fuel effects test program in cooperation indicate that the advent of exhaust standard. We summarize our assessment
with several automakers to help emission controls on diesel engines of technological and economic factors
evaluate the impact of fuel property under the recent diesel programs will next.
changes on emissions from Tier 2 reduce exhaust PAH, regardless of any
changes to diesel fuel. i. General Technological Feasibility of
vehicles. These data suggest that Benzene Control
We continue to believe that existing
reducing gasoline sulfur below 30 ppm
regulations will achieve the greatest Benzene Control Technologies
could bring significant reductions in
currently achievable reductions in
VOC and NOX, but the data relating to We have identified several
MSAT emissions from diesel engines.
air toxics reductions were not technologies that can cost-effectively
EPA will continue to monitor MSAT
statistically significant. Unlike past reduce gasoline benzene levels and we
issues related to diesel fuel. For
programs on older technology vehicles, assessed their feasibility. These benzene
example, there are active programs
these data suggest that reducing gasoline control technologies function primarily
underway to measure PAH exhaust
volatility from 9 to 7 psi RVP under by controlling the benzene in the
emissions from diesel engines meeting
normal testing conditions (75° F) may feedstock to and the product stream
the 2007 PM engine standards.187
actually increase exhaust toxics from the reformer. They primarily focus
However, at this time, we are not aware
emissions. The program did not on the reformer because refiners rely on
of diesel fuel controls that could
examine the impacts of fuel volatility on the reformer to produce aromatic
significantly affect MSAT emissions and
evaporative emissions. These data compounds for their octane content, and
commenters did not offer specific
indicate that there may be benefits to benzene is one of the aromatic
information to the contrary.
future fuel control but that more testing compounds produced. For refiners who
Consequently, we have focused our fuel-
is warranted. More details on the test are not actively reducing the benzene in
related MSAT action on gasoline
program and its results are available in their gasoline today, we estimate that
benzene, as proposed.
Chapter 6 of the RIA. the reformer is responsible for about one
c. Why Are We Finalizing a Level of half to three quarters of the benzene in
iii. Diesel Fuel Changes
0.62 vol% for the Average Benzene gasoline.
In the proposal, EPA did not propose Standard? Since the proposal, we learned of a
additional controls on diesel fuel for change in how a particular gasoline
MSAT control. We continue to believe We considered a range of average
benzene standards, taking into account blending stream is being routed in the
that the recent highway and nonroad refinery which affects its treatability for
diesel programs (see section IV. D. 1. c technological feasibility as well as cost
and the other enumerated statutory reducing benzene. After speaking to
above) will achieve the greatest several refiners, we learned that natural
currently achievable reductions in factors. We received comments from a
variety of parties supporting standards gasoline is being blended differently
diesel-related MSAT control (i.e., into gasoline today because of the need
reductions in emissions of diesel more stringent than the proposed level
to address the sulfur in this stream for
particulate matter and exhaust organic of 0.62 vol%. In general, the refining
compliance with Tier 2. Specifically,
gases). These emission reductions will industry did not express strong
natural gasoline is being blended with
result from the deep cuts in diesel fuel opposition to a standard of 0.62 vol%.
the crude oil before the crude oil is
sulfur that will be implemented in the However, several small refiners opposed
refined in the refinery. Therefore the
same time frame as this gasoline a benzene standard and argued for relief
benzene in natural gasoline would be
benzene rule, along with the associated 186 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from
treated along with the naturally
diesel engine emission control Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel—Final Rule, occurring benzene in crude oil using the
requirements of the diesel programs. We Section 5.9.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis,
June 29, 2004. 188 EPA does not believe that there are any noise
185 Forfurther discussion of the impact of these 187 Health Effects Institute’s Advanced issues associated with these standards, and no
fuel properties on emissions, see RIA Chapter 7. Collaborative Emissions Study. comments suggested any such issues exist.
benzene control technologies described of gasoline benzene reductions, average standard if they were to apply
below. We reflected this change in our allowing virtually all refiners to meet or one or more of these additional benzene
refinery modeling. exceed the 0.62 vol% gasoline benzene control steps, though in some cases it
One approach to reducing gasoline standard. may be at a considerably higher cost
benzene levels is to reroute around the The actual impact of these benzene than through the purchase of credits.
reformer the intermediate refiner control technologies on an individual The cost and ultimate feasibility for
streams that have the greatest tendency refinery’s finished gasoline benzene controlling the benzene in light straight
to form benzene in the reformer. This content, however, will be a function of run, light coker naphtha and light
technology is usually termed light many different refinery-specific factors.
hydrocrackate is very difficult to
naphtha splitting. Assuming that a These factors include the types of
determine without detailed and
refinery applying this technology is not refining units in each refinery and the
applying any sort of benzene control benzene levels produced by them, and comprehensive knowledge about how
today, we estimate that this method the extent to which they are already refineries are configured and operated
reduces the benzene levels of reformate utilizing one or more of these benzene today. It might be possible for a refinery
(the stream leaving the reformer) by 60 control technologies. to adjust existing distillation units,
percent. This approach requires little or Each of the benzene control either operationally or with minor
no capital investments in refineries to technologies associated with the capital investments, to change the
realize the results, but its effectiveness reformer has been commercially cutpoints for these streams. They might
is limited because it does not address demonstrated by at least half a dozen then route the benzene in these streams
any of the naturally-occurring benzene units in U.S. refineries today operating to the reformer, where a benzene control
found in crude oil and from natural for at least two years. Also, we did not technology would be applied. On the
gasoline and the other benzene which is receive any comments questioning the other hand, changing the cutpoints to
formed in the reformer. Although this viability of these technologies for reroute the benzene might require the
benzene control technology normally achieving the benzene reduction addition of a whole new distillation
will not achieve the most substantial attributed to these technologies in the column, similar in function to a
benzene control, refiners choosing it proposed rule. We therefore conclude reformate splitter. Adding such
will achieve some measure of benzene that these technologies can feasibly grassroots distillation columns to make
control and then would likely need to achieve the benzene reductions that we
these splits would be much more costly.
purchase credits to comply with the attribute to them. We discuss the
Finally we have not found any
0.62 benzene standard. economics for each of these approaches
To achieve deeper benzene control, to benzene reduction in more detail in commercially demonstrated benzene
refiners with an isomerization unit can section VIII.A. of this preamble, and we control technologies that can reduce the
send the rerouted intermediate refinery discuss their feasibility and cost in benzene of FCC naphtha, the second
stream to their isomerization unit. The detail in Chapters 6 and 9 of the RIA. largest contributor of benzene to the
isomerization unit would saturate the We evaluated the benzene control gasoline pool.
naturally-occurring benzene from crude level achievable without the use of Impacts on Octane and Strategies for
oil and natural gasoline in the rerouted credits by each refinery using either
Recovering Octane Loss
refinery intermediate stream mentioned benzene saturation or extraction, since
above, thus achieving additional this would represent the maximum All these benzene reduction
benzene reduction. Using these two technologically feasible level of benzene technologies tend to cause a small
technologies together, refiners will be control by each refinery. Our refinery reduction in the octane value of the
able to reduce reformer benzene levels cost model shows that based on the final gasoline, since benzene is high in
by an estimated 80 percent. However, application of one or the other of these octane (about 101 octane number
the benzene formed in the reformer two benzene technologies, eight
((R+M)/2). Understanding how lost
would still not be treated using these refineries would still not be able to
octane will be recovered is critical to
two technologies together. achieve the final 0.62 vol% benzene
For even deeper benzene reductions average standard. We believe that these determining the feasibility and cost of
than benzene precursor rerouting by refineries would, however, be able to benzene control. Regular grade gasoline
itself or in combination with achieve the 1.3 vol% maximum average must comply with a minimum 87 octane
isomerization, refiners could choose standard (which, as explained in section number (or a sub-octane rating of 86 for
between benzene saturation and VI.A.1.d below, must be achieved driving in altitude), while premium
benzene extraction. Each of these without the use of credits) through the grade gasoline must comply with an
technologies work by reducing the use of one of these technologies. octane rating which ranges from 91 to
benzene levels in the reformate, These eight refineries would be able 93 octane numbers. Gasoline must meet
achieving an estimated 96 percent to further reduce their gasoline benzene these octane ratings to be sold at retail.
reduction in benzene, assuming that the levels by treating the benzene contained Routing the benzene precursors around
refinery is not already taking steps to in other gasoline blendstocks, the reformer reduces the octane of the
control its benzene levels. Benzene particularly light straight run, light six-carbon compound stream (by
saturation involves using hydrogen to coker naphtha and light hydrocrackate. foregoing the formation of benzene)
saturate the benzene into cyclohexane, We believe that refiners could merge which normally exits the reformer with
which is a compound usually found in these streams with their reformate the rest of the reformate. Without these
gasoline. Benzene extraction units gasoline stream, so that these other compounds in the reformate, our
chemically extract the benzene from the sources of benzene would be treated refinery model shows that a loss of
rest of the hydrocarbon compounds in along with the benzene in the reformate
octane in the gasoline pool of about 0.14

reformate and concentrate it to a high using either benzene saturation or octane numbers will typically occur. If
purity using distillation such that it is benzene extraction. The results of this
this rerouted stream can be sent to an
suitable for sale into the chemicals additional analysis summarized in the
isomerization unit additional octane
market. Either of these technologies is RIA show that these eight refineries
loss will occur due to the saturation of
capable of achieving the deepest levels would be able to meet the 0.62 vol%
benzene 189; however, as described aromatic compounds, but more benzene opposing the 0.62 vol% standard
below, the isomerization unit offsets a is extracted and sold. provided analytical support for a less
part of the octane loss caused by this Refiners can also recover lost octane stringent standard or addressed how a
combination of saturation and rerouting. by increased use of isomerization and less stringent standard might reflect the
Benzene saturation and benzene alkylate units. As discussed above, greatest emission reductions achievable
extraction both affect the octane of saturating benzene in the isomerization based on the statutory factors.
reformate and therefore of the gasoline unit results in an octane loss, but the In the proposal, EPA described in
pool. Our refinery model estimates that octane loss is partially offset by the detail what we believe would be the
benzene saturation typically reduces the simultaneous formation of branch-chain consequences of average standards of
octane of gasoline by 0.24 octane compounds in the isomerization unit. different stringencies to the overall goals
numbers, and benzene extraction The isomerization unit would only of the program (see 71 FR 15866–67).
typically reduces the octane of gasoline offset a portion of the octane loss caused These anticipated consequences relate
by 0.14 octane numbers. by saturating the benzene if the unit has in large part to how we believe refiners
sufficient capacity to treat both the five- would respond to the benzene averaging
Refiners have several choices carbon hydrocarbons normally sent to and benzene credit trading provisions
available to them for recovering the lost the unit as well as the newly rerouted that were integral to the proposed
octane. One is to blend in ethanol. six-carbon hydrocarbons. Also, many program. For the final rule, we have
Ethanol has a very high octane number refineries produce a high-octane reassessed how we believe refiners
rating of 115. Thus, only a small amount blendstock called alkylate. Refiners can would respond to different average
of ethanol (one percent of the gasoline alter their refineries to produce more standards. We continue to believe that
pool or less) would be necessary to alkylate or they may be able to purchase increasing the stringency of the average
offset the octane loss associated with alkylate on the open market. Not only is benzene standard would have the effect
benzene reductions. Moreover, ethanol alkylate moderately high in octane (93 of reducing the number of benzene
blending will occur for reasons or 94 octane numbers), but it converts credits generated, since fewer refineries
independent of the benzene control four-carbon (i.e., butane) compounds are likely or able to take actions to
requirements (and attendant octane loss) that are too volatile to be blended in significantly reduce benzene further
of the present rule. As explained in the large amounts into the gasoline pool than required by the standard. This
discussion of potential aromatics into heavier compounds that can be would reduce the liquidity of the credit
controls above, current market forces readily blended into gasoline, thus trading market. As discussed in section
and state and federal policies (including increasing gasoline volume. VI.A.2, a well functioning averaging,
the RFS program) will increase the All these means available to refiners banking, and trading program is integral
volume of renewable fuels, including for recovering the octane loss associated to the achievability of the benzene
ethanol, which is to be blended into with gasoline benzene reductions are standard. With fewer credits available
gasoline. The volume of renewable fuels commercially demonstrated, and we did that are affordable as an alternative to
must increase from around 4 billion not receive any comments questioning immediate capital investment,
gallons in 2004 to 7.5 billion gallons in our reliance on them at proposal for investment in relatively expensive
2012 when the renewable fuels maintaining the octane of the gasoline benzene saturation equipment would be
provisions of the RFS are fully pool in the proposal. Therefore, we necessary for a greater number of
implemented. However, as part of the conclude that it is feasible for refiners refiners. We specifically considered a
Annual Energy Outlook for 2006, the to recover the octane loss associated level of 0.50 vol% for the average
Energy Information Administration with benzene control. standard, which we expected would
projects that the economics driven by require all refineries to install the most
higher crude oil prices will result in ii. Appropriateness of the 0.62 vol%
Average Benzene Content Standard expensive benzene control technologies.
more like 9.6 billion gallons of ethanol We concluded that this level would
use by 2012. As discussed above, we received clearly not be achievable, considering
many comments about the proposed cost. In a related analysis, we also
Octane may also be increased by
level of the benzene standard. Many showed that if, contrary to our
increasing the severity of the reformer
commenters advocated a more stringent expectations, credits were not easily
(which determines the final octane of
standard, generally pointing to available as a compliance option, there
the reformate). However, if the refiner is
refineries currently producing gasoline are several refineries for which it may
reducing benzene through precursor
with benzene levels below the proposed be technologically feasible to reach
rerouting or saturation, this strategy can
0.62 vol% standard and stating that the benzene levels below 0.62 vol%, but
be somewhat counterproductive. This is
average standard should be sufficiently only at costs far greater than for most
because increased severity increases the
stringent that all refineries, especially other refiners.
amount of benzene in the reformate and
those with higher benzene levels, would Decreasing the stringency of the
thus increases the cost of saturation and
be required to use similar technologies standard would fail to meet our
offsets some of the benzene reduction of
and achieve similarly low levels. We obligation under 202(l)(2) to set the
precursor rerouting. Increasing reformer
also received broad support for the 0.62 most stringent standard achievable
severity also decreases the operating
vol% standard in the comments from considering costs and other statutory
cycle life of the reformer, requiring more
the refining industry, although several factors. First, over the last several years
frequent regeneration. However, where
small refiners opposed imposing a RFG benzene levels have already been
benzene extraction is used, increased
benzene standard and argued for relief averaging around 0.62 vol%, and we
reformer severity can improve the
for small refiners if EPA implemented have no information to suggest that this
economics of extraction because not
the proposed standard. One importer level is not technologically feasible for
only is lost octane replaced by other

was concerned that the standard of 0.62 the rest of the gasoline pool as well. In
189 The chemical process of benzene saturation in
vol% could make it more difficult for fact, our analysis shows that this level
the isomerization unit is the same as the process
importers to find compliant gasoline is feasible for the pool of gasoline as a
that occurs in a benzene saturation unit, as shipments and proposed a standard of whole. Commenters did not provide any
described above. 1.0 vol%. None of the commenters analysis that a standard of 0.62 vol%
was not the greatest achievable after refineries. This potential for high costs program. We are finalizing a start date
considering cost and the other statutory at more stringent average standards of January 1, 2011, as proposed.
factors. Second, a standard less stringent exists if, as we expect, the ABT program We discuss the lead time for the 1.3
than 0.62 vol% would not achieve a functions as it is designed to. If the ABT vol% maximum average standard,
number of important programmatic program operates less efficiently than which takes effect July 1, 2012 for non-
objectives. As shown in Table VI.C–1 projected, the costs for some individual small refiners and importers, and July 1,
below, a 0.62 vol% standard is refineries could be higher still. (We 2016 for small refiners, in the next
necessary to satisfy the conditions on discuss issues related to the 1.3 vol% section.
overall RFG toxics performance maximum average standard, which d. Upper Limit Benzene Standard
established by EPAct and thus to avoid cannot be met through the use of
the requirement for updated individual credits, in section VI.A.1.d, ‘‘Upper In the proposal, we discussed the
refinery baselines. We believe that any Limit Benzene Standard,’’ below.) potential concern that without an upper
level for the standard above 0.62 vol% limit, some refiners may choose to allow
Based on our analysis of the projected
would require EPA to promulgate their benzene levels to increase, or to
response of the refining industry to an
regulations requiring RFG refiners to remain unchanged indefinitely.
average benzene standard, we are
continue to maintain individual However, we also said that once an
finalizing the 0.62 vol% standard as
refinery-specific baselines, adjusted to average standard is in place, any
proposed. We believe that this average
2001–2 as required by EPAct. The increase in benzene levels will
benzene standard of 0.62, in the context
refining industry believes that this necessarily come at the cost of
of the associated ABT program and the
would continue to penalize the cleanest purchasing additional credits. We
1.3 vol% maximum average standard,
refineries, constrain their flexibility, and tentatively concluded that this
results in the greatest reductions downward pressure on benzene levels
cause market inefficiencies that increase achievable, taking into account cost and meant there would likely be no
costs. They have been strongly the other statutory factors in CAA increases in benzene from any refinery,
supportive of a program that eliminates 202(l)(2). whether or not there was an upper limit.
the need for individual refinery
iii. Timing of the Average Standard In fact, we concluded that this pressure
baselines. EPA agrees with these
would result in actual reductions at
concerns, and believes that the Section 202(l)(2) requires that we almost all refineries, especially into the
nationwide ABT program allowed under consider lead time in adopting any fuel future as refiners try to limit their
this program will remove these impacts. control for MSATs. We proposed that reliance on credits as much as and
Another of EPA’s policy objectives that refiners and importers meet the 0.62 whenever it is economical to do so (see
has been strongly supported by the vol% average benzene standard 71 FR 15867–68).
refining industry was establishing the beginning January 1, 2011 (January 1, We nonetheless considered the
same standard nationwide for the 2015 for small refiners). This date was implications of an upper limit on the
combined pool of RFG and CG. The based on the industry experience that actual level of benzene in the gasoline
level of 0.62 vol% allows us to establish most of the technological approaches that refiners produce (as opposed to the
a single combined program for RFG and that we believe refiners will apply— level achieved using credits). (See 71 FR
CG. In addition, the level of 0.62 vol% rerouting of benzene precursors around 15678–79.) We considered an upper
for the standard allows us to streamline the reformer and use of an existing limit both in the form of a per-gallon
with confidence our toxics regulations isomerization unit—will take less than benzene cap and a limit on the average
for RFG and CG, so that this benzene two years. The more capital intensive of actual benzene in gasoline produced
program (along with the gasoline sulfur approaches—saturation and by a refinery (‘‘maximum average
program) will become the regulatory extraction—generally take two to three standard’’). Of these two approaches, we
mechanism used to implement the RFG years to complete. The January 1, 2011 recognized that a per-gallon cap would
and CG annual average toxics date provides nearly four years of lead be the more rigid. If every batch needed
performance requirements and the time. We believe this is an appropriate to meet the cap, there would be no
annual average benzene content amount of lead time, even taking into opportunity to offset benzene spikes
requirement for RFG. Further, we account that other fuel control programs with lower-benzene production at other
believe that with such a stringent (notably the Nonroad Diesel program) times. Even during times of normal
benzene standard, refiners should have will be implemented in the same time operation, our review of refinery batch
the certainty they need for their frame. data indicated that unavoidable wide
investment and planning decisions. Some commenters supported earlier swings commonly occur in the benzene
Many comments that supported a start dates, referring in some cases to the content of gasoline batches, even for
more stringent standard pointed to experience of Canada in regulating refineries that have relatively low
average costs projected in the proposal gasoline benzene. However, these benzene levels on average. A per-gallon
that are higher than for the proposed comments failed to acknowledge the cap could result in refiners halting
standard, but are not large on a per- less stringent Canadian standard (0.95 gasoline production during short-term
gallon basis compared to other EPA fuel vol%) which naturally takes less lead shut-downs of benzene control
programs. However, these commenters time to implement. No commenter equipment or in other temporary
did not address the wide range of provided information that challenged excursions in benzene levels. Unless a
compliance costs for individual our assessments of the technical lead per-gallon limit were generous enough
refineries that we discuss in the time for the range of benzene control or included case-by-case exceptions
proposal (see Chapter 9 of the proposed approaches that will be implemented. (eroding the possible benefit of the cap),
and final RIA documents). It is critical Other commenters, mostly from the many refiners would likely need to
to recognize that as more stringent refining industry, supported a start date implement much deeper and more
average standards are considered, the that would be at least four years after costly reductions in benzene than
costs for many refineries begin to rise the date of the final rule. For the reasons would otherwise be necessary, simply to
significantly, especially for some described above, we do not believe this protect against such fluctuations. For
individual technologically-challenged additional time is necessary for this some refiners, we concluded, a cap
could make complying with the and CG pools. The per-gallon cap for There are individual circumstances
program prohibitively expensive. RFG alone is appropriate because the where it may be economical to also treat
The other option on which we CG pool provides an outlet for batches other refinery streams. If the benzene in
solicited comment, a maximum average of higher benzene RFG. However, if these other streams is indeed treated by
standard, would be more flexible. A such a cap were applied to CG as well, some refineries, it is possible that
maximum average standard would limit refiners would be left without an outlet. sufficient credits might be generated to
the average benzene content of the As we said in the proposal, any allow more refineries to avoid benzene
actual production at each refinery over meaningful level for a per-gallon cap reductions altogether by simply
the course of the year, regardless of the applying to CG would thus overly purchasing credits. Consequently,
extent to which credits may have been restrict the normal fluctuations in although our refinery-by-refinery
used to comply with the 0.62 vol% gasoline benzene (see 71 FR 15869). modeling predicts significant benzene
average standard. Thus, a maximum On the other hand, we now believe reductions in all areas nationwide,
average standard would allow for short- that the program should include a individual refineries might continue to
term benzene fluctuations as long as the maximum average benzene standard, set have gasoline with higher benzene
annual average benzene level of actual at an appropriate level. The maximum levels than the model predicts. This
production was less than that upper average standard has the strong may also result in higher regional
limit. advantage of ensuring that the benzene variation in gasoline benzene levels
Several commenters stated that an content of gasoline produced by each than the model predicts. Thus, we
upper limit would add costs without refinery (or imported by each importer) cannot dismiss this possibility with a
resulting in additional benefits, and will average no higher than this high degree of confidence.
supported a program without upper standard, regardless of the use of For these reasons, we believe that the
limits. Other commenters, however, credits, providing greater assurance that addition of a maximum average
expressed serious concerns about the actual in-use benzene reductions more standard to the 0.62 average standard
potential consequences of a program clearly reflect our modeled projections provides far greater assurance that
without upper limits. Several which form the basis for this rule. At the refineries will control benzene in the
commenters were concerned that under same time, the maximum average future as projected—and certainly will
the program as proposed, it would be standard avoids the serious drawbacks not increase benzene levels to be greater
possible for refiners to maintain of a per-gallon cap. than the level of the maximum average
benzene levels well above the standard Our refinery modeling is state of the standard. Furthermore, through
indefinitely while complying through art, but it cannot predict with high selection of an appropriate level for the
the use of credits, thus potentially confidence each refinery’s actions and maximum average standard, we believe
reducing the benefits of the program how benzene trading will occur in each that we are achieving this goal with a
where this gasoline is used. Some instance. We have done a refinery-by- minimal impact on the overall costs of
commenters noted that under the refinery assessment of the most the program.
proposed program, gasoline in some economical decisions we believe the We did not originally propose a
areas could still have significantly industry will make to comply with the maximum average standard, largely
higher benzene levels than in other standard. However, in developing the because of our interpretation of our
parts of the country. These commenters model, we did not have access to modeling done for the proposal. That
believe that these projected disparities specific information on many refineries, modeling indicated that adding a
raise issues of fairness. While our much of which is confidential business maximum average standard would
modeling of the proposed average information. To fill these gaps, we used result in significantly more benzene
standard suggested that all refineries broader industry average information for reduction in some areas, but that these
were likely to reduce their benzene a number of key model input parameters increases would cause other areas to
levels to some extent and that there (including benzene levels in crude oil experience slightly smaller benzene
would be significant reductions in and in gasoline blendstocks, individual reductions (see 71 FR 15903). Our
gasoline benzene levels in each PADD, refinery unit throughput and operating updated modeling results are similar. In
the commenters noted that an upper conditions, distillation ‘‘cut points,’’ the proposal, we considered this
limit would provide a guarantee of and future refinery expansions). Since potential for smaller benzene reductions
reduction to at least the level of the there is wide variation in these in some areas to be a reason not to
upper limit. important parameters among different propose a maximum average standard.
After evaluating the results of our refineries that impacts their baseline However, upon further evaluation of
updated refinery analysis and benzene levels and their opportunities these modeling results, given the level
considering all of the comments, we for control, our model’s assumptions of uncertainty in the model to predict
have reconsidered the appropriateness inherently vary from actual refinery individual refinery and regional
of an upper limit standard. For the circumstances. Furthermore, by benzene levels (as discussed above), we
reasons discussed above, we continue to necessity, our model assumes that all do not have confidence in the size of
believe that a per-gallon cap for CG refineries will, in effect, work any offsetting increases in benzene
would be inappropriate for a benzene collectively to make the most levels in other areas, or even whether
control program due to actions economical investment decisions on a they would occur. In addition, we
refineries would need to take to protect nationwide basis, as though each knew recognize that some of the refiners that
against common fluctuations in benzene in advance the investment decisions of the model predicts would reduce
content, and the related adverse cost the others. In reality, each individual benzene slightly less (creating the
and energy implications if refineries refinery will be making its decisions apparent offsetting regional effects) may
invest in deeper benzene reductions or independently of each other, based on in fact decide to overcomply with the
need to temporarily shut down. In very limited information about other standard in order to maintain a
contrast, the per-gallon cap for RFG of refineries’ actions. In addition, our compliance ‘‘safety margin,’’ regardless
1.3 vol%, which is currently in place, model assumes that refiners will limit of the presence of a maximum average
functions differently than would a per- their actions to only treat the principal standard, and regardless of the strength
gallon cap that applied to both the RFG benzene-containing stream (reformate). of the market for the generated credits.
In light of this, we do not think it publishing a more detailed annual important aspect of the design of this
warrants giving up the benefits resulting report on gasoline quality. We will program as proposed is the recognition
from the inclusion of the maximum present this data on a PADD-by-PADD that not all of the benzene reduction
average standard. basis (to the extent that protection of would occur at once. As discussed in
Absent concern about any measurable confidential business information detail in section VI.A.2.b below, we
offsetting effects from a maximum allows). We expect that these reports expect that individual refiners will use
average standard, we believe that the will be a valuable tool to stakeholders the ABT program to schedule their
major benefit of such a standard can and and members of the public who are benzene control expenditures in the
should be pursued. That is, the program interested in following the real-world most efficient way, using the early
can achieve increased certainty that the progress of this rule’s gasoline benzene credit and standard credit provisions.
significant gasoline benzene reductions reductions. This will essentially create a gradual
across all parts of the nation that our Among other changes discussed in phasing-in of the reductions in gasoline
modeling projects will indeed occur, section VIII below, our updated benzene content, beginning well before
and thus that regional variations in refinery-by-refinery model uses year- the initial compliance date of January 1,
gasoline benzene levels will indeed be round 2004 gasoline production data as 2011 and spreading out industry-wide
minimized as we project. a starting point (replacing 2003 summer compliance activities over several years.
We believe that setting the maximum production data used in the proposal) Since the 1.3 vol% standard may not be
average standard at a level of 1.3 vol% and incorporates updated crude oil and met using credits, we have set the
accomplishes the goal of reasonably benzene prices. The model thus implementation dates for this standard
assuring lower benzene levels for all generates updated predictions of the such that the credit program can
refineries while balancing the negative responses of refineries to the benzene continue to be fully utilized for an
aspects of more- and less-stringent standards. Our updated analysis shows additional 18 months after the effective
benzene standards. Virtually all the that with the 0.62 vol% average date of the 0.62 vol% average standard
commenters who supported a maximum standard and the maximum average to allow the intended phasing-in of the
average standard agreed that 1.3 vol% benzene standard of 1.3 vol%, benzene program to occur (i.e., there will be 18
would be a reasonable level for such a levels will be reduced very significantly additional months during which the
standard. EPA agrees. Implementing a in all parts of the country. However, a 0.62 vol% average standard may be
maximum average standard lower than degree of variation will continue to achieved exclusively by using credits).
1.3 vol% would begin to significantly exist, due to the wide variety of refinery We acknowledge that by
increase the number of refineries that configurations, crude oil supplies, and incorporating the 1.3 vol% maximum
would need to install the more approaches to benzene control, among average standard into the program, we
expensive benzene reduction other factors. This remaining variation are creating additional compliance
equipment. This would quickly is clearly legally permissible, challenges for a small number of
diminish the value of the flexibility notwithstanding the reasonable refineries that might have relied on
provided by the ABT program and thus objective of assuring that reductions credits but will now need to install
force an increasing number of refineries occur both regionally and nationally, capital equipment to meet the 1.3 vol%
to make expenditures in benzene because we do not read CAA section maximum average standard. Most
control that could otherwise be smaller 202(l)(2) as requiring uniform gasoline refiners will need to take these steps by
or avoided entirely, significantly benzene levels in each area of the July 1, 2012. Small refiners will need to
increasing the overall cost of the country, since the standard is to be take these steps four years later, by July
program. Conversely, a maximum technology-based considering costs and 1, 2016. Although we believe that most
average standard greater than 1.3 vol% other factors which vary considerably (possibly all) refiners will be able to
would require progressively fewer by region and by refinery. On the other install appropriate benzene control
refineries to take action to reduce their hand, the maximum average standard equipment by these future dates, there
benzene levels. This would in turn will have the appropriate effect of
may be a small number of refiners that
provide less assurance that actual directionally providing a greater degree
continue to face significant financial
benzene levels would be broadly of geographic uniformity of gasoline
achieved. As shown in detail in Chapter hurdles as these dates approach. We
benzene levels and these levels remain
9 of the RIA, the addition of the 1.3 have considered this concern, and we
achievable considering cost and the
vol% standard has minimal impact on believe that the leadtime provided,
other enumerated factors. Reducing
the overall costs of the program. It is for including the longer leadtime for small
gasoline benzene levels on both a
this reason that we find that the 0.62 refiners, and the hardship relief
national and regional basis is within the
vol% annual average standard, in provisions discussed below, are
discretion of the Administrator, since
tandem with the 1.3 vol% maximum sufficient to address any circumstances
section 202(l)(2) does not specify
average standard, represents the greatest whether the maximum degree of of severe economic impacts on
benzene reductions achievable emission reductions are to be achieved individual refineries. We are making
considering cost, energy supply, and nationally, regionally, or both. clear that serious economic difficulties
other enumerated statutory factors. The 1.3 vol% maximum average in meeting the 1.3 vol% maximum
We believe that it is very important to standard will become effective 18 average standard may be a basis for
monitor levels of benzene as refiners months after the 0.62 vol% average granting relief under the ‘‘extreme
and importers begin to respond to the standard, on July 1, 2012, and on July hardship’’ provision discussed in
average and maximum average 1, 2016 for small refiners. While there sectionVI.A.3. below.
standards. EPA currently collects is ample lead time for non-small refiners 2. Description of the Averaging,
information on benzene and several to meet the 0.62 vol% standard by Banking, and Trading (ABT) Program
other gasoline parameters for every January 1, 2011, we believe that

batch of gasoline produced in or staggering the implementation dates a. Overview
imported into the U.S., and publishes it will ensure that the implementation of We are finalizing a nationwide
in aggregate form on the EPA Web site. the programs by the refining industry is averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
By January 1, 2011, we plan to begin as smooth and efficient as possible. An program that allows us to set a more
stringent annual average gasoline not investing in benzene control calendar years (2008 through 2014
benzene standard than would otherwise technology. Additionally, due to their calendar years for small refiners).
be justifiable. The ABT program allows variable operations, importers could We are setting a ten percent reduction
refiners and importers to choose the potentially redistribute the importation trigger point for early credits to ensure
most economical compliance strategy of foreign gasoline to generate that changes in gasoline benzene levels
(investment in technology, credits, or ‘‘windfall’’ early credits with no result from real refinery process
both) for meeting the 0.62 vol% annual associated benzene emission reduction improvements. Without a substantial
average benzene standard. The value (see 71 FR 15874). trigger point, refiners could earn credits
flexibility afforded by the program is Benzene credits may only be for the normal year-to-year fluctuations
especially significant and needed given generated on gasoline which is subject in benzene level at a given refinery
the considerable variation in existing to the benzene requirements as allowed under MSAT1. These windfall
gasoline benzene levels, which reflects described at § 80.1235. This excludes credits could negatively impact the ABT
important differences in crude oil California gasoline (gasoline produced program because—as reflections of
composition and individual refinery or imported for use in California) but normal variability—they would have no
design. includes gasoline produced by associated benzene emission reduction
From 2007–2010, refiners can California refineries for use outside of value. As described in the proposal, we
generate ‘‘early credits’’ by making California. Despite the fact that believe that a percent reduction trigger
qualifying benzene reductions earlier California gasoline is not covered by point, as opposed to an absolute level or
than required. In 2011 and beyond, this program, EPA sought comment on fixed reduction trigger point, is the most
refiners and importers can generate whether and how credits could be appropriate early credit validation tool
‘‘standard credits’’ by producing/ generated based on California gasoline considering the wide range in starting
importing gasoline with benzene levels benzene reductions and applied towards benzene levels. In addition, we believe
below 0.62 volume percent (vol%) on an non-California gasoline compliance (see that ten percent is an appropriate value
annual average basis. Credits may be 71 FR 15873). We did not receive any
for the trigger point because it prevents
used interchangeably towards most windfall credit generation, yet is
substantive comments on this matter but
compliance with the 0.62 vol% not so restrictive as to discourage
nonetheless considered the feasibility of
standard, ‘‘banked’’ for future use, and/ refineries from making early benzene
such a program (described in more
or transferred nationwide to other reductions (see 71 FR 15875).
detail in the Summary and Analysis of Once the ten percent reduction trigger
refiners/importers subject to the
Comments). We concluded that such a point is met, refineries can generate
standard. In addition to the 0.62 vol%
program could be very problematic to credits based on the entire gasoline
standard, refiners and importers must
implement and, based on the apparent benzene reduction. For example, if in
also meet a 1.3 vol% maximum average
lack of interest by California gasoline 2008 a refinery reduced its annual
benzene standard beginning July 1,
refineries, it is likely that there would average benzene level from a baseline of
2012. To comply with the maximum
average standard, gasoline produced by be very few participants. As a result, we 2.00 vol% to 1.50 vol% (below the
a refinery or imported by an importer have decided to maintain the proposed trigger point of 0.90 × 2.00 = 1.80 vol%),
may not exceed 1.3 vol% on an annual ABT provision which excludes its early benzene credits would be
average basis. While the 1.3 vol% California gasoline from generating determined based on the difference in
maximum average standard places a credits. annual benzene content (2.00 ¥ 1.50 =
limitation on credit use, we believe that ii. Early Credit Generation 0.50 vol%) divided by 100 and
the ABT program still provides the multiplied by the gallons of gasoline
refining industry with significant To encourage early innovation in produced in 2008 (expressed in gallons
compliance flexibility as described gasoline benzene control technology, of benzene).
below. refiners are eligible to generate early We proposed that refiners be
credits for making qualifying benzene prohibited from moving gasoline or
b. Credit Generation reductions prior to the start of the gasoline blendstock streams from one
i. Eligibility program. Refiners must first establish refinery to another in order to generate
individual benzene baselines for each early credits (see 71 FR 15875). We
Under the ABT program, U.S. refiners
refinery planning on generating early received comments indicating that
(including ‘‘small refiners’’190) who
credits (discussed further in section many refiners trade blending
produce gasoline by processing crude
VI.B.1). Benzene baselines are defined components between refineries to
oil and/or intermediate feedstocks
through refinery processing units (see as the annualized volume-weighted maximize gasoline production while
§ 80.1270) are eligible to generate both benzene content of gasoline produced at minimizing cost, and that such
early and standard benzene credits. a refinery from January 1, 2004 through companies should not be prohibited
Foreign refiners with individual refinery December 31, 2005. To qualify to from generating early credits. In fact, we
baselines established under § 80.910(d) generate early credits, refineries must are not prohibiting these types of
who imported gasoline into the U.S. in make operational changes and/or normal refinery activities, nor are we
2004–2005 are also eligible to generate improvements in benzene control prohibiting such refineries from
early credits. Importers, on the other technology to reduce gasoline benzene participating in the early credit
hand, are only eligible to generate levels in accordance with § 80.1275. program. We are simply requiring that
standard credits under the ABT Additionally, a refinery must produce all refineries make real operational
program. As explained in the proposal, gasoline with at least ten percent less changes and/or improvements in
importers are precluded from generating benzene (on a volume-weighted annual benzene control technology to reduce
average basis) than its 2004–2005 gasoline benzene levels in order to be
early credits because, unlike refineries,

they do not need additional lead time to baseline. The first early credit eligible to generate early credits. In most
comply with the standard since they are generation period is from June 1, 2007 cases, moving gasoline blendstocks from
through December 31, 2007, and one refinery to another does not result
190 Refiners approved as small refiners under subsequent early credit generation in a net benzene reduction (one refinery
§ 80.1340. periods are the 2008, 2009, and 2010 gets cleaner at the expense of another
getting dirtier). Accordingly, refineries determined based on the margin of vol% benzene standard and a more cost-
that lower their benzene levels overcompliance with the standard effective program. The early credit
exclusively through blendstock trading (0.62¥0.52 = 0.10 vol%) divided by 100 program gives refiners an incentive to
(no additional qualifying reductions) are and multiplied by the gallons of make initial gasoline benzene
not eligible to generate early credits gasoline produced during the 2011 reductions sooner than required. The
under the ABT program. An exception calendar year (expressed in gallons of early credits generated can be used to
exists for refineries that transfer benzene). Likewise, if in 2012 the same provide refiners with additional lead
benzene-rich reformate streams for refinery were to produce the same time to make their final (more
processing at other refineries with amount of gasoline with the same expensive) investments in benzene
qualifying post-treatment capabilities, average benzene content, they would control technology. As a result, some
e.g., extraction or benzene saturation earn the same number of credits. The benzene reductions will occur prior to
units. Under this scenario, the standard credit generation opportunities
transferring refinery would be eligible to the start of the program while others
for overcomplying with the standard
generate early credits because a real will lag (within the realms of the credit
continue indefinitely (see 71 FR 15872).
operational change to reduce gasoline life provisions described below). We
benzene levels has been made. The c. Credit Use anticipate that there will be enough
regulations at § 80.1275 have been As proposed, we are finalizing a early credits generated to allow refiners
modified to more clearly reflect our program where refiners and importers to postpone their final investments by
intended early credit eligibility can use benzene credits generated or up to three years, which coincides with
provisions, and specifically address obtained under the ABT program to the maximum time afforded by the early
blendstock trading. meet the 0.62 vol% annual average credit life provisions. In addition, we
standard in 2011 and beyond (2015 and predict that standard credits generated
iii. Standard Credit Generation
beyond for small refiners). We are also during the early credit lag period will
Refiners and importers may generate finalizing a 1.3 vol% maximum average allow for an additional 16 months of
standard credits for overcomplying with standard which takes effect in July 2012 lead time. The result is a gradual phase-
the 0.62 vol% gasoline benzene (July 2016 for small refiners). The in of the 0.62 vol% benzene standard
standard on a volume-weighted annual maximum average standard must be met beginning in June 2007 and ending in
average basis in 2011 and beyond (2015 based on actual refinery benzene levels, July 2016, as shown below in Figure
and beyond for small refiners).191 For essentially placing a cap on total credit VI.A–1. Without early credits, refineries
example, if in 2011 a refinery’s annual use. As discussed above in section
average benzene level is 0.52, its would be immediately constrained by
VI.A.1.d, we believe this is an the 0.62 vol% standard and likely
standard benzene credits would be appropriate strategy for addressing the forced to make their final investments
191 Standard credit generation begins in 2011, or
current disparity in gasoline benzene sooner (including those necessary to
2015 for small refiners, regardless of whether a
levels throughout the country. meet the 1.3 vol% maximum average
refinery pursues early compliance with the 0.62 Overall, the ABT program will allow
standard).
vol% standard under § 80.1334. for a more gradual phase-in of the 0.62
In addition to earlier benzene $608 million, providing about $300 gasoline produced during the 2011
reductions and a more gradual phase-in million in savings. In the absence of an calendar year. The credits needed
of the 0.62/1.3 vol% standards (as ABT program altogether, the total cost would be expressed in gallons of
shown above), the ABT program results incurred during the phase-in period benzene.
in a more cost-effective program for the would be $1.7 billion. As a result, the To enable enforcement of the
refining industry. Our modeling shows ABT program in its entirety could save program, the ABT program we are
that allowing refiners to average the refining industry up to $1.1 billion finalizing includes a limit on credit life
benzene levels nationwide to meet the in compliance costs from 2007–2015. (for both early and standard credits), a
0.62 vol% standard reduces ongoing For a more detailed discussion on limit on the number of times credits
compliance costs by about 50% from compliance costs, refer to section VIII.A. may be traded, and a prohibition on
0.51 to 0.27 cents per gallon (refer to For more information on how the cost outside parties taking ownership of
RIA Section 9.6.2). Our modeling savings associated with the ABT credits. We believe that these provisions
further shows that the early credit program were derived, refer to RIA are necessary to ensure that the full
program we are finalizing results in the Section 6.5.5.12. benzene reduction potential of the
lowest possible compliance costs during Under the ABT program, early and program is realized and that the credit
the phase-in period. Without an early standard benzene credits can be used trading program is equitably
credit program, the total amortized interchangeably towards compliance administered among all participants. In
capital and operating costs incurred by with the 0.62 vol% standard (within the the proposal, we acknowledged
the refining industry during the phase- realms of the credit life provisions concerns that credit use limitations
in period is estimated to be $905 million described below). Each credit might in some circumstances
(2003 dollars).192 With an early credit (expressed in gallons of benzene) can be unnecessarily hamper the credit market.
program, the total cost incurred during used on a one-for-one basis to offset the Specifically, we requested comment on
the same phase-in period is reduced to same volume of benzene produced/ ways that some of the provisions might
imported in gasoline above the be reduced or eliminated while still
192 ABT program cost calculations consider future
standard. For example, if in 2011 a maintaining an enforceable program (see
gasoline growth and the time value of money. The
gasoline growth rate from 2004–2012 was estimated
refinery’s annual average benzene level 71 FR 15872). Although we received
was 0.72, the number of benzene credits many comments on the proposed ABT
by the refinery cost model and future growth rates

were obtained from EIA’s AEO 2006. The costs and needed to comply would be determined program, we did not receive any
resulting cost savings estimated for the phase-in based on the margin of substantive comments indicating that
period were calculated based on compliance costs
presented in RIA Section 9.6.2 and adjusted back
undercompliance with the standard the proposed credit provisions would be
to 2007 to account for the time-value of money (0.72¥0.62 = 0.10 vol%) divided by 100 a significant burden on refiners or
ER26FE07.010</GPH>
based on a 7% average rate of return. and multiplied by the gallons of importers. Likewise, we did not receive
any substantive comments suggesting limited enough to satisfy enforcement flexibility while still maintaining
that the removal of such restrictions and trading concerns yet sufficiently enforceability as discussed in the
would greatly improve the efficiency of long to provide necessary program proposal.
the ABT program. For these reasons, we flexibility. However, we recognize that There are no prohibitions against
are finalizing such provisions for credit extending credit life might result in brokers facilitating the transfer of credits
use (described in more detail below). increased program flexibility. from one party to another. Any person
Accordingly, in the proposal, EPA can act as a credit broker, regardless of
i. Early Credit Life whether such person is a refiner or
sought comment on different ways to
Early credits must be used towards structure the program that would allow importer, as long as the title to the
compliance within three years of the for unlimited credit life. Specifically, credits is transferred directly from the
start of the program; otherwise they will we asked for comment on how generator to the user. This prohibition
expire and become invalid. In other unlimited credit life could be beneficial on outside parties taking ownership of
words, early credits generated or to the program and/or how the credits was promulgated in response to
obtained under the ABT program must associated increase in recordkeeping problems encountered during the
be applied to the 2011, 2012, or 2013 and enforcement issues could be unleaded gasoline program and has
compliance years. Similarly, early mitigated (see 71 FR 15872). Comments since appeared in subsequent fuels
credits generated/obtained and received provided no support for why rulemakings. To reevaluate potential
ultimately used by small refiners must unlimited credit life would improve stakeholder interest in removing this
be applied to the 2015, 2016, or 2017 program flexibility or how enforcement prohibition, EPA sought comment on
compliance years. The result is that no issues could be addressed. Furthermore, this provision in the proposal—
early credits may be used toward we did not receive any comments specifically, whether there were
compliance with the 2014 year. This suggesting that the proposed credit life potential benefits to allowing other
break in the early credit application provisions would significantly hamper parties to take ownership of credits and
period may help funnel surplus early trading. As such, we are finalizing the how such a program would be enforced
credits facing expiration to small credit life provisions as proposed. (see 71 FR 15876). We did not receive
refiners in need. any comments on this issue and
iv. Credit Trading Provisions continue to believe that our proposal is
ii. Standard Credit Life
It is possible that benzene credits appropriate. Therefore, to maintain
Standard credits must be used within could be generated by one party, maximum program enforceability and
five years from the year they were subsequently transferred or used in consistency with all of our other ABT
generated (regardless of when/if they are good faith by another, and later found programs for mobile sources and their
traded). For example, standard credits to have been calculated or created fuels, we are maintaining our existing
generated in 2011 would have to be improperly or otherwise determined to prohibition on outside parties taking
applied towards the 2012 through 2016 be invalid. If this occurs, as in past ownership of credits.
compliance year(s); otherwise they programs, both the seller and purchaser We are not imposing any geographic
would expire and become invalid. To will have to adjust their benzene restrictions on credit trading. Credits
encourage trading to small refiners, calculations to reflect the proper credits may be traded nationwide between
there is a credit life extension for and either party (or both) could be refiners or importers as well as within
standard credits traded to and determined to be in violation of the companies to meet the 0.62 vol%
ultimately used by small refiners. These standards and other requirements if the national average benzene standard. We
credits may be used towards compliance adjusted calculations demonstrate believe that restricting credit trading
for an additional two years, giving noncompliance with the 0.62 vol% could reduce refiners’ incentive to
standard credits a maximum seven-year standard. generate credits and hinder trading
life. For example, the same above- Credits must be transferred directly essential to this program. In addition,
mentioned standard credits generated in from the refiner or importer generating since there are no fuel-availability
2011, if traded and used by a small them to the party using them for issues associated with this rule (as
refiner, would have until 2018 to be compliance purposes. This ensures that opposed to the case of the ultra-low
applied towards compliance before they the parties purchasing them are better sulfur diesel program), there is no need
would expire. able to assess the likelihood that the to impose a geographic restriction.
credits are valid. An exception exists
iii. Consideration of Unlimited Credit where a credit generator transfers 3. Provisions for Small Refiners and
Life credits to a refiner or importer who Refiners Facing Hardship Situations
Since compliance with the gasoline inadvertently cannot use all the credits. In developing the MSAT2 program,
benzene standards is determined at the In this case, the credits can be we evaluated the need for and the
refinery or importer level, there are no transferred a second time to another ability of refiners to meet the proposed
enforceable downstream standards refiner or importer. After the second benzene standards as expeditiously as
associated with this rulemaking. Thus, trade, the credits must be used or possible. We continue to believe that it
it is critical that EPA be able to conduct terminated. In the proposal, we is feasible and necessary for the vast
enforcement at the refinery or importer requested comment on whether more majority of the program to be
level. Additionally, since EPA than two trades should be allowed— implemented in the time frame stated
enforcement activities are limited by the specifically, whether three or four trades above to achieve the air quality benefits
five-year statute of limitations in the were more appropriate and/or more as soon as possible. Further, we believe
Clean Air Act, allowing credit life beneficial to the program (see 71 FR that refineries owned by small
beyond five years poses serious 15876). We did not receive any businesses generally face unique
enforcement issues. As a result, we are comments providing analytical support hardship circumstances as compared to
finalizing three-year early credit life and for an additional number of trades. We larger refiners. We are also finalizing
five-year standard credit life provisions are finalizing a maximum of two trades, provisions for other refiners to allow
(as just described above). We believe consistent with other recent them to seek limited relief from
that these credit life provisions are rulemakings, in order to provide hardship situations on a case-by-case
basis. These provisions are discussed in To qualify as a small refiner, a refiner Act of 2005 (EPAct) and the American
detail below. must demonstrate that it meets all of the Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Jobs Act),
following criteria: (1) Produced gasoline which use definitions that are different
a. Provisions for Small Refiners
from crude during calendar year 2005; from the SBA definition, and from the
We proposed several special (2) had no more than 1,500 employees, criteria EPA is adopting in this rule. The
provisions for refiners that are approved based on the average number of EPAct focuses on refinery size rather
as small refiners (see VI.A.3.a.ii below). employees for all pay periods from than company size, and the Jobs Act
This is due to the fact that small refiners January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006; and, focuses on refinery-only employees
generally have greater difficulty than (3) had an average crude oil capacity rather than employees company-wide.
larger companies (including those large less than or equal to 155,000 barrels per EPA has established the criteria for
companies that own small-capacity calendar day (bpcd) for 2005. We are qualifying for small refiner relief based
refineries) in raising capital for likewise finalizing the provision on the Small Business Administration’s
investing in benzene control equipment. requiring refiners to apply for, and for (SBA) small business definition (per 13
Small refiners are also likely to have EPA to approve, a refiner’s status as a CFR 121.201).
more difficulty in competing for ‘‘small refiner’’. We do not believe that it would be
engineering resources and in completing Small refiner provisions are limited to appropriate to change the proposed
construction of the needed benzene refiners of gasoline from crude because small refiner employee count or crude
control (and any necessary octane they are the entities that bear the capacity limit criteria to fit the
recovery) equipment in time to meet the investment burden and the consequent definitions used in either of the two
required standards (see also the more economic hardship. Therefore, blenders, recent statutes. While Congress is able
detailed discussion at 71 FR 15877). importers, and additive component to establish special provisions for
As explained in the discussion of our producers are not eligible. For these subsets of the industry in programs like
compliance with the Regulatory same reasons, small refiner status is those mentioned above, EPA
Flexibility Act below in section XII.C limited to those refiners that owned and appropriately focuses, under SBREFA
and in the Final Regulatory Flexibility operated the refinery during the period and in this rulemaking, on
Analysis in Chapter 14 of the RIA, we from January 1, 2005 through December consideration of relief on those refining
carefully considered the impacts of the 31, 2005. This is consistent with the companies that we believe are likely to
regulations on small businesses. Most of approach taken in the Nonroad Diesel face serious economic hardship as a
our analysis of small business impacts rule, but we are revising the text to be result of compliance with the rule.
was performed as a part of the work of more clear on this issue. Under programs subject to the EPAct
the Small Business Advocacy Review In determining its crude oil capacity and Jobs Act definitions, relief would be
Panel (‘‘SBAR Panel’’, or ‘‘the Panel’’) and total number of employees, a refiner granted to refineries that are owned by
convened prior to the proposed rule, must include the crude oil capacity and larger companies, or companies that
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility number of employees of any subsidiary have additional sources of revenue
Act as amended by the Small Business companies, any parent companies, any (indicated by more employees and/or
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of subsidiaries of the parent companies, refining capacity), and also refineries
1996 (SBREFA). (The final report of the and any joint venture partners. As stated owned by foreign governments. These
Panel is available in the docket.) in the proposal, there was confusion in definitions do not focus as directly on
For the SBREFA process, EPA past rules regarding ownership. Thus, refiners which, due to their size, could
conducted outreach, fact-finding, and we proposed defining a parent company incur serious adverse economic impact
analysis of the potential impacts of our as any company (or companies) with from fuel regulations; and EPA
regulations on small businesses. Based controlling ownership interest, and a consequently is not adopting either of
on these factors and analyses by all subsidiary of a company as any them in this rule. Further, SBA
Panel members, the Panel concluded company in which the refiner or its established its small business definition
that small refiners in general would parent(s) has a controlling ownership to set apart those companies which are
likely experience a significant and interest (see 71 FR 15878). We requested most likely to be at an inherent
disproportionate financial hardship in comment on these clarifications in the economic disadvantage relative to larger
reaching the objectives of the MSAT2 proposal, but did not receive any businesses. We agree with the
program. We proposed many of the comments on these aspects of the small assessment that refiners of this size may
provisions recommended by the Panel refiner definition. Therefore, we are be afforded special consideration under
and we are finalizing these provisions in finalizing the definition of parent regulatory programs that have a
this action. company and related clarifying significant economic impact on them
provisions such that the employees and (insofar as is consistent with Clean Air
i. Definition of Small Refiner for crude capacity of all parent companies, Act requirements). We continue to
Purposes of the MSAT2 Small Refiner and all subsidiaries of all parent believe that it is most appropriate to
Provisions companies, must be taken into remain consistent with our previous
The criteria to qualify for small refiner consideration when evaluating fuels programs and retain the criteria to
status for this program are in most ways compliance with these criteria. qualify for small refiner status that have
the same as those required in the We received comments regarding the been used in the past (with some minor
Gasoline Sulfur and the Highway and small refiner employee count and crude clarifications to avoid confusion), since
Nonroad Diesel rules. However, there capacity criteria. These commenters these criteria best identify the class of
are some differences; as stated in our stated that they believed that EPA’s small refiner which may incur
more recent fuels programs, we believe criteria fail to provide relief to a small disproportionate regulatory impact
that it is necessary to limit relief to number of refiners whom they believe under the rule. We are therefore
those small entities most likely to are similar in many respects to those finalizing the small refiner qualification
experience adverse economic impacts refiners that will qualify as small under criteria that were proposed.
from fuel regulations. We are finalizing our criteria. The commenters pointed to As previously stated, our intent has
the following provisions for determining recent Congressionally enacted been, and continues to be, limiting the
small refiner status. programs, specifically the Energy Policy small refiner relief provisions to the
small subset of refiners that are likely to iii. Small Refiner Provisions maximum average benzene standard,
be seriously economically challenged as until July 1, 2016.
Delay in the Effective Date of the
a result of the new regulations. We Standards Early ABT Credit Generation
assume that new owners that purchase Opportunities
a refinery after December 31, 2005 do so We proposed that small refiners be
with full knowledge of the proposed allowed to postpone compliance with During the development of the
the 0.62 vol% benzene standard until proposal, we anticipated that many
regulation. Given that they have the
January 1, 2015, four years after the small refiners would likely find it more
resources available to purchase the
general program would begin (see 71 FR economical to purchase credits for
refinery assets, they are not in an 15878). At such time, approved small compliance than to comply by making
economic hardship situation. Therefore, refiners would be required to meet the capital investments to reduce gasoline
they should include compliance 0.62 vol% benzene standard. As stated benzene. However, some small refiners
planning as part of their purchase in the proposal, this additional lead indicated that they would make
decision. Similar to earlier fuel rules, time is justified because small refiners reductions to their gasoline benzene
we are finalizing a provision that a face disproportionate challenges, which levels to fully or partially meet the
refiner that restarts a refinery in the the additional lead time will help to proposed 0.62 vol% benzene standard.
future is eligible for small refiner status. mitigate. We requested comment on this Therefore, we proposed that small
In such cases, we will judge eligibility proposed provision, and we received refiners that take steps to meet the
under the employment and crude oil many comments supporting it and none benzene requirement before January 1,
capacity criteria based on the most opposing it. 2015 would be eligible to generate early
recent 12 consecutive months before the Normally a period of two to three credits (see 71 FR 15879). Current and
application, unless we conclude from years of lead time is required for a previous fuels programs allow for credit
data provided by the refiner that another refiner to secure necessary financing generation opportunities to encourage
period of time is more appropriate. and to carry out capital improvements early compliance, and extending this
However, unlike past fuel rules, this for benzene control (see VI.A.1.c.i. opportunity to small refiners, based on
will be limited to a company that owned above). Commenters specifically noted the small refiner effective date, is
that additional lead time would allow consistent with this objective. Small
the refinery at the time that it was shut
small refiners to more efficiently obtain refiners generally supported this
down. New purchasers will not be financing and contracts to carry out provision and we did not receive any
eligible for small refiner status for the necessary capital projects (or to obtain adverse comments on it.
reasons described above. Companies credits) with less direct competition Early credit generation opportunities
with refineries built after January 1, with non-small refiners for financing will provide more credits for the
2005 will also not be eligible for the and for contractors to carry out capital MSAT2 ABT program and will help to
small refiner hardship provisions, again improvements. Some commenters noted achieve the air quality goals of the
for the reasons given above. that they generally supported the MSAT2 program earlier than otherwise
Similar to previous fuel sulfur proposed program of a 0.62 vol% required. We are therefore finalizing an
programs, we also proposed that refiners benzene standard with no upper limit early credit generation provision for
owned and controlled by an Alaska and the proposed small refiner relief. small refiners. This is similar to the
Regional or Village Corporation While we did not propose an upper general early credit generation provision
organized under the Alaska Native limit, as discussed above in section that is provided to all refiners, except
Claims Settlement Act are also eligible VI.A.1, we have chosen to finalize a 1.3 that small refiners may generate early
vol% refinery maximum average. credits until January 1, 2015. As
for small refiner status, based only on The additional lead time also allows discussed in section VI.A.2.b.ii above,
the refiner’s employee count and crude EPA to make programmatic adjustments, refineries must reduce their 2004–2005
oil capacity (see 71 FR 15878). We did if necessary, before small refiners are benzene levels by at least ten percent to
not receive any comments on this required to comply with the benzene generate early credits. This ten percent
provision, and we are finalizing it in standards. As discussed below, we are threshold is being set to ensure that
this action. finalizing a requirement that EPA changes in gasoline benzene levels
ii. Small Refiner Status Application review the program in 2012, leaving a result from real refinery process
number of years to adjust the program improvements, not just normal
Requirements
before small refiners are required to fluctuations in benzene levels at a given
A refiner applying for status as a meet the benzene standards. The refinery (allowed under MSAT1). The
small refiner under this program is additional lead time for small refiners small refiner early credit generation
required to apply and provide EPA with will also provide these refiners with period will be from June 1, 2007 to
several types of information by three years of lead time following the December 31, 2014, after which
December 31, 2007. (The application review to take the review results into standard credits may be generated
requirements are summarized in section account in completing capital projects if indefinitely for those that overcomply
VI.B.2, below.) A refiner seeking small necessary or desirable to meet the with the 0.62 vol% annual average
benzene standards. Based on these standard.
refiner status under this program must
assessments, we are therefore finalizing
apply for small refiner status, regardless Extended Credit Life
a four-year period of additional lead
of whether the refiner had been
time for small refiners for compliance During the SBREFA process, many
approved or rejected for small refiner with the 0.62 vol% benzene standard, small refiners expressed interest in
status under another fuel program. As until January 1, 2015 (and small refiners relying upon credits as an ongoing
with applications for relief under other would continue to meet the compliance strategy for meeting the 0.62
rules, applications for small refiner requirements of MSAT1 until January 1, vol% gasoline benzene standard.
status under this rule that are later 2015). Further, we are finalizing an However, several small refiners voiced
found to contain false or inaccurate additional 4 years of lead time for small concerns surrounding the idea of relying
information will be void ab initio. refiners to comply with the 1.3 vol% on the credit market to avoid large
capital costs for benzene control. One of part to support this review, we are they are allowed to be sold to any other
their primary concerns was that credits requiring that refiners submit pre- refiners.
might not be available and/or traded to compliance reports, similar to those Further, we are finalizing an
small refiners in need. To increase the required under the highway and additional hardship provision to assist
certainty that credits would be nonroad diesel programs. In addition, small refiners. This hardship provision
available, we proposed a two-year credit the first compliance report that refiners would be for the case of a small refiner
life extension for credits generated by or submit (for the 2011 compliance period) for which compliance with the 0.62
traded to small refiners (see 71 FR will provide important information on vol% benzene standard would be
15879). Not only does this provision how many credits are actually being feasible only through the purchase of
encourage trading to small refiners, it generated or utilized during the first credits, but for whom purchase of
creates a viable outlet for credits facing year of the program. credits is not economically feasible.
expiration. Most small refiners The ABT pre-compliance reports will This hardship provision will only be
supported the proposed credit life be due annually on June 1 from 2008 available following the ABT program
provision. However, one refiner through 2011. The reports must include review, since EPA wishes to use the
suggested that we finalize unlimited projections of how many credits will be most accurate information to assess
credit life for credits traded to small generated and how many credits will credit availability and the working of
refiners. Although unlimited credit life need to be used at each refinery. The the credit market. The provision will
could have some perceived benefits, reports must also contain information only be afforded to a small refiner on a
overall it poses serious enforcement on a refiner’s plans (for each refinery) case-by-case basis, and must be based
problems. Therefore, for the reasons for compliance with the benzene on a showing by the refiner of the
described above in VI.A.2.c.iii, we are standard, including whether or not the practical or economic difficulty in
not finalizing unlimited credit life for refiner will utilize credits alone to acquiring credits for compliance with
credits traded to small refiners. Further, comply with the standard. Refiners the 0.62 vol% benzene standard (or
we are finalizing a slightly modified must also report any early credits that some other type of similar situation that
version of the proposed small refiner may have been transferred to another would render its compliance with the
extended credit life provision to better entity prior to January 1, 2011 and the standard not economically feasible). The
reflect its intended purpose. First, the sale price of those credits. relief offered under this hardship
two-year credit life extension pertains provision is a further delay, on an
In addition, ABT compliance reports
only to standard credits. The extension individual refinery basis, for up to two
will be due annually beginning
does not apply to early credits because years. Applications for relief under this
February 28, 2012. For any refiner
refiners already have an incentive to provision must meet the requirements
expecting to participate in the credit
trade early credits to small refiners. set out in § 80.1343. Following the two
trading program (under § 80.1275 and/or
Based on the nature of the early credit years, a small refiner will be allowed to
§ 80.1290, the report must include
life program (three-year life based on the request one or more extensions of the
information on actual credit generation
start of the program) and small refiners’ hardship until the refinery’s material
and usage. Refiners must also provide
delayed program start date (2015 as situation has changed. Finally, if a small
any updated information regarding
opposed to 2011), early credits traded to refiner is unable to comply with the 1.3
plans for compliance. EPA will publish
small refiners are already valid for an vol% refinery maximum average, it may
the results of these refinery compliance
additional four years. Second, the two- apply for relief from this standard under
reports and the results of our review as
year credit life extension applies only to the general hardship provisions
soon as possible to provide small
standard credits traded to small refiners. discussed below in section VI.A.3.b.
refiners with information on the ABT
There is no need to extend credit life for Applications for relief from the 1.3
credits generated by small refiners, program roughly three years prior to the
vol% refinery maximum average must
because in this event, the small refiner small refiner compliance date. EPA will
be received by January 1, 2013 and must
would already have the utmost certainty maintain the confidentiality of
meet the requirements set out in
that the credits would be available for information from individual refiners
§ 80.1335.
use. submitted in the reports. We will
present generalized summaries of the iv. The Effect of Financial and Other
ABT Program Review reports annually. Transactions on Small Refiner Status
We proposed that we would perform If, following the review, EPA finds and Small Refiner Relief Provisions
a review of the ABT program (and thus, that the credit market is not adequate to We believe that the effects of financial
the small refiner flexibility options) by support the small refiner provisions, we (and other) transactions are also relevant
2012, one year after the general program will revisit the provisions to determine to this action. We proposed these
begins (see 71 FR 15879). Coupled with whether or not they should be altered or provisions (see 71 FR 15880) and did
the small refiner four-year additional whether EPA can assist the credit not receive any comments on them. We
lead time provision, the ABT program market (and small refiners’ access to continue to believe that these provisions
review after the first year of the overall credits). For example, the Panel are appropriate and are finalizing the
program will provide small refiners suggested that EPA could consider provisions discussed below.
with roughly three years, after learning actions such as: (1) The ‘‘creation’’ of
the results of the review, to obtain credits by EPA that would be Large Refiner Purchasing a Small
financing and perform engineering and introduced into the credit market to Refiner’s Refinery
construction. We are committing to this ensure that there are additional credits One situation involves a ‘‘non-small’’
provision today. The review will take available for small refiners; (2) a refiner that wishes to purchase a
into account the number of early credits requirement that a percentage of all refinery owned by an approved small
generated industry-wide each year prior credits to be sold be set aside and only refiner. The small refiner may not have
to the start of the MSAT2 program, as made available for small refiners; and completed or even begun any necessary
well as the number of credits generated (3) a requirement that credits sold, or a planning to meet the MSAT2 standards,
and transferred during the first year of certain percentage of credits sold, be since it would likely have planned to
the overall benzene control program. In made available to small refiners before make use of the special small refiner
relief provisions. We assume that the refiner employee or crude capacity limit at a reasonable cost industry-wide.
refiner would have incorporated due to merger or acquisition will lose its However, as explained in the proposal
financial planning for compliance into small refiner status. This includes (71 FR 15880–15881), there could be
its purchase decision. However, we exceedances of the employee or crude circumstances when refiners would
recognize that a limited amount of time capacity criteria caused by acquisitions need hardship relief. We reiterate this
would be required for the physical of assets such as plants and equipment, conclusion here, especially given the 1.3
completion of the refinery upgrades for as well as acquisitions of business vol% refinery maximum average
compliance. (This situation would be entities. benzene standard in the final rule.
similar to that addressed in the Nonroad Our intent has been, and continues to These hardship provisions are available
Diesel program (96 FR 39051).) be, to limit the small refiner relief to all refiners, small and non-small,
We therefore believe that an provisions to a small subset of refiners with relief being available on a case-by-
appropriate period of lead time for that are most likely to be significantly case basis following a showing of
compliance with the MSAT2 economically challenged, as discussed certain requirements (as described in
requirements is warranted where a above. At the same time, it is also our the regulations at sections 80.1335 and
refiner purchases any refinery owned by intent to avoid stifling normal business 80.1336). We believe that the inclusion
a small refiner, whether by purchase of growth. Therefore, under this program, of hardship provisions for refiners is a
a refinery or purchase of the small a refiner will be disqualified from small necessary part of adopting the benzene
refiner entity. A refiner that acquires a refiner status if it exceeds the small requirements as the maximum reduction
refinery from an approved small refiner refiner criteria through its involvement achievable considering costs. Without a
will be provided with 30 additional in transactions such as being acquired mechanism to consider economic
months from the date of the completion by or merging with another entity, hardship to particular refineries, the
of the purchase transaction (or until the through the small refiner itself overall level of the standards would
end of the applicable small refiner relief purchasing another entity or assets from need to be higher to reflect the potential
interim period if it is within 30 months). another entity, or when it ceases to increased costs. Note, however, that we
During this 30-month period, process crude oil. However, if a small do not intend for these hardship waiver
production at the newly-acquired refiner grows through normal business provisions to encourage refiners to delay
refinery may remain at the benzene practices, and exceeds the employee or planning and investments they would
levels that applied to that refinery for crude capacity criteria without merger otherwise make.
the previous small refiner owner, and or acquisition, it will retain its small We are finalizing two forms of
all existing small refiner provisions and refiner status for this program. hardship relief: the first applies to
restrictions will also remain in place for In the sole case of a merger between situations of extreme and unusual
that refinery. At the end of this period, two approved MSAT2 small refiners, hardship, and the second applies to
the refiner must comply with the ‘‘non- both small refiners will be allowed to situations where unforeseen
small refiner’’ standards. There will not retain their small refiner status under circumstances prevent the refiner from
be an adverse environmental impact of this program. As in past fuel meeting the benzene standards. These
this provision, since the small refiner rulemakings, we believe the justification provisions are similar to the hardship
would already have been provided relief for continued small refiner relief for provisions that were proposed, but with
prior to the purchase and this provision each of the merged entities remains some modification because this final
would be no more generous. valid. Small refiner status for the two rule includes a 1.3 vol% refinery
We expect that in most (if not all) entities of the merger will not be maximum average benzene standard,
cases, the 30 months of additional lead affected, and hence the original which cannot be satisfied through the
time will be sufficient for the new compliance plans of the two refiners use of credits. While we sought
refiner-owner to accomplish the should not be impacted. Moreover, no comment in the proposal on such a
necessary planning and any needed environmental detriment will result standard, we did not propose it, and
refinery upgrades. If a refiner from the two small refiners maintaining therefore also did not propose any
nonetheless believes that the technical their small refiner status within the hardship relief specific to it.
characteristics of its plans would merged entity as they would have likely As discussed further below, the
require additional lead time, the refiner maintained their small refiner status application requirements and potential
may apply for additional time and EPA had the merger not occurred. We did not relief available differ somewhat
will consider such requests on a case- receive any comments on this provision. depending upon whether a refiner
by-case basis. Based on information We recognize that a small refiner that applies for hardship relief for the 0.62
provided in such an application and loses its small refiner status because of vol% benzene standard, the 1.3 vol%
other relevant information, EPA will a merger with, or acquisition of, a non- refinery maximum average, or both (a
decide whether additional time is small refiner would face the same type refiner may apply for relief from both
technically necessary and, if so, how of technical lead time concerns standards, but EPA will address them
much additional time would be discussed above for a non-small refiner independently). This is partly due to the
appropriate. As discussed above, in no acquiring a small refiner’s refinery. fact that a refiner may use credits to
case will compliance dates be extended Therefore, we are also providing the 30 meet the 0.62 vol% benzene standard,
beyond the time frame of the applicable months of additional lead time but credits cannot be used for
small refiner relief. described above for non-small refiners compliance with the 1.3 vol% refinery
purchasing a small refiner’s refinery. maximum average standard. EPA can
Small Refiner Losing Its Small Refiner impose appropriate conditions on any
Status Due To Merger or Acquisition b. Provisions for Refiners Facing hardship relief. Note also that any
Another type of potential transaction Hardship Situations hardship relief granted under this rule
involves a refiner with approved small The MSAT2 program includes a will be separate and apart from EPA’s
refiner status that later loses its small nationwide credit trading program of authority under the Energy Policy Act to
refiner status because it no longer meets indefinite duration for the 0.62 vol% issue temporary waivers for extreme and
the small refiner criteria. An approved annual average benzene standard, and unusual supply circumstances, under
small refiner that exceeds the small we expect that credits will be available amended section 211(c)(4). In general,
commenters stated that they supported Further, we may impose additional noncompliance less the amount
the inclusion of hardship provisions, conditions to ensure that the refiner was expended to make up the air quality
but they did not provide any specific making best efforts to comply with the detriment. These conditions are similar
comments regarding these provisions. benzene standards while offsetting any to those in the RFG, Tier 2 gasoline
loss of emission control from the sulfur, and the highway and nonroad
i. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme
program (due to extended deficit carry- diesel regulations, and are necessary
Hardship Circumstances
forward). and appropriate to ensure that any
We are finalizing the proposed For relief from the 1.3 vol% refinery waivers that are granted will be limited
hardship relief provisions based on a maximum average benzene standard in in scope. Such a request must be based
showing of extreme hardship extreme hardship circumstances, a on the refiner or importer’s inability to
circumstances, with some slight refiner must show that it could not meet produce compliant gasoline at the
modifications from the proposed the 1.3 vol% standard, despite its best affected facility due to extreme and
extreme hardship relief provision (see efforts, in the timeframe required due to unusual circumstances outside the
71 FR 15881). We did not receive extreme economic or technical refiner or importer’s control that could
comment on the proposed hardship problems. Extreme hardship relief from not have been avoided through the
provision. the 1.3 vol% refinery maximum average exercise of due diligence.
Extreme hardship circumstances standard is available for both non-small For relief from the 0.62 vol% benzene
could exist based on severe economic or and small refiners. This provision is standard based on unforeseen
physical lead time limitations of the intended to address unusual circumstances, the hardship request
refinery to comply with the benzene circumstances that should be apparent must also show that other avenues for
standards required by the program. now, or well before the standard takes mitigating the problem, such as the
Such extreme hardship may be due to effect. Thus, refiners must apply for purchase of credits toward compliance
an inability to physically comply in the such relief by January 1, 2008, or under the credit provisions, had been
time available, an inability to secure January 1, 2013 for small refiners. If pursued and yet were insufficient or
sufficient financing to comply in the granted, such hardship relief would unavailable. Hardship relief from that
time available, or an inability to comply consist of additional time to comply standard will allow a deficit to be
in the time available in a manner that with the 1.3 vol% refinery maximum carried forward for an extended, but
would not place the refiner at an average. The length of such relief and limited, time period (more than the one
extreme competitive disadvantage any conditions on that relief will be year allowed by the rule). The refiner or
sufficient to cause extreme economic granted on a case-by-case basis, importer must demonstrate that the
hardship. A refiner seeking such following an assessment of the refiner’s magnitude of the impact was so severe
hardship relief under this provision will hardship application, but could be for a as to require such an extension. EPA
have to demonstrate that these criteria longer period than for relief from the will determine an appropriate extended
were met. In addition to showing that 0.62 vol% standard since credits cannot deficit carry-forward time period based
unusual circumstances exist that impose be used for compliance with the 1.3 on the nature and degree of the
extreme hardship in meeting the vol% refinery maximum average. hardship, as presented by the refiner or
benzene standards, the refiner must importer in its hardship application,
show: (1) Circumstances exist that ii. Temporary Waivers Based on
and on our assessment of the credit
impose extreme hardship and Unforeseen Circumstances
market at that time.
significantly affect the ability to comply We are also finalizing the proposed For relief from the 1.3 vol% refinery
with the gasoline benzene standards by temporary hardship provision based on maximum average benzene standard
the applicable date(s); and (2) that it has unforeseen circumstances, which, at our based on unforeseen circumstances, the
made best efforts to comply with the discretion, will permit any refiner or hardship request must show that,
requirements. Refiners seeking importer to seek temporary relief from despite its best efforts, the refiner or
additional time must apply for hardship the benzene standards under certain importer cannot meet the standard in
relief, and the hardship applications rare circumstances (see 71 FR 15880). the timeframe required. Relief will be
must contain the information required This waiver provision is similar to granted on a case-by-case basis,
under § 80.1335. provisions in prior fuel regulations. It is following an assessment of the refiner’s
For relief from the 0.62 vol% benzene intended to provide refiners and hardship application.
standard in extreme hardship importers relief in unanticipated
circumstances, an aspect of the circumstances—such as a refinery fire or c. Option for Early Compliance in
demonstration of best efforts to comply a natural disaster—that cannot be Certain Circumstances
is that severe economic or physical lead reasonably foreseen now or in the near We are finalizing an option that
time limitations exist and that the future. We did not receive comments on would allow a refinery to begin
refinery has attempted, but was unable, this proposed hardship provision. compliance with the MSAT2 benzene
to procure sufficient credits. EPA will To receive hardship relief based on standards earlier than 2011 instead of
determine an appropriate extended unforeseen circumstances, a refiner or maintaining compliance with its
deficit carry-forward time period based importer will be required to show that: MSAT1 baseline. See 71 FR 15881 for
on the nature and degree of the (1) The waiver is in the public interest; the proposal’s discussion of this
hardship, as presented by the refiner in (2) the refiner/importer was not able to option.193 We are providing this option
its hardship application, and on our avoid the noncompliance; (3) the because refineries that meet the criteria
assessment of the credit market at that refiner/importer will meet the benzene discussed below are already providing
time. Moreover, because we expect the standard as expeditiously as possible; the market with very clean gasoline
credit program to be operating and (4) the refiner/importer will make up from a mobile source air toxics
robust, we believe that circumstances the air quality detriment associated with
193 The 1.3 vol% maximum average standard was
under which we would grant relief from the nonconforming gasoline, where
not discussed in the proposal vis-a-vis this early
the 0.62 vol% benzene standard will be practicable; and (5) the refiner/importer compliance option. However, any refinery approved
rare, and should we grant relief, it will pay to the U.S. Treasury an amount for this option should easily meet the 1.3 vol%
would likely be for less than three years. equal to the economic benefit of the standard.
perspective. In the proposal, we took example, a refinery that qualifies to sufficient benefit to offset much of the
comment on such an option, stating that adopt MSAT2 early for RFG will be increase in toxics emissions that results
eligibility for this option would be permitted to do so for RFG alone while from eliminating MTBE and replacing it
limited to those that have historically maintaining its MSAT1 baseline for its with ethanol. Finally, refineries should
better than average toxics performance, CG, or vice versa. have had MSAT1 baseline toxics
lower than average benzene and sulfur As mentioned in the proposal, the performance significantly cleaner than
levels, and a significant volume of criteria for eligibility for early the average in order to qualify. The
gasoline impacted by the phase-out of compliance are similar in concept to MSAT1 baseline toxics performance
MTBE use. However, in order to qualify those EPA has used in granting refinery- thresholds listed above were set based
for this option, a refinery must produce specific adjustments to MSAT1 on past experience with baseline
gasoline by processing crude and other baselines, that is, significantly cleaner adjustments where we found that only
intermediate feedstocks and not merely than the national average for toxics, those with significantly clean baselines
be a blender or importer of gasoline, as benzene, and sulfur, and relatively high (in addition to low benzene, low sulfur,
discussed later. MTBE use. We re-evaluated those and high MTBE use) would have to
A refinery that is approved for this criteria to determine the numerical reduce production in order to comply
option would comply with the 0.62 criteria that a refinery would have to with their MSAT1 standard in the face
vol% annual average and 1.3 vol% meet in order to qualify for this option. of MTBE bans. Thus, we are limiting
maximum average benzene standards Specifically, a refinery must at this provision to those with relatively
and would not be required to continue minimum meet the following criteria: clean baselines as our goal is preventing
to comply with its applicable toxics —2003 annual average benzene level the perverse outcome that refineries
performance requirements, i.e., its less than or equal to 0.62 vol% with cleaner gasoline may be forced to
MSAT1 baseline and its anti-dumping —2003 annual average MTBE use reduce their production volume only to
or RFG toxics performance standards. greater than 6.0 vol% have it be made up by refineries with
We believe this option is appropriate —2003 annual average sulfur level less dirtier baselines. The threshold helps
because if qualifying refineries had to than 140 ppm ensure that only those refineries in
continue to comply with MSAT1 194 —MSAT1 RFG baseline greater than situations where such an outcome could
until 2011, they would likely be forced 30.0% reduction or CG less than 80 realistically have otherwise occurred are
to reduce gasoline output in order to mg/mile permitted to exercise this option.
comply, while other refineries or Refineries that do not fulfill all of the
importers, most likely with less clean Many refineries can reduce benzene
threshold requirements may have to
MSAT1 baselines, would provide the and sulfur levels to reduce toxics
take further refinery processing-related
replacement gasoline. The result would emissions. However, those that used a
actions to meet their MSAT1 baseline,
be less supply of these refineries’ significant amount of MTBE and already
but are unlikely to have to reduce
cleaner gasoline and more supply of fuel have low benzene and sulfur levels also production and/or have that production
with higher toxics emissions, leading to have fairly stringent toxics emissions replaced by someone with a less clean
a net detrimental effect on overall performance standards. As a result, they standard.
MSAT emissions in the surrounding may have little ability to further reduce In addition to meeting the screening
region. sulfur or benzene or make other refinery criteria mentioned, a refinery would
We chose 2003 as the period for changes to offset the impact of still have to apply to EPA to use this
determining eligibility for this option switching from MTBE to ethanol. compliance option and would need to
because State MTBE bans began taking Refineries that are not in this situation demonstrate that it cannot further
effect in 2004. Refiners who had used are not so constrained. We believe that reduce its benzene or sulfur levels, nor
MTBE generally now use ethanol as the the criteria above are an appropriate make other refinery processing changes
replacement source for oxygen. screening to delineate between these in order to maintain compliance with its
Although RFG no longer has an oxygen two groups. MSAT1 baseline due to the impact of
requirement 195, MSAT1 baselines were To qualify for this provision we switching from MTBE to ethanol.
established when that requirement was believe it is appropriate for a refinery to Details of the application requirements
still in place. Even some CG producers have used at least 6.0 vol% MTBE in and approval process are provided in
used significant amounts of MTBE as their gasoline in their 2003 baseline; section 80.1334 of the regulations. We
reflected in their MSAT1 baselines. when the oxygen provided by this estimate that less than 10 refineries may
Ethanol provides less toxics reduction amount of MTBE is provided instead by meet the screening criteria and thus
benefits than MTBE, and so the refinery ethanol, a substantial loss in toxics potentially qualify for this option based
must take other actions in order to performance results. A benzene average on our analysis of their 2003 data and
continue to meet its MSAT1 standard. of less than or equal to the 0.62 vol% MSAT1 baselines. Note that this early
Consequently, while MSAT1 baseline standard is appropriate because if a compliance option will apply only to
adjustments in the past were limited to refinery’s average benzene is higher, the type of gasoline that qualifies—RFG
RFG, it may be possible for a refinery to they would have to further reduce or CG—not to the refinery’s total pool.
also qualify to adopt MSAT2 early for benzene to comply with the MSAT2 In 2011, the MSAT2 benzene standards
its CG pool. Both qualification and the standard early. However, to qualify for will apply to the refinery’s total
ability to adopt MSAT2 are allowed this provision to switch to MSAT2 applicable gasoline pool.
separately for RFG and CG. For early, a refinery should have no viable We are limiting this compliance
options for reducing benzene further to option to refineries that produce
194 While refineries are subject to MSAT1 and continue to meet their MSAT1 baseline. gasoline by processing crude and
anti-dumping or RFG toxics performance We chose the 140 ppm sulfur level intermediate feedstocks through refinery
requirements depending on the gasoline type (CG because we found that even for processing equipment. Thus, this option
and/or RFG) they produce, in almost all cases, the refineries with significant MTBE use (in is not available to gasoline blenders and
MSAT1 standard is more stringent than the
corresponding anti-dumping or RFG toxics the 6–13 vol% range), the sulfur importers. While gasoline blenders and
standard. reductions brought about by the Tier 2 importers may have gasoline with
195 71 FR 26691, May 8, 2006. gasoline sulfur standard provided significantly cleaner than average toxics
performance, benzene and sulfur levels, to generate early credits. However, the compliance determination. Gasoline
and may have used large amounts of criteria for generating early credits produced for use in California is not
MTBE, they have more options in the require that the refinery reduce benzene included. Gasoline produced for use in
marketplace for obtaining qualifying by 10% below its 2004–2005 baseline the American territories—Guam,
gasoline and gasoline blending benzene level. The early compliance Northern Mariana Islands, American
components. Refineries have provision is predicated on the fact that Samoa—is not subject to the benzene
comparatively less ability to adjust their an approved refinery has almost no standard. Gasoline produced for use in
refining operations, without ability to reduce benzene in order to these areas is currently exempt from the
significantly reducing volume, in order maintain compliance with its MSAT1 MSAT1 standards, and for the same
to accommodate the change from MTBE baseline. If such a refinery were able to reasons we discussed in the MSAT1
to ethanol. further reduce benzene, it would negate final rule 197, including distance from
Few comments were received its need for early compliance with the gasoline producers, low gasoline use,
regarding this provision. All MSAT2 benzene standard. Therefore, and distinct environmental conditions,
commenters supported the provision. we are finalizing this early compliance we are exempting gasoline produced for
Many of those suggested that it be option with this limitation as proposed. these areas from this rule.
available to any refinery. We continue to Oxygenate and butane blenders are
believe that this provision should apply B. How Will the Gasoline Benzene not subject to the benzene standard
only to those entities that meet the Standard Be Implemented? unless they add other gasoline blending
criteria above. Those that do not meet This section summarizes the main components beyond oxygenates and
the criteria have the ability to further implementation provisions in the butane. Similarly, transmix processors
adjust their benzene and sulfur content regulations and provides additional are not subject to the benzene standard.
values to be able to comply with their clarification in a few cases. We proposed that transmix processors
MSAT1 baselines. If this provision was 1. General Provisions would be subject to the benzene
available to all refineries, it could result standard if they add gasoline blending
in an overall nationwide backsliding on Compliance with the 0.62 vol% components to the gasoline produced
MSAT1. The intent of this provision is annual average and 1.3 vol% maximum from transmix (see 71 FR 15891). One
to provide appropriate relief to a limited average benzene standards is commenter suggested that only the
number of entities that have unique determined over a refiner’s or importer’s blending component added to the
challenges, while at the same time total gasoline pool, RFG and gasoline produced from transmix should
ensuring that the net result is cleaner conventional gasoline (CG) combined. be subject to the standard because the
gasoline in the marketplace than would For the 0.62 vol% standard, the first transmix processor has no control over
otherwise be there. annual compliance period for non-small the benzene level in the gasoline
EPA also took comment on when refiners and for importers is 2011. For produced from transmix, and the
entities that are approved for this option the 1.3 vol% standard, the first benzene in the gasoline produced from
should be allowed to begin compliance compliance period for these entities is transmix would have already been
with the MSAT2 benzene standards. We July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013. accounted for by another entity. We
received comment supporting allowing Thereafter, compliance is determined agree with this comment, and have
such compliance for the entire calendar annually. Small refiners will comply modified the final rule accordingly.
year 2007, even though the rule will not with the 0.62 vol% on an annual basis As discussed earlier, this benzene
be final until partway into that year. beginning in 2015. Compliance with the program has both an early credit
Other suggested options include the 1.3 vol% maximum average standard generation period and a standard credit
next calendar year, and partial year commences for small refiners on July 1, generation period that begins when the
compliance for 2007. This latter option 2016. For small refiners, the first program takes effect. Early credits may
would likely be unworkable under compliance period for the 1.3 vol% be generated from January 1, 2007
MSAT1 due to differences between standard is July 1, 2016 through through December 31, 2010 by refineries
summer and winter MSAT performance. December 31, 2017. Thereafter, with approved benzene baselines. For
Thus, we decided that refineries that are compliance is determined annually. small refiners, early credit generation
approved for this option will be allowed Compliance with the benzene extends through December 31, 2014 for
to comply with the MSAT2 benzene standards is achieved separately for their refineries with approved benzene
standard for the entire 2007 period. We each refinery of a refiner.196 For an baselines. Benzene baselines are based
have also decided against requiring importer, compliance is achieved over on a refinery’s 2004–2005 average
approved refineries to wait until the its total volume of imports, regardless of benzene content, and refiners can begin
2008 compliance period because we point of entry. As discussed in the applying for benzene baselines as early
want to ensure that gasoline production proposal, gasoline produced by a foreign as March 1, 2007. Although there is no
from these refineries is maximized, and refiner is included in the compliance single cut-off date for applying for a
waiting until 2008 would not achieve calculation of the importer of that baseline, refiners planning to generate
that goal. Because this is an optional gasoline, with certain exceptions for early credits must submit individual
program for those that qualify, approved early credit generation and small foreign refinery baseline applications at least 60
refiners may choose to comply with refiners. days prior to beginning credit
MSAT2 beginning in 2007, or beginning Finished gasoline and gasoline generation at that refinery.
in 2008. blendstock that becomes finished As explained earlier, in order to
As a final note on this subject, we also gasoline solely upon the addition of generate early credits, a refinery’s
proposed that refineries that meet the oxygenate are included in the annual average benzene level must be at
criteria and are approved for early least 10 percent lower than its baseline
compliance with the MSAT2 benzene 196 Aggregation of facilities for compliance is not
benzene level, and the refinery must
standards would not be allowed to allowed under this benzene control program. show that its low benzene levels result,
However, as pointed out in the proposal, the ABT
generate early benzene credits (see 71 program’s credit generation and transfer provisions in part, from operational changes and/
FR 15881). A few commenters thought provide compliance flexibility similar to that
that such refineries should be allowed provided by aggregation. 197 66 FR 17253, March 29, 2001.
or improvements in benzene control The first averaging period for the 1.3 refiner seeking small refiner status
technology since the baseline period. vol% standard for non-small refiners under this program would need to apply
Foreign refiners who sent gasoline to the and importers begins July 1, 2012 and to EPA for that status, regardless of
U.S. during 2004–2005 under their ends December 31, 2013, an 18-month whether or not the refiner had been
foreign refiner baseline may generate period. Similarly, the first averaging approved for small refiner status under
early credits if they are able to establish period for the 1.3 vol% standard for another fuel program. As with
a benzene baseline and agree to comply small refiners begins July 1, 2016 and applications for relief under other rules,
with other requirements that help to ends December 31, 2017. Credits may applications for small refiner status
ensure enforcement of the regulation at not be used to achieve compliance with under this rule that are later found to
the foreign refinery. Early credits the 1.3 vol% standard at any time. A contain false or inaccurate information
generated or obtained under the ABT refinery must make capital would be void ab initio. Requirements
program must be used towards improvements and/or operational or for small refiner status applications
compliance within three years of the blending practice changes such that it include:
start of the program; otherwise they will achieves an actual average benzene level —The total crude oil capacity as
expire and become invalid. In other of no greater than 1.3 vol% for the reported to the Energy Information
words, early credits must be applied to initial (18-month) compliance period, Administration (EIA) of the U.S.
the 2011, 2012, or 2013 compliance and each annual compliance period Department of Energy (DOE) for the
years. In the case of small refiners, early thereafter. (An importer must bring in most recent 12 months of operation.
credits must be applied to the 2015, gasoline with benzene levels that will This would include the capacity of all
2016, or 2017 compliance years. average to 1.3 vol% or less during these
Standard credits may be generated by refineries controlled by a refiner and
same compliance periods.) Continuing by all subsidiaries and parent
refiners and importers beginning with from our previous example, if at the end
the 2011 compliance period. Standard companies and their subsidiaries. We
of 2012, the refinery’s average benzene will presume that the information
credits may be generated by small level is 1.45 vol%, no further action is
refiners beginning with the 2015 submitted to EIA is correct. In cases
yet needed to meet the 1.3 vol% where a company disagreed with this
compliance period. For refiners, credits standard. However, the refinery must
are generated on a refinery-by-refinery information, the company could
make capital improvements and/or petition EPA with appropriate data to
basis for each facility. For importers, operational or blending practice changes
credits are generated over the total correct the record when the company
such that it achieves an actual average submitted its application for small
volume imported, regardless of point of benzene level of no greater than 1.3
entry. Foreign refiners are not allowed refiner status. EPA could accept such
vol% for the 18-month period July 1, alternate data at its discretion.
to generate standard credits because 2012-December 31, 2013. We will
compliance for their gasoline is the assume for this example that the —The name and address of each
responsibility of the importer. In order refinery has a 1.0 vol% average benzene location where employees worked
to generate standard credits, a refinery’s level at the end of 2013. The refinery from January 1, 2005 through
or importer’s annual average benzene can then use credits to meet the 0.62 December 31, 2005; and the average
level must be less than 0.62 vol%. vol% standard. number of employees at each location
Standard credits are valid for five years Lack of compliance with the 0.62 during this time period. This must
from the year they were generated. A vol% standard creates a deficit that may include the employees of the refiner
credit life extension exists for standard be carried over to the next year’s and all subsidiaries and parent
credits traded to and ultimately used by compliance determination. Lack of companies and their subsidiaries.
small refiners. These credits may be compliance with the 0.62 vol% standard —In the case of a refiner who
used towards compliance for an could occur for a number of reasons, for reactivated a refinery that was
additional two years, giving standard example, a refinery or importer may shutdown or non-operational between
credits a maximum seven-year life. choose not to use (buy) sufficient January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2006,
Compliance with the 0.62 vol% offsetting credits. However, in the next the name and address of each location
standard is based on the annual average year, the refinery or importer must make where employees worked since the
benzene content of the refinery’s or refiner reactivated the refinery and
up the deficit (through credit use and/
importer’s gasoline production or the average number of employees at
or refining or import improvements) and
importation, any credits used, and any each location for each calendar year
be in compliance with the 0.62 vol%
compliance deficit carried forward from since the refiner reactivated the
standard.198 There is no deficit carry-
the previous year. Credits may be used refinery.
forward provision associated with the
in any quantity and combination (i.e., —The type of business activities carried
1.3 vol% standard. If a refinery or
early or standard credits) to achieve out at each location.
importer is out of compliance with the
compliance with the 0.62 vol% benzene
1.3 vol% standard, it is subject to —The small refiner option(s) the refiner
standard beginning with the first
enforcement action immediately. intends to use for each refinery.
compliance period in 2011, or 2015 for
approved small refiners. For the 2011 2. Small Refiner Status Application —Contact information for a corporate
and 2012 compliance periods, credits Requirements contact person, including: name,
may be used in any amount, and from mailing address, phone and fax
A refiner applying for status as a numbers, e-mail address.
any starting average benzene level. For small refiner under this program is
example, if the refinery’s annual average —A letter signed by the president, chief
required to apply to and to provide EPA
benzene level at the end of 2011 is 1.89 operating officer, or chief executive
with several types of information by
vol%, it may use credits to meet the officer of the company (or a designee)
December 31, 2007. The application

0.62 vol% standard for that compliance stating that the information contained
requirements are summarized below. A
period. If its average benzene level at in the application was true to the best
the end of 2012 is 1.45 vol%, it may 198 An extension of the period of deficit carryover of his/her knowledge and that the
likewise use credits to meet the 0.62 may be allowed in certain hardship situations, as company owned the refinery as of
vol% standard for that period. discussed in section A.3. January 1, 2007.
3. Administrative and Enforcement benzene levels are originally measured. Several commenters suggested that
Provisions With every-batch benzene testing of all the RFG NOX retail survey be
Most of the administrative and gasoline, we will be able to better discontinued after 2006, and that the
enforcement provisions are similar to discern if high benzene batches RFG toxics retail survey be discontinued
those in effect for other gasoline originated at the refinery, or after 2010. The surveys use fuel
programs, as discussed in the proposal. downstream. With composite testing, it parameters of RFG sampled from retail
The discussion below highlights those would be significantly more difficult to stations to estimate VOC, NOX, and
areas that we wish to clarify and those determine the source of the high toxics emissions. There are also fuel
that received significant comment. benzene streams. Thus, we are finalizing benzene and oxygen content surveys. If
every-batch benzene testing for all a survey is ‘‘failed’’, gasoline sent to the
a. Sampling/Testing gasoline. area must meet a more stringent
Because compliance with this b. Recordkeeping/Reporting standard. Because we are finalizing, as
program and with the gasoline sulfur proposed, provisions that make the
program will become the compliance This program will require some new
records to be kept, such as the benzene gasoline sulfur program the sole
mechanism for certain RFG and anti- regulatory mechanism used to
dumping requirements, some reporting baseline, credits generated, and credit
transactions, and new reports to be filed implement gasoline NOX requirements,
simplifications will occur, as described and the benzene control program the
below. However, sampling, testing, and (e.g., benzene pre-compliance reports).
However, because the current sole regulatory mechanism used to
reporting of all of the current fuel implement the toxics requirements of
parameters will continue to be required. regulations for RFG and anti-dumping
toxics controls and MSAT1 controls are RFG 200 and anti-dumping, we agree that
It is important to continue to monitor the NOX and toxics surveys are no
how refiners continue to achieve the being removed, certain recordkeeping
and reporting requirements will be longer needed. A discussion of the
toxics control required of RFG and CG
reduced or eliminated, as detailed in the origin of the survey program, and how
through fuel composition changes, and
regulations. Because the program will the toxics and NOX requirements for CG
how other toxics emissions may be
affected by this MSAT2 benzene rule. not be fully implemented until small and RFG will be met under the MSAT2
Continued collection of all of the fuel refiners are also subject to both the 0.62 program is provided in Chapter 6.13 of
parameters will facilitate future toxics vol% and the 1.3 vol% benzene the RIA for this rulemaking.
evaluation activities. standards, the process of streamlining
C. How Will the Program Relate to Other
We proposed to require every-batch the reporting forms will not be complete
Fuel-Related Toxics Programs?
sampling for CG under this program, but until that time.
indicated that results would not have to As mentioned above, in order to In the proposal we presented an
be available before the batch leaves the provide an early indication of the credit analysis that examined quantitatively
refinery (see 71 FR 15893). RFG already market for refiners and importers how the fuel performance under the
is every-batch tested, and the results planning on relying upon benzene new gasoline content standard and
must be available before the batch credits as a compliance strategy in 2011 vehicle emissions standard as proposed
leaves the refinery because of RFG’s 1.3 and beyond, we are requiring refiners to would compare to current toxics
vol% per gallon cap. Several submit pre-compliance reports to us in performance requirements and to
commenters stated that every-batch the years leading up to start of the performance as modified by the Energy
testing for CG was unnecessary because program. Pre-compliance reporting has Policy Act of 2005. This analysis
the benzene standard is an average proven to be an indispensable
suggested that the fuel standard alone
standard, and that it would be costly, mechanism in implementing the
would exceed previous performance for
especially for small refiners. These gasoline and diesel sulfur programs, and
RFG, and significantly exceed it for CG.
commenters requested that continued we expect this to be the case in this
composite sampling be allowed for program as well. Refiners are required to We have updated the results of this
conventional gasoline.199 Nevertheless, submit annual pre-compliance reports analysis, using better estimates of future
we are concerned about potential on June 1st of every year beginning in ethanol use developed for the RFS final
downstream benzene addition. 2008 and continuing through 2011 rulemaking, as well as the updated
Requiring every-batch testing for CG (2015 for small refiners). The pre- benzene projections from the refinery-
will allow for closer monitoring of the compliance reports must contain by-refinery analysis done for this final
movement of high benzene streams. In engineering and construction plans as rulemaking. As shown in Table VI.C–1,
this program, we are relying on there well as actual/projected gasoline these updated analyses continue to
being no significant incentive to dump production levels, actual/projected support the conclusion that the MSAT2
benzene-rich streams into gasoline gasoline benzene levels, and actual/ fuel program will provide greater toxics
downstream of the refinery where the projected credit generation and use. reductions for both CG and RFG.
TABLE VI.C–1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOXICS PERFORMANCE OF LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES IN MG/MI UNDER
CURRENT AND PROJECTED SCENARIOS.a
RFG by PADD CG by PADD
Fleet
Regulatory scenario year I II III I II III IV V
MSAT1 Baseline b (1998–2000) ....................................... 2002 112 129 97 114 145 107 145 156
EPAct Baseline b (RFG: 2001–2002) ............................... 2002 104 121 87 114 145 107 145 156
EPAct Baseline, 2011 c .................................................... 2011 67 78 52 62 83 54 82 88
MSAT2 program, 2011 c (Fuel standard only) ................. 2011 66 76 52 60 77 52 74 81
199 Section 80.101(i). 200 The 1.3 vol% per gallon cap on RFG benzene
remains.
TABLE VI.C–1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL TOXICS PERFORMANCE OF LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES IN MG/MI UNDER
CURRENT AND PROJECTED SCENARIOS.a—Continued
RFG by PADD CG by PADD
Fleet
Regulatory scenario year I II III I II III IV V
MSAT2 program, 2011 c (Fuel + vehicle standards) ....... 2011 64 72 48 56 74 47 70 78

MSAT2 program, 2025 c (Fuel + vehicle standards) ....... 2025 39 45 31 36 45 31 44 48
a Total toxics performance for this analysis includes overall emissions of 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene and formaldehyde as
calculated by MOBILE6.2. Although POM appears in the Complex Model, it is not included here. However, it contributes a small and relatively
constant mass to the total toxics figure (∼4%), and therefore doesn’t make a significant difference in the comparisons. Toxics performance fig-
ures here are for representative cities in each PADD, and therefore some geographical variation is not captured here.
b Baseline figures generated in this analysis were calculated differently from the regulatory baselines determined as part of the MSAT1 pro-
gram, and are only intended to be a point of comparison for future year cases.
c Future year scenarios include (in addition to the MSAT2 standards, where stated) effects of the Tier 2 vehicle and gasoline sulfur standards,
and vehicle fleet turnover with time, as well as estimated effects of the renewable fuels standard and the phase-out of ether blending as devel-
oped in the RFS rulemaking.
D. How Does This Program Satisfy the statutory obligation to promulgate the Manufacturers must begin meeting the
Statutory Requirements of Clean Air Act most stringent standard achievable new requirements on January 1, 2009.
Section 202(l)(2)? considering cost and other factors along These new emissions control
As discussed earlier in this section, with technological feasibility. requirements will reduce HC emissions
we have concluded that the most Furthermore, as discussed in section from uncontrolled gasoline containers
effective and appropriate program for VI.A, less stringent standards would not by about 75%, including reducing
MSAT emission reduction from gasoline accomplish several important spillage losses. The final rule also
is a benzene control program. We are programmatic objectives, such as includes new certification and
finalizing, as proposed, an average avoiding the triggering of the provisions compliance requirements that will help
benzene content standard of 0.62 vol% in the 2005 EPAct to adjust the MSAT1 ensure that the containers achieve
baseline for RFG. We have also emissions control in use over the life of
along with a specially-designed ABT
considered energy implications of the the container. The standards and
program, as well as a maximum average
proposed program, as well as noise and
annual standard of 1.3 vol%. In sections program requirements we are finalizing
safety, and we believe that the MSAT2
VI.A.1.c and d above, we summarize our are very similar to those adopted by
program will have very little impact on
evaluation of the feasibility of the California in 2005, so that
any of these factors (although, as
program, and in section VIII.A we manufacturers will be able to sell 50-
explained in section VI.A above, some
summarize our evaluation of the costs of state products. Overall, commenters
of the alternative toxic control strategies
the program. The analyses supporting were very supportive of the proposed
urged by commenters could have
our conclusions in these sections are new emissions control program for
adverse energy supply implications).
discussed in detail in Chapters 6 and 9 Analyses supporting these conclusions portable fuel containers.
of the RIA. are also found in Chapter 9 of the RIA.
Taking all of this information into We are establishing the portable fuel
We carefully considered lead time in container (PFC) standards and
account, we believe that a more
establishing the stringency and timing emissions control requirements under
stringent program would not be
of the proposed program (see section section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act,
achievable, taking costs into VI.A above).
consideration. As we have discussed, which directs EPA to study, list, and
We have carefully reviewed the regulate consumer and commercial
making the 0.62 vol% standard more technological feasibility (see section
stringent would require more refiners to products that are significant sources of
VI.A.1.c.i above and chapter 6 of the
install the more expensive benzene VOC emissions. In 1995, after
RIA) and costs of this program. Based on
control equipment, with very little conducting a study and submitting a
the considerations outlined in this
incremental decrease in benzene Report to Congress on VOC emissions
section VI, we conclude that this
emissions. Also, we have shown that program meets the requirements of from consumer and commercial
refinery costs increase very rapidly as section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act, products, EPA published an initial list
the level of the average standard is made reflecting ‘‘the greatest degree of of product categories to be regulated
more stringent, especially for certain emission reduction achievable through under section 183(e). Based on criteria
individual technologically-challenged the application of technology which is that we established pursuant to section
refineries. We discuss the costs of this available, taking into consideration 183(e)(2)(B), we listed for regulation
program in detail in section VIII.A of * * * the availability and costs of the those consumer and commercial
this preamble and in Chapter 9 of the technology, and noise, energy, and products that we considered at the time
RIA. Moreover, the 0.62 vol% standard safety factors, and lead time.’’ to be significant contributors to the
achieves significant reductions in ozone nonattainment problem, but we
benzene levels nationwide, and VII. Portable Fuel Containers
did not include PFC emissions.201 After
achieves significant reductions in each As described in this section, we are analyzing the emissions inventory
PADD. The 1.3 vol% annual average adopting new HC emissions standards impacts of these containers, we
standard makes it more certain that the for portable gasoline containers (gas
published a Federal Register notice that

predicted emission reductions will in cans) essentially as proposed. We are added PFCs to the list of consumer
fact occur. also finalizing the same requirements
Conversely, we believe that a less for portable diesel and kerosene 201 60 FR 15264 ‘‘Consumer and Commercial
stringent national average standard than containers, containers which could Products: Schedule for Regulation,’’ March 23,
0.62 vol% would not satisfy our easily be used for gasoline. 1995.
products to be regulated.202 We is both economically and the concern that they would be
requested comment on the data technologically feasible. To comply purchased as substitutes for gasoline
underlying the listing but did not with California’s program, gas can containers. We received only supportive
receive any comments.203 We continue manufacturers have developed gas cans comments for including these
to believe that the standards we with low VOC emissions at a reasonable containers in the program. Several states
proposed and are finalizing for fuel cost (see section XIII. for costs). Testing and state organizations urged EPA to
containers represent ‘‘best available of cans designed to meet CARB include these containers in the EPA
controls’’ as required by section standards has shown the new standards program, viewing their omission as a
183(e)(3)(A). Determination of the ‘‘best to be technologically feasible. When significant difference between the
available controls’’ requires EPA to tested over cycles very similar to those California program and EPA’s proposed
determine the degree of reduction we are adopting, emissions from these program.
achievable through use of the most cans have been in the range of 0.2–0.3 We recognize that using uncontrolled
effective control measures (which g/gal/day.205 These cans have been diesel and kerosene containers as a
includes chemical reformulation, and produced with permeation barriers substitute for gasoline containers would
other measures) after considering representing a high level of control (over result in a loss of emissions reductions.
technological and economic feasibility, 90 percent reductions) and with auto- California collected limited survey data
as well as health, energy, and closing spouts, which are technologies which indicated that about 60 percent of
environmental impacts.204 that represent best available controls for kerosene containers were being used for
gas cans. Establishing the standard at gasoline. In addition, keeping gasoline
A. What Are the New HC Emissions in containers marked for other fuels
0.3 g/gal/day will require the use of best
Standards for PFCs? could lead to misfueling of equipment
available technologies. As discussed in
1. Description of Emissions Standard the proposal, we are finalizing a level at and possible safety issues. Finally, not
the upper end of the tested performance including these containers would likely
We are finalizing as proposed a be viewed as a gap in EPA’s program,
performance-based standard of 0.3 range to account for product
performance variability (see 71 FR resulting in states adopting or retaining
grams per gallon per day (g/gal/day) of their own emissions control program for
HC to control evaporative and 15896). In addition, we believe that
current best designs can achieve these PFCs. This would hamper the ability of
permeation losses. The standard will be manufacturers to have a 50-state
measured based on the emissions from levels, so we do not believe that the
standard forecloses use of any of the product line. For these reasons, we are
the container over a diurnal test cycle. including diesel and kerosene
The cans will be tested as a system with existing performing product designs.
Our detailed feasibility analysis is containers in the program.
their spouts attached. Manufacturers We are also clarifying that utility jugs
will test the containers by placing them provided in the Regulatory Impact
are considered portable gasoline
in an environmental chamber which Analysis. We did not receive any
containers and therefore are subject to
simulates summertime ambient comments on our feasibility analysis.
the program. They are designed and
temperature conditions and cycling the In addition to considering
marketed for use with gasoline, often to
containers through the 24-hour technological and economic feasibility,
fuel recreational equipment such as all-
temperature profile (72–96 °F), as section 183(e)(1)(A) requires us to
terrain vehicles and personal watercraft.
discussed below. The test procedures, consider ‘‘health, environmental, and
This interpretation is consistent with
which are described in more detail energy impacts’’ in assessing best
the scope of the California program.
below, ensure that containers meet the available controls. Environmental and
California recently issued a clarification
emissions standard over a range of in- health impacts are discussed in section that these containers are covered by
use conditions such as different III. Moreover, control of spillage from their program, after some utility jug
temperatures, different fuels, and taking containers may reduce fire hazards as manufacturers failed to meet the
into consideration factors affecting well because cans would stay tightly existing California requirements.
durability. EPA received only closed if tipped over. We expect the
supportive comments on the proposed energy impacts of gas can control to be 4. Automatic Shut-Off
emissions standards. positive, because the standards will We received a few comments
reduce evaporative fuel losses. encouraging EPA to consider or evaluate
2. Determination of Best Available
3. Diesel, Kerosene and Utility spillage control requirements.
Control
Containers California’s original program which
We continue to believe that the 0.3 g/ began in 2001 required automatic shut-
gal/day emissions standard and Diesel and kerosene containers are off as a way to reduce spillage.
associated test procedures reflect the manufactured by the same However, for reasons discussed in the
performance of the best available manufacturers as are gasoline containers proposal, we did not propose and are
control technologies including durable and are identical to gasoline containers not finalizing automatic shut-off
permeation barriers, auto-closing except for color (diesel containers are requirements (see 71 FR 15896).
spouts, and a can that is well-sealed to yellow and kerosene containers are Automatic shut-off is supposed to stop
reduce evaporative losses. The standard blue). In the proposal, we requested the flow of fuel when the fuel reaches
comment on applying the emissions the top of the receiving tank in order to
202 71 FR 28320 ‘‘Consumer and Commercial control requirements being proposed for prevent over-filling. However, due to a
Products: Schedule for Regulation,’’ May 16, 2006. gasoline containers to diesel and wide variety of receiving fuel tank
203 See not only the notice cited in the previous
kerosene containers (see 71 FR 15897). designs, the auto shut-off spouts do not
note, but also 71 FR 15894 (‘‘EPA will afford
interested persons the opportunity to comment on
California included diesel and kerosene work well with a variety of equipment
the data underlying the listing before taking final cans in their regulations largely due to types. In California, this problem led to
action on today’s proposal’’). spillage and consumer dissatisfaction,
204 See section 183(e)(1); see also section 183(e)(4) 205 ‘‘Quantification of Permeation and
providing broad authority to include ‘‘systems of Evaporative Emissions From Portable Fuel
and California has removed automatic
regulation’’ in controlling VOC emissions from Container’’, California Air Resources Board, June shut-off requirements from their
consumer products. 2004. program.
We continue to believe that including did not receive any comments on these removing other openings that
an automatic shut-off requirement aspects of the proposal or comments consumers could leave open. However,
would be counterproductive at this suggesting that the proposed lead times if manufacturers choose to design cans
time. We believe that the automatic would not be adequate. with an opening that does not close
closing cans, even without automatic automatically, we are requiring that
C. What Test Procedures Would Be
shut-off requirements, will lead to containers be tested in their open
Used?
reduced spillage. Consumers will be condition. If the containers have any
able to watch the fuel rise in the As proposed, we are finalizing a openings that consumers could leave
receiving tank and stop fuel flow using system of regulations for containers that open (for example, vents with caps),
the automatic close features prior to includes test conditions designed to these openings thus would need to be
overfill. As discussed in the proposal, assure that the intended emission left open during testing. This applies to
automatic closure keeps the cans closed reductions occur over a range of in-use any opening other than where the spout
when they are not in use and provides conditions such as operating at different attaches to the can. We believe it is
more control to the consumer during temperatures, with different fuels, and important to take this approach because
use. We believe consumers will considering factors affecting durability. these openings could be a significant
appreciate this feature and see it as an These test procedures are authorized source of in-use emissions and there is
improvement over existing cans, under section 183(e)(4) as part of a a realistic possibility that these
whereas an automatic shut-off that system of regulations to achieve the openings would be inadvertently left
worked with only some equipment appropriate level of emissions open in use.
types would not be acceptable. reductions. Emission testing on all Except for pressure cycling, discussed
containers that manufacturers produce below, spouts would be in place during
B. Timing of Standard is not feasible due to the high annual testing because this would be the most
We are finalizing as proposed a start production volumes and the cost and likely storage configuration for the
date for the new PFC standards of time involved with emissions testing. emissions compliant cans. Spouts
January 1, 2009. We received comments Instead, before the containers are would still be removable so that
from state organizations recommending introduced into commerce, the consumers would be able to refill the
that the program start on January 1, manufacturer will need to receive a cans, but we would expect the
2008. In the proposal we recognized that certificate of conformity from EPA that containers to be resealed by consumers
adequate lead time is a key aspect of the the containers conform to the emissions after being refilled in order to prevent
standard’s technological feasibility. standards, based on manufacturers’ spillage during transport. We do not
Manufacturers have developed the applications for certification. believe that consumers would routinely
primary technologies to reduce Manufacturers must submit test data on leave spouts off cans because spouts are
emissions from gas cans but will need a sample of containers that are integral to the cans’ use and it is
a few years of lead time to certify prototypes of the products the obvious that they need to be sealed.
products and ramp up production to a manufacturer intends to produce. The
national scale. The certification process certificate issued by EPA will cover the 1. Diurnal Test
will take at least six months due to the range of production containers We are finalizing as proposed a test
required durability demonstrations represented by the prototype container. procedure for diurnal emissions testing
described below, and manufacturers As part of the application for where the containers are placed in an
will need time to procure and install the certification, manufacturers also need to environmental chamber or a Sealed
tooling needed to produce gas cans with declare that their production cans will Housing for Evaporative Determination
permeation barriers for nationwide not deviate in materials or design from (SHED), the temperature is varied over
sales. Commenters did not provide any the prototype cans that are tested. If the a prescribed temperature and time
new information to counter these points production containers do deviate, then profile, and the hydrocarbons escaping
and we continue to believe for these they will not be coved by the certificate from the can are measured. Containers
reasons that the January 1, 2009 start and it will be a violation of the are to be tested over the same 72–96 °F
date is appropriate. regulations to introduce such (22.2–35.6 °C) temperature profile used
The standards apply to containers uncertified containers into commerce. for automotive applications. This
manufactured on or after the start date Manufacturers must obtain their temperature profile represents a hot
of the program and do not affect cans certification from EPA prior to summer day when ground level ozone
produced before the start date. As introducing their products into emissions would be highest. Three
proposed, as of July 1, 2009, commerce. The test procedures and containers must be tested, each over a
manufacturers and importers must not certification requirements are described three-day test. Testing three cans for
enter into U.S. commerce any products in detail below. Unless otherwise noted certification will help address
not meeting the emissions standards. below, we did not receive comments on variability in products or test
This provides manufacturers with a 6- these test procedures. measurements. All three cans must
month period to clear any stocks of We are requiring that manufacturers individually meet the standard. As
containers manufactured prior to the test cans in their most likely storage noted above, cans must be tested in
January 1, 2009 start of the program, configuration. The key to reducing their most likely storage configuration.
allowing the normal sell-through of evaporative losses from gasoline The final results are to be reported in
these cans to the retail level. Retailers containers is to ensure that there are no grams per gallon, where the grams are
may sell their stocks of containers openings on the cans that could be left the mass of hydrocarbons escaping from
through the course of normal business open by the consumer. Traditional cans the container over 24 hours and the
without restriction. Containers are have vent caps and spout caps that are gallons are the nominal can capacity.
required by this rule to be stamped with easily lost or left off cans, which leads The daily emissions will then be
their production date (consistent with to very high evaporative emissions. We averaged for each can to demonstrate
current industry practices), which will expect manufacturers to meet the compliance with the standard. This test
allow EPA to determine which cans are evaporative standards by using captures hydrocarbons lost through
required to meet the new standards. We automatic closing spouts and by permeation and any other evaporative
losses from the container as a whole. immediately refilled to prevent it from slosh testing, the container is to be filled
The grams of hydrocarbons lost may be drying out. The timing of these steps is to 40 percent capacity with E10 fuel and
determined by either weighing the gas needed to ensure that the stabilized rocked for 1 million cycles. The
can before and after the diurnal test permeation emissions levels are pressure-vacuum testing contains
cycle or measuring emissions directly retained. The can will then be weighed 10,000 cycles from ¥0.5 to 2.0 psi. This
using the SHED instrumentation. and placed in the environmental pressure may be applied through the
Consistent with the automotive test chamber for the diurnal test. After each opening where the spout attaches, in
procedures, we are requiring that the diurnal, the can must be re-weighed. In order to avoid the need to drill a hole
testing take place using 9 pounds per lieu of weighing the container, in the container. The third durability
square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure manufacturers may opt to measure test is intended to assess potential
(RVP) certification gasoline, which is emissions from the SHED directly. For impacts of ultraviolet (UV) sunlight (0.2
the same fuel required by EPA to be any in-use testing of containers, the µm–0.4 µm) on the durability of a
used in its other evaporative test durability procedures will not be run surface treatment. In this test, the
programs. We are requiring testing be prior to testing. container must be exposed to a UV light
done using E10 fuel (10% ethanol California’s test procedures are very of at least 0.40 Watt-hour/meter 2
blended with the gasoline described similar to those described above. /minute on the container surface for 15
above) to help ensure in-use emission However, the California procedure hours per day for 30 days. Alternatively,
reductions on ethanol-gasoline blends, contains a more severe temperature containers may be exposed to direct
which tend to have increased profile of 65–105 °F. As proposed, we natural sunlight for an equivalent period
evaporative emissions with certain will allow manufacturers to use this of time. We have also established these
permeation barrier materials. We temperature profile to test cans as long same durability requirements as part of
continue to believe that including as other parts of the EPA test procedures our program to control permeation
ethanol in the test fuel will lead to the are followed, including the durability emissions from recreational vehicle fuel
selection of materials by manufacturers provisions below. tanks.207 While there are obvious
that are consistent with ‘‘best available differences in the use of gas cans
2. Preconditioning to Ensure Durable In-
control’’ requirements for all likely compared to the use of recreational
Use Control
contained gasolines, and is clearly vehicle fuel tanks, we believe the test
appropriate given the expected increase a. Durability Cycles procedures offer assurance that
over time of the use of ethanol blends As proposed, we are specifying three permeation controls used by
of gasoline under the renewable fuel durability aging cycles to help ensure manufacturers will be robust and will
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of durable permeation barriers: slosh, continue to perform as intended when
2005. pressure-vacuum cycling, and in use.
Diurnal emissions are not only a ultraviolet (UV) exposure. They Manufacturers may also do an
function of temperature and fuel represent conditions that are likely to engineering evaluation, based on data
volatility, but of the size of the vapor occur in-use for gas cans, especially for from testing on their permeation barrier,
space in the container as well. We are those cans used for commercial to demonstrate that one or more of these
finalizing as proposed that the fill level purposes and carried on truck beds or factors (slosh, UV exposure, and
at the start of the test be 50% of the trailers. The purpose of these pressure cycle) do not impact the
nominal capacity of the can. This would deterioration cycles is to help ensure permeation rates of their fuel containers
likely be the average fuel level of the gas that the technology chosen by and therefore that the durability cycles
can in-use. Nominal capacity of the cans manufacturers is durable in-use, are not needed. Manufacturers may use
is defined as the volume of fuel, representing best available control, and data collected previously on gas cans or
specified by the manufacturer, to which the measured emissions are other similar containers made with the
the can could be filled when sitting on representative of in-use permeation same materials and processes to
level ground. The vapor space that rates. Fuel slosh, pressure cycling, and demonstrate that the emissions
normally occurs in a container, even ultraviolet (UV) exposure each impact performance of the materials does not
when ‘‘full,’’ would not be considered the durability of certain permeation degrade when exposed to slosh, UV,
in the nominal capacity of the can. All barriers, and we believe these cycles are and/or pressure cycling. The test data
of these test requirements are meant to needed to ensure long-term emissions must be collected under equivalent or
represent typical in-use storage control. Without these durability cycles, more severe conditions as those noted
conditions for containers, on which EPA manufacturers could choose to use above. EPA must approve an alternative
can base its emissions standards. The materials that meet the standard when demonstration method prior to its use
above provisions for diurnal testing are they are new but have degraded for certification.
included as a way to implement the performance in-use, leading to higher
standards effectively, which, in b. Preconditioning Fuel Soak
emissions. We do not expect these
conjunction with the new emissions procedures to adversely impact the It takes time for fuel to permeate
standard, will lead to the use of best feasibility of the standards, because through the walls of containers.
available technology at a reasonable there are permeation barriers available Permeation emissions will increase over
cost. We did not receive comment on at a reasonable cost that do not time as fuel slowly permeates through
these test procedures. deteriorate significantly under these the container wall, until the permeation
Before testing for certification, the conditions (these permeation barriers finally stabilizes when the saturation
container must be run through the are examples of best available controls). point is reached. We want to evaluate
durability tests described below. Within For slosh and pressure cycling, we are emissions performance once permeation
8 hours of the end of the soak period
finalizing durability tests that are based

contained in the durability cycle, the on draft recommended SAE practice for Barrier Durability on Non-Metallic Fuel Tanks,’’
cans are to be drained and refilled to 50 (Docket A–2000–01, document IV–A–24).
evaluating permeation barriers.206 For 207 Final Rule, ‘‘Control of Emissions from
percent nominal capacity with fresh Nonroad Large Spark-ignition engines, and
fuel, and then the spouts re-attached. 206 Draft SAE Information Report J1769, ‘‘Test Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-based)’’, 67
When the can is drained, it must be Protocol for Evaluation of Long Term Permeation FR 68287, November 8, 2002.
emissions have stabilized, to ensure that essentially uncontrolled levels. regulations, before entering their
the emissions standard is met in-use. California requires manufacturers to containers into U.S. commerce. To have
Therefore, as proposed, prior to testing actuate the spouts 200 times prior to the their products certified, manufacturers
the containers, the cans need to be soak period and 200 times near the must first define their emission families.
preconditioned by allowing the cans to conclusion of the soak period to This is generally based on selecting
sit with fuel in them until the simulate spout use. The spouts’ internal groups of products that have similar
hydrocarbon permeation rate has components would be required to be emissions. For example, co-extruded
stabilized. Under this step, the container exposed to fuel by tipping the can containers of various geometries could
is filled with a 10-percent ethanol blend between each cycle. Spouts that stick be grouped together. The manufacturer
in gasoline (E10), sealed, and soaked for open or leak during these cycles would must select a worst-case configuration
20 weeks at a temperature of 28 ± 5 °C. be considered failed. The total of 400 for testing, such as the thinnest-walled
As an alternative, the fuel soak may be spout actuations represents about 1.5 container. Manufacturers may group
performed, for example, for 10 weeks at actuations per week on average over the gasoline, diesel, and kerosene
43 ± 5 °C to shorten the test time, if the average container life of 5 years. In the containers together as long as the
certifier can demonstrate that the absence of data, we believe this number containers do not differ materially in a
hydrocarbon permeation rate has of actuations appears to reasonably way that could be anticipated to cause
stabilized. During this fuel soak, the replicate the number that can occur in- differences in emissions performance.
container must be sealed with the spout use for high-end usage and will help These determinations must be made
attached. This is representative of how ensure quality spout designs that do not using good engineering judgment and
the gas cans would be stored in-use. We fail in-use. We also believe that are subject to EPA review. Testing with
have established these soak finalizing requirements consistent with those products, as specified above, must
temperatures and durations based on California will help manufacturers to show compliance with emission
protocols EPA has established to avoid duplicate testing. standards. The manufacturers must then
measure permeation from fuel tanks One commenter stated that 400
send us an application for certification.
made of HDPE.208 These soak times actuations over a short period of time is
As proposed, we define the
should be sufficient to achieve not representative of real life and that
many containers will last 15–25 years. manufacturer as the entity that is in day-
stabilized permeation emission rates.
In response, we understand that 5 years to-day control of the manufacturing
However, if a longer time period is
is an estimate of the average life and process (either directly or through
necessary to achieve a stabilized rate for
that some containers will be used longer contracts with component suppliers)
a given container, the manufacturer
than 5 years. However, we continue to and responsible for ensuring that
must use a longer soak period (and/or
believe that the approach we are components meet emissions-related
higher temperature) consistent with
finalizing is reasonable. This provision specifications. Importers are not
good engineering judgment.
is meant to help ensure that spouts are considered a manufacturer under this
Durability testing that is performed
with fuel in the container may be made of quality materials so that the program, and thus would not receive
considered part of the fuel soak emissions performance will not certificates. The manufacturers of the
provided that the container deteriorate readily during normal use. PFCs they import would have to certify
continuously has fuel in it. This The provision also helps to ensure that the cans. Importers will only be able to
approach would shorten the total test spouts will not break easily or stick import PFCs that are certified.
time. For example, the length of the UV open during normal use, and helps to After reviewing the information in the
and slosh tests may be considered as identify issues during the certification application, if all the required
part of the fuel soak provided that the process prior to sale. In addition, this information is provided and it
container is not drained between these approach balances the need to ensure demonstrates compliance with the
tests and the beginning of the fuel soak. quality designs with the manufacturers’ standards, then we will issue a
In such cases, manufacturers must use need to be able to conduct certification certificate of conformity allowing
the 40 percent fill level for the soak testing in a reasonable amount of time. manufacturers to introduce into
period. The reduced fill level will not This type of ‘‘accelerated aging’’ of commerce the containers from the
affect the permeation rate of the components is a necessary part of many certified emission family. We expect
container because the vapor space in the of EPA’s mobile source emissions EPA review to typically take about 90
container will be saturated with fuel control programs. days or less, but could be longer if we
vapor. D. What Certification and In-Use have questions regarding the
Compliance Provisions Is EPA application. The certificate of
c. Spout Actuation
Adopting? conformity will be for a production
In its recently revised program for period of up to 5 years. Manufacturers
PFCs, California included a durability 1. Certification are allowed to carry over certification
demonstration for spouts. We are Section 183(e)(4) authorizes EPA to test data if no changes are made to their
finalizing as proposed a durability adopt appropriate systems of regulations products that would affect emissions
demonstration consistent with to implement the program, including performance. We may revoke or void a
California’s procedures. Automatically requirements ranging from registration certificate if we find that data and
closing spouts are a key part of the and self-monitoring of products, to information on which it is based is false
emissions controls expected to be used prohibitions, limitations, economic or inaccurate. We will notify the
to meet the new standards. If these incentives and restrictions on product manufacturer in writing and the
spouts stick or deteriorate, in-use use. We are finalizing as proposed a manufacturer may request a hearing.
emissions could remain very high, at certification mechanism pursuant to Changes to the certified products that
208 Final Rule, ‘‘Control of Emissions from
these authorities. Manufacturers are affect emissions require reapplication
Nonroad Large Spark-ignition engines, and
required to apply for and receive an for certification. Manufacturers wanting
Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-based)’’, 67 EPA certificate of conformity, using the to make changes without doing testing
FR 68287, November 8, 2002. certification process specified in the are required to present an engineering
evaluation demonstrating that emissions expected life of gas cans when used in 183(e)(8), that these labeling
are not affected by the change. commercial operations, which would requirements will be useful in meeting
The manufacturer is responsible for need to be considered by the the NAAQS for ozone. They provide
meeting applicable emission standards. manufacturers in their designs. We did necessary means of implementing the
Importers are also responsible for the not receive any comments on these various measures described above
product meeting the standards. While warranty provisions. which help ensure that VOC emission
we are not including requirements for EPA views this aspect of the final rule reductions from the proposed standard
manufacturers to conduct production- as another part of the ‘‘system of will in fact occur in use. We did not
line testing, we may pursue EPA in-use regulation’’ it is finalizing to control receive any comments on these labeling
testing of certified products to evaluate VOC emissions from PFCs. A warranty requirements.
compliance with emission standards. If will promote the objective of the rule by
we find that containers do not meet providing consumers with an E. How Would State Programs Be
emissions standards in use, we would opportunity to replace containers that Affected By EPA Standards?
consider the new information during have failed in use. The warranty
future product certification. Also, we provides an obvious remedy to Several states have adopted emissions
may require certification prior to the consumers if issues arise. The provision control programs for PFCs. California
end of the 5-year production period also helps to ensure that manufacturers implemented an emissions control
otherwise allowed between will ‘‘stand behind’’ their product if program for PFCs in 2001. Fifteen other
certifications. The details of the they fail in use, thus improving product states, mostly in the northeast, have
certification process are provided in the design and performance. Similarly, the adopted or are considering adopting the
regulatory text. We did not receive any defect reporting requirement will California program.209 In 2005,
comments on the certification promote product integrity by allowing California adopted a revised program,
procedures described above. EPA to readily monitor in-use which will go into effect on July 1, 2007.
EPA is authorized under the performance by tracking successful The revised California program is very
Independent Offices Appropriation Act warranty claims. similar to the program we are finalizing.
of 1952 to establish fees for Government Gas cans have a typical life of about We believe that although a few aspects
services and things of value that it 5 years on average before they are of the program we are finalizing are
provides. This provision encourages scrapped. We are including durability different, manufacturers will be able to
Federal regulatory agencies to recover, provisions as part of certification testing meet both EPA and CARB requirements
to the fullest extent possible, costs to help ensure containers perform well with the same container designs and
provided to identifiable recipients. The in use. Under this final rule, we could therefore sell a single product in all 50
agency currently collects fees for test containers within their five-year states. In most cases, we believe
compliance programs administered by useful life period to monitor in-use manufacturers will take this approach.
EPA including those for certification of performance and take steps to correct By closely aligning with California
motor vehicles and motor vehicle in-use failures, including denying where possible, we will allow
engines. At this time, we are not certification, for container designs that manufacturers to minimize research and
finalizing a fee program for PFC are consistently failing to meet development (R&D) and emissions
certification. However, we may establish emissions standards. (This provision
testing, while potentially achieving
a certification fee for PFCs in a future thus would work in tandem with the
better economies of scale. It may also
rulemaking. warranty claim reporting provision
reduce administrative burdens and
contained in the preceding paragraph.)
2. Emissions Warranty and In-Use market logistics from having to track the
Compliance 3. Labeling sale of multiple can designs. We
We are finalizing as proposed an Since the requirements will be consider these to be important factors
emissions warranty period of one year effective based on the date of under CAA section 183(e) which
to be provided by the manufacturer of manufacture of the container, we are requires us to consider economic
the PFC to the consumer. The warranty requiring as proposed that the date of feasibility of controls.
covers emissions-related materials manufacture must be indelibly marked States that have adopted the original
defects and breakage under normal use. on the can. This is consistent with California program will likely choose to
For example, the warranty covers current industry practices. This is either adopt the new California program
failures related to the proper operation needed so that we and others can or eliminate their state program in favor
of the auto-closing spout or defects with recognize whether a unit is regulated or of the federal program. Because the
the permeation barriers. We are also not. In addition, we are requiring a label programs are similar, we expect that
requiring that manufacturers submit a providing the manufacturer name and most states will eventually choose to
warranty and defect report documenting contact information, a statement that the rely on implementation of the EPA
successful warranty claims and the can is EPA certified, citation of EPA program rather than continue their own
reason for the claim to EPA annually so regulations, and a statement that it is program. Including diesel and kerosene
that EPA may monitor the program. warranted for one year from the date of containers in our final program further
Unsuccessful claims will not need to be purchase. The manufacturer name and aligns the two programs and several
submitted. We believe that this warranty contact information is necessary to
states commented in support of this
will encourage designs that work well verify certification. Indicating that a
approach. We expect very little
for consumers and are durable. one-year warranty applies will ensure
difference in the emissions reductions
Although it does not fully cover the that consumers have knowledge of the
provided by the EPA and California
average life of the product, it is not warranty and a way to contact the
programs in the long term.

typical for very long consumer manufacturer. Enforcement of the
warranties to be offered with such warranty is critical to the defect 209 Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
products and therefore we believe a one- reporting system. In finalizing this New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
year warranty is reasonable. Also, the labeling requirement, we further Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington DC,
warranty period is more similar to the believe, pursuant to CAA section Texas, Ohio, and New Hampshire.
F. Provisions for Small PFC 2. Second Type of Hardship Provision capital costs, which are amortized over
Manufacturers the volume of gasoline produced.
Container manufacturers are
In this section we summarize the
As discussed in previous sections, permitted to apply for hardship relief if
methodology used to estimate the costs
prior to issuing our proposal for this circumstances outside their control
of benzene control (including changes
rulemaking, we analyzed the potential cause the failure to comply (i.e., an ‘‘Act
we have made since the proposal) and
impacts of these regulations on small of God,’’ a fire at the manufacturing
our estimated costs for the program. In
entities. As a part of this analysis, we plant, or the unforeseen shut down of a
addition we evaluate the cost estimate
convened a Small Business Advocacy supplier with no alternative available),
provided by the American Petroleum
Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or ‘‘the and if failure to sell the subject
Institute. A detailed discussion of all of
Panel’’). During the Panel process, we containers would jeopardize the
these analyses is found in Chapter 9 of
gathered information and company’s solvency. The terms and
the RIA.
recommendations from Small Entity timeframe of the relief will depend on
Representatives (SERs) on how to the specific circumstances of the 1. Methodology
reduce the impact of the rule on small company and the situation involved. a. Overview of the Benzene Program
entities, and those comments are For both types of hardship provisions, Cost Methodology
detailed in the Final Panel Report which the length of the hardship relief will be
established, during the initial review, The basic methodology we used to
is located in the public record for this estimate the cost of benzene control for
rulemaking (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– for not more than one year and will be
reviewed annually thereafter as needed. the final rule is the same as that used
2005–0036). Based upon these for the proposed rule. Using a refinery-
comments, we proposed to include As part of its application, a company is
required to provide a compliance plan by-refinery cost model that we
flexibility and hardship provisions for developed for this rulemaking, we
detailing when and how it will achieve
container manufacturers. Since nearly projected which refineries implement
compliance with the standards.
all manufacturers are small entities and what benzene control technology, and
they account for about 60 percent of VIII. What Are the Estimated Impacts the cost of each refinery’s benzene
sales, the Panel recommended that we of the Rule? control step, to estimate compliance
extend the flexibility options and with the final benzene control program.
A. Refinery Costs of Gasoline Benzene
hardship provisions to all Reduction We aggregated the individual refinery
manufacturers. Our proposal was costs to develop a national average cost
consistent with that recommendation. The benzene control program we are estimate for the final benzene control
We did not receive any comments on finalizing today is expected to result in program. Based on the flexibilities
our proposed flexibilities and are many refiners investing in benzene offered by the ABT program, refiners are
finalizing them as proposed. The control hardware and changing the expected to come very close to
flexibility provisions are incorporated operations in their refineries to reduce achieving the 0.62 vol% average
into the program requirements their gasoline benzene levels. The benzene standard on average with little
described earlier in sections VII.B finalized benzene control program overcompliance. For this reason, we
through VII.D. The hardship provisions requires refiners and importers to modeled refiners achieving the average
are described below. For further reduce their gasoline benzene levels on standard without any overcompliance.
discussion of the Panel process, see average down to 0.62 vol% benzene. To the extent that any overcompliance
section X.C of this rule and/or the Final The averaging, banking and trading does occur the costs and benefits of the
Panel Report. (ABT) provisions being finalized along benzene program will increase.
with the 0.62 vol% average benzene
The Panel recommended and we are b. Changes to the Cost Estimation
control standard allows refineries that
finalizing two types of hardship Methodology Used in the Proposed Rule
reduce their gasoline benzene levels
provisions for container manufacturers.
below 0.62 vol% to earn credits and In deriving the cost estimate for the
These entities could, on a case-by-case
transfer those credits to other refineries final rule, we identified and made a
basis, face hardship, and we are
which would find it more expensive to number of changes to the refinery
finalizing these provisions to provide
reduce their benzene levels down to the modeling methodology used for the
what could prove to be needed safety
average standard. The ABT program will proposed rule. One of the primary
valves for these entities. Thus, the allow refiners to optimize their changes was to base the future year fuel
hardship provisions are as follows: investments, which we believe will prices on the Annual Energy Outlook
1. First Type of Hardship Provision result in achieving the average benzene (AEO) 2006 instead of AEO 2005, which
control standard nationwide at much increased the crude oil price used in the
Container manufacturers may petition lower costs. The final benzene control analysis from $27 per barrel to $47 per
EPA for limited additional lead-time to program also puts into place a 1.3 vol% barrel. Other changes included: (1)
comply with the standards. A benzene maximum average standard Updating the refinery modeling base
manufacturer would have to which requires each refinery to reduce year to 2004 (used for calibrating each
demonstrate that it has taken all its gasoline benzene levels to or below refinery’s gasoline benzene levels); (2)
possible business, technical, and this standard and will increase the modeling the baseline benzene levels
economic steps to comply but the benzene control costs only slightly and reductions on an annual basis
burden of compliance costs prevents it compared to a benzene control program instead of on a summer-only basis; (3)
from meeting the requirements of this which does not contain a maximum increasing the tax-hurdle rate of return
subpart by the required compliance date average standard. We estimate that the to 15 percent from the 10 percent hurdle
and not having an extension would national average refinery costs incurred used in the proposed rule, and (4)
jeopardize the company’s solvency. to comply with the fully phased-in including the treatment of the benzene
Hardship relief may include benzene control program will be 0.27 in natural gasoline, which was assumed
requirements for interim emission cents per gallon, averaged over all to be left untreated in the proposed rule
reductions. gasoline. This estimate includes the analysis.
In addition, we also made some d. Refinery-by-Refinery Cost Model some of these comments here, and they
adjustments that were based on In contrast to LP models, refinery-by- are summarized and addressed in detail
comments we received on the cost refinery cost models are useful when in the RIA. (See Chapter 9 of the RIA for
analysis that we conducted for the individual refineries are expected to our responses to these peer-review
proposal, as well as the peer review respond to program requirements in comments.) The oil industry has also
process that we undertook for the different ways and/or have significantly conducted similar analyses using a
proposal’s refinery cost model. One of different process capabilities. Thus, in refinery-by-refinery modeling
the peer reviewers for the refinery-by- the case of modeling gasoline benzene technique, including the oil industry’s
refinery cost model, and API in its control programs, we needed a model cost analysis carried out for this
comments on the proposed rule, that could accurately simulate the rulemaking.
provided capital cost estimates for the variety of decisions refiners will make at Based on our understanding of the
benzene control technologies.210 We different refineries, especially in the primary benzene control technologies
reviewed these capital cost estimates context of a nationwide ABT program. (see section VI.A.1.c.i. above), the cost
and made some adjustments to For this and other related reasons, we model assumes that four technologies
somewhat increase the capital cost developed a refinery-by-refinery cost will be used, as appropriate, for
figures used in the final rule analysis. model specifically to evaluate the reducing benzene levels. All of these
These changes were partially benzene control program. technologies focus on addressing
responsible for the higher costs reported Our refinery-by-refinery benzene cost benzene in the reformate stream. They
here compared to those reported in the model incorporates the capacities of all are (1) routing the benzene precursors
the major units in each refinery in the around the reformer (also called light
proposed rule. More complete
country, as reported by the Energy naphtha splitting and reformer feed
descriptions of these and other changes
Information Administration and in the fractionation); (2) routing benzene
made to the refinery cost model are
Oil and Gas Journal. Regarding precursors to an existing isomerization
contained in Chapter 9 the RIA.
operational information, we know less unit, if available; (3) benzene extraction
c. Linear Programming Cost Model about how specific refineries use the (extractive distillation); and (4) benzene
various units to produce gasoline and saturation. For the proposed rulemaking
We considered performing our cost we assumed that only the usual feed or
about such factors as octane and
assessments using a linear programming the product stream of the reformer will
hydrogen costs for individual refineries.
(LP) cost model. LP cost models are We used the LP model to estimate these be processed by these benzene control
based on a set of complex mathematical factors on a regional basis, and we technologies. However, since the
representations of refineries which, for applied the average regional result to proposal, we learned that another
national analyses, are usually conducted each refinery in that region (PADD). We refinery stream—natural gasoline—
on a regional basis. This type of refining calibrated the model for each individual contains some benzene and will likely
cost model has been used by the refinery based on 2004 gasoline volumes be treated by the saturation and
government and the refining industry and benzene levels (from the RFG data extraction processes in refineries if they
for many years for estimating the cost base), which was the most recent year have or install these units. For the
and other implications of changes to for which data was available. After proposal, we assumed that natural
fuel quality. calibration, each refinery’s gasoline gasoline would be blended directly into
The design of LP models lends itself volume and benzene level closely gasoline and not be treated by refiners
to modeling situations where every matched their actual gasoline volumes if faced with a benzene control
refinery in a region is expected to use and benzene levels. We also compared standard. However, most refiners have
cost estimates of similar benzene control been combining natural gasoline with
the same control strategy and/or has the
cases from both the refinery-by-refinery their crude oil to enable treating the
same process capabilities. As we began
model and the LP model, and the results sulfur in natural gasoline to help
to develop a gasoline benzene control
were in close agreement.211 comply with the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
program with an ABT program, it
Refinery-by-refinery cost models have standard. Because the natural gasoline
became clear that LP modeling was not
been used in the past by both EPA and will be refined along with crude oil, the
well suited for evaluating such a benzene in natural gasoline can and will
program. Because refiners will be the oil industry for such programs as the
highway and nonroad diesel fuel sulfur be treated along with the benzene in
choosing a variety of technologies for crude oil.
controlling benzene, and because the standards, and they are a proven means
The nationwide ABT program is
program will be national and will for estimating the cost of compliance for
intended to optimize benzene reduction
include an ABT program, we initiated fuel control programs. For this refinery-
by allowing each refinery to
development of a more appropriate cost by-refinery benzene cost model, we
individually choose the most cost-
model, as described below. However, conducted a peer review process, and
effective means of complying with the
the LP model remained important for have received some comments on the
program. To model this phenomenon,
providing many of the inputs into the design of our model. We summarize we first established an estimated cost for
cost model developed for this the array of technologies that could be
211 Despite our commitment to accurately model
rulemaking. employed by each refinery to reduce its
the baseline operations of each refinery, we
recognize that without detailed refinery-specific gasoline benzene levels. We then
210 An important reason for the discrepancy operations information at our disposal, that our deployed these technologies to
between our capital cost estimate and that by API modeling may not be accurate in some specific refineries with baseline benzene levels
(which was about three times higher) was that we cases. Particular refineries may choose a different
only estimated the capital costs related to the benzene control path than that estimated by our
above the 1.3 vol% benzene maximum
average standard to bring them into
benzene control technologies, not those related to analysis for a number of reasons, including
octane recovery and increased hydrogen production differences in the baseline and our lack of compliance with this standard. Next we
needed for saturation or to replace the octane lost knowledge for investment and ABT program use ranked the refineries in order from
due to reduced benzene production by the reformer. preferences for each refiner. We believe, though,
For the final rule, we estimated these additional that overall our refinery cost model captures the
lowest to highest benzene control cost
capital costs and included them in our capital cost strategies and costs for complying with the benzene per gallon of gasoline and estimated the
estimates. control program. impact of their projected benzene
control strategies on refinery benzene averaged 28 dollars per barrel higher their gasoline benzene levels, which
levels. The model then follows this than regular grade gasoline. However, includes those which remain above the
ranking, starting with the lowest-cost during the first part of 2004, the price average benzene standard as well as
refineries, and adds refineries and their of benzene relative to gasoline rose those already below the average
associated control technologies one-by- steeply, primarily because of high standard.
one until the projected national average energy prices adding to the cost of Based on the results of our cost
benzene level reaches 0.62 vol% extracting benzene. The 2004 benzene analysis, we estimate that the final
benzene. This modeling strategy price averaged 78 dollars per barrel benzene control program will cost 0.27
projects the benzene control technology higher than regular grade gasoline. cents per gallon when it is fully phased
that will be used by each refinery, as Since early 2006, CMAI has been in, assuming that capital investments
well as identifies those refineries that projecting that the future price of are amortized at a 7 percent return on
are expected to generate credits and benzene relative to gasoline will return investment before taxes and expressed
those that are expected to use credits in to more historic levels, in the range of in 2003 dollars. Our cost analysis
lieu of investing in benzene control. The 30 dollars per barrel higher than regular projects that the ABT program will
sum of the costs of the refineries grade gasoline (in 2005, CMAI was result in a phase-in of the benzene
expected to invest in benzene control projecting that the benzene price would control standard from mid-2007 to early
provides the projected overall cost of be 20 dollars per barrel higher than in 2015. Starting in mid-2007 we believe
the program. gasoline). We have based our modeling that refiners will take the opportunity to
Finally, we projected how the ABT for the final rule on the 30 dollar per achieve modest benzene reductions to
program will affect the program cost and barrel value. generate early credits using simple
benzene levels starting in 2007, when operational changes. We project that
2. Summary of Costs these actions taken in mid-2007 will
early credits can be generated. We
assumed that refiners will use a. Nationwide Costs of the Final result in a reduction of the average U.S.
operational changes (benzene precursor Benzene Control Program gasoline benzene level from 0.99 to 0.81
rerouting, with isomerization if vol% at an average cost of 0.04 cents per
We have used the refinery-by-refinery gallon.
available) to the maximum extent cost model to estimate the costs of the
possible in mid-2007, when they are To take full advantage of the
benzene control program being finalized flexibility provided to refiners by the
able to start to generate credits. We also today. In general, the cost model
assumed that refiners will choose to ABT program to delay more expensive
indicates that among the four primary capital investments, refiners are
accumulate additional early credits by reformate-based technologies, benzene
making their initial lowest-cost capital expected to make additional early
precursor rerouting will be the most benzene reductions to generate more
investments for reducing their gasoline cost-effective. The next most cost- early credits, requiring modest
benzene levels, and that these changes effective technologies are isomerization investments in capital. Because of the
will take effect in 2010. We modeled of the rerouted light straight run time it takes to assess, design and install
compliance by nonsmall and small material, revamped extraction units and the capital equipment, we project that
refiners with the maximum average new installations of large extraction these additional early benzene
standard taking effect in mid-2012 and units. The model indicates that benzene reductions will not occur until the
the beginning of 2015, respectively, as saturation and small installations of beginning of 2010, although in reality
well as the final benzene control step to new extraction units will be the least these investments and associated
meet the 0.62 vol% standard—the cost-effective. benzene reductions would likely occur
phase-in of which depends on the Based on the results of our analysis before and after the beginning of 2010.
aggregate amount of credits using the refinery-by-refinery model, we These benzene reductions are expected
generated.212 estimate that when the benzene control to further reduce the average benzene
e. Price of Chemical Grade Benzene program is fully phased in, 78 refineries level of U.S. gasoline to 0.74 vol% and
of the total 104 gasoline-producing cost 0.05 cents per gallon averaged over
The price of chemical grade benzene refineries in the U.S. (outside of all U.S. gasoline. Refiners are expected
is critical to the benzene control California) will have to put in new to make $324 million of capital
program because it defines the capital equipment or change their investments to achieve this benzene
opportunity cost for benzene removed refining operations to reduce the reduction. In 2011 when the 0.62 vol%
using benzene extraction and sold into benzene levels in their gasoline. Of benzene control standard takes effect,
the chemicals market. According to these refineries, we estimate that 17 will we do not anticipate any further
2004 World Benzene Analysis authored use benzene precursor removal, 28 reduction in benzene because we project
by Chemical Market Associates refineries will use benzene precursor that the refining industry will be able to
Incorporated (CMAI), during the removal coupled with isomerization, 16 comply using early credits.
consecutive five-year period ending will use extraction, and 17 will use In mid-2012, when refineries with
with 2004, the price of benzene benzene saturation. We project that 52 high benzene levels need to comply
averaged 24 dollars per barrel higher refineries will continue to produce with the 1.3 vol% maximum average
than regular grade gasoline. During the gasoline with benzene levels greater standard, we anticipate that U.S.
three consecutive year period ending than the average standard and will need gasoline benzene levels will decline
with 2004, the price of benzene to purchase credits to comply. Including further, to 0.73 vol% benzene, and cost
212 The ABT analysis assumed that small refiners
the refineries with benzene levels an additional 0.04 cents per gallon
would comply with the 1.3 vol% maximum average
currently below 0.62, we project that averaged over all U.S. gasoline. Refiners
there will be a total of 50 refineries that are expected to make another $153
standard in January 2015 at the same time as the

0.62 vol% annual average standard. We are will produce gasoline with benzene million in capital investments.
finalizing a later maximum average standard levels at 0.62 or lower and will generate Although the early credit use period
implementation date (July 2016), which will have
very little effect on the overall program and
credits for sale to other refineries. terminates at the end of 2013, refiners
therefore has not been incorporated into this Finally, the model projects that 26 will again have flexibility in scheduling
analysis. refineries will take no steps to reduce their most expensive capital
investments by using standard credits costs, associated with the new fuel reducing gasoline benzene levels to low
(which will have been accruing since standard. As shown in Table VIII.A–1, levels, coupled with the flexibility of an
the start of 2011). Because we expect these costs are projected to begin at $28 ABT program, will incur fairly modest
that refiners will first use their early million in 2007 and increase to $363 aggregate program costs. This is
credits, the standard credits will be million in 2015 when the benzene primarily because we expect that
banked and will start to be used in 2014 program is fully phased in. These refiners will optimize their benzene
to show compliance with the 0.62 vol% aggregated costs continue to increase control strategies, resulting in large
benzene standard. Our analysis suggests over time as fuel demand increases. benzene reductions at a relatively low
that the U.S. refining industry will be overall program cost. With higher
able to delay their highest capital TABLE VIII.A–1.—PER-GALLON AND benzene prices relative to those of
investments until May 2015, when the ANNUAL AGGREGATE FUEL COSTS gasoline projected to continue (even if
standard credits accumulated since the FOR THE FINAL BENZENE CONTROL they drop from the recent very high
beginning of 2011 run out. Small PROGRAM levels), extraction is expected to be a
refiners must meet the 1.3 vol% (7% ROI before taxes and 2003 dollars)
very low-cost technology—the primary
maximum average standard which was reason why the cost of the overall
assumed to occur at the beginning of Per-gallon Aggregate program is very low. Also, precursor
2015 so they also will be reducing their Year cost cost rerouting, either with or without
gasoline benzene levels to that standard (c/gal) ($million) isomerization in an existing unit, is a
or below.213 Taken together, these low-cost technology requiring little or
2007 .................. 0.02 28
reductions in 2015 will bring the U.S. no capital to realize. The model
2008 .................. 0.04 49
gasoline pool down to the 0.62 vol% 2009 .................. 0.04 50 concludes that even the higher-cost
benzene standard at an average cost of 2010 .................. 0.09 101 benzene saturation technology will be
0.14 cents per gallon averaged over all 2011 .................. 0.09 104 fairly cost-effective overall because
U.S. gasoline, based on the addition of 2012 .................. 0.11 133 larger refineries that install this
$634 million in capital investments. 2013 .................. 0.13 164 technology will take advantage of their
To comply with the fully phased-in 2014 .................. 0.13 166 economies of scale.
final benzene control program, refiners 2015 .................. 0.27 363
2020 .................. 0.27 388 b. Regional Costs
are expected to have made a total of 2025 .................. 0.27 412
$1110 million in capital investments. 2030 .................. 0.27 437 The benzene reductions estimated by
This will amount to an average of $14 2035 .................. 0.27 464 the cost model and associated costs vary
million in capital investment in each significantly by region. Table VIII.A–2
refinery that adds such equipment. Several observations can be made summarizes the estimated per-gallon
We also estimated annual aggregate from these results of our nationwide costs for complying with the benzene
costs, including the amortized capital cost analysis. First, significantly control standard by PADD region.
TABLE VIII.A–2.—PROJECTED BENZENE CONTROL COSTS BY PADD FOR THE FINAL BENZENE CONTROL PROGRAM
(2003 dollars, 7% ROI before taxes)
PADD
U.S.
5 (w/o
1 2 3 4 CA)
Cost (c/gal) ....................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.35 0.15 0.55 1.21 0.268
Table VIII.A–2 shows that the PADD- c. Refining Industry Cost Study program and with no upper benzene
average costs are highest in PADD 5 The American Petroleum Institute limit. API also assumed that credits will
followed next by PADD 4. In PADDs 1, (API) conducted its own refinery not be traded freely, but instead that
2 and 3, where reformulated gasoline modeling study to evaluate the cost of refining companies would hold onto 10
programs have already forced gasoline benzene control. The API study percent of their credits in case they have
benzene levels lower, the benzene analyzed the cost of three different a future problem with their benzene
control costs are lower. Extraction is the benzene control programs. Two of the control unit. Including the compliance
technology most used in PADDs 1 and benzene control programs analyzed by margin and the 10 percent credit
3, resulting in lower benzene control API were very different than our final margin, the API study estimated that
cost in these regions. Individual benzene control program and we will under its modeled benzene control
refineries show a wider range of control not discuss them here (see Chapter 9 of program and associated assumptions
costs than the PADD-average costs. the RIA). The third program analyzed by that U.S. gasoline would average 0.56
There are 20 refineries for which we API was nearly identical to the final vol% benzene. The API study estimates
estimate benzene control costs lower benzene control standard, and we have the cost of complying with its modeled
than 0.20 cents per gallon. Also, there carefully compared API’s cost analysis benzene control program to be 1.00 cent
are 11 refineries, all of which are very to ours.
API analyzed a benzene control
small refineries, with costs in the range
program with a nationwide 0.60 vol%

of 3 to 7 cents per gallon range. benzene standard and with an ABT
213 The ABT analysis assumed that small refiners 0.62 vol% annual average standard. We are very little effect on the overall program and
would comply with the 1.3 vol% maximum average finalizing a later maximum average standard therefore has not been incorporated into this
standard in January 2015 at the same time as the implementation date (July 2016), which will have analysis.
per gallon.214 This estimated benzene new grassroots benzene extraction analysis and that provided by API.
control cost is substantially higher than capacity will be installed in the future, Except for the differences described
our estimated 0.27 cents per gallon cost but that existing extraction units could above, the assumptions used and the
for our nearly identical program. After be expanded. We agree that existing conclusions reached were very similar.
comparing their methodology to ours we units will likely be expanded. However, We believe our revised analysis
identified three primary differences we also believe that several refineries provides a more accurate assessment of
which explain the large difference in will install new grassroots extraction the costs of the benzene control
costs. units. Our premise is supported by program.
The first difference is that API CMAI projections of a robust benzene
modeled a somewhat lower benzene B. What Are the Vehicle Cost Impacts?
market in the future with benzene
control standard and assumed a credit priced higher than its historical margin In assessing the economic impact of
generation margin which resulted in above gasoline. Higher benzene price setting cold temperature emission
refiners achieving a much lower margins will provide an incentive to standards, we have made a best estimate
benzene level than the 0.62 vol% refiners to add grassroots benzene of the necessary vehicle modifications
benzene control standard. A primary extraction units, even in areas where and their associated costs. In making
reason why the refining industry study benzene markets are smaller. For our estimates we have relied on our own
modeled overcompliance with the example, one refiner has indicated to us technology assessment, which includes
benzene standard is due to an that if the proposed gasoline benzene information supplied by individual
assumption that refiners will want to standard was to be finalized, it would manufacturers and our own in-house
hold onto a substantial quantity of install a grassroots benzene extraction testing. Estimated costs typically
credits, yet the API cost study did not unit at one of its refineries in the include variable costs (for hardware and
provide a justification for the Midwest, where the benzene market is assembly time) and fixed costs (for
accumulation of credits. EPA does not small with less room for increased research and development, retooling,
believe that refiners will significantly supply (although this benzene could be and certification). All costs are
overcomply with the average benzene shipped down to the Gulf Coast). This presented in 2003 dollars. Full details of
standard. This is because the 0.62 vol% is a strong indicator that new grassroots our cost analysis can be found in
benzene standard is an averaging benzene extraction units will also be Chapter 8 of the RIA.
standard which is met across the entire installed on the Gulf and East Coasts, As described in section V, we are not
industry, not a cap standard, and can be where benzene markets are much larger expecting hardware changes to Tier 2
met by the accumulation of gasoline with much more room to absorb vehicles in response to new cold
batches with benzene levels higher or increased supply. temperature standards. Tier 2 vehicles
lower than the standard. Thus, if a The third reason why the API benzene are already being equipped with very
refinery produced gasoline with lower control costs are much higher than ours sophisticated emissions control systems.
or higher gasoline benzene levels over is their very high octane control costs. We expect manufacturers to use these
the first part of the year, the operations For both studies, the octane loss that systems to minimize emissions at cold
could be adjusted to balance out the occurs due to the modeled application temperatures. We were able to
gasoline benzene levels for the rest of of the various benzene control demonstrate significant emissions
the year. Also, our program includes technologies is accounted for by reductions from a Tier 2 vehicle through
several provisions which give refiners assigning a dollar per octane-barrel cost recalibration alone. In addition, the
significant flexibility for compliance. to the octane loss. However, API’s costs standard we are finalizing is based on
For example, refiners could overcomply for restoring octane are higher than the averaging which allows some vehicles
slightly with the standard early on in future octane recovery costs that we are to be above the numeric standard as
the program’s implementation and hold projecting. The octane costs used by API long as those excess emissions are offset
onto the credits for up to five years are higher because API used the rack by vehicles below the standard.
before they expire. If a refinery’s price differential between premium and Averaging will help manufacturers in
benzene control unit goes down, the regular grade gasolines as summarized cases where they are not able to achieve
refiner would be able to use those by the Energy Information the numeric standard for a particular
accumulated credits, the refiner could Administration. However, the rack price vehicle group, thus helping
purchase credits from other refineries, differential between premium and manufacturers avoid costly hardware
or the refiner could create a benzene regular grade gasolines reflects a changes. The phase-in of standards and
reduction deficit at that refinery and significant amount of profit. For emissions credits provisions also help
make it up the following year. With this example, the cost difference to produce manufacturers avoid situations where
degree of flexibility, any significant premium gasoline is usually only a few expensive vehicle modifications will be
overcompliance with the 0.62 vol% cents per gallon more than for needed to meet the new cold
average benzene standard is producing regular grade gasoline, yet temperature NMHC standard. Therefore,
unnecessary. refiners and marketers usually charge 20 we are not projecting hardware costs or
The second reason why the API costs to 30 cents more per gallon for premium additional assembly costs associated
are much higher than ours is because gasoline at retail. Some of this inflated with meeting new cold temperature
API used a more restrictive assumption price appears at the rack price NMHC emissions standards.
with respect to benzene extraction—a differential between regular and Manufacturers will incur research and
more cost-effective benzene control premium grades of gasoline. In addition, development (R&D) costs associated
technology than benzene saturation, as future octane control costs, when the with a new cold temperature standard,
discussed above. API assumed that no benzene control standard takes effect, and some likely will need to upgrade
are expected to be much lower due to testing facilities to handle an increased
214 This cost estimate includes an adjustment we

the very large volume of ethanol that is number of cold tests during vehicle
made to convert the API capital cost amortization expected to enter the gasoline market by development. We have estimated the
from the after-tax 10 percent rate of return that was
the basis for the estimated costs in their report to then. fixed costs associated with R&D and test
a before-tax 7 percent rate of return, which is how Overall, we have carefully evaluated facilities. We project that manufacturers
our rules are estimated. the differences between our cost will recover R&D costs over a five-year
period and their facilities costs over a We continue to believe that provided in Chapter 3 of the Summary
ten-year period. Long-term impacts on manufacturers will be able to meet the and Analysis of Comments for this rule.
engine costs are expected to decrease as standards through vehicle development We are not anticipating additional
manufacturers fully amortize their fixed without additional hardware. However, costs for the new evaporative emissions
costs. Because manufacturers recoup we conducted a sensitivity analysis in standard. As discussed in section V, we
fixed costs over a large volume of response to this comment, assuming the expect that manufacturers will continue
vehicles, average per vehicle costs due commenter would use new hardware to to produce 50-state evaporative systems
to the new cold temperature NMHC meet the cold temperature standard. If that meet LEV II standards. Therefore,
standards are expected to be low. We one percent of new vehicles required harmonizing with California’s LEV–II
project that the average incremental additional hardware costing $100–$200 evaporative emission standards will
costs associated with the new cold per vehicle, the average cost would streamline certification and be an ‘‘anti-
temperature standards will be less than increase from less than $1 to the range backsliding’’ measure. It also codifies
$1 per vehicle. the approach manufacturers have
of $1.60–$2.60 per vehicle. The
We did not receive comments on the already indicated they are taking for 50-
commenter did not provide cost
methodology we used to derive average state evaporative systems.
cost estimates. However, we did receive information in their comments and we We also estimated annual aggregate
comments from one manufacturer with believe that the costs used in our costs associated with the new cold
a limited product line who believes new sensitivity analysis are conservatively temperature emissions standards. These
hardware will be needed on its vehicles high, given the lead time provided for costs are projected to increase with the
to meet the new cold temperature vehicle development and market phase-in of standards and peak in 2014
standards. Other manufacturers did not pressures to keep costs in line with at about $13.4 million per year, then
comment that hardware changes would those of competitors. In any event, we decrease as the fixed costs are fully
be needed, and they generally supported believe the costs associated with the amortized. The projected aggregate costs
our lead-time, phase-in, and other program are reasonable. Additional are summarized below, with annual
transitional provisions as providing the discussion of the comments received on estimates provided in Chapter 8 of the
flexibility needed to meet the standards. the vehicle cold temperature standard is RIA.
TABLE VIII.B–1.—ANNUAL AGGREGATE COSTS
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
$11,119,000 ......................................................................... $12,535,000 $13,406,000 $12,207,000 $10,682,000 $0
C. What Are the PFC Cost Impacts? on PFCs are expected to decrease as With current and projected estimates
manufacturers fully amortize their fixed of PFC sales, we translate these costs
For PFCs, we have made a best costs. We project that manufacturers into projected direct costs to the nation
estimate of the necessary technologies will generally recover their fixed costs for the new emission standards in any
and their associated costs. Estimated over a five-year period, so these costs year. A summary of the annual aggregate
costs include variable costs (for disappear from the analysis after the costs to manufacturers is presented in
hardware and assembly time) and fixed fifth year of production. These estimates
costs (for research and development, Table VIII.C–2. The annual cost savings
are based on the manufacturing cost due to fuel savings start slowly, then
retooling, and certification). The rather than predicted price increases.215
analysis also considers fuels savings increase as greater numbers of
The table also shows our projections of
associated with low emission PFCs. Cost compliant PFCs enter the market. Table
average fuel savings over the life of the
estimates based on the projected VIII.C–2 also presents a summary of the
PFC when used with gasoline. Fuel
technologies represent an expected savings can be estimated based on the estimated annual fuel savings. Aggregate
change in the cost of PFCs as they begin VOC emissions reductions due to costs are projected to peak in 2013 at
to comply with new emission standards. controls. about $61 million and then drop to
All costs are presented in 2003 dollars. about $34 million once fixed costs are
We did not receive comments on TABLE VIII.C–1.—ESTIMATED AVER- recovered. The change in numbers
estimated costs for PFCs controls. Full AGE PER UNIT PFC COSTS AND beyond 2015 occurs due to projected
details of our cost analysis, including LIFETIME FUEL SAVINGS growth in sales and population.
fuel savings, can be found in Chapter 10
of the RIA. Cost
Table VIII.C–1 summarizes the
projected near-term and long-term per Near-Term Costs .......................... $2.69
Long-Term Costs .......................... 1.52
unit average costs to meet the new Fuel Savings (NPV) ...................... 4.24
emission standards. Long-term impacts
TABLE VIII.C–2.—TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS AND FUEL SAVINGS

2009 2013 2015 2020
Costs ................................................................................................................ $58,070,000 $60,559,000 $34,004,000 $37,543,000
215 These costs numbers may not necessarily and other market impacts will affect actual prices
reflect actual price increases as manufacturer to consumers.
production costs, perceived product enhancements,
TABLE VIII.C–2.—TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS AND FUEL SAVINGS—Continued

2009 2013 2015 2020
Fuel Savings .................................................................................................... 15,347,000 83,506,000 102,523,000 109,589,000
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced nonroad engines fueled with The results for HC for vehicles and
gasoline.216 PFCs are provided in Table VIII.D–1
We have calculated the cost per ton of For vehicles and PFCs, we are using both a three percent and a seven
HC, benzene, total MSATs, and PM establishing NMHC and HC standards, percent social discount rate. Again, this
emissions reductions associated with respectively, which will also reduce analysis assumes that all costs are
the fuel, vehicle, and PFC programs benzene and other VOC-based toxics. assigned to HC control. The discounted
using the costs described above and the For vehicles, we are also expecting cost per ton of HC reduced for the final
emissions reductions described in direct PM reductions due to the NMHC rule as a whole would be $0 because the
section IV. More detail on the costs, standard.217 Section IV above provides gasoline fuel savings from PFCs offsets
emissions reductions, and cost per ton an overview of how we are estimating the costs of PFC and vehicle controls.
estimates can be found in the RIA. We benzene and PM reductions resulting The table presents these as $0 per ton,
have calculated the costs per ton using from the NMHC standards for vehicles rather than calculating a negative value
the net present value of the annualized and benzene reductions resulting from
that has no clear meaning. For vehicles
costs of the program, including PFC the HC standard for PFCs. We have not
in 2030, the cost per ton is $0 because
gasoline fuel savings, from 2009 through attempted to apportion costs across
these various pollutants for purposes of by 2030 all fixed costs have been
2030 and the net present value of the recovered and there are no variable
annual emission reductions through the cost per ton calculations since there
is no distinction in the technologies, or costs estimated for the new vehicle
2030. We have also calculated the cost program.218
per ton of emissions reduced in the year associated costs, used to control the
2030 using the annual costs and pollutants. Instead, we have calculated The cost per ton estimates for each
emissions reductions in that year alone. costs per ton by assigning all costs to individual program are presented
each individual pollutant. If we separately in the tables below, and are
This number represents the long-term
apportioned costs among the pollutants, part of the justification for each of the
cost per ton of emissions reduced. For
the costs per ton presented here would programs. For informational purposes,
fuels, the cost per ton estimates include be proportionally lowered depending on
costs and emission reductions that will we also present the cost per ton for the
what portion of costs were assigned to three programs combined.
occur from all motor vehicles and the various pollutants.
TABLE VIII.D–1.—HC AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON
[$2003]
Discounted Discounted Long-Term

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

PFCs (without fuel savings) ......................................................................................................... 240 270 190
PFCs (with fuel savings) .............................................................................................................. 0 0 0
Combined (with fuel savings) ...................................................................................................... 0 0 0
The cost per ton of benzene are shown in Table VIII.D–2 using the HC. The results are calculated by
reductions for fuels, vehicles, and PFCs same methodology as noted above for assigning all costs to benzene control.
TABLE VIII.D–2.—BENZENE AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON
[$2003]
Discounted Discounted Long-term cost

lifetime cost lifetime cost per ton in
Fuels ............................................................................................................................................ $22,400 $23,100 $22,500

Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... 270 360 0
PFCs (without fuels savings) ....................................................................................................... 74,500 82,900 56,200
216 The proposed standards do not apply to benzene emissions reductions associated with the reductions achievable considering costs, we have
fuel used in nonroad equipment. considered the new cold-start standards separately
nonroad engines, since section 202(l) authorizes

controls only for ‘‘motor vehicles,’’ which term does 217 Again, although gasoline PM is not a mobile from any other new control program. Similarly, in
not include nonroad vehicles (CAA section 216(2)). source air toxic, the rule will result in emission considering whether the new controls for PFCs
However, we are reducing benzene in all gasoline, reductions of gasoline PM, which reductions are represent the best available control considering
accounted for in our analysis. economic feasibility, we considered the PFC
including that used in nonroad equipment. 218 We note that in determining whether the new standards separately from any other new control
Therefore, we are including both the costs and the
vehicle controls represent the greatest emissions program.
TABLE VIII.D–2.—BENZENE AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON—Continued
[$2003]

Combined (with fuel savings) ...................................................................................................... 8,200 8,600 5,900
The cost per ton of reductions of all using the same methodology as noted are calculated by assigning all costs to
MSAT reductions for fuels, vehicles, above for HC and benzene. The results MSAT control.
and PFCs are shown in Table VIII.D–3
TABLE VIII.D–3.—MSAT AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON
[$2003]

Fuels ............................................................................................................................................ $22,400 $23,100 $22,500

Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... 42 54 0
PFCs (without fuel savings) ......................................................................................................... 2,800 3,100 2,200
Combined (with fuel savings) ...................................................................................................... 1,700 1,800 1,100
We have also calculated a cost per ton Again, this analysis assigns all related
for direct PM reductions for vehicles. costs to direct PM reductions.
TABLE VIII.D–4.—DIRECT PM AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON
[$2003]

Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................... $650 $870 $0
E. Benefits approximately $6.3 billion using a 3 2002). However, it is important to note

percent discount rate and $5.7 billion that since the CAND rule, EPA’s Office
This section presents our analysis of using a 7 percent discount rate. Total of Air and Radiation (OAR) has adopted
the health and environmental benefits social costs of the entire rule for the a different format for its benefits
that will occur as a result of the final same year (2030) are $400 million. analyses in which characterization of
standards throughout the period from Details on the costs of the final the uncertainty in the concentration-
initial implementation through 2030. In standards are in section VIII.F. These response function is integrated into the
terms of emission benefits, we expect to estimates, and all monetized benefits main benefits analysis. This new
see significant reductions in mobile presented in this section, are in year approach follows the recommendation
source air toxics (MSATs) from the 2003 dollars. of NRC’s 2002 report ‘‘Estimating the
vehicle, fuel and PFC standards; The PM2.5 benefits are scaled based on Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air
reductions in VOCs (an ozone and PM2.5 relative changes in direct PM2.5 Pollution Regulations’’ to begin moving
precursor) from the cold temperature emissions between this rule and the the assessment of uncertainties from its
vehicle and PFC standards; and proposed Clean Air Nonroad Diesel ancillary analyses into its main benefits
reductions in direct PM2.5 from the cold (CAND) rule.219 As explained in Section presentation through the conduct of
temperature vehicle standards. When 12.2.1 of the RIA for this rule, the PM2.5 probabilistic analyses. Within this
translating emission benefits to health benefits scaling approach is limited to context, additional data sources are
effects and monetized values, however, those studies, health impacts, and available, including a recent expert
we quantify only the PM-related assumptions that were used in the elicitation and updated analysis of the
benefits associated with the cold proposed CAND analysis. As a result, Six-Cities Study cohort (Laden et al.,
temperature vehicle standards. PM-related premature mortality is based 2006). Please see the PM NAAQS RIA
The reductions in PM2.5 from the cold on the updated analysis of the American for an indication of the sensitivity of our
temperature vehicle standards will Cancer Society cohort (ACS; Pope et al., results to use of alternative
result in significant reductions in concentration-response functions.
premature deaths and other serious 219 Due to time and resource constraints, EPA We also demonstrate that the final
human health effects, as well as other scaled the final CAND benefits estimates from the standards will reduce cancer and
benefits estimated for the CAND proposal. The
important public health and welfare scaling approach used in that analysis, and applied
noncancer risk from reduced exposure
effects. We estimate that in 2030, the here, is described in the RIA for the final CAND to MSATs (as described in Section IV of
benefits we are able to monetize will be rule. this preamble). However, we do not
translate this risk reduction into incidence, specifically leukemia, and TABLE VIII.E–1.—UNQUANTIFIED AND
benefits. We also do not quantify the are not addressing other cancer or NON-MONETIZED EFFECTS
benefits related to ambient reductions in noncancer endpoints.
ozone and PM2.5 due to the VOC We also do not estimate the Pollutant/ef- Effects not included in pri-
emission reductions associated with the monetized benefits of VOC controls in fects mary estimates—changes in:
final standards. The following section this benefits analysis. Though VOCs
describes in more detail why these Ozone Health a Premature mortality: short-
will be demonstrably reduced as a result term exposures b.
benefits are not quantified. of the cold temperature vehicle Hospital admissions: res-
1. Unquantified Health and standards, we assume that these piratory.
Environmental Benefits emissions will not have a measurable Emergency room visits for
impact on ozone formation since the asthma.
This benefit analysis estimates
standards will reduce VOC emissions at Minor restricted-activity days.
improvements in health and human School loss days.
welfare that are expected as a result of cold ambient temperatures and ozone
formation is primarily a warm ambient Asthma attacks.
the final standards, and monetizes those Cardiovascular emergency
benefits. The benefits will come from temperature issue. The PFC controls
room visits.
reductions in emissions of air toxics will likely result in ozone benefits, Acute respiratory symptoms.
(including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, though we do not attempt to monetize Chronic respiratory damage.
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, those benefits. This is primarily due to Premature aging of the
naphthalene, and other air toxic the magnitude of, and uncertainty lungs.
pollutants discussed in section III), associated with, the estimated changes Non-asthma respiratory
ambient ozone (as a result of VOC in ambient ozone associated with the emergency room visits.
controls), and direct PM2.5 emissions. final standards. In Section IV.C., we Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
While there will be benefits discuss that the ozone modeling Ozone Welfare Decreased outdoor worker
associated with air toxic pollutant conducted for the final PFC standards productivity.
reductions, notably with regard to Agricultural yields for
results in a net reduction in ambient
—commercial forests.
reductions in exposure and risk (see ozone concentrations within the —some fruits and vegeta-
section IV), we do not attempt to modeled domain (37 Eastern states and bles.
monetize those benefits. This is the District of Columbia). The net —non-commercial crops.
primarily because available tools and improvement is very small, however, Damage to urban orna-
methods to assess air toxics risk from and will likely lead to negligible mental plants.
mobile sources at the national scale are monetized benefits. Instead, we Impacts on recreational de-
not adequate for extrapolation to acknowledge that this analysis may mand from damaged for-
incidence estimations or benefits underestimate the benefits associated est aesthetics.
assessment. The best suite of tools and with reductions in ozone precursor Ecosystem functions.
methods currently available for emissions achieved by the various Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
assessment at the national scale are PM Health c .... Premature mortality—short-
standards. We discuss these benefits
those used in the National-Scale Air term exposures d.
qualitatively within the RIA. Low birth weight.
Toxics Assessment (NATA; these tools
The VOC reductions resulting from Pulmonary function.
are discussed in Chapter 3 of the RIA).
the cold temperature vehicle standards Chronic respiratory diseases
The EPA Science Advisory Board other than chronic bron-
and PFC standards will also likely
specifically commented in their review chitis.
reduce secondary PM2.5 formation.
of the 1996 NATA that these tools were Non-asthma respiratory
However, we did not quantify the
not yet ready for use in a national-scale emergency room visits.
impacts of these reductions on ambient
benefits analysis, because they did not Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
PM2.5 or estimate any resulting benefits.
consider the full distribution of PM Welfare .... Visibility in many Class I
As described further below, we areas.
exposure and risk, or address sub-
estimated PM benefits by scaling from a Residential and recreational
chronic health effects.220 While EPA has
previous analysis, and this analysis did visibility in non-Class I
since improved the tools, there remain
not examine the relationship between areas.
critical limitations for estimating
VOC reductions and ambient PM. As a Soiling and materials dam-
incidence and assessing benefits of
result, we did not quantify PM benefits age.
reducing mobile source air toxics. We Damage to ecosystem func-
associated with this rule’s VOC
continue to work to address these tions.
reductions, and we acknowledge that
limitations, and we are exploring the Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
this analysis may therefore
feasibility of a quantitative benefits MSAT Health f Cancer (benzene, 1,3-buta-
underestimate benefits.
assessment for air toxics through a diene, formaldehyde, acet-
benzene case study as part of the revised Table VIII.E–1 lists each of the MSAT aldehyde, naphthalene).
study of ‘‘The Benefits and Costs of the and ozone health and welfare effects Anemia (benzene).
Clean Air Act’’ (also known as the that remain unquantified because of Disruption of production of
‘‘Section 812’’ report).221 In this case current limitations in the methods or blood components (ben-
available data. This table also includes zene).
study, we are attempting to monetize
the PM-related health and welfare Reduction in the number of
the benefits of reduced cancer blood platelets (benzene).
effects that also remain unquantified
Excessive bone marrow for-
220 Science Advisory Board. 2001. NATA— due to current method and data
mation (benzene).
Evaluating the National-Scale Air Toxics limitations. Chapter 12 of the RIA for Depression of lymphocyte
Assessment for 1996—an SAB Advisory. http:// the final standards provides a
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html. counts (benzene).
221 The analytic blueprint for the Section 812 qualitative description of the health and Reproductive and develop-
benzene case study can be found at http:// welfare effects not quantified in this mental effects (1,3-buta-
www.epa.gov/air/sect812/appendixi51203.pdf. analysis. diene).
c In addition to primary economic endpoints,

TABLE VIII.E–1.—UNQUANTIFIED AND incidence and monetized benefits from
there are a number of biological responses the CAND proposal. In this way, we
NON-MONETIZED EFFECTS—Contin- that have been associated with PM health ef-
ued fects including morphological changes and al- apportion the results of the proposed
tered host defense mechanisms. The public CAND analysis to its underlying direct
Pollutant/ef- Effects not included in pri- health impact of these biological responses PM emission reductions and scale the
fects mary estimates—changes in: may be partly represented by our quantified apportioned benefits to reflect
endpoints.
d While some of the effects of short-term ex- differences in emission reductions
Irritation of eyes and mucus posures are likely to be captured in the esti- between the two rules.223 This benefits
membranes (formalde- mates, there may be premature mortality due transfer method is consistent with the
hyde). to short-term exposure to PM not captured in approach used in other recent mobile
Respiratory irritation (form- the cohort study upon which the primary anal-
ysis is based. However, the PM mortality re- and stationary source rules.224
aldehyde).
sults derived from the expert elicitation do take Table VIII.E–2 presents the estimates
Asthma attacks in
into account premature mortality effects of of reduced incidence of PM2.5-related
asthmatics (formalde- short-term exposures.
hyde). e May result in benefits or disbenefits.
health effects for the years 2020 and
Asthma-like symptoms in f The categorization of unquantified toxic 2030 for the final cold temperature
non-asthmatics (formalde- health and welfare effects is not exhaustive. vehicle control strategies. In 2030, we
hyde). estimate that PM2.5-related annual
Irritation of the eyes, skin,
2. Quantified Human Health and benefits will result in approximately
and respiratory tract (acet- Environmental Effects of the Final Cold 880 fewer premature fatalities, 600
aldehyde). Temperature Vehicle Standard fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 1,600
Upper respiratory tract irrita- In this section we discuss the benefits fewer non-fatal heart attacks, and 900
tion and congestion (acro- of the final cold temperature vehicle fewer hospitalizations (for respiratory
lein). standard related to reductions in and cardiovascular disease combined).
Neurotoxicity (n-hexane, tol-
directly emitted PM2.5. To estimate In addition, we estimate that the
uene, xylenes).
PM2.5 benefits, we rely on a benefits emission controls will reduce days of
MSAT Wel- Direct toxic effects to ani-
f
fare . mals. transfer technique. The benefits transfer restricted activity due to respiratory
Bioaccumulation in the food approach uses as its foundation the illness by about 600,000 days and
chain. relationship between emission reduce work-loss days by about 100,000
Damage to ecosystem func- reductions and ambient PM2.5 days. We also estimate substantial
tion. concentrations modeled across the health improvements for children from
Odor. contiguous 48 states (and DC) for the reduced upper and lower respiratory
a In addition to primary economic endpoints,
Clean Air Nonroad Diesel (CAND) illness, acute bronchitis, and asthma
proposal.222 For a given future year, we attacks.
there are a number of biological responses
that have been associated with ozone health first calculate the ratio between CAND It is important to note that since the
effects including increased airway responsive- direct PM2.5 emission reductions and CAND rule, EPA’s Office of Air and
ness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute direct PM2.5 emission reductions Radiation (OAR) has adopted a different
inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and associated with the final cold format for its benefits analysis in which
increased susceptibility to respiratory infection.
b Recent analyses provide evidence that temperature vehicle control standard characterization of the uncertainty in
short-term ozone exposure is associated with (cold temperature vehicle emission the concentration-response function is
increased premature mortality. As a result, reductions/CAND emission reductions). integrated into the main benefits
EPA is considering how to incorporate ozone We multiply this ratio by the percent analysis. Within this context, additional
mortality benefits into its benefits analyses as
a separate estimate of the number of pre- that direct PM2.5 contributes towards data sources are available, including a
mature deaths that would be avoided due to population-weighted reductions in total recent PM-related premature mortality
reductions in ozone levels. PM2.5 due to the CAND standards. This expert elicitation and updated analysis
calculation results in a ‘‘benefits of the Six-Cities Study cohort (Laden et
apportionment factor’’ for the al., 2006). Please see the PM NAAQS
relationship between direct PM RIA for an indication of the sensitivity
emissions and primary PM2.5, which is of our results to use of alternative
then applied to the BenMAP-based concentration-response functions.
TABLE VIII.E–2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO THE FINAL COLD
TEMPERATURE VEHICLE STANDARD A
2020 An- 2030 An-
nual inci- nual inci-
Health effect dence re- dence re-
duction duction
PM-Related Endpoints:
Premature Mortality b Adult, age 30+ and Infant, age <1 year ................................................................................ 480 880
222 See 68 FR 28327, May 23, 2003. Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines ‘‘Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and
223 Note that while the final regulations also standards (67 FR 68241, November 8, 2002); Final Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
control VOCs, which contribute to PM formation, Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP (69 Pollution.’’ Journal of American Medical
FR 55217, September 13, 2004); Final Reciprocating Association 287:1132–1141.
the benefits transfer scaling approach only scales

benefits based on NOX, SO2, and direct PM Internal Combustion Engines NESHAP (69 FR 226 Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf.
emission reductions. PM benefits will likely be 33473, June 15, 2004); Final Clean Air Visibility 1997. ‘‘The Relationship Between Selected Causes
underestimated as a result, though we are unable Rule (EPA–452/R–05–004, June 15, 2005); Ozone of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate
to estimate the magnitude of the underestimation. Implementation Rule (documentation forthcoming). Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the
224 See: Clean Air Nonroad Diesel final rule (69 225 Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. United States.’’ Environmental Health Perspectives
FR 38958, June 29, 2004); Nonroad Large Spark- Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. 105(6):608–612.
TABLE VIII.E–2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO THE FINAL COLD
TEMPERATURE VEHICLE STANDARD A—Continued
2020 An- 2030 An-
nual inci- nual inci-
Health effect dence re- dence re-
duction duction
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) ............................................................................................................. 330 570

Non-fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and over) ......................................................................................... 810 1,600
Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) c ........................................................................................................... 260 530
Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (adults, age >18) d ........................................................................................ 210 390
Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) ............................................................................ 350 610
Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8–12) ..................................................................................................................... 780 1,400
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) ................................................................................................... 9,300 16,000
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9–18) .................................................................................. 7,000 12,000
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18) .............................................................................................. 12,000 20,000
Work loss days ......................................................................................................................................................... 62,000 100,000
Minor restricted activity days (adults age 18–65) .................................................................................................... 370,000 600,000
a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent benefits from the final rule nationwide, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.
b PM-related adult mortality based upon the ACS cohort study (Pope et al., 2002).225 PM-related infant mortality based upon studies by Wood-
ruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, 1997.226 Due to analytical constraints associated with the PM benefits scaling approach, we are unable to present
the premature mortality impacts associated with the recent Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006) or the impacts associated with the recent PM-re-
lated premature mortality expert elicitation (IEc, 2006). Chapter 12.6 of the RIA discusses the implications these new studies have on the bene-
fits estimated for the final rule.
c Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma.
d Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and
heart failure.
PM2.5 also has numerous documented annual PM-related health benefits are the benefit categories that could not be
effects on environmental quality that estimated to be approximately $6.3 or quantified or monetized in our benefit
affect human welfare. These welfare $5.7 billion in 2030 (3 percent and 7 estimates are provided in Table VIII.E–
effects include direct damages to percent discount rate, respectively). 1.
property, either through impacts on These estimates account for growth in • The PM2.5 benefits scaled transfer
material structures or by soiling of real gross domestic product (GDP) per approach, derived from the Clean Air
surfaces, and indirect economic capita between the present and 2030. Nonroad Diesel rule, does not account
damages through the loss in value of Table VIII.E–3 indicates with a ‘‘B’’ for VOCs as precursors to ambient PM2.5
recreational visibility or the existence those additional health and formation. To the extent that VOC
value of important resources. Additional environmental benefits of the rule that emission reductions associated with the
information about these welfare effects we are unable to quantify or monetize. final regulations contribute to
can be found in Chapter 12 of the These effects are additive to the estimate reductions in ambient PM2.5, this
Regulatory Impact Analysis. of total benefits, and are related to the analysis does not capture the related
following sources: health and environmental benefits of
3. Monetized Benefits
• There are many human health and those changes.
Table VIII.E–3 presents the estimated welfare effects associated with PM, • The PM air quality model only
monetary value of reductions in the ozone, and toxic air pollutant captures the benefits of air quality
incidence of those health effects we are reductions that remain unquantified improvements in the 48 states and DC;
able to monetize for the final cold because of current limitations in the PM benefits for Alaska and Hawaii are
temperature vehicle standard. Total methods or available data. A listing of not reflected in the estimate of benefits.
TABLE VIII.E–3.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL MONETARY VALUE OF REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
EFFECTS RELATED TO THE FINAL COLD TEMPERATURE VEHICLE STANDARD
(Millions of 2003$) a,b
2020 esti- 2030 esti-

Health effect Pollutant mated value of mated value of
reductions reductions
PM-Related Premature mortality c,d Adult, 30+ years and Infant, <1 year:
3 percent discount rate ....................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................ $3,100 $5,800
7 percent discount rate ....................................................................... .......................................................... 2,800 5,200
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) ................................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 150 260
Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions:
3 percent discount rate ....................................................................... .......................................................... 79 150
7 percent discount rate ....................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 76 140
Hospital admissions for respiratory causes ............................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 4.7 10
Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes ........................................ PM2.5 ................................................ 5.0 9.1
Emergency room visits for asthma ............................................................ PM2.5 ................................................ 0.11 0.20
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) ........................................................ PM2.5 ................................................ 0.32 0.56
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) .................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 0.16 0.29
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, age 9–11) ..................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 0.20 0.35
Asthma exacerbations ............................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 0.56 1.0
TABLE VIII.E–3.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL MONETARY VALUE OF REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
EFFECTS RELATED TO THE FINAL COLD TEMPERATURE VEHICLE STANDARD—Continued
(Millions of 2003$) a,b
2020 esti- 2030 esti-

Health effect Pollutant mated value of mated value of
reductions reductions
Work loss days .......................................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 9.1 14

Minor restricted activity days (MRADs) ..................................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 21 35
Monetized Totale
Base estimate:
3 percent discount rate ....................................................................... PM2.5 ................................................ 3,300+ B 6,300+ B
7 percent discount rate ....................................................................... .......................................................... 3,000+ B 5,700+ B
a Dollars are rounded to two significant digits. The PM estimates represent benefits from the final rule across the contiguous United States.
b Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2020 or 2030).
c Valuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20-year segmented lag
structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005). Results show 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses (US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).227,228
d Adult mortality based upon the ACS cohort study (Pope et al., 2002). Infant mortality based upon studies by Woodruff, Grillo, and
Schoendorf, 1997. Due to analytical constraints associated with the PM benefits scaling approach, we are unable to present the premature mor-
tality impacts associated with the recent Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006) study or the impacts associated with the recent PM-related pre-
mature mortality expert elicitation (IEc, 2006). Chapter 12.6 of the RIA discusses the implications these new studies have on the benefits esti-
mated for the final rule.
e B represents the monetary value of health and welfare benefits not monetized. A detailed listing is provided in Table VIII.E–1.
4. What Are the Significant Limitations effects. Deficiencies in the economics As Table VIII.E–3 indicates, total
of the Benefit Analysis? literature often result in the inability to benefits are driven primarily by the
The most significant limitation of this assign economic values even to those reduction in premature fatalities each
analysis is our inability to quantify a health and environmental outcomes year. Elaborating on the list of
number of potentially significant benefit which can be quantified. These general uncertainties above, some key
categories associated with uncertainties in the underlying assumptions underlying the primary
improvements in air quality that would scientific and economics literature, estimate for the premature mortality
result from the final standards. Most which can cause the valuations to be category include the following:
notably, we are unable to estimate the higher or lower, are discussed in detail 1. Inhalation of fine particles is
benefits from reduced air toxics in the RIA and its supporting references. causally associated with premature
exposures because the available tools Key uncertainties that have a bearing on death at concentrations near those
and methods to assess mobile source air the results of the benefit-cost analysis of experienced by most Americans on a
toxics risk at the national scale are not the final standards include the daily basis. Although biological
adequate for extrapolation to incidence following: mechanisms for this effect have not yet
estimations or benefits assessment. We • The exclusion of potentially been completely established, the weight
also do not quantify ozone benefits significant and unquantified benefit of the available epidemiological,
associated with the final PFC standards, categories (such as health, odor, and toxicological, and experimental
despite the fact that there are net ecological benefits of reduction in air evidence supports an assumption of
benefits, when population-weighted, in toxics, ozone, and PM); causality. The impacts of including a
the ozone design value metric across the • Errors in measurement and probabilistic representation of causality
modeled domain (see section IV.C). We projection for variables such as were explored in the expert elicitation-
do not quantify these benefits because of population growth; based results of the recently published
their magnitude and the uncertainty • Uncertainties in the estimation of PM NAAQS RIA. Because the analysis
associated with them. future year emissions inventories and of the final cold temperature vehicle
More generally, every benefit-cost air quality; standard is constrained to the studies
analysis examining the potential effects • Uncertainties associated with the included in the CAND PM benefits
of a change in environmental protection scaling of the PM results of the modeled scaling approach, we are unable to
requirements is limited to some extent benefits analysis to the final standards, conduct the same analysis of expert
by data gaps, limitations in model especially regarding the assumption of elicitation-based mortality incidence for
capabilities (such as geographic similarity in geographic distribution the final standards.229 However, we
coverage), and uncertainties in the between emissions and human qualitatively describe the expert
underlying scientific and economic populations and years of analysis; elicitation-based mortality results
studies used to configure the benefit and • Uncertainty in the estimated associated with the final PM NAAQS to
cost models. Deficiencies in the relationships of health and welfare provide an indication of the sensitivity
scientific literature often result in the effects to changes in pollutant of our PM-related premature mortality
inability to estimate quantitative concentrations including the shape of results to use of alternative
changes in health and environmental the C–R function, the size of the effect 229 The scaling approach relies on the incidence
estimates, and the relative toxicity of the and valuation estimates derived from the studies
227 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, many components of the PM mixture;
available at the time of the CAND analysis.

Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. • Uncertainties in exposure Incidence estimates and monetized benefits derived
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/ estimation; and from new information, including mortality derived
Guidelines.html. from the full expert elicitation, are not available for
228 Office of Management and Budget, The • Uncertainties associated with the scaling. Please refer to section 2 of this preamble
Executive Office of the President, 2003. Circular A– effect of potential future actions to limit and Chapter 12 of the RIA for more information
4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circlars. emissions. about the benefits scaling approach.
concentration-response functions. We scientific literature and methods. 5. How Do the Benefits Compare to the
present this discussion in the RIA. Furthermore, our analysis reflects many Costs of The Final Standards?
2. Since the publication of CAIR and methodological improvements that were The final rule provides three separate
CAND, a follow up to the Harvard Six- incorporated into the analysis of the provisions that reduce air toxics
Cities study on premature mortality was final Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), emissions from mobile sources: cold
published (Laden et al., 2006 based on including a revised value of a statistical temperature vehicle controls, a PFC
Dockery et al., 1993),230, 231 which both life, a revised baseline rate of future emissions control program, and a
confirmed the effect size from the first mortality, and a revised mortality lag control program limiting benzene in
study and provided additional evidence assumption. Details of these gasoline. A full appreciation of the
that reductions in PM2.5 directly result improvements can be found in the RIA overall economic consequences of these
in reductions in the risk of premature for this rule and in the final CAIR rule provisions requires consideration of the
death. The impacts of including this RIA.232 Once again, however, it should benefits and costs expected to result
study in the primary analysis were from each standard, not just those that
be noted that since the CAIR rule, EPA’s
explored in the results of the recently could be expressed here in dollar terms.
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) has
published PM NAAQS RIA. Because the As noted above, due to limitations in
analysis of the final cold temperature adopted a different format for its
benefits analysis in which data availability and analytical methods,
vehicle standard is constrained to the our benefits analysis only monetizes the
studies included in the CAND PM characterization of uncertainty is
PM2.5 benefits from direct PM emission
benefits scaling approach, we are unable integrated into the main benefits
reductions associated with the cold
to characterize PM-related mortality analysis. Please see the PM NAAQS RIA temperature standards. There are a
based on Laden et al. However, we for an indication of the uncertainty number of health and environmental
discuss the implications of these results present in the base estimate of benefits effects associated with the final
in the RIA for the final standards. and the sensitivity of our results to the standards that we were unable to
3. All fine particles, regardless of their use of alternative concentration- quantify or monetize (see Table VIII.E–
chemical composition, are equally response functions. 1).
potent in causing premature mortality. In contrast to the additional benefits Table VIII.E–4 contains the estimates
This is an important assumption, of the final standards discussed above, of monetized benefits of the final cold
because PM produced via transported it is also possible that this rule will temperature vehicle standards only and
precursors emitted from vehicles at cold result in disbenefits in some areas of the estimated social welfare costs for all of
temperatures may differ significantly United States. The effects of ozone and the final control programs.235 The
from PM precursors released from PM on radiative transfer in the annual social welfare costs of all
electric generating units and other atmosphere can lead to effects of provisions of the final rule are described
industrial sources. However, no clear more fully in Section VIII.F. It should be
uncertain magnitude and direction on
scientific grounds exist for supporting noted that the estimated social welfare
the penetration of ultraviolet light and
differential effects estimates by particle costs for the vehicle program contained
climate. Ground level ozone makes up
type. in this table are for 2019. The 2019
a small percentage of total atmospheric vehicle program costs are included for
4. The concentration-response
ozone (including the stratospheric layer) comparison purposes only and are
function for fine particles is
approximately linear within the range of that attenuates penetration of therefore not included in the total 2020
ambient concentrations under ultraviolet—b (UVb) radiation to the social costs. There are no compliance
consideration. Thus, the estimates ground. EPA’s past evaluation of the costs associated with the vehicle
include health benefits from reducing information indicates that potential program after 2019; as explained
fine particles in areas with varied disbenefits would be small, variable, elsewhere in this preamble, the vehicle
concentrations of PM, including both and with too many uncertainties to compliance costs are primarily R&D and
regions that may be in attainment with attempt quantification of relatively facilities costs that are expected to be
PM2.5 standards and those that are at small changes in average ozone levels recovered by manufacturers over the
risk of not meeting the standards. over the course of a year.233 EPA’s most first ten years of the program.
Taking into account these recent provisional assessment of the The results in Table VIII.E–4 suggest
uncertainties, we believe this benefit- currently available information that the 2020 monetized benefits of the
cost analysis provides a conservative indicates that potential but cold temperature vehicle standards are
estimate of the expected economic unquantifiable benefits may also arise greater than the expected social welfare
benefits of the final standards for cold from ozone-related attenuation of UVb costs of that program in 2019.
temperature vehicle control in future radiation.234 In addition, EPA believes Specifically, the annual benefits of the
years because of the exclusion of that we are unable to quantify any net program will be approximately $3,300 +
potentially significant benefit categories. climate-related disbenefit or benefit B million or $3,000 + B million
Acknowledging benefits omissions and associated with the combined ozone and annually in 2020 (using a 3 percent and
uncertainties, we present a best estimate PM reductions in this rule. 7 percent discount rate in the benefits
of the total benefits based on our analysis, respectively), compared to
interpretation of the best available 232 See Chapter 4 of the Final Clean Air Interstate estimated social welfare costs of
Rule RIA (http://www.epa.gov/cair) for a discussion approximately $10.6 million in the last
230 Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. of EPA’s ongoing efforts to address the NAS year of the program (2019). These
Dockery. 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air recommendations in its regulatory analyses. benefits are expected to increase to
Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of 233 EPA, 2005. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667– Related Photochemical Oxidants (First External
$6,300 + B million or $5,700 + B million
672. Review Draft). January. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/ annually in 2030 (using a 3 percent and
231 Dockery, D.W., C.A. Pope, X.P. Xu, J.D. cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=114523.
Spengler, J.H. Ware, M.E. Fay, B.G. Ferris, and F.E. 234 EPA, 2005. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 235 Social costs represent the welfare costs of the
Speizer. 1993. ‘‘An Association between Air Related Photochemical Oxidants (Second External rule to society. These social costs do not consider
Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities.’’ New Review Draft). August. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/ transfer payments (such as taxes) that are simply
England Journal of Medicine 329(24):1753–1759. cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=137307. redistributions of wealth.
7 percent discount rate in the benefits emissions control program and a control the final cold temperature vehicle
analysis, respectively), even as the program limiting benzene in gasoline. standards alone outweigh the costs of all
social welfare costs of that program fall Though we are unable to present the three rule provisions combined.
to zero. Table VIII.E–4 also presents the benefits associated with these two
costs of the other rule provisions: a PFC programs, the benefits associated with
TABLE VIII.E–4.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BENEFITS OF THE FINAL COLD TEMPERATURE VEHICLE STANDARDS AND COSTS
OF ALL PROVISIONS OF THE FINAL STANDARDS a
[Millions of 2003 dollars]
Description 2020 (Millions of 2003 dollars) 2030 (Millions of 2003 dollars)
Estimated Social Welfare Costs b

Cold Temperature Vehicle Standards .............................................. $10.6 c ............................................ $0
PFC Standards ................................................................................. $37.5 .............................................. $45.7
Fuel Standards d ............................................................................... $402.6 ............................................ $445.8
Total ................................................................................................. $440.1 ............................................ $491.5
Fuel Savings .................................................................................... ¥$80.7 .......................................... ¥$91.5
Net Social Welfare Costs $359.4 ............................................ $400.0
Total PM2.5-Related Health Benefits of the

Cold Temperature Vehicle Standards e
3 percent discount rate .................................................................... $3,300 + B f ................................... $6,300 + B f
7 percent discount rate .................................................................... $3,000 + B f ................................... $5,700 + B f
a All estimates are rounded to two significant digits and represent annualized benefits and costs anticipated for the years 2020 and 2030, ex-
cept where noted. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
b Note that costs are the annual costs of reducing all pollutants associated with each provision of the final MSAT control package in 2020 and
2030 (unless otherwise noted). To estimate fixed costs associated with the vehicle standards, we use a 7 percent average before-tax rate of re-
turn over 5 years to amortize the capital fixed costs. For the fuel standards, we use a 7 percent before-tax rate of return over 15 years to amor-
tize the capital costs. Note that by 2020, PFC container standard costs are only variable and do not use a rate of return assumption. See Chap-
ters 8 and 9 for discussion of the vehicle and fuel standard costs, respectively. In Chapter 13, however, we do use both a 3 percent and 7 per-
cent social discount rate to calculate the net present value of total social costs consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic
analyses (US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).236, 237
c These costs are for 2019; the vehicle program compliance costs terminate after 2019 and are included for illustrative purposes. They are not
included in the total social welfare cost sum for 2020.
d Our modeling for the total costs of the proposed gasoline benzene program included participation by California refineries (achieving benzene
reductions below the 0.62 proposed benzene standard—thus generating credits), since it was completed before we decided that California gaso-
line would not be covered by the program. For the final rule, we exclude California refineries from the analysis. By excluding California refineries,
other higher cost refineries will have to comply in their place, slightly increasing the costs for the program.
e Annual benefits reflect only direct PM reductions associated with the cold temperature vehicle standards. Annual benefits analysis results re-
flect the use of a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarctions, consistent
with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses (US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003). Valuation of premature mortality based on
long-term PM exposure assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20-year segmented lag structure described in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005). Valuation of nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MI) assumes discounting over a 5-year
period, reflecting lost earnings and direct medical costs following a nonfatal MI. Note that we do not calculate a net present value of benefits as-
sociated with the cold temperature vehicle standards.
f Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and disbenefits.
Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized are listed in Table VIII.E–1.
F. Economic Impact Analysis estimated costs associated with percent (0.5 cents per gallon), for PADD
We prepared an Economic Impact compliance with the gasoline, PFC, and 5. The price of PFCs is expected to
Analysis (EIA) to estimate the economic vehicle controls and the expected increase by about 1.9 percent ($0.20 per
impacts of this rule on the portable fuel gasoline fuel savings from better can) in areas that already have PFC
container (PFC), gasoline fuel, and light- evaporative controls on PFCs. The requirements and 32.5 percent ($1.52
duty vehicle markets. In this section we results of the economic impact per can) in areas that do not.
briefly describe the Economic Impact modeling performed for the gasoline Detailed descriptions of the EIM, the
Model (EIM) we developed to estimate fuel and PFC control programs suggest model inputs, modeling results, and
both the market-level changes in price that the social costs of those two several sensitivity analyses can be found
and outputs for affected markets and the programs are expected to be about in Chapter 13 of the Regulatory Impact
social costs of the program and their $440.1 million in 2020, with consumers Analysis prepared for this rule.
distribution across affected of these products expected to bear about
58.4 percent of these costs. We estimate 1. What Is an Economic Impact
stakeholders. We also present the results Analysis?
of our analysis. gasoline fuel savings of about $80.7
We estimate the net social costs of the million in 2020, which will accrue to An Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) is
program to be about $359.4 million in consumers. There are no social costs prepared to inform decision makers
2020. This estimate reflects the associated with the vehicle program in about the potential economic
2020 (these accrue only in the 10-year consequences of a regulatory action. The
236 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. period from 2010 through 2019). These analysis consists of estimating the social
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. estimates, and all costs presented in this costs of a regulatory program and the
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/ section, are in year 2003 dollars. distribution of these costs across
Guidelines.html.
237 Office of Management and Budget, The With regard to market-level impacts stakeholders. These estimated social
Executive Office of the President, 2003. Circular A– in 2020, the maximum price increase for costs can then be compared with
4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars. gasoline fuel is expected to be about 0.3 estimated social benefits (as presented
in Section VIII.E). As defined in EPA’s or consumer behavior. Therefore, we do between reformulated and conventional
Guidelines for Preparing Economic not expect these controls to affect the gasoline fuels.
Analyses, social costs are the value of quantity of vehicles produced or their The EIM models the economic
the goods and services lost by society prices. At the same time, however, the impacts on two PFC markets (states that
resulting from a) the use of resources to light-duty vehicle compliance costs are currently have requirements for PFCs
comply with and implement a a cost to society and should be included and those that do not), and four gasoline
regulation and b) reductions in in the economic welfare analysis. We do fuel markets (PADDs 1+3, PADD 2,
output.238 In this analysis, social costs this by adding the vehicle program PADD 4, PADD 5). The markets
are explored in two steps. In the market engineering compliance cost estimates included in this EIA are described in
analysis, we estimate how prices and to the estimated social costs of the more detail in Chapter 13 of the RIA for
quantities of goods affected by the gasoline and PFC programs. this rule.
emission control program can be With regard to the gasoline fuel and In the EIM, the gasoline fuel and PFC
expected to change once the program PFC markets, we model the impacts on markets are not linked (there is no
goes into effect. In the economic welfare residential users of these products. This feedback mechanism between the PFC
analysis, we look at the total social costs means that we focus the analysis on the and gasoline fuel model segments). This
associated with the program and their use of these products for personal is because these two sectors represent
distribution across stakeholders. transportation (gasoline fuel) or different aspects of fuel consumption
residential lawns and garden care or (fuel storage and fuel production) and
2. What Is the Economic Impact Model? recreational uses (PFCs) and do not production and consumption of PFCs is
The Economic Impact Model (EIM) is separately model how the costs of not expected to have an impact on the
a behavioral model developed to complying with the standards may production and supply of gasoline, and
estimate price and quantity changes and affect the production of goods and vice versa. Production and consumption
total social costs associated with the services that use gasoline fuel or PFCs of each of these products are the result
emission controls set out in this rule. as production inputs. We believe this of other factors that have little cross-
The EIM simulates how producers and approach is reasonable because the over impacts (the need for fuel storage;
consumers of affected products can be commercial share of the end-user the need for personal transportation).
expected to respond to an increase in markets for both gasoline fuel and PFCs 4. What Are the Key Features of the
production costs associated with is relatively small.239, 240 In addition, for Economic Impact Model?
compliance with the emission control most commercial users the share of the
program. In this EIM, compliance costs cost of these products to total A detailed description of the features
are directly borne by producers of production costs is also small (e.g., the of the EIM and the data used in the
affected goods. Depending on the cost of a PFC is only a very small part analysis is provided in Chapter 13 of the
producers’ and consumers’ sensitivity to of the total production costs for an RIA prepared for this rule. The model
price changes, producers may be able to agricultural or construction firm). methodology is firmly rooted in applied
pass some or all of these compliance Therefore, a price increase of the microeconomic theory and was
costs on to the consumers of these goods magnitude anticipated for this control developed following the methodology
in the form of higher prices. Consumers program is not expected to have a set out in the OAQPS’s Economic
adjust their consumption of affected noticeable impact on prices or Analysis Resource Document.241
goods in response to these price quantities of goods produced using The EIM is a computer model
changes. This information is passed these inputs (e.g., agricultural product comprised of a series of spreadsheet
back to the producers in the form of or buildings). modules that simulate the supply and
purchasing decisions. The EIM takes With regard to the gasoline fuel demand characteristics of the affected
these behavioral responses into account analysis, it should be noted that this EIA markets. The initial market equilibrium
to estimate new market equilibrium does not include California fuels in the conditions are shocked by applying the
quantities and prices for all modeled market analysis. California currently has compliance costs for the control
sectors and the resulting distribution of state-level controls that address air program to the supply side of the
social costs across these stakeholders toxics from gasoline. Also, consistent markets (this is done by shifting the
(producers and consumers). with the cost analysis, the economic relevant supply curves by the amount of
impact analysis does not distinguish the compliance costs). The model
3. What Economic Sectors Are Included
equations can be analytically solved for
in this Economic Impact Analysis?
239 The U.S Department of Energy estimates that equilibrium prices and quantities for the
There are three economic sectors about 92 percent of gasoline used in the United markets with the regulatory program
affected by the control programs States for transportation is used in light-duty and these new prices and quantities are
described in this rule: PFCs, gasoline vehicles. About 6 percent is used for commercial or
industrial transportation, and the remaining 2
used to estimate the social costs of the
fuel, and light-duty vehicles. In this percent is used in recreational marine vessels. See model and how those costs are shared
Economic Impact Analysis we model U.S Department of Energy, Energy Information among affected markets.
only the impacts on the PFC and Administration, 2004. ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook The EIM is a partial equilibrium,
gasoline fuel markets. We did not model 2004 with projections to 2025.’’ Last updated June
2, 2004. Table A–2 and Supplemental Table 34.
intermediate-run model that assumes
the impacts on the light-duty vehicle http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeoref_tab.html. perfect competition in the relevant
market. This is because the compliance 240 A recent study by CARB (1999) found that 94 markets. As explained in EPA’s
costs for the vehicle program are percent of portable fuel containers in California Guidelines for Preparing Economic
expected to be very small, less than $1 were used by residential households California Analyses, ‘‘partial equilibrium’’ means
per vehicle and, even if passed on Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources
Board (CARB) 1999. See ‘‘Hearing Notice and Staff that the model considers markets in
entirely, are unlikely to affect producer
Report, Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed

Rule Making Public Hearing to Consider the 241 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
238 EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Adoption of Portable Fuel Container Spillage of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Innovative
Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, September 2000, p Control Regulation.’’ Sacrament, CA: California Strategies and Economics Group, OAQPS Economic
113. A copy of this document can be found at Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Analysis Resource Document, April 1999. A copy
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/ Board (CARB). A copy of this document is available of this document can be found at http://
Guidelines.html#download. at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/spillcon/isor.pdf. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/econdata/Rmanual2/.
isolation and that conditions in other particular fuel (gasoline, diesel fuel, (reflected in the slope of the supply and
markets are assumed either to be kerosene) as good substitutes for the demand curves), which measure the
unaffected by a policy or unimportant storage of that particular fuel. Because price sensitivity of consumers and
for social cost estimation.242 The use of the products are similar enough to be producers. The price elasticities used in
the intermediate run means that some considered homogeneous (e.g., perfectly this analysis are described in Chapter 13
factors of production are fixed and some substitutable), consumers can shift their of the RIA. The gasoline elasticities
are variable. In very short analyses, all purchases from one manufacturer to were obtained from the literature and
factors of production would be assumed another. There are only minimal are ¥0.2 for demand and 0.2 for supply.
to be fixed, leaving the producers with technical barriers to entry that would This means that both the quantity
no means to respond to the increased prevent new firms from freely entering supplied and demanded are expected to
production costs associated with the the market, since manufacturing is be fairly insensitive to price changes
regulation (e.g., they cannot adjust labor based on well-known plastic processing and that increases in prices are not
or capital inputs). Under this time methods. In addition, there is significant expected to cause sales to fall or
horizon, the costs of the regulation fall excess capacity, enabling competitors to production to increase by very much.
entirely on the producer. In the long respond quickly to changes in price. Because we were unable to find
run, all factors of production are Excess production capacity in the published supply and demand
variable and producers can adjust general container manufacturing market elasticities for the PFC market, we
production in response to cost changes also means that manufacturers could estimated these parameters using the
imposed by the regulation (e.g., using a potentially switch their product lines to procedures described in Chapter 13 of
different labor/capital mix). In the compete in this segment of the market, the RIA. This approach yielded a
intermediate run there is some resource often without a significant investment. demand elasticity of ¥0.01 and a
immobility which may cause producers In addition, there is no evidence of high supply elasticity of 1.5. The estimated
to suffer producer surplus losses, but levels of strategic behavior in the price demand elasticity is nearly perfectly
they can also pass some of the and quantity decisions of the firms. inelastic (equal to zero), which means
compliance costs to consumers. Finally, it should be noted that that changes in price are expected to
The perfect competition assumption contestable market theory asserts that have very little effect on the quantity of
is widely accepted economic practice oligopolies and even monopolies will PFCs demanded. However, supply is
for this type of analysis, and only in rare behave very much like firms in a fairly elastic, meaning producers are
cases are other approaches used.243 It competitive market if manufacturers expected to respond to a change in
should be noted that the perfect have extra production capacity and this price. Therefore, consumers are
competition assumption is not primarily capacity could allow them to enter the expected to bear more of the burden of
about the number of firms in a market. market costlessly (i.e., there are no sunk PFC regulatory control costs than
It is about how the market operates: the costs associated with this kind of market producers.
nature of the competition among firms. entry or exit).245 As a result of all of Initial market equilibrium conditions
Indicators that allow us to assume these conditions, producers and are simulated using the same current
perfect competition include absence of consumers in the PFC market are year sales quantities and growth rates
barriers to entry, absence of strategic expected to take the market price as used in the engineering cost analysis.
behavior among firms in the market, and given when making their production The initial equilibrium prices for PFCs
product differentiation. and consumption choices and the and gasoline fuel were obtained from
With regard to the fuel market, the market can be modeled as a competitive industry sources and published
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has market even though the number of government data. The initial
developed an approach to ensure producers is small. equilibrium market conditions are
competitiveness in gasoline fuel shocked by applying the engineering
5. What Are the Key Model Inputs? compliance cost estimates described
markets. It reviews oil company mergers
and frequently requires divestiture of Key model inputs for the EIM are the earlier in this section. Although both the
refineries, terminals, and gas stations to behavioral parameters, compliance costs PFC and gasoline fuel markets are
maintain a minimum level of estimates, and market equilibrium competitive markets, the model is
competition. This is discussed in more quantities and prices. shocked by applying the sum of variable
detail in the industry profile prepared The EIM is a behavioral model. The and fixed costs. Two sets of compliance
estimated social costs of this emission costs are used in the PFC market
for this rule.244
With regard to the PFC market, the control program are a function of the analysis, reflecting states with existing
small number of firms in the market is ways in which producers and controls and states without existing
offset by several features of this market. consumers of the PFC and gasoline fuel controls. The compliance costs used to
Because PFCs are compact and affected by the standards change their shock the gasoline fuel market are based
lightweight, they are easy to transport behavior in response to the costs on an average total cost (variable +
far from their place of manufacture. This incurred in complying with the fixed) analysis. An explanation for this
means that production is not limited to standards. These behavioral responses approach can be found in Section
local producers. Although they vary by are incorporated in the EIM through the 13.2.4.1 of the RIA prepared for this
size and material, consumers are likely price elasticity of supply and demand rule. These gasoline fuel compliance
to view all PFCs designed for storing a costs differ across PADDs but are the
245 A monopoly or firms in oligopoly may not
same across years. Because California
behave as neoclassical economic theories of the already has existing gasoline fuel
242 EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic firm predict because they may be concerned about
Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, September 2000, p. new entrants to the market. If super-normal profits controls, fuel volumes for that state are
125–6. not included in the market analysis.
are earned, potential competitors may enter the

243 See, for example, EPA Guidelines for
market. To respond to this threat, existing firm(s) Additional costs that need to be
Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, in the market will keep prices and output at a level considered in the EIM are the gasoline
September 2000, p 126. where only normal profits are made, setting price
244 Section 3 Industry Organization, and output levels at or close to the competitive
fuel savings associated with the PFC
‘‘Characterizing Gasoline Markets: a Profile,’’ Final price and output. See Chapter 13 of the RIA for controls and the costs of the light-duty
Report, prepared for EPA by RTI, August 2005. more information, Section 13.2.3. vehicle controls. The PFC controls are
expected to reduce gasoline evaporative first year in which both the PFC and the production processes or marketing
emissions from fuel storage, leading to gasoline programs are in effect (the PFC strategies in response to the control
gasoline fuel savings for users of these program begins in 2009; the gasoline program.
containers. These gasoline fuel savings fuel program goes into effect January 1, The market analysis results for 2009,
are not included in the market analysis 2011 but the compliance cost analysis 2012, 2015, and 2020 are presented in
for this economic impact analysis includes a phase-in starting in 2007 that Table VIII.F–1. With regard to the
because these savings are not expected ends May 2015). The year 2012 is gasoline fuel program, the market
to affect consumer decisions with presented because it is a high cost year impacts are expected to be small, on
respect to the purchase of new due to the way the fuel program average. The price of gasoline fuel is
containers. Gasoline fuel savings are compliance costs were estimated.246 expected to increase by less than 0.5
included in the social cost analysis, The year 2015 is presented because percent, depending on PADD, with
however, because they are a savings that beginning with that year compliance smaller increases during the program
accrues to society. The estimated costs are stabilized for future years for phase-in. The expected reduction in
gasoline fuel savings are added to the both the gasoline and PFC programs (the quantity of fuel produced is expected to
estimated social costs as a separate line vehicle program compliance costs be less than 0.1 percent.
item. As noted above, the economic continue for five more years). Detailed The market impacts for the PFC
impacts of the light-duty vehicle results for all years are included in the program are expected to be more
controls are not modeled in the EIM. appendices to Chapter 13 of the RIA. significant. In 2009, the first year of the
Instead, the estimated engineering Also included as an appendix to that PFC program, the model predicts a price
compliance costs are used as a proxy, chapter are sensitivity analyses for increase of about seven percent for PFCs
and are also added into the estimated several key inputs. in states that currently have regulations
social costs as a separate line item. Market Impact Analysis. In the market for PFCs and about 57 percent for those
The EIM relies on the estimated analysis, we estimate how prices and that do not. Even with these large price
compliance costs for the PFC and quantities of goods affected by the increases, however, the quantity
gasoline fuel programs described emission control program can be produced is not expected to decrease by
elsewhere in this preamble. Thus, the expected to change once the program very much: less than 0.6 percent. These
EIM reflects cost savings associated with goes into effect. As explained above, we percent price increases and quantity
ABT or other flexibility programs to the estimated market impacts for only the decreases are much smaller after the
extent they are included in the gasoline fuel and PFC markets. The first five years. In 2015, the estimated
estimated compliance costs. analysis relies on the baseline PFC price increase is expected to be less
equilibrium prices and quantities for than two percent for states that
6. What Are the Results of the Economic each market and the price elasticity of currently regulate PFCs and about 32.5
Impact Modeling? supply and demand. It predicts market percent for states without such
Using the model and data described reactions to the increase in production regulations. The quantity produced is
above, we estimated the economic costs due to the new compliance costs. expected to decrease by less than 0.4
impacts of the rule. The results of our It should be noted that this analysis percent. The results for 2020 are
modeling for selected years are does not allow any other factors to vary. substantially the same as 2015, with a
summarized in this section. The year In other words, it does not consider that larger decrease in the number of PFCs
2009 is presented because that is the manufacturers may adjust their produced.
TABLE VIII.F–1.—SUMMARY OF MARKET IMPACTS (2009, 2012, 2015, AND 2020; 2003$)
Change in price Change in quantity
Engineering cost
Market per unit Absolute Percent Absolute Percent
2009
¢/gallon ¢/gallon Million gallons
Gasoline Fuel:
PADD 1 & 3 .................................... 0.016 0.009 0.006 ¥0.9 ¥0.001
PADD 2 ........................................... 0.091 0.050 0.033 ¥2.7 ¥0.007
PADD 4 ........................................... 0.033 0.018 0.011 ¥0.1 ¥0.002
PADD 5 (w/out CA) ........................ 0.007 0.004 0.002 ¥0.0 0.000
$/can Thousand cans
Portable Fuel Containers:

States with existing programs ........ 0.77 0.76 6.9 ¥8.0 ¥0.07
States without existing programs ... 2.70 2.68 57.5 ¥104.7 ¥0.57
2012
¢/gallon Million gallons

Gasoline Fuel:
PADD 1 & 3 .................................... 0.058 0.032 0.021 ¥3.3 ¥0.004
PADD 2 ........................................... 0.308 0.168 0.111 ¥9.7 ¥0.022
246 Actual fuel program compliance costs are
expected to be spread more evenly across years.
TABLE VIII.F–1.—SUMMARY OF MARKET IMPACTS (2009, 2012, 2015, AND 2020; 2003$)—Continued
Change in price Change in quantity
Engineering cost
Market per unit Absolute Percent Absolute Percent
PADD 4 ........................................... 0.213 0.116 0.074 ¥0.8 ¥0.015

PADD 5 (w/out CA) ........................ 0.140 0.768 0.046 ¥0.8 ¥0.009
$/can Thousand cans

2015
Gasoline Fuel:
PADD 1 & 3 .................................... 0.149 0.081 0.055 ¥8.9 ¥0.011
PADD 2 ........................................... 0.307 0.167 0.111 ¥10.4 ¥0.022
PADD 4 ........................................... 0.501 0.273 0.174 ¥1.8 ¥0.035
PADD 5 (w/out CA) ........................ 0.997 0.544 0.327 ¥6.1 ¥0.065
$/can Thousand cans

2020
Gasoline Fuel:
PADD 1 & 3 .................................... 0.149 0.081 0.055 ¥9.5 ¥0.011
PADD 2 ........................................... 0.307 0.167 0.111 ¥10.7 ¥0.022
PADD 4 ........................................... 0.501 0.273 0.174 ¥2.0 ¥0.035
PADD 5 (w/out CA) ........................ 0.997 0.544 0.327 ¥6.4 ¥0.065
$/can Thousand cans

Economic Welfare Analysis. In the and 2014 due to changes in the fuel TABLE VIII.F–2.—ESTIMATED ENGI-
economic welfare analysis, we look at program compliance costs, and then NEERING COMPLIANCE AND SOCIAL
the costs to society of the emission increase again in 2015, after which time COSTS THROUGH 2035—Continued
control program in terms of losses to key the per-gallon costs are expected to be [Including fuel savings; $million; 2003$]
stakeholder groups that are the stable. Some of the decrease in social
producers and consumers in the costs in 2014 is also due to a decrease Engineering
gasoline and PFC markets. These in costs associated with the PFC Year compliance Social costs
surplus losses are combined with program, since fixed costs are fully costs
estimated vehicle compliance costs, amortized by 2014. The slight decrease
gasoline fuel savings, and government 2009 .......... 99.0 98.9
in 2020 is due to the end of the vehicle 2010 .......... 161.9 161.7
revenue losses to estimate the net compliance costs, which are incurred in 2011 .......... 152.6 152.4
economic welfare impacts of the the 10-year period from 2010 through 2012 .......... 228.7 228.5
program. Detailed economic welfare 2019. 2013 .......... 190.9 190.8
results for the rule are presented in 2014 .......... 150.8 150.7
Appendix C and are summarized below. TABLE VIII.F–2.—ESTIMATED ENGI- 2015 .......... 350.8 350.7
The estimated annual net social costs NEERING COMPLIANCE AND SOCIAL 2016 .......... 354.5 354.4
(total social costs less gasoline fuel 2017 .......... 358.0 357.9
COSTS THROUGH 2035 2018 .......... 361.9 361.8
savings) for all years are presented in
Table VIII.F–2. These social costs follow [Including fuel savings; $million; 2003$] 2019 .......... 366.1 366.0
2020 .......... 359.5 359.4
the trend of the fuel program
Engineering 2021 .......... 363.5 363.4

compliance costs. Initially, the Year compliance Social costs 2022 .......... 367.1 367.0
estimated social costs of the program are costs 2023 .......... 370.7 370.6
relatively small as the gasoline program 2024 .......... 374.7 374.6
begins to phase in. The net social costs 2007 .......... $29.5 $29.5 2025 .......... 378.7 378.6
increase to 2012, fall somewhat for 2013 2008 .......... 51.3 51.3 2026 .......... 383.1 383.0
TABLE VIII.F–2.—ESTIMATED ENGI- TABLE VIII.F–2.—ESTIMATED ENGI-the PFC program. This reflects the
NEERING COMPLIANCE AND SOCIAL NEERING COMPLIANCE AND SOCIAL inelastic price elasticity on the demand
COSTS THROUGH 2035—Continued COSTS THROUGH 2035—Continued side of the market and the elastic price
[Including fuel savings; $million; 2003$]
elasticity on the supply side. The
[Including fuel savings; $million; 2003$]
burden of the gasoline fuel program is
Engineering Engineering expected to be shared more evenly, with
Year compliance Social costs Year compliance Social costs about 54.5 percent expected to be borne
costs costs by consumers and about 45.5 percent
expected to be borne by producers. In
2027 .......... 387.5 387.4 7% NPV
2028 .......... 391.6 391.4 (2006– all years, the estimated loss to consumer
2029 .......... 396.0 395.9 2035) ..... 2,901.0 2,899.7 welfare will be offset somewhat by the
2030 .......... 400.1 400.0 gasoline fuel savings associated with
2031 .......... 404.6 404.5 Table VIII.F–3 shows how the social PFCs. Beginning at about $11 million
2032 .......... 409.2 409.1 costs are expected to be shared across per year, these savings increase to about
2033 .......... 413.9 413.7
stakeholders, for selected years. $76 million by 2015 as compliant PFCs
2034 .......... 418.6 418.4
2035 .......... 423.4 423.2 Information for all years can be found in are phased in. These savings continue
3% NPV Appendix C. According to these results, for the life of the PFCs; total annual
(2006– consumers are expected to bear savings increase as the number of cans
2035) ..... 5,356.8 5,354.6 approximately 99 percent of the cost of increases.
TABLE VIII.F–3.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED SOCIAL COSTS, 2009, 2012, 2015, AND 2020
[$million; 2003$]
Change in Change in
Market consumer producer Total
surplus surplus
2009
Gasoline U.S. ............................................................................................................................... ¥$28.5 ¥$23.8 ¥$52.3

(54.6%) (45.4%) ........................
PADD 1 & 3 .......................................................................................................................... ¥$6.7 ¥$5.6 ¥$12.2
PADD 2 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$20.6 ¥$17.2 ¥$37.8
PADD 4 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$0.9 ¥$0.7 ¥$1.6
PADD 5 (w/out CA) .............................................................................................................. ¥$0.3 ¥$0.3 ¥$0.6
Portable Fuel Containers U.S. ..................................................................................................... ¥$57.5 ¥$0.4 ¥$57.9
(99.3%) (0.7%) ........................
States with existing programs .............................................................................................. ¥$8.9 ¥$0.1 ¥$8.9
States without existing programs ......................................................................................... ¥$48.7 ¥$0.3 ¥$49.0
Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... ¥$86.1 ¥$24.1 ¥$110.2

(78.1%) (22%) ........................
Fuel Savings ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ $11.3

Vehicle Program .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ $0
Total ............................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥$98.9
2012
Gasoline U.S. ............................................................................................................................... ¥$110.7 ¥$92.3 ¥$203.0

(54.5%) (45.5%) ........................
PADD 1 & 3 .......................................................................................................................... ¥$24.8 ¥$20.7 ¥$45.5
PADD 2 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$73.2 ¥$61.0 ¥$134.2
PADD 4 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$5.9 ¥$4.9 ¥$10.9
PADD 5 (w/out CA) .............................................................................................................. ¥$6.8 ¥$4.7 ¥$12.4
(99.3%) (0.7%) ........................
Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... ¥$171.8 ¥$92.7 ¥$264.5

(65.0%) (35.0%) ........................
Fuel Savings ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ $48.5

Vehicle Program .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥$12.5
Total ............................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥$228.5
2015
Gasoline U.S. ............................................................................................................................... ¥$207.0 ¥$172.5 ¥$379.4

(54.5%) (45.5%) ........................
PADD 1 & 3 .......................................................................................................................... ¥$66.3 ¥$55.3 ¥$121.6
PADD 2 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$75.9 ¥$63.2 ¥$139.1
TABLE VIII.F–3.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED SOCIAL COSTS, 2009, 2012, 2015, AND 2020—Continued
[$million; 2003$]
Change in Change in
Market consumer producer Total
surplus surplus
PADD 4 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$14.5 ¥$12.1 ¥$26.6

PADD 5 (w/out CA) .............................................................................................................. ¥$50.3 ¥$41.9 ¥$92.2
(99.3%) (0.7%) ........................
States with existing programs .............................................................................................. ¥$2.7 $0.0 ¥$2.7
Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... ¥$240.7 ¥$172.7 ¥$413.4

(58.2%) (41.8%) ........................
Fuel Savings ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ $75.5

Vehicle Program .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥$12.9
Total ............................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥$350.7
2020
Gasoline U.S. ............................................................................................................................... ¥$219.6 ¥$183.0 ¥$402.6

(54.5%) (45.5%) ........................
PADD 1 & 3 .......................................................................................................................... ¥$70.4 ¥$58.6 ¥$129.0
PADD 2 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$80.5 ¥$67.1 ¥$147.6
PADD 4 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$15.4 ¥$12.8 ¥$28.2
PADD 5 (w/out CA) .............................................................................................................. ¥$53.4 ¥$44.5 ¥$97.8
(99.3%) (0.7%) ........................
States with existing programs .............................................................................................. ¥$3.0 $0.0 ¥$3.0
Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... ¥$256.8 ¥$183.3 ¥$440.1

(58.4%) (41.6%) ........................
Fuel Savings ................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ $80.7

Vehicle Program .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥$0
Total ............................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥$359.4
The present value of net social costs is calculated using a social discount rate Using that discount rate, the present
(discounted back to 2006) of the of three percent and the stream of value of the net social costs through
standards through 2035, contained in economic welfare costs through 2035. 2035 is estimated to be about $2.9
Table VIII.F–2, is estimated to be about We also performed an analysis using a billion (2003$).
$5.4 billion (2003$). This present value seven percent social discount rate.247
TABLE VIII.F–4.—NET PRESENT OF ESTIMATED SOCIAL COSTS 2007 THROUGH 2035, DISCOUNTED TO 2006
[$million; 2003$]
Change in Change in pro-

Market consumer sur- Total
ducer surplus
plus
Gasoline, U.S. .............................................................................................................................. ¥$3,115.4 ¥$2,596.2 ¥$5,711.6

(54.5%) (45.5%)
PADD 1 & 3 .......................................................................................................................... ¥$959.7 ¥$799.8 ¥$1,759.5
PADD 2 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$1,260.4 ¥$1,050.4 ¥$2,310.8
PADD 4 ................................................................................................................................. ¥$210.8 ¥$175.6 ¥$386.4
PADD 5 (w/out CA) .............................................................................................................. ¥$229.5 ¥$570.4 ¥$1,254.8
¥$684.5 ........................ ........................
Portable Fuel Containers US ....................................................................................................... ¥$754.9 ¥$5.0 ¥$759.9
(99.3%) (0.7%)
247 EPA presents the present value of cost and represents the ‘social rate of time preference’ * * * before-tax rate of return to private capital in the
benefits estimates using both a three percent and a [which] means the rate at which ‘society’ discounts U.S. economy * * * [that] approximates the
seven percent social discount rate. According to future consumption flows to their present value’’; opportunity cost of capital.’’
OMB Circular A–4, ‘‘the 3 percent discount rate ‘‘the seven percent rate is an estimate of the average
TABLE VIII.F–4.—NET PRESENT OF ESTIMATED SOCIAL COSTS 2007 THROUGH 2035, DISCOUNTED TO 2006—Continued
[$million; 2003$]
Change in Change in pro-

Market consumer sur- Total
ducer surplus
plus
Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... ¥$3870.3 ¥$2,601.2 ¥$6,471.6

59.8% 40.2%
Fuel Savings ................................................................................................................................ $1,208.0 ........................ $1,208.0

Vehicle Program .......................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥$91.1 ¥$91.1
Total ...................................................................................................................................... ¥$2,662.3 ¥$2,692.3 ¥$5,354.6
Table VIII.F–4 shows the distribution this rule at the internet address listed #1591.22 (OMB Control Number 2060–
of total surplus losses for the cumulative under ADDRESSES, as well as on the 0277); requirements related to portable
net social costs of the rule. This analysis Office of Transportation and Air Quality fuel container manufacturers are in EPA
includes the estimated social costs from Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ ICR #2213.02. For vehicle and fuel
2007 through 2035, discounted to 2006 toxics.htm#mobile). In addition, standards, section 208(a) of the Clean
at a 3 percent discount rate. These comments and responses for key issues Air Act requires that manufacturers
results suggest that consumers will bear are included throughout this preamble. provide information the Administrator
about 60 percent of the total social costs may reasonably require to determine
X. Statutory and Executive Order
associated with the PFC and gasoline compliance with the regulations;
Reviews
fuel programs for that period. The submission of the information is
consumer share of the NPV social costs A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory therefore mandatory. We will consider
is about $3,870 million, or about 60 Planning and Review confidential all information meeting the
percent of the total. Of that loss of Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive requirements of section 208(c) of the
consumer surplus, about $3,115 million Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October Clean Air Act. For portable fuel
(about 80 percent) is from the gasoline 4, 1993), this action is an ‘‘economically container standards, recordkeeping and
fuel program. When the total costs of the significant regulatory action’’ because it reporting requirements for
program are taken into account, is likely to ‘‘have an annual effect on the manufacturers would be pursuant to the
including the fuel savings and the economy of $100 million or more’’ and authority of sections 183(e) and 111 of
vehicle program costs, the loss of ‘‘raise novel legal and policy issues.’’ the Clean Air Act.
consumer surplus decreases to about Accordingly, EPA submitted this action As shown in Table X.B–1, the total
$2,662.3 million (about 50 percent of to the Office of Management and Budget annual burden associated with this rule
the social costs of the program). (OMB) for review under EO 12866, and is about 28,000 hours and $1,993,723,
IX. Public Participation any changes made in response to OMB based on a projection of 521
recommendations have been respondents. The estimated burden for
Many interested parties participated documented in the docket for this vehicle manufacturers and fuel
in the rulemaking process that action. producers is a total estimate for both
culminates with this final rule. This A final Regulatory Impact Analysis new and existing reporting
process provided opportunity for has been prepared and is available in requirements. The portable fuel
submitting written public comments the docket for this rulemaking and at the container requirements represent our
following the proposal that we docket internet address listed under first regulation of these containers, so
published on March 29, 2006 (71 FR ADDRESSES. those burden estimates reflect only new
15804). We considered these comments reporting requirements. Burden means
in developing the final rule. In addition, B. Paperwork Reduction Act the total time, effort, or financial
we held a public hearing on the The information collection resources expended by persons to
proposed rulemaking on April 12, 2006, requirements in this rule have been generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
and we have considered comments submitted for approval to the Office of provide information to or for a Federal
presented at the hearing. Management and Budget (OMB) under agency. This includes the time needed
Throughout the rulemaking process, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. to review instructions; develop, acquire,
EPA met with stakeholders including 3501 et seq. The information collection install, and utilize technology and
representatives from the fuel refining requirements are not enforceable until systems for the purposes of collecting,
and distribution industry, automobile OMB approves them. validating, and verifying information,
industry, emission control The Agency will collect information processing and maintaining
manufacturing industry, gas can to ensure compliance with the information, and disclosing and
industry, environmental organizations, provisions in this rule. This includes a providing information; adjust the
states, interests, and others. variety of requirements, both for vehicle existing ways to comply with any
We have prepared a detailed manufacturers, fuel producers, and previously applicable instructions and
Summary and Analysis of Comments portable fuel container manufacturers. requirements; train personnel to be able
document, which describes comments Information-collection requirements to respond to a collection of
we received on the proposal and our related to vehicle manufacturers are in information; search data sources;
response to each of these comments. EPA ICR #0783.52 (OMB Control complete and review the collection of
The Summary and Analysis of Number 2060–0104); requirements information; and transmit or otherwise
Comments is available in the docket for related to fuel producers are in EPA ICR disclose the information.
TABLE X.B–1.—ESTIMATED BURDEN FOR REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

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

Fuels ............................................................................................................................................ 476 26,592 *1,888,032
Portable fuel containers ............................................................................................................... 10 638 24,791
Total ...................................................................................................................................... 521 28,000 1,993,723

*Does not include non-postage purchased services of approximately $1,988,000.
An agency may not conduct or relevant Summary and Analysis of include small businesses, small
sponsor, and a person is not required to Comments, which can be found in the organizations, and small governmental
respond to, a collection of information docket. jurisdictions.
unless it displays a currently valid OMB For purposes of assessing the impacts
control number. The OMB control C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as of today’s rule on small entities, small
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed Amended by the Small Business entity is defined as: (1) A small business
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of as defined by the Small Business
When this ICR is approved by OMB, 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
the Agency will publish a technical 1. Overview CFR 121.201 (see table below); (2) a
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 and 48 small governmental jurisdiction that is a
CFR chapter 15 in the Federal Register The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) government of a city, county, town,
to display the OMB control number for generally requires an agency to prepare school district or special district with a
the approved information collection a regulatory flexibility analysis of any population of less than 50,000; and (3)
requirements contained in this final rule subject to notice and comment a small organization that is any not-for-
rule. EPA received various comments on rulemaking requirements under the profit enterprise which is independently
the rulemaking provisions covered by Administrative Procedure Act or any owned and operated and is not
the ICRs, but no comments on the other statute unless the agency certifies dominant in its field. The following
paperwork burden or other information that the rule will not have a significant table provides an overview of the
in the ICRs. All comments that were economic impact on a substantial primary SBA small business categories
submitted to EPA are considered in the number of small entities. Small entities potentially affected by this regulation:
Defined as small entity by SBA if less NAICS

Industry than or equal to: Codes a
Light-duty vehicles:
—vehicle manufacturers (including small volume manufacturers) ....................... 1,000 employees ...................................... 336111
—independent commercial importers ................................................................... $6 million annual sales ............................. 811111
811112
811198
—alternative fuel vehicle converters ..................................................................... 100 employees ......................................... 424720
1,000 employees ...................................... 335312
$6 million annual sales ............................. 811198
Gasoline fuel refiners ................................................................................................... 1500 employees b ..................................... 324110
Portable fuel container manufacturers:
—plastic container manufacturers ........................................................................ 500 employees ......................................... 326199
—metal gas can manufacturers ............................................................................ 1,000 employees ...................................... 332431
Notes:
a North American Industrial Classification System
b EPA has included in past fuels rulemakings a provision that, in order to qualify for EPA’s small refiner flexibilities, a refiner must also produce
no greater than 155,000 bpcd crude capacity.
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, As required by section 604 of the assessment of those issues, and any
EPA prepared an initial regulatory RFA, we also prepared a final regulatory changes made to the proposed rule as a
flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the flexibility analysis (FRFA) for today’s result of those comments;
proposed rule and convened a Small final rule. The FRFA addresses the • A description of the types and
Business Advocacy Review Panel issues raised by public comments on the number of small entities to which the
(SBAR Panel, or the ‘Panel’) to obtain IRFA, which was part of the proposal of rule will apply;
advice and recommendations of this rule. The FRFA is available for • A description of the reporting,
representatives of the regulated small review in Chapter 14 of the RIA and is recordkeeping, and other compliance
entities. A detailed discussion of the summarized below. requirements of the rule;
Panel’s advice and recommendations is Key elements of our FRFA include: • An identification, to the extent
• A description of the reasons the practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
found in the Panel Report (see Docket

Agency is considering this action, and that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036). A summary
the need for, and objectives of, the rule; with the rule; and
of the Panel’s recommendations is
• A summary of the significant issues • A description of the steps taken to
presented at 71 FR 15922 (March 29,
raised by the public comments on the minimize the significant economic
2006). IRFA, a summary of the Agency’s impact on small entities consistent with
the stated objectives of the applicable still demonstrate instances of severe b. Gasoline Refiners
statutes. economic impact can be accommodated
through the hardship relief provision set EPA’s current assessment is that 14
2. The Need for and Objectives of This refiners (owning 16 refineries) meet
out in the regulations at § 80.1335. This
Rule SBA’s criterion of having 1,500
issue is discussed in more detail in
Mobile sources emit air toxics that section VI.A.3, in chapter 14 of the final employees or less and our criterion of
can cause cancer and other serious RIA, and in individual comment having a crude capacity of less than or
health effects (Section III of this responses. equal to 155,000 bpcd. It should be
preamble and Chapter 1 of the noted that because of the dynamics in
We also received comments regarding
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule the refining industry (i.e., mergers and
the fact that two recent statutes use
describe these compounds and their acquisitions) and decisions by some
definitions that are not the same as the
health effects). Mobile sources refiners to enter or leave the gasoline
small refiner criteria that we proposed.
contribute significantly to the market, the actual number of refiners
The commenters generally stated that
nationwide risk from breathing outdoor that ultimately qualify for small refiner
EPA should use one of the definitions
sources of air toxics. In this action we status under an MSAT program could be
from those statutes. However, we do not
are finalizing: Standards to limit the different than these estimates. Current
believe that it would be appropriate to
exhaust hydrocarbons from passenger data further indicates that these refiners
change the small refiner employee count
vehicles during cold temperature produce about 2.5 percent of the total
or crude capacity limit criteria to fit
operation; evaporative hydrocarbon gasoline pool.
either of those programs’ definitions;
emissions standards for passenger
rather, we believe that it is prudent to c. Portable Fuel Container
vehicles; limiting the average annual
continue using criteria similar to our Manufacturers
benzene content of gasoline; and
current and previous fuel programs.
hydrocarbon emissions standards for gas EPA conducted an industry profile to
(Please see section VI.A.3.a.i above for
cans that would reduce evaporation, identify the manufacturers of portable
a more detailed discussion of this
permeation, and spillage from these fuel containers—98 percent are plastic
containers. (Detailed discussions of each comment and our response.)
containers and 2 percent are metal gas
of these programs are in sections V, VI, 4. Summary of Regulated Small Entities cans. Using this industry profile, EPA
and VII of the preamble and Chapters 5, identified 9 domestic manufacturers and
6, and 7 of the RIA). Standards for The following section discusses the
small entities directly regulated by this 1 foreign manufacturer. Of these 9 U.S.
vehicles and gasoline benzene control manufacturers, 8 meet the SBA
are being pursued under section action.
definition of a small entity. One small
202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), a. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles business accounted for over 50 percent
which directs EPA to establish of the U.S. sales in 2002, and the other
requirements to control emissions of In addition to the major vehicle
manufacturers, three distinct categories small entities comprised about 10
mobile source air toxics from new motor percent of U.S. sales.
vehicles and fuels. Controls for gas cans of businesses relating to highway light-
are being pursued under CAA section duty vehicles will be covered by the 5. Description of the Reporting,
183(e), the provisions applying to new vehicle standards: small volume Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
consumer and commercial products. manufacturers (SVMs), independent Requirements of the Rule
commercial importers (ICIs), and
3. Summary of the Significant Issues alternative fuel vehicle converters. For highway light-duty vehicles, the
Raised by the Public Comments SVMs are companies that sell less than reporting, recordkeeping, and
We did not receive comments on the 15,000 vehicles per year, as defined in compliance requirements prescribed for
proposed flexibilities and hardships for past EPA regulations, and this status this category in 40 CFR 86 will be
small volume vehicle manufacturers or allows vehicle models to be certified continued. Key among these
gas can manufacturers. We received under a slightly simpler certification requirements are certification
comments from small refiners process. Independent commercial requirements and provisions related to
supporting the inclusion of flexibility importers are companies that hold a reporting of production, emissions
provisions and hardships for small Certificate (or certificates) of Conformity information, flexibility use, etc.
gasoline refiners. These comments permitting them to alter imported For any fuel control program, EPA
generally supported additional lead- vehicles to meet U.S. emission must have assurance that fuel produced
time, credit generation provisions (early standards. Alternative fuel vehicle by refiners meets the applicable
credit generation and extra credit life for converters are businesses that convert standard, and that the fuel continues to
credits generated by or transferred to gasoline or diesel vehicles to operate on meet the standard as it passes
small refiners), and a review of the alternative fuel, and converters must downstream through the distribution
credit program. seek a certificate for all of their vehicle system to the ultimate end user. As
Small refiners also indicated that they models. From an assessment performed stated in section VI above, the
could incur significant economic impact for our SBREFA Panel process, we recordkeeping, reporting and
in complying with the 1.3 vol% refinery continue to believe that there are about compliance provisions of the MSAT
maximum average benzene standard. 14 SVMs, 10 alternative fuel vehicle program will be consistent with those
Our economic analysis indicates that converters, and 10 ICIs. Of these, EPA currently in place for existing fuel
most small refiners will be able to believes 5 SVMs, 6 converters, and all programs. These provisions include:
comply with this standard without 10 ICIs would meet the small-entity The submission of refinery pre-
incurring significant adverse economic criteria as defined by SBA (no major compliance reports (similar to those
impact. We also believe that allowing vehicle manufacturers meet the small- required under the highway and
additional lead time (until July 1, 2016) entity criteria). It is believed that these nonroad diesel fuel programs), the
to meet this standard ameliorates small entities comprise about 0.02 submission of refinery batch reports,
potential economic impact. In addition, percent of the total light-duty vehicle small refiner status and small refiner
we believe that any other refiners that sales in the U.S. for the year 2004. baseline applications, and retention of
all records for this program for five would help mitigate potential adverse and that EPA should consider
years. effects on small businesses as a result of comments on flexibility alternatives that
For portable fuel containers, this rule. During the SBREFA Panel would help to mitigate any negative
requirements similar to those in the process, the Panel sought out and impacts on small businesses.
California program (such as submitting received comments on the regulatory Alternatives discussed throughout the
emissions testing information, reporting options and flexibilities that were Panel process included those offered in
of certification families, and use of presented to Small Entity previous or current EPA rulemakings, as
transition provisions) were proposed Representatives (SERs) and Panel well as alternatives suggested by SERs
and are being finalized today. members. The major flexibilities and and Panel members, and the Panel
6. Relevant Federal Rules hardship relief provisions that were recommended that all be considered in
recommended by the Panel were the development of the rule.
We are aware of a few other current proposed and are generally being A summary of the Panel’s
or proposed Federal rules that are finalized today (for more information recommendations, what the Agency
related to this rule. The primary related regarding the Panel process, see Section proposed, and what is being finalized
federal rules are the first MSAT rule (66 9 of the SBREFA Final Panel Report, today is discussed below. A detailed
FR 17230, March 29, 2001), the Tier 2 which is available in the public docket discussion of the regulatory alternatives
Vehicle/Gasoline Sulfur rulemaking (65 for this rule). and hardship provisions discussed and
FR 6698, February 10, 2000), the fuel recommended by the Panel can be
sulfur rules for highway diesel (66 FR b. Outreach With Small Entities (and the
found in the SBREFA Final Panel
5002, January 18, 2001) and nonroad Panel Process)
Report. A complete discussion of the
diesel (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004), the As required by section 609(b) of the transition and hardship provisions that
Reformulated Gasoline and Anti- RFA as amended by SBREFA, EPA are being finalized today can be found
dumping rule (59 FR 7813 and 59 FR conducted outreach to small entities in Sections V, VI, and VII (vehicle, fuels,
7860, February 16, 1994), and the Cold and convened a SBAR Panel prior to and portable fuel container sections) of
Temperature Carbon Monoxide proposing the MSAT rule to obtain this preamble.
Rulemaking (57 FR 31888, July 17, advice and recommendations of
1992). representatives of the small entities that c. Small Business Flexibilities
In addition, the Evaporative potentially would be subject to the i. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles
Emissions Streamlining Direct Final rule’s requirements.
Rulemaking was issued on December 8, As part of the SBAR Panel process, we (a) Highway Light-Duty Vehicle
2005 (70 FR 72917). For portable fuel conducted outreach with Flexibilities
containers, the Occupational Safety and representatives from the various small For certification purposes (and for the
Health Administration (OSHA) has entities that would be affected by the sake of simplicity for Panel discussions
safety regulations for containers used in rule. We met with these SERs to discuss regarding flexibility options), SVMs
workplace settings. Containers that meet the potential rulemaking approaches include ICIs and alternative fuel vehicle
OSHA’s requirements, commonly called and potential options to decrease the converters since they sell less than
safety cans, are exempt from the impact of the rulemaking on their 15,000 vehicles per year. Similar to the
California program, and we are thus industries. The Panel received written flexibility provisions implemented in
exempting them from the EPA program. comments from the SERs, specifically the Tier 2 rule, the Panel recommended
Section 1501 of the Energy Policy Act on regulatory alternatives that could that we allow SVMs (includes all
of 2005 requires the Agency to help to minimize the rule’s impact on vehicle small entities that would be
implement a Renewable Fuels Standard small businesses. affected by this rule, which are the
(RFS) program. Beginning in 2006, this In general, SERs representing the majority of SVMs) the following
program will require increasing volumes portable fuel container industry raised flexibility options for meeting cold
of renewable fuel to be used in gasoline, concerns on how the MSAT rule’s temperature NMHC standards and
until a total of 7.5 billion gallons is requirements would be coordinated evaporative emission standards:
required in 2012. The most prevalent with the California program and other Cold NMHC Standards—The Panel
renewable fuel is expected to be requirements, and that there should be recommended that SVMs simply
ethanol. There are a wide variety of adequate opportunity for sell through at comply with the standards with 100
potential impacts of ethanol blending on the start of the program. The small percent of their vehicles during the last
MSAT emissions that will be evaluated volume manufacturer, ICI, and vehicle year of the four-year phase-in period.
as part of the RFS rulemaking process. converter SERs that participated had For example, if the standard for light-
In general, as ethanol use increases, questions about the form of the new duty vehicles and light light-duty trucks
other sources of octane in gasoline can standards for light-duty vehicles, (0 to 6,000 pounds GVWR) were to
decrease. Depending on these changes, specifically testing and certification begin in 2010 and end in 2013 (25%,
the impact on benzene emissions will requirements. The gasoline refiner SERs 50%, 75%, 100% phase-in over four
vary. The specific effects of ethanol on generally stated that they believed that years), the SVM provision would be 100
benzene are addressed in the Regulatory small refiners would face challenges in percent in 2013. If the standard for
Impact Analysis (RIA) to this rule and meeting a new standard. More heavy light-duty trucks and medium-
in other fuels rulemakings, such as the specifically, they raised the concern that duty passenger vehicles (greater than
RFS rule (71 FR 55552, September 22, the rule could be very costly and 6,000 pounds GVWR) were to start in
2006). dependence on credits may not be a 2012 (25%, 50%, 75%, 100% phase-in
7. Steps Taken To Minimize the comfortable situation; they were also over four years), the SVM provision
concerned about the timing of the would be 100 percent in 2015.
Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities standards for this rule, given other Evaporative Emission Standards—
upcoming fuel standards. The Panel recommended that since the
a. Significant Panel Findings The Panel agreed that EPA should evaporative emissions standards will
The SBAR Panel considered many consider the issues raised by the SERs not have phase-in years, we allow SVMs
regulatory options and flexibilities that (and discussions had by the Panel itself) to simply comply with standards during
the third year of the program (we have see section V.E.2 for a greater discussion delay option for small refiners, a small
implemented similar provisions in past on the hardship provisions for small refiner could have a total credit
rulemakings). For a 2009 start date for volume manufacturers.) generation period of five to seven years.
light-duty vehicles and light light-duty The Panel was also in support of
(c) Special Provisions for Independent
trucks, SVMs would need to meet the allowing refiners (small, as well as non-
Commercial Importers (ICIs)
evaporative emission standards in 2011. small, refiners) to generate credits for
For a 2010 implementation date for Although the SBAR panel did not reductions to their benzene emissions
heavy light-duty trucks and medium- specifically recommend it, we proposed, levels, rather than credits only for
duty passenger vehicles, SVMs would and are finalizing, that ICIs may meeting the 0.62 vol% benzene standard
need to comply in 2012. participate in the averaging, banking, that is set by the rule.
We proposed the recommendations and trading (ABT) program for cold ABT Program Review—The Panel
given by the Panel for these small temperature NMHC fleet average recommended a review of the credit
business entities. We agree that SVMs standards, but with appropriate trading program and small refiner
may need additional lead time constraints to ensure that fleet averages flexibility options one year after the
flexibility and the new cold NMHC will be met. The existing regulations for general program starts. The Panel
standards for LDVs and LLDTs will ICIs specifically prohibit ICIs from further recommended that the review
begin in model year 2010 and end in participating in emission-related could take into account the number of
model year 2013, therefore we are averaging, banking, and trading early credits generated, as well as the
finalizing (as proposed) that the SVM programs unless specific exceptions are number of credits generated and sold
provision would be 100 percent in provided. However, an exception for during the first year of the program. The
model year 2013. Also, since the new ICIs to participate in an averaging, Panel recommended that if the review
cold NMHC standard for HLDTs and banking, and trading program was made were to conclude that changes to either
MDPVs will begin in 2012, we are for the Tier 2 NOX fleet average the program or the small refiner
finalizing as proposed that the SVM standards, and today we are finalizing provisions were necessary, EPA should
provision will be 100 percent in model as proposed to apply a similar exception also consider some of the suggestions
year 2015. We believe that the Panel’s for the cold temperature NMHC fleet provided by the small refiners (their
recommendation for flexibilities with average standards. We also proposed, comments are located in Appendix E of
regard to the evaporative emission and are finalizing, that ICIs not be the Final Panel Report), such as:
standards is reasonable. Therefore, for a allowed to utilize the deficit carry- • The general MSAT program should
2009 model year start date for LDVs and forward provisions of the ABT program. require pre-compliance reporting
LLDTs we proposed, and are finalizing, (Please see section V.E.3 for a greater (similar to EPA’s highway and nonroad
that SVMs meet the evaporative discussion on the hardship provisions diesel rules);
emission standards in model year 2011. for small volume manufacturers.) • Following the review, EPA should
For a model year 2010 implementation revisit the small refiner provisions if it
date for HLDTs and MDPVs, we ii. Gasoline Refiners is found that the credit trading market
proposed and are finalizing that SVMs (a) Gasoline Refiner Flexibilities does not exist, or if credits are only
comply in model year 2012. (Please see available at a cost that would not allow
section V.E.1 for a greater discussion on The Panel recommended that EPA small refiners to purchase credits for
flexibility provisions for small volume propose certain provisions to encourage compliance;
manufacturers.) early compliance with lower benzene • The review should offer ways either
standards. The Panel recommended that to help the credit market, or help small
(b) Highway Light-Duty Vehicle EPA propose that small refiners be refiners gain access to credits (e.g., EPA
Hardships afforded the following flexibility could ‘create’ credits to introduce to the
In addition, the Panel recommended options to help mitigate the impacts on market, EPA could impose additional
that hardship flexibility provisions be small refiners: requirements to encourage trading with
extended to SVMs for the cold Delay in Standards—The Panel small refiners, etc.).
temperature VOC and evaporative recommended that a four-year delay • In addition, the Panel
emission standards. The provisions that period be proposed for small refiners (in recommended that EPA consider in this
the Panel recommended are: order to allow for a review of the ABT rulemaking establishing an additional
SVMs would be allowed to apply program, as discussed below, to occur hardship provision to assist those small
(EPA would need to review and approve one year after implementation but still refiners that cannot comply with the
application) for up to an additional 2 roughly three years prior to the small MSAT with a viable credit market. (This
years to meet the 100 percent phase-in refiner compliance deadline). It was suggested hardship provision was also
requirements for cold VOC and the noted by the small refiners that three suggested by the small refiners in their
delayed requirement for evaporative years are generally needed for small comments, located in Appendix E of the
emissions. Appeals for such hardship refiners to obtain financing and perform Final Panel Report). This hardship
relief must be made in writing, must be engineering and construction. The Panel provision would address concerns that,
submitted before the earliest date of was also in support of allowing for for some small refineries, compliance
noncompliance, must include evidence refinery expansion within the delay may be technically feasible only through
that the noncompliance will occur option, and recommended that refinery the purchase of credits and it may not
despite the manufacturer’s best efforts to expansion be provided for in the rule. be economically feasible to purchase
comply, and must include evidence that Early ABT Credits—The Panel those credits. This flexibility would be
severe economic hardship will be faced recommended that small refiners be provided to a small refiner on a case-by-
by the company if the relief is not eligible to generate early credits if they case basis following the review and
granted. take some steps to meet the 0.62 vol% based on a summary, by the refiner, of
We proposed the Panel-recommended benzene requirement prior to the technical or financial infeasibility (or
flexibility and hardship provisions effective date of the standard. some other type of similar situation that
described above, and we are finalizing Depending on the start date of the would render its compliance with the
these provisions in this action. (Please program, and coupled with the four-year standard difficult). This hardship
provision might include further delays 2012, one year after the general program standards, hardship relief will be
and/or a slightly relaxed standard on an begins. We are finalizing this provision addressed independently for each
individual refinery basis for a duration today. In part to support this review, we standard). This is partly due to the fact
of two years; in addition, this provision are also requiring that refiners submit that a refiner may use credits to meet
might allow the refinery to request, and pre-compliance reports. If, following the the 0.62 vol% benzene standard, but
EPA grant, multiple extensions of the review, EPA finds that the credit market credits cannot be used for compliance
flexibility until the refinery’s material is not adequate to support the small with the 1.3 vol% refinery maximum
situation changes. The Panel also stated refiner provisions, we will revisit the average.
that it understood that EPA may need to provisions to determine whether or not Extreme hardship circumstances
modify or rescind this provision, should they should be altered or whether EPA could exist based on severe economic or
it be implemented, based on the results can assist the credit market (and small physical lead time limitations of the
of the program review. refiners’ access to credits) to enable a refinery to comply with the required
We proposed and are finalizing the successful ABT program. We are benzene standards at the start of the
recommended four-year period of finalizing an additional hardship program. For relief from the 0.62 vol%
additional lead time (until January 1, provision to assist small refiners if it is benzene standard in extreme hardship
2015, four years after the general found that some small refiners still circumstances, relief will likely be in
program start date) for compliance with cannot comply with the 0.62 vol% the form of an extension of the one-year
the 0.62 vol% benzene standard. With benzene standard even with a viable deficit carry-forward allowed by the
respect to the 0.62 vol% standard, we credit market. The provision will only rule. Relief from the 1.3 vol% refinery
agreed that a four-year period of be available following the ABT program maximum average benzene standard in
additional lead time for small refiners review and will only be afforded to extreme hardship circumstances would
would provide these refiners with small refiners on a case-by-case basis, consist of additional time to comply
roughly three years of lead time and is in addition to the general refiner with the 1.3 vol% refinery maximum
following the review of the credit hardship provisions that are available to average. Refiners must apply by
program to complete capital projects if all refiners. Please see section January 1, 2008 (or, January 1, 2013 for
necessary or desirable to meet the 0.62 VI.A.3.a.iii of this preamble for a more approved small refiners) for extreme
vol% benzene standard rather than to detailed discussion of this hardship hardship relief from the 1.3 vol%
rely on credits. Further, we are provision. refinery maximum average standard, as
finalizing an additional 18 months of this provision is intended to address
lead time for small refiners to comply (b) Gasoline Refiner Hardships
unusual circumstances that should be
with the 1.3 vol% maximum average During the Panel process, we stated apparent now, or well before the
benzene standard (similar to 18-month that we intended to propose the extreme standard takes effect.
lead-time afforded under the general unforeseen circumstances hardship and The extreme unforeseen
program), until July 1, 2016. We extreme hardship provisions (for all circumstances hardship is available to
likewise believe that this additional gasoline refiners and importers), similar both refiners and importers, and is
lead-time will provide small refiners to those in prior fuels programs. A
intended to provide relief in extreme
with appropriate additional opportunity hardship based on extreme unforeseen
and unusual circumstances outside a
to raise capital and complete projects circumstances is intended to provide
refiner or importer’s control that could
necessary to comply with the maximum short-term relief due to unanticipated
not have been avoided through the
average benzene standard. circumstances beyond the control of the
exercise of due diligence. Hardship
With regard to credits, we proposed refiner, such as a natural disaster or a
relief for the 0.62 vol% benzene
the Panel’s recommendation that small refinery fire; an extreme hardship is
standard will allow a deficit to be
refiners that take steps to meet the 0.62 intended to provide short-term relief
carried forward for an extended, but
vol% benzene requirement prior to based on extreme circumstances (e.g.,
limited, time period (more than the one
January 1, 2015 would be eligible to extreme financial problems, extreme
operational or technical problems, etc.) year allowed by the rule). Relief from
generate early credits, and that credits
that impose extreme hardship and thus the 1.3 vol% refinery maximum average
remain available for small refiners for an
significantly affect a refiner’s ability to benzene standard based on unforeseen
additional amount of time. Early credit
generation opportunities will provide comply with the program requirements circumstances will be granted on a case-
more credits for the MSAT ABT by the applicable dates. The Panel by-case basis, following an assessment
program and will help to achieve the air agreed with the proposal of such of the hardship application, and would
quality goals of the MSAT program provisions and recommended that we generally be in the form of an extension
earlier than otherwise required. include them in the MSAT rulemaking; of time to comply with the standard.
Therefore, we are finalizing an early thus, we proposed these provisions. iii. Portable Fuel Containers
credit generation provision for small We are finalizing the extreme
hardship provision and the extreme (a) Portable Fuel Container Flexibilities
refiners. Further, we believe that some
incentive to trade credits with small unforeseen circumstances hardship Since nearly all portable fuel
refiners is warranted to help ensure that provision with some modifications, as container manufacturers are small
sufficient credits are available. this final rule includes a 1.3 vol% entities and they account for about 60
Therefore, as stated above in section refinery maximum average benzene percent of sales, the Panel planned to
VI.A.3, we are finalizing the proposed standard. As discussed in more detail in extend the flexibility options to all
provision that standard credits that are section VI.A.3.b, relief will be granted portable fuel container manufacturers.
traded to, and ultimately used by, small on a case-by-case basis; however, it may Moreover, implementation of the
refiners have an additional credit life of differ somewhat depending upon program would be much simpler by
two years beyond the limit that is whether a refiner applies for hardship doing so. The recommended flexibilities
otherwise allowed. relief for the 0.62 vol% benzene are the following:
We proposed that we would perform standard or for the 1.3 vol% refinery Design Certification—The Panel
a review of the ABT program (and thus, maximum average standard (while a recommended that we propose to permit
the small refiner flexibility options) by refiner may apply for relief from both portable fuel container manufacturers to
use design certification in lieu of incorporated into the program and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
running any or all of the durability requirements described earlier in or to the private sector, of $100 million
aging cycles. Manufacturers could sections VII.B through VII.D). or more in any one year. Before
demonstrate the durability of their gas promulgating an EPA rule for which a
(b) Portable Fuel Container Hardships
cans based in part on emissions test data written statement is needed, section 205
from designs using the same permeation The Panel recommended that EPA of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
barriers and materials. Under a design- propose two types of hardship programs identify and consider a reasonable
based certification program, a for small portable fuel container number of regulatory alternatives and
manufacturer would provide evidence manufacturers. adopt the least costly, most cost-
in the application for certification that The first would allow small effective, or least burdensome
their container would meet the manufacturers to petition EPA for alternative that achieves the objectives
applicable standards based on its design limited additional lead-time to comply of the rule. The provisions of section
(e.g., use of a particular permeation with the standards. A manufacturer 205 do not apply when they are
barrier). The manufacturer would would have to demonstrate that it has inconsistent with applicable law.
submit adequate engineering and other taken all possible business, technical, Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
information about its individual design and economic steps to comply, but the adopt an alternative other than the least
such that EPA could determine that the burden of compliance costs would have costly, most cost-effective, or least
emissions performance of their a significant adverse effect on the burdensome alternative if the
individual design would not be company’s solvency. Hardship relief Administrator publishes with the final
negatively impacted by slosh, UV may include requirements for interim rule an explanation of why that
exposure, and/or pressure cycling emission reductions. alternative was not adopted.
(whichever tests the manufacturer is The second hardship provision would Before EPA establishes any regulatory
proposing to not run prior to emissions permit small manufacturers to apply for requirements that may significantly or
testing). hardship relief if circumstances outside uniquely affect small governments,
Broaden Certification Families—This their control cause the failure to comply including tribal governments, it must
approach would relax the criteria used (i.e., supply contract broken by parts have developed under section 203 of the
to determine what constitutes a supplier) and if failure to sell the subject UMRA a small government agency plan.
certification family. It would allow containers would have a major impact The plan must provide for notifying
small businesses to limit their on the company’s solvency. The terms potentially affected small governments,
certification families (and therefore their and timeframe of the relief would enabling officials of affected small
certification testing burden), rather than depend on the specific circumstances of governments to have meaningful and
testing all of the various size containers the company and the situation involved. timely input in the development of EPA
in a manufacturer’s product line. Some We proposed, and are finalizing, the regulatory proposals with significant
small entities may be able to put all of above hardship provisions for portable federal intergovernmental mandates,
their various size containers into a fuel container manufacturers. These and informing, educating, and advising
single certification family. entities could, on a case-by-case basis, small governments on compliance with
Manufacturers would then certify their face hardship, and we are finalizing the regulatory requirements.
containers using the ‘‘worst case’’ these provisions to provide what could This rule contains no federal
configuration within the family. To be prove to be needed safety valves for mandates for state, local, or tribal
grouped together, containers would these entities. For both types of governments as defined by the
need to be manufactured using the same hardship provisions, the length of the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
materials and processes even though hardship relief will be established, rule imposes no enforceable duties on
they are of different sizes. during the initial review, for not more any of these governmental entities.
Additional Lead-time—Since it may than one year and will be reviewed Nothing in the rule would significantly
take additional time for the portable fuel annually thereafter as needed. (Please or uniquely affect small governments.
container SERs to gather information to see section VII.F for a more detailed EPA has determined that this rule
fully evaluate whether or not additional discussion of these hardship contains federal mandates that may
lead-time is needed beyond the 2009 provisions.) result in expenditures of more than
start date, the Panel recommended that As required by section 212 of $100 million to the private sector in any
we discuss lead-time in the proposal SBREFA, EPA also is preparing a Small single year. EPA believes that the final
and request comments on the need for Entity Compliance Guide to help small rule represents the least costly, most
additional lead-time to allow entities comply with this rule. The cost-effective approach to achieve the
manufacturers to ramp up to a compliance guide will be available on statutory requirements of the rule. The
nationwide program. the Web at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ costs and benefits associated with the
Product Sell-through—As with past toxics.htm. final rule are discussed above and in the
rulemakings for other source sectors, the Regulatory Impact Analysis, as required
Panel recommended that EPA propose D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
by the UMRA.
to allow normal sell through of portable Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
fuel containers as long as manufacturers Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
do not create stockpiles of Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Executive Order 13132, entitled
noncomplying portable fuel containers Federal agencies to assess the effects of ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
prior to the start of the program. their regulatory actions on State, local, 1999), requires EPA to develop an
We proposed these Panel- and tribal governments and the private accountable process to ensure
recommended flexibilities for all sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
portable fuel container manufacturers. EPA generally must prepare a written and local officials in the development of
As stated above, we did not receive any statement, including a cost-benefit regulatory policies that have federalism
comments on the proposed flexibilities, analysis, for proposed and final rules implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
and are therefore finalizing them as with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may federalism implications’’ is defined in
proposed (the flexibility provisions are result in expenditures to State, local, the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct EPA has reason to believe may have a petrochemicals, as well as expected
effects on the States, on the relationship disproportionate effect on children. If growth in the petrochemical market
between the national government and the regulatory action meets both criteria, absent this rule. The major sources of
the States, or on the distribution of section 5–501 of the Order directs the benzene for the petrochemical market
power and responsibilities among the Agency to evaluate the environmental other than reformate from gasoline
various levels of government.’’ health or safety effects of the planned production are also derived from
This final rule does not have rule on children, and explain why the gasoline components or gasoline
federalism implications. It will not have planned regulation is preferable to other feedstocks. Consequently, the expected
substantial direct effects on the States, potentially effective and reasonably shift toward more benzene production
on the relationship between the national feasible alternatives considered by the from reformate due to this final rule will
government and the States, or on the Agency. be offset by less benzene produced from
distribution of power and This final rule is subject to the other gasoline feedstocks.
responsibilities among the various Executive Order because it is an The rule will require refiners to use a
levels of government, as specified in economically significant regulatory small additional amount of energy in
Executive Order 13132. action as defined by Executive Order processing gasoline to reduce benzene
Although section 6 of Executive Order 12866, and we believe that by levels, primarily due to the increased
13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA addressing the environmental health or energy used for benzene extraction. Our
did consult with representatives of safety risk this action may have a modeling of increased energy use
various State and local governments in disproportionate beneficial effect on indicates that the process energy used
developing this rule. EPA has also children. Accordingly, we have by refiners to produce gasoline would
consulted representatives from evaluated the potential environmental increase by about 0.6 percent (or, six-
STAPPA/ALAPCO, which represents health or safety effects of VOC and tenths of a percent). Overall, we believe
state and local air pollution officials. toxics emissions from gasoline-fueled that the final rule will result in no
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, mobile sources and gas cans on significant adverse energy impacts.
and consistent with EPA policy to children. The results of this evaluation The gasoline benzene provisions will
promote communications between EPA are described below and contained in not affect the current gasoline
and State and local governments, EPA sections III and IV. distribution practices.
specifically solicited comment on the Exposure to a number of the We discuss our analysis of the energy
proposed rule from State and local compounds addressed in this rule may and supply effects of the gasoline
officials. have a disproportionate effect on benzene standard further in section VIII
children. First, exposure to carcinogens of this preamble and in Chapter 9 of the
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation that cause cancer through a mutagenic Regulatory Impact Analysis.
and Coordination With Indian Tribal mode of action during childhood The fuel supply and energy effects
Governments development may have an described above will be offset
Executive Order 13175, entitled incrementally disproportionate impact. substantially by the positive effects on
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Because of their small size, increased gasoline supply and energy use of the
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR activity, and increased ventilation rates gas can standards also promulgated in
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA compared to adults, children may have today’s action. These provisions will
to develop an accountable process to greater exposure to these compounds in greatly reduce the gasoline lost to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by the ambient air, on a unit body weight evaporation from gas cans. This will in
tribal officials in the development of basis. Moreover, for PM, because turn reduce the demand for gasoline,
regulatory policies that have tribal children’s breathing rates are higher, increasing the gasoline supply and
implications.’’ their exposures may be higher and reducing the energy used in producing
This final rule does not have tribal because their respiratory systems are gasoline.
implications as specified in Executive still developing, children may be more
Order 13175. This rule will be I. National Technology Transfer
susceptible to problems from exposure
implemented at the Federal level and to respiratory irritants. Advancement Act
impose compliance costs only on As noted in the proposed rule,
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Section 12(d) of the National
vehicle manufacturers (includes
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Technology Transfer and Advancement
alternative fuel vehicle converters and
Distribution, or Use Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
ICIs), fuel producers, and portable
gasoline container manufacturers. Tribal This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
governments will be affected only to the action’’ as defined in Executive Order directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
extent they purchase and use regulated 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations standards in its regulatory activities
vehicles, fuels, and portable gasoline That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, unless to do so would be inconsistent
containers. Thus, Executive Order Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May with applicable law or otherwise
13175 does not apply to this rule. 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to impractical. Voluntary consensus
have a significant adverse effect on the standards are technical standards (e.g.,
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of supply, distribution, or use of energy. materials specifications, test methods,
Children From Environmental Health The gasoline benzene provisions of the sampling procedures, and business
and Safety Risks final rule will shift about 12,500 barrels practices) that are developed or adopted
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of per day of benzene from the gasoline by voluntary consensus standards
Children from Environmental Health market to the petrochemical market. bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, This volume represents about 0.1 provide Congress, through OMB,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that percent of nationwide gasoline explanations when the Agency decides
(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically production. The actual impact of the not to use available and applicable
significant’’ as defined under Executive rule on the gasoline market, however, is voluntary consensus standards.
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an likely to be less due to offsetting This rulemaking involves technical
environmental health or safety risk that changes in the production of standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify minority residents. The rule will reduce pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
potentially applicable voluntary emissions from roadways. Since those recordkeeping requirements.
consensus standards. However, we living near roadways are more likely to
40 CFR Part 85
identified no such standards. Therefore, be lower income and minority residents,
for the cold temperature NMHC this population will have a Environmental protection,
standards, EPA will use the existing disproportionate benefit from the rule. Administrative practice and procedure,
EPA cold temperature CO test Thus, this rule does not have a Confidential business information,
procedures (manufacturers currently disproportionately high adverse human Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
measure hydrocarbon emissions with health or environmental effect on pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
current cold CO test procedures), which minority populations. recordkeeping requirements, Research,
were adopted in a previous EPA Warranties.
K. Congressional Review Act
rulemaking (1992). The fuel standards
The Congressional Review Act, 5 40 CFR Part 86
referenced in today’s rule involve the
measurement of gasoline fuel U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Environmental protection,
parameters. The measurement standards Business Regulatory Enforcement Administrative practice and procedure,
for gasoline fuel parameters referenced Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Confidential business information,
in today’s rulemaking are government- that before a rule may take effect, the Incorporation by reference, Labeling,
unique standards that were developed agency promulgating the rule must Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties,
by the Agency through previous submit a rule report, which includes a Reporting and recordkeeping
rulemakings. Both the cold temperature copy of the rule, to each House of the requirements.
CO test procedures and the Congress and to the Comptroller General Dated: February 9, 2007.
measurement standards for gasoline fuel of the United States. EPA will submit a
Stephen L. Johnson,
parameters have served the Agency’s report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, Administrator.
emissions control goals well since their
implementation and have been well the U.S. House of Representatives, and ■ For the reasons set forth in the
accepted by industry. For gas cans, EPA the Comptroller General of the United preamble, parts 59, 80, 85 and 86 of title
is promulgating new procedures for States before the rule is published in the 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
measuring hydrocarbon emissions. Federal Register. This rule is a ‘‘major are amended as follows:
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal PART 59—NATIONAL VOLATILE
Actions To Address Environmental XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION
Justice in Minority Populations and Authority STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER AND
Low-Income Populations Statutory authority for the fuels COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR controls in this final rule can be found
in sections 202 and 211(c) of the Clean ■ 1. The authority citation for part 59 is
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal revised to read as follows:
executive policy on environmental Air Act (CAA), as amended, 42 U.S.C.
justice. Its main provision directs 7521 and 7545(c). Additional support Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).
federal agencies, to the greatest extent for the procedural and enforcement-
practicable and permitted by law, to related aspects of the fuel controls in Subpart E—[Added and Reserved]
make environmental justice part of their this final rule, including the
■ 2a. Add and reserve Subpart E.
mission by identifying and addressing, recordkeeping requirements, come from
■ 2b. A new Subpart F is added to part
as appropriate, disproportionately high sections 114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA,
59 to read as follows:
and adverse human health or 42 U.S.C. 7414(a) and 7601(a).
environmental effects of their programs, Statutory authority for the vehicle Subpart F—Control of Evaporative
policies, and activities on minority controls in this final rule can be found Emissions From New and In-Use Portable
populations and low-income in sections 202, 206, 207, 208, and 301 Fuel Containers
populations in the United States. of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521, 7525, 7541, Overview and Applicability
EPA has determined that this final 7542 and 7601. Sec.
rule will not have disproportionately Statutory authority for the portable 59.600 Does this subpart apply for my
high and adverse human health or fuel container controls in this final rule products?
environmental effects on minority or can be found in sections 183(e) and 111 59.601 Do the requirements of this subpart
low-income populations because it does of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. sections 7511b(e) apply to me?
not affect the level of protection and 7411. 59.602 What are the general prohibitions
provided to human health or the and requirements of this subpart?
List of Subjects 59.603 How must manufacturers apply
environment.
The final rule will reduce VOC and 40 CFR Part 59 good engineering judgment?
59.605 What portable fuel containers are
toxic emissions from gasoline-fueled Environmental protection, excluded from this subpart’s
mobile sources (particularly highway Administrative practice and procedure, requirements?
light-duty vehicles) and gas cans, and Confidential business information, 59.607 Submission of information.
thus, it will decrease the amount of air Incorporation by reference, Labeling,
pollution to which the entire population Emission Standards and Related
Consumer or Commercial Products Requirements
is exposed. The rule will also reduce pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
PM emissions from highway light-duty 59.611 What evaporative emission
recordkeeping requirements. requirements apply under this subpart?
vehicles. EPA evaluated the population
40 CFR Part 80 59.612 What emission-related warranty

residing close to high traffic density requirements apply to me?
(near roadways), and we found that this Environmental protection, Air 59.613 What operation and maintenance
population has demographic differences pollution control, Fuel additives, instructions must I give to buyers?
from the general population, including Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by 59.615 How must I label and identify the
a greater fraction of lower income and reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle portable fuel containers I produce?
Certifying Emission Families manufacturers and importers of portable importation and must be supplied to
59.621 Who may apply for a certificate of fuel containers. Certain prohibitions in EPA upon request.
conformity? § 59.602 apply to all other persons. (2) No person may alter, destroy, or
59.622 What are the general requirements (b) New portable fuel containers that falsify any record or report required by
for obtaining a certificate of conformity are subject to the emissions standards of this subpart.
and producing portable fuel containers (d) Testing and access to facilities.
under it?
this part must be covered by a certificate
of conformity that is issued to the You may not keep us from entering your
59.623 What must I include in my
application? manufacturer of the container. If more facility to observe tests or inspect
59.624 How do I amend my application for than one person meets the definition of facilities if we are authorized to do so.
certification? manufacturer for a portable fuel Also, you must perform the tests we
59.625 How do I select emission families? container, see § 59.621 to determine if require (or have the tests done for you).
59.626 What emission testing must I you are the manufacturer who may Failure to perform this testing is
perform for my application for a apply for and receive a certificate of prohibited.
certificate of conformity? (e) Warranty. You may not fail to
conformity.
59.627 How do I demonstrate that my offer, provide notice of, or honor the
emission family complies with (c) Unless specifically noted
otherwise, the term ‘‘you’’ means emissions warranty required under this
evaporative emission standards?
59.628 What records must I keep and what manufacturers, as defined in § 59.680. subpart.
reports must I send to EPA? (f) Replacement components. No
59.629 What decisions may EPA make § 59.602 What are the general prohibitions person may sell, offer for sale, introduce
regarding my certificate of conformity? and requirements of this subpart? or deliver for introduction into
59.630 EPA testing. (a) General prohibition for commerce in the United States, import,
59.650 General testing provisions. manufacturers and importers. No or install any replacement component
59.652 Other procedures. for portable fuel containers subject to
manufacturer or importer may sell, offer
59.653 How do I test portable fuel the standards of this subpart where the
containers? for sale, introduce or deliver for
introduction into commerce in the component has the effect of disabling,
Special Compliance Provisions United States, or import any new bypassing, or rendering inoperative the
59.660 Exemption from the standards. portable fuel container that is subject to emissions controls of the containers.
59.662 What temporary provisions address the emissions standards of this subpart (g) Violations. If a person violates any
hardship due to unusual circumstances? and is manufactured after December 31, prohibition or requirement of this
59.663 What are the provisions for subpart or the Act concerning portable
2008 unless it is covered by a valid
extending compliance deadlines for fuel containers, it shall be considered a
manufacturers under hardship? certificate of conformity, it is labeled as
required, and it complies with all of the separate violation for each portable fuel
59.664 What are the requirements for
importing portable fuel containers into applicable requirements of this subpart, container.
the United States? including compliance with the (h) Assessment of penalties and
emissions standards for its useful life. injunctions. We may assess
Definitions and Other Reference Information administrative penalties, bring a civil
After June 30, 2009, no manufacturer or
59.680 What definitions apply to this importer may sell, offer for sale, action to assess and recover civil
subpart? penalties, bring a civil action to enjoin
59.685 What symbols, acronyms, and
introduce or deliver into commerce in
the United States, or import any new and restrain violations, or bring criminal
abbreviations does this subpart use?
portable fuel container that was action as provided by the Clean Air Act.
59.695 What provisions apply to
confidential information? manufactured prior to January 1, 2009 § 59.603 How must manufacturers apply
59.697 State actions. unless it meets the requirements of this good engineering judgment?
59.698 May EPA enter my facilities for subpart.
inspections? (a) In addition to other requirements
(b) General prohibition for wholesale and prohibitions set forth in this
59.699 How do I request a hearing?
distributors. No wholesale distributor subpart, you must use good engineering
Subpart F—Control of Evaporative may sell, offer for sale, or distribute any judgment for decisions related to any
Emissions From New and In-Use portable fuel container in the United requirements under this subpart. This
Portable Fuel Containers States that is subject to the emissions includes your applications for
standards of this subpart and is certification, any testing you do to show
Overview and Applicability manufactured after December 31, 2008 that your portable fuel containers
unless it is covered by a valid certificate comply with requirements that apply to
§ 59.600 Does this subpart apply for my
products?
of conformity and is labeled as required. them, and how you select, categorize,
After December 31, 2009, no wholesale determine, and apply these
(a) Except as provided in § 59.605 and distributor may sell, offer for sale, or
paragraph (b) of this section, the requirements.
distribute in the United States any (b) Upon request, you must provide
regulations in this subpart F apply for portable fuel container that was
all portable fuel containers (defined in EPA a written description of the
manufactured prior to January 1, 2009 engineering judgment in question. Such
§ 59.680) that are manufactured on or unless it meets the requirements of this
after January 1, 2009. information must be provided within 15
subpart. After December 31, 2009, all working days unless EPA specifies a
(b) See § 59.602 (a) and (b) to
new portable fuel containers shall be different period of time to respond.
determine how to apply the provisions
deemed to be manufactured after (c) We may reject your decision if it
of this subpart for containers that were
December 31, 2008 unless they are in is not based on good engineering
manufactured before January 1, 2009.
retail inventory. judgment or is otherwise inconsistent
§ 59.601 Do the requirements of this (c) Reporting and recordkeeping. (1) with the requirements that apply, and
subpart apply to me? You must keep the records and submit we may—
(a) Unless specified otherwise in this the reports specified in § 59.628. (1) Suspend, revoke, or void a
subpart, the requirements and Records must be retained for at least 5 certificate of conformity if we determine
prohibitions of this subpart apply to all years from the date of manufacture or you used incorrect or incomplete
information or failed to consider not required during certification. You specified in this subpart throughout the
relevant information, or that your are required to provide truthful and useful life of the container. The useful
decision was not based on good complete information. This subpart life of the container is five years
engineering judgment; or describes the consequences of failing to beginning on the date of sale to the
(2) Notify you that we believe any meet this obligation. The consequences ultimate purchaser.
aspect of your application or other also may include prosecution under 18
§ 59.612 What emission-related warranty
information submission may be U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 7431(c)(2).
requirements apply to me?
incorrect or invalid due to lack of good (b) We may require an officer or
engineering judgment or other cause. authorized representative of your (a) General requirements. You must
Unless a different period is specified, company with knowledge of the warrant to the ultimate purchaser that
you will have 30 days to respond to our information contained in the submittal the new portable fuel container,
notice and specifically address our to approve and sign any submission of including all parts of its evaporative
concerns. After considering your information to us, and to certify that all emission-control system, is:
the information submitted is accurate (1) Designed, built, and equipped so
information, we will notify you
and complete. it conforms at the time of sale to the
regarding our finding, which may
ultimate purchaser with the
include the actions provided in Emission Standards and Related requirements of this subpart.
paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Requirements (2) Is free from defects in materials
(d) If you disagree with our and workmanship that may keep it from
conclusions under paragraph (c) of this § 59.611 What evaporative emission
meeting these requirements.
section, you may file a request for a requirements apply under this subpart?
(b) Warranty notice and period. Your
hearing with the Designated Compliance (a) Hydrocarbon emissions from emission-related warranty must be valid
Officer as described in § 59.699. In your portable fuel containers may not exceed for a minimum of one year from the date
request, you must specifically state your 0.3 grams per gallon per day when of sale to the ultimate purchaser.
objections, and include relevant data or measured with the test procedures in (c) Notice. You must provide a
supporting analysis. The request must §§ 59.650 through 59.653. This warranty notice with each container.
be signed by your authorized procedure measures diurnal venting
representative. If we agree that your emissions and permeation emissions. § 59.613 What operation and maintenance
request raises a substantial factual issue, (b) For the purpose of this section, instructions must I give to buyers?
we will hold the hearing according to portable fuel containers include spouts, You must provide the ultimate
§ 59.699. caps, gaskets, and other parts provided purchaser of the new portable fuel
with the container. container written instructions for
§ 59.605 What portable fuel containers are (c) The following general properly maintaining and using the
excluded from this subpart’s requirements? requirements also apply for all portable emission-control system.
This section describes exclusions that fuel containers subject to the standards
apply to certain portable fuel containers. § 59.615 How must I label and identify the
of this subpart: portable fuel containers I produce?
The prohibitions and requirements of (1) Prohibited controls. The following
this subpart do not apply for containers controls are prohibited: This section describes how you must
excluded under this section. Exclusions (i) For anyone to design, manufacture, label your portable fuel containers.
under this section are based on inherent or install emission control systems so (a) At the time of manufacture,
characteristics of the containers. See they cause or contribute to an indelibly mark the month and year of
§ 59.660 for exemptions that apply unreasonable risk to public health, manufacture on each container.
(b) Mold into or affix a legible label
based on special circumstances. welfare, or safety while operating.
(ii) For anyone to design, identifying each portable fuel container.
(a) Containers approved as safety cans
manufacture, or install emission control The label must be:
consistent with the requirements of 29 (1) Attached so it is not easily
CFR 1926.150 through 1926.152 are systems with features that disable,
removable.
excluded. Such cans generally have a deactivate, reduce effectiveness, or (2) Secured to a part of the container
flash-arresting screens, spring-closing bypass the emission controls, either that can be easily viewed when the can
lids and spout covers and have been actively or passively. For example, you is in use, not on the bottom of the
approved by a nationally recognized may not include a manual vent that the container.
testing laboratory such as Factory operator can open to bypass emission (3) Written in English.
Mutual Engineering Corp. or controls. You may ask us to allow such (c) The label must include:
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., or features if needed for safety reasons or (1) The heading ‘‘EMISSION
Federal agencies such as Bureau of if the features operate during emission CONTROL INFORMATION’’.
Mines, or U.S. Coast Guard. tests described in subpart F of this part. (2) Your full corporate name,
(b) Containers with a nominal (2) Leaks. You must design and trademark and warranty contact
capacity of less than 0.25 gallons or manufacture your containers to be free information.
more than 10.0 gallons are excluded. of leaks. This requirement applies when (3) A standardized identifier such as
(c) Containers designed and marketed your container is upright, partially EPA’s standardized designation for the
solely to deliver fuel directly to nonroad inverted, or completely inverted. emission families, the model number, or
engines during engine operation, such (3) Refueling. You are required to the part number.
as containers with a connection for a design your portable fuel containers to (4) This statement: ‘‘THIS
fuel line and a reserve fuel area, are minimize spillage during refueling to CONTAINER COMPLIES WITH U.S.
considered to be nonroad fuel tanks, the extent practical. This requires that EPA EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR
and are thus excluded. you use good engineering judgment to PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINERS (40
avoid designs that will make it difficult CFR Part 59).’’.

§ 59.607 Submission of information. to refuel typical vehicle and equipment (5) This statement: ‘‘THE EMISSIONS
(a) You are responsible for all designs without spillage. WARRANTY IS VALID FOR A
statements you make to us related to (d) Portable fuel containers must meet MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR FROM DATE
this subpart F, including information the standards and requirements OF PURCHASE.’’.
(d) You may add information to the for which it is issued. We may require (h) State that your product was tested
emission control information label to new certification prior to the end of the as described in the application
identify other emission standards that production period if we finds that (including the test procedures, test
the container meets or does not meet containers are not meeting the standards parameters, and test fuels) to show you
(such as California standards). You may in use during their useful life. meet the requirements of this subpart.
also add other information to ensure (b) The application must be written in (i) Present emission data to show your
that the portable fuel container will be English and contain all the information products meet the applicable emission
properly maintained and used. required by this subpart and must not standards. Where applicable, §§ 59.626
(e) You may request that we approve include false or incomplete statements and 59.627 may allow you to submit an
modified labeling requirements in this or information (see §§ 59.607 and application in certain cases without new
subpart F if you show that it is 59.629). emission data.
necessary or appropriate. We will (c) We may ask you to include less (j) Report all test results, including
approve your request if your alternate information than we specify in this those from invalid tests or from any
label is consistent with the requirements subpart, as long as you maintain all the other tests, whether or not they were
of this subpart. information required by § 59.628. conducted according to the test
(f) You may identify the name and (d) You must use good engineering procedures of §§ 59.650 through 59.653.
trademark of another company instead judgment for all decisions related to We may ask you to send other
of their own on your emission control your application (see § 59.603). information to confirm that your tests
information label, subject to the (e) An authorized representative of were valid under the requirements of
following provisions: your company must approve and sign this subpart.
(1) You must have a contractual the application. (k) Unconditionally certify that all the
agreement with the other company that (f) See § 59.629 for provisions products in the emission family comply
obligates that company to take the describing how we will process your with the requirements of this subpart,
following steps: application. other referenced parts of the CFR, and
(i) Meet the emission warranty (g) If we approve your application, we the Clean Air Act.
requirements that apply under § 59.612. will issue a certificate that will allow (l) Include estimates of U.S.-directed
This may involve a separate agreement you to produce the containers that you production volumes.
involving reimbursement of warranty- described in your application for a (m) Include the information required
related expenses. specified production period. Certificates by other sections of this subpart.
(ii) Report all warranty-related do not allow you to produce containers (n) Include other relevant
information to the certificate holder. that were not described in your information, including any additional
(2) In your application for application, unless we approve the information requested by EPA.
certification, identify the company additional containers under § 59.624. (o) Name an agent for service located
whose trademark you will use and in the United States. Service on this
describe the arrangements you have § 59.623 What must I include in my agent constitutes service on you or any
made to meet your requirements under application? of your officers or employees for any
this section. This section specifies the information action by EPA or otherwise by the
(3) You remain responsible for that must be in your application, unless United States related to the
meeting all the requirements of this we ask you to include less information requirements of this subpart.
subpart. under § 59.622(c). We may require you
to provide additional information to § 59.624 How do I amend my application
Certifying Emission Families evaluate your application. for certification?
§ 59.621 Who may apply for a certificate of (a) Describe the emission family’s Before we issue you a certificate of
conformity? specifications and other basic conformity, you may amend your
A certificate of conformity may be parameters of the emission controls. List application to include new or modified
issued only to the manufacturer that each distinguishable configuration in configurations, subject to the provisions
completes the construction of the the emission family. Include of this section. After we have issued
portable fuel container. In unusual descriptions and part numbers for all your certificate of conformity, you may
circumstances, upon a petition by a detachable components such as spouts send us an amended application
manufacturer, we may allow another and caps. requesting that we include new or
manufacturer of the container to hold (b) Describe and explain the method modified configurations within the
the certificate of conformity. However, of emission control. scope of the certificate, subject to the
in order to hold the certificate, the (c) Describe the products you selected provisions of this section. You must
manufacturer must demonstrate day-to- for testing and the reasons for selecting amend your application if any changes
day ability to ensure that containers them. occur with respect to any information
(d) Describe the test equipment and included in your application.
produced under the certificate will
procedures that you used, including any (a) You must amend your application
comply with the requirements of this
special or alternate test procedures you before you take either of the following
subpart.
used (see § 59.650). actions:
§ 59.622 What are the general (e) List the specifications of the test (1) Add a configuration to an emission
requirements for obtaining a certificate of fuel to show that it falls within the family. In this case, the configuration
conformity and producing portable fuel required ranges specified in § 59.650. added must be consistent with other
containers under it? (f) Include the maintenance and use configurations in the emission family
(a) You must send us a separate instructions and warranty information with respect to the criteria listed in
application for a certificate of you will give to the ultimate purchaser § 59.625.
conformity for each emission family. A of each new portable fuel container (see (2) Change a configuration already
certificate of conformity for containers § 59.613). included in an emission family in a way
is valid from the indicated effective date (g) Describe your emission control that may affect emissions, or change any
until the end of the production period information label (see § 59.615). of the components you described in
your application for certification. This must stop producing the new or emission data for your family of
includes production and design changes modified containers. containers if you have added a thinner-
that may affect emissions any time walled container than was tested
during the portable fuel containers’ § 59.625 How do I select emission previously.
families?
lifetime. (e) We may require you to test a
(b) To amend your application for (a) Divide your product line into second unit of the same or different
certification, send the Designated families of portable fuel containers that configuration in addition to the unit
Compliance Officer the following are expected to have similar emission tested under paragraph (b) of this
information: characteristics throughout the useful section.
(1) Describe in detail the addition or life. (f) If you use an alternate test
change in the configuration you intend (b) Group containers in the same procedure under § 59.652 and later
to make. emission family if they are the same in testing shows that such testing does not
(2) Include engineering evaluations or all the following aspects: produce results that are equivalent to
data showing that the amended (1) Type of material (including the procedures specified in this subpart,
emission family complies with all pigments, plasticizers, UV inhibitors, or we may reject data you generated using
applicable requirements. You may do other additives that may affect control of the alternate procedure and base our
this by showing that the original emissions). compliance determination on the later
emission data are still appropriate with (2) Production method. testing.
respect to showing compliance of the (3) Spout and cap design.
amended family with all applicable (4) Gasket material and design. § 59.627 How do I demonstrate that my
(5) Emission control strategy. emission family complies with evaporative
requirements. emission standards?
(c) You may subdivide a group of
(3) If the original emission data for the
containers that is identical under (a) For purposes of certification, your
emission family are not appropriate to
paragraph (b) of this section into emission family is considered in
show compliance for the new or
different emission families if you show compliance with an evaporative
modified configuration, include new
the expected emission characteristics emission standard in § 59.611(a) if the
test data showing that the new or
are different. test results from all portable fuel
modified configuration meets the
(d) You may group containers that are containers in the family that have been
requirements of this subpart.
not identical with respect to the things tested show measured emissions levels
(c) We may ask for more test data or that are at or below the applicable
listed in paragraph (b) of this section in
engineering evaluations. You must give standard.
the same emission family if you show
us these within 30 days after we request (b) Your emissions family is deemed
that their emission characteristics will
them. not to comply if any container
be similar throughout their useful life.
(d) For emission families already representing that family has test results
covered by a certificate of conformity, § 59.626 What emission testing must I showing an official emission level above
we will determine whether the existing perform for my application for a certificate
the standard.
certificate of conformity covers your of conformity?
(c) Round the measured emission
new or modified configuration. You This section describes the emission level to the same number of decimal
may ask for a hearing if we deny your testing you must perform to show places as the emission standard.
request (see § 59.699). compliance with the emission standards Compare the rounded emission levels to
(e) For emission families already in § 59.611. the emission standard.
covered by a certificate of conformity (a) Test your products using the
and you send us a request to amend procedures and equipment specified in § 59.628 What records must I keep and
your application, you may sell and §§ 59.650 through 59.653. what reports must I send to EPA?
distribute the new or modified (b) Select an emission-data unit from (a) Organize and maintain the
configuration before we make a decision each emission family for testing. You following records:
under paragraph (d) of this section, must test a production sample or a (1) A copy of all applications and any
subject to the provisions of this preproduction product that will other information you send us.
paragraph. If we determine that the represent actual production. Select the (2) Any of the information we specify
affected configurations do not meet configuration that is most likely to in § 59.623 that you were not required
applicable requirements, we will notify exceed (or have emissions nearest to) to include in your application.
you to cease production of the the applicable emission standard. For (3) A detailed history of each
configurations and any containers from example, for a family of multilayer emission-data unit. For each emission-
the new or modified configuration will portable fuel containers, test the data unit, include all of the following:
not be considered covered by the container with the thinnest barrier layer. (i) The emission-data unit’s
certificate. In addition, we may require Test three identical containers. construction, including its origin and
you to recall any affected containers that (c) We may measure emissions from buildup, steps you took to ensure that
you have already distributed, including any of your products from the emission it represents production containers, any
those sold to the ultimate purchasers. family. You must supply your products components you built specially for it,
Choosing to produce containers under to us if we choose to perform and all the components you include in
this paragraph (e) is deemed to be confirmatory testing. your application for certification.
consent to recall all containers that we (d) You may ask to use emission data (ii) All your emission tests, including
determine do not meet applicable from a previous production period documentation on routine and standard
emission standards or other (carryover) instead of doing new tests, tests, as specified in §§ 59.650 through
requirements and to remedy the but only if the emission-data from the 59.653, and the date and purpose of
nonconformity at no expense to the previous production period remains the each test.
owner. If you do not provide appropriate emission-data unit under (iii) All tests to diagnose emission-
information required under paragraph paragraph (b) of this section. For control performance, giving the date and
(c) of this section within 30 days, you example, you may not carryover time of each and the reasons for the test.
(iv) Any other relevant events or (5) Produce portable fuel containers § 59.652 Other procedures.
information. for importation into the United States at (a) Your testing. The procedures in
(4) Production figures for each a location where local law prohibits us this subpart apply for all testing you do
emission family divided by assembly from carrying out authorized activities. to show compliance with emission
plant. (6) Fail to supply requested standards, with certain exceptions listed
(5) If you identify your portable fuel information or amend your application in this section.
containers by lot number or other to include all portable fuel containers (b) Our testing. These procedures
identification numbers, keep a record of being produced. generally apply for testing that we do to
these numbers for all the containers you (7) Take any action that otherwise determine if your portable fuel
produce under each certificate of circumvents the intent of the Act or this containers complies with applicable
conformity. subpart. emission standards. We may perform
(b) Keep data from routine emission (d) If we deny your application or other testing as allowed by the Act.
tests (such as test cell temperatures and suspend, revoke, or void your (c) Exceptions. We may allow or
relative humidity readings) for one year certificate, you may ask for a hearing require you to use procedures other than
after we issue the associated certificate (see § 59.699). those specified in this subpart as
of conformity. Keep all other follows:
information specified in paragraph (a) of § 59.630 EPA testing. (1) You may request to use special
this section for five years after we issue We may test any portable fuel procedures if your portable fuel
your certificate. container subject to the standards of this containers cannot be tested using the
(c) Store these records in any format subpart. specified procedures. We will approve
and on any media, as long as you can (a) Certification and production your request if we determine that it
promptly send us organized, written sample testing. Upon our request, a would produce emission measurements
records in English if we ask for them. manufacturer must supply a prototype that represent in-use operation and we
You must keep these records readily container or a reasonable number of determine that it can be used to show
available. We may review them at any production samples to us for compliance with the requirements of
time. verification testing. These samples will § 59.611.
(d) Send us copies of any generally be tested using the full test (2) You may ask to use emission data
maintenance instructions or procedure of § 59.653. collected using other procedures, such
explanations if we ask for them. (b) In-use testing. We may test in-use as those of the California Air Resources
(e) Send us an annual warranty report containers using the test procedure of Board. We will approve this only if you
summarizing successful warranty claims § 59.653 without preconditioning. show us that using these other
by emission family under § 59.612, procedures do not affect your ability to
including the reason for the claim. You § 59.650 General testing provisions. show compliance with the applicable
must submit the report by July 1 for the (a) The test procedures of this subpart emission standards. This generally
preceding calendar year. are addressed to you as a manufacturer, requires emission levels to be far
but they apply equally to anyone who enough below the applicable emission
§ 59.629 What decisions may EPA make
does testing for you. standards so that any test differences do
regarding my certificate of conformity?
(b) Unless we specify otherwise, the not affect your ability to state
(a) If we determine your application is unconditionally that your containers
complete and shows that the emission terms ‘‘procedures’’ and ‘‘test
procedures’’ in this subpart include all will meet all applicable emission
family meets all the requirements of this standards when tested using the
subpart and the Act, we will issue a aspects of testing, including the
equipment specifications, calibrations, specified test procedures.
certificate of conformity for your (3) You may request to use alternate
emission family for the specified calculations, and other protocols and
procedural specifications needed to procedures that are equivalent to
production period. We may make the allowed procedures, or more accurate or
approval subject to additional measure emissions.
(c) The specification for gasoline to be more precise than allowed procedures.
conditions. (4) You may not use other procedures
(b) We may deny your application for used for testing is given in 40 CFR
1065.710. Use the grade of gasoline under this paragraph (c) until we
certification if we determine that your approve your request.
emission family fails to comply with specified for general testing. Blend this
emission standards or other grade of gasoline with reagent grade § 59.653 How do I test portable fuel
requirements of this subpart or the Act. ethanol in a volumetric ratio of 90.0 containers?
Our decision may be based on a review percent gasoline to 10.0 percent ethanol. You must test the portable fuel
of all information available to us. If we You may use ethanol that is less pure if container as described in your
deny your application, we will explain you can demonstrate that it will not application, with the applicable spout
why in writing. affect your ability to demonstrate attached except as otherwise noted.
(c) In addition, we may deny your compliance with the applicable Tighten fittings in a manner
application or suspend, revoke, or void emission standards. representative of how they would be
your certificate if you do any of the (d) Accuracy and precision of all tightened by a typical user.
following: temperature measurements must be (a) Preconditioning for durability.
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing ±2.2° C or better. Complete the following steps before an
or reporting requirements. (e) Accuracy and precision of mass emissions test, in any order, unless we
(2) Submit false or incomplete balances must be sufficient to ensure determine that omission of one or more
information. accuracy and precision of two percent of these durability steps will not affect
(3) Render inaccurate any test data. or better for emission measurements for the emissions from your container.
(4) Deny us from completing products at the maximum level allowed (1) Pressure cycling. Perform a
authorized activities (see § 59.698). This by the standard. The readability of the pressure test by sealing the container
includes a failure to provide reasonable display may not be coarser than half of and cycling it between +13.8 and ¥1.7
assistance. the required accuracy and precision. kPa (+2.0 and ¥0.5 psig) for 10,000
cycles at a rate of 60 seconds per cycle. (1) Fill the portable fuel container (2) Weigh the sealed reference
For this test, the spout may be removed with the specified fuel to its nominal container and record the weight. Place
and the pressure applied through the capacity, seal it using the spout, and the reference on the balance and tare it
opening where the spout attaches. The allow it to soak at 28 ±5° C for 20 weeks. so that it reads zero. Place the sealed
purpose of this test is to represent Alternatively, the container may be test container on the balance and record
environmental wall stresses caused by soaked for 10 weeks at 43 ±5° C. You the difference between the test container
pressure changes and other factors (such may count the time of the and the reference container. This value
as vibration or thermal expansion). If preconditioning steps in paragraph (a) is Minitial Take this measurement within
your container cannot be tested using of this section as part of the 8 hours of filling the test container with
the pressure cycles specified by this preconditioning fuel soak, as long as the fuel as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of
paragraph (a)(1), you may ask to use ambient temperature remains within the this section.
special test procedures under specified temperature range and the fuel (3) Immediately place the portable
§ 59.652(c). tank is at least 40 percent full; you may fuel container within a well ventilated,
(2) UV exposure. Perform a sunlight- add or replace fuel as needed to conduct temperature-controlled room or
exposure test by exposing the container the specified durability procedures. enclosure. Do not spill or add any fuel.
to an ultraviolet light of at least 24 W/ (2) Pour the fuel out of the container (4) Close the room or enclosure.
m2 (0.40 W-hr/m2/min) on the container and immediately refill to 50 percent of (5) Follow the temperature profile in
surface for at least 450 hours. nominal capacity. Be careful to not spill the following table for all portable fuel
Alternatively, the container may be any fuel on the container. Wipe the containers. Use good engineering
exposed to direct natural sunlight for an outside of the container as needed to judgment to follow this profile as
equivalent period of time, as long as you remove any liquid fuel that may have closely as possible. You may use
ensure that the container is exposed to spilled on it. linearly interpolated temperatures or a
at least 450 daylight hours. (3) Install the spout assembly that will spline fit for temperatures between the
(3) Slosh testing. Perform a slosh test be used in the production containers. hourly setpoints.
by filling the portable fuel container to The spout and other openings (such as
40 percent of its capacity with the fuel vents) on the container must be tested TABLE 1 OF § 59.653—DIURNAL TEM-
specified in paragraph (e) of this section in their open condition unless they PERATURE PROFILE FOR PORTABLE
and rocking it at a rate of 15 cycles per close automatically and are unlikely to FUEL CONTAINERS
minute until you reach one million total be left open by the user during typical
cycles. Use an angle deviation of +15° storage. All manual closures such as Ambient
caps must be left off the container and Tempera-
to ¥15° from level. Time ture
(4) Spout actuation. Perform the spout during testing. (hours) (°C)
following spout actuation and inversion (c) Reference container. A reference Profile
steps at the end on the slosh testing, and container is required to correct for
at the end of the preconditioning soak. buoyancy effects that may occur during 0 ................................................ 22.2
(i) Perform one complete actuation/ testing. Prepare the reference tank as 1 ................................................ 22.5
follows: 2 ................................................ 24.2
inversion cycle per day for ten days. 3 ................................................ 26.8
(1) Obtain a second container of the
(ii) One actuation/inversion cycle 4 ................................................ 29.6
same model as the test tank. You may
consists of the following steps: 5 ................................................ 31.9
not use a container that has previously
(A) Remove and replace the spout to 6 ................................................ 33.9
contained fuel or any other contents that
simulate filling the container. 7 ................................................ 35.1
might affect the stability of its mass. 8 ................................................ 35.4
(B) Slowly invert the container and (2) Fill the reference container with
keep it inverted for at least 5 seconds to 9 ................................................ 35.6
enough dry sand (or other inert 10 .............................................. 35.3
ensure that the spout and mechanisms material) so that the mass of the 11 .............................................. 34.5
become saturated with fuel. Any fuel reference container is approximately the 12 .............................................. 33.2
leaking from any part of the container same as the test container when filled 13 .............................................. 31.4
will denote a leak and must be reported with fuel. Use good engineering 14 .............................................. 29.7
as part of certification. Once completed, judgment to determine how similar the 15 .............................................. 28.2
place the container on a flat surface in mass of the reference container needs to 16 .............................................. 27.2
the upright position. be to the mass of the test container
17 .............................................. 26.1
(C) Actuate the spout by fully opening 18 .............................................. 25.1
considering the performance 19 .............................................. 24.3
and closing without dispensing fuel. characteristics of your balance.
The spout must return to the closed 20 .............................................. 23.7
(3) Ensure that the sand (or other inert 21 .............................................. 23.3
position without the aid of the operator material) is dry. This may require 22 .............................................. 22.9
(e.g., pushing or pulling the spout heating the container or applying a 23 .............................................. 22.6
closed). Repeat for a total of 10 vacuum to it. 24 .............................................. 22.2
actuations. If at any point the spout fails (4) Seal the container.
to return to the closed position, the (d) Diurnal test run. To run the test, (6) At the end of the diurnal period,
container fails the test. take the following steps for a portable retare the balance using the reference
(D) Repeat the step contained in fuel container that was preconditioned container and weigh the portable fuel
paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B) of this section as specified in paragraph (a) of this container. Record the difference in mass
(i.e., the inversion step). section. between the reference container and the
(E) Repeat the steps contained in (1) Stabilize the fuel temperature test. This value is Mfinal.
paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) of this section within the portable fuel container at (7) Subtract Mfinal from Minitial and
(i.e., ten actuations). 22.2 °C. Vent the container at this point divide the difference by the nominal
(b) Preconditioning fuel soak. to relieve any positive or negative capacity of the container (using at least
Complete the following steps before a pressure that may have developed three significant figures) to calculate the
diurnal emission test: during stabilization. g/gallon/day emission rate as follows:
Emission rate = (Minitial—Mfinal)/ sell, or distribute for the sole purpose of applicable requirements as quickly as
(nominal capacity)/(one day) testing them. possible.
(8) Round your result to the same (c) You may ask us to exempt portable (d) You must give us other relevant
number of decimal places as the fuel containers for the purpose of information if we ask for it.
emission standard. national security, as long as your (e) We may include reasonable
(9) Instead of determining emissions request is endorsed by an agency of the additional conditions on an approval
by weighing the container before and federal government responsible for granted under this section, including
after the diurnal temperature cycle, you national defense. In your request, provisions to recover or otherwise
may place the container in a SHED explain why you need the exemption. address the lost environmental benefit
meeting the specifications of 40 CFR (d) You may ask us to exempt or paying fees to offset any economic
86.107–96(a)(1) and measure emissions containers that are designed and gain resulting from the exemption.
directly. Immediately following the marketed solely for rapidly refueling (f) We may approve renewable
stabilization in paragraph (d)(1) of this racing applications which are designed extensions of up to one year. We may
section, purge the SHED and follow the to create a leak proof seal with the target review and revise an extension as
temperature profile from paragraph tank or are designed to connect with a reasonable under the circumstances.
(d)(4) of this section. Start measuring receiver installed on the target tank. (g) Add a legible label, written in
emissions when you start the This exemption is generally intended English, to a readily visible part of each
temperature profile and stop measuring for containers used to rapidly refuel a container exempted under this section.
emissions when the temperature profile race car during a pit stop and similar This label must prominently include at
concludes. containers. In your request, explain how least the following items:
why these containers are unlikely to be (1) Your corporate name and
(e) For metal containers, you may
used for nonracing applications. We trademark.
demonstrate for certification that your (2) The statement ‘‘EXEMPT UNDER
portable fuel containers comply with may limit these exemptions to those
applications that are allowed to use 40 CFR 59.662.’’.
the evaporative emission standards
without performing the pre-soak or gasoline exempted under 40 CFR § 59.663 What are the provisions for
container durability cycles (i.e., the 80.200(a). extending compliance deadlines for
pressure cycling, UV exposure, and (e) EPA may impose reasonable manufacturers under hardship?
slosh testing) specified in this section. conditions on any exemption, including (a) After considering the
For other containers, you may a limit on the number of containers that circumstances, we may extend the
demonstrate compliance without are covered by an exemption. compliance deadline for you to meet
performing the durability cycles new emission standards, as long as you
§ 59.662 What temporary provisions
specified in this section only if we address hardship due to unusual meet all the conditions and
approve it after you have presented data circumstances? requirements in this section.
clearly demonstrating that the cycle or (b) To apply for an extension, you
(a) After considering the
cycles do not negatively impact the must send the Designated Compliance
circumstances, we may exempt you
permeation rate of the materials used in Officer a written request. In your
from the evaporative emission standards
the containers. request, show that all the following
and requirements of § 59.611 of this
conditions and requirements apply:
Special Compliance Provisions subpart and the prohibitions and (1) You have taken all possible
requirements of § 59.602 for specified business, technical, and economic steps
§ 59.660 Exemption from the standards. portable fuel containers that do not to comply.
In certain circumstances, we may comply with emission standards if all (2) Show that the burden of
exempt portable fuel containers from the following conditions apply: compliance costs prevents you from
the evaporative emission standards and (1) Unusual circumstances that are meeting the requirements of this subpart
requirements of § 59.611 and the clearly outside your control and that by the required compliance date.
prohibitions and requirements of could not have been avoided with (3) Not having the exemption will
§ 59.602. You do not need an exemption reasonable discretion prevent you from jeopardize the solvency of your
for any containers that you own but do meeting requirements from this subpart. company.
not sell, offer for sale, introduce or (2) You exercised prudent planning (4) No other allowances are available
deliver for introduction into U.S. and were not able to avoid the violation; under the regulations in this subpart to
commerce, or import into the United you have taken all reasonable steps to avoid the impending violation.
States. Submit your request for an minimize the extent of the (c) In describing the steps you have
exemption to the Designated nonconformity. taken to comply under paragraph (b)(1)
Compliance Officer. (3) Not having the exemption will of this section, include at least the
(a) Portable fuel containers that are jeopardize the solvency of your following information:
intended for export only and are in fact company. (1) Describe your business plan,
exported are exempt provided they are (4) No other allowances are available showing the range of projects active or
clearly labeled as being for export only. under the regulations in this chapter to under consideration.
Keep records for five years of all avoid the impending violation, (2) Describe your current and
portable fuel containers that you including the provisions of § 59.663. projected financial standing, with and
manufacture for export. Any (b) To apply for an exemption, you without the burden of complying in full
introduction into U.S. commerce of must send the Designated Compliance with the applicable regulations in this
such portable fuel containers for any Officer a written request as soon as subpart by the required compliance
purpose other than export is considered possible before you are in violation. In date.
to be a violation of § 59.602 by the your request, show that you meet all the (3) Describe your efforts to raise
manufacturer. You do not need to conditions and requirements in capital to comply with regulations in
request this exemption. paragraph (a) of this section. this subpart.
(b) You may ask us to exempt portable (c) Include in your request a plan (4) Identify the engineering and
fuel containers that you will purchase, showing how you will meet all the technical steps you have taken or plan
to take to comply with regulations in obtaining a bond from a third-party Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
this subpart. surety that is cited in the U.S. Washington, DC 20460.
(5) Identify the level of compliance Department of Treasury Circular 570, Designated Enforcement Officer
you can achieve. For example, you may ‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of means the Director, Air Enforcement
be able to produce containers that meet Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental
a somewhat less stringent emission Federal Bonds and as Acceptable Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
standard than the regulations in this Reinsuring Companies’’ (http:// Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460.
subpart require. www.fms.treas.gov/c570/ Emission-control system means any
(d) Include in your request a plan c570.html#certified). device, system, or element of design that
showing how you will meet all the (d) If you forfeit some or all of your controls or reduces the regulated
applicable requirements as quickly as bond in an enforcement action, you evaporative emissions from.
possible. must post any appropriate bond for Emission-data unit means a portable
(e) You must give us other relevant continuing importation within 90 days fuel container that is tested for
information if we ask for it. after you forfeit the bond amount. certification. This includes components
(f) An authorized representative of (e) You will forfeit the proceeds of the tested by EPA.
your company must sign the request and bond posted under this section if you Emission-related maintenance means
include the statement: ‘‘All the need to satisfy any United States maintenance that substantially affects
information in this request is true and administrative final order or judicial emissions or is likely to substantially
accurate, to the best of my knowledge.’’. judgment against you arising from your affect emission deterioration.
(g) Send your request for this conduct in violation of this subpart. Emission family has the meaning
extension at least nine months before (f) This paragraph (f) applies if you given in § 59.625.
the relevant deadline. import for resale containers that have Evaporative means relating to fuel
(h) We may include reasonable been certified by someone else. You and emissions that result from permeation of
requirements on an approval granted the certificate holder are each fuel through the portable fuel container
under this section, including provisions responsible for compliance with the materials and from ventilation of the
to recover or otherwise address the lost requirements of this subpart and the container.
environmental benefit. For example, we Clean Air Act. No bond is required Good engineering judgment means
may require that you meet a less under this section if either you or the judgments made consistent with
stringent emission standard. certificate holder meet the conditions in generally accepted scientific and
(i) We may approve renewable paragraph (a) of this section. Otherwise, engineering principles and all available
extensions of up to one year. We may the importer must comply with the relevant information. See § 59.603 for
review and revise an extension as bond requirements of this section. the administrative process we use to
reasonable under the circumstances. evaluate good engineering judgment.
(j) Add a permanent, legible label, Definitions and Other Reference Hydrocarbon (HC) means total
written in English, to a readily visible Information hydrocarbon (THC).
part of each container exempted under Manufacture means the physical and
§ 59.680 What definitions apply to this engineering process of designing and/or
this section. This label must subpart?
prominently include at least the constructing a portable fuel container.
The following definitions apply to Manufacturer means any person who
following items: this subpart. The definitions apply to all
(1) Your corporate name and manufactures a portable fuel container
subparts unless we note otherwise. All for sale in the United States.
trademark.
undefined terms have the meaning the Nominal capacity means the expected
(2) The statement ‘‘EXEMPT UNDER
Act gives to them. The definitions volumetric working capacity of a
40 CFR 59.663.’’.
follow: container.
§ 59.664 What are the requirements for Act means the Clean Air Act, as Official emission result means the
importing portable fuel containers into the amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. measured emission rate for an emission-
United States? Adjustable parameter means any data unit.
As specified in this section, we may device, system, or element of design that Portable fuel container means any
require you to post a bond if you import someone can adjust and that, if reusable container designed and
into the United States containers that adjusted, may affect emissions. You may marketed (or otherwise intended) for
are subject to the standards of this ask us to exclude a parameter if you use by consumers for receiving,
subpart. See paragraph (f) of this section show us that it will not be adjusted in transporting, storing, and dispensing
for the requirements related to use in a way that affects emissions. gasoline, diesel fuel, or kerosene. For
importing containers that have been Certification means relating to the the purpose of this subpart, all utility
certified by someone else. process of obtaining a certificate of jugs that are red, yellow or blue in color
(a) Prior to importing containers into conformity for an emission family that are deemed to be portable fuel
the U.S., we may require you to post a complies with the emission standards containers, regardless of how they are
bond to cover any potential compliance and requirements in this subpart. labeled or marketed.
or enforcement actions under the Clean Configuration means a unique Production period means the period
Air Act if you cannot demonstrate to us combination of hardware (material, in which a portable fuel container will
that you have assets of an appropriate geometry, and size) and calibration be produced under a certificate of
liquidity readily available in the United within an emission family. Units within conformity. The maximum production
States with a value equal to the retail a single configuration differ only with period is five years.
value of the containers that you will respect to normal production variability. Revoke means to terminate the
import during the calendar year. Container means portable fuel certificate or an exemption for an
(b) We may set the value of the bond container. emission family. If we revoke a
up to five dollars per container. Designated Compliance Officer means certificate or exemption, you must apply
(c) You may meet the bond the Manager, Engine Programs Group for a new certificate or exemption before
requirements of this section by (6403–J), U.S. Environmental Protection continuing to introduce the affected
containers into commerce. This does not HC hydrocarbon (d) We may select any facility to do
apply to containers you no longer NIST National Institute of Standards any of the following:
possess. and Technology (1) Inspect and monitor any aspect of
Round has the meaning given in 40 THC total hydrocarbon portable fuel container manufacturing,
CFR 1065.1001. U.S.C. United States Code assembly, storage, or other procedures,
Suspend means to temporarily and any facilities where you do them.
discontinue the certificate or an § 59.695 What provisions apply to
confidential information? (2) Inspect and monitor any aspect of
exemption for an emission family. If we test procedures or test-related activities,
suspend a certificate, you may not (a) Clearly show what you consider
confidential by marking, circling, including test container selection,
introduce into commerce portable fuel preparation, durability cycles, and
containers from that emission family bracketing, stamping, or some other
method. maintenance and verification of your
unless we reinstate the certificate or test equipment’s calibration.
approve a new one. If we suspend an (b) We will store your confidential
exemption, you may not introduce into information as described in 40 CFR part (3) Inspect and copy records or
commerce containers that were 2. Also, we will disclose it only as documents related to assembling,
previously covered by the exemption specified in 40 CFR part 2. This applies storing, selecting, and testing a
unless we reinstate the exemption. both to any information you send us and container.
Total hydrocarbon means the to any information we collect from (4) Inspect and photograph any part or
combined mass of organic compounds inspections, audits, or other site visits. aspect of containers or components use
measured by the specified procedure for (c) If you send us a second copy for assembly.
measuring total hydrocarbon, expressed without the confidential information, (e) You must give us reasonable help
as a hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to- we will assume it contains nothing without charge during an inspection
carbon mass ratio of 1.85:1. confidential whenever we need to authorized by the Act. For example, you
Ultimate purchaser means, with release information from it. may need to help us arrange an
respect to any portable fuel container, (d) If you send us information without inspection with the facility’s managers,
the first person who in good faith claiming it is confidential, we may make including clerical support, copying, and
purchases such a container for purposes it available to the public without further translation. You may also need to show
other than resale. notice to you, as described in 40 CFR us how the facility operates and answer
Ultraviolet light means 2.204. other questions. If we ask in writing to
electromagnetic radiation with a see a particular employee at the
wavelength between 300 and 400 § 59.697 State actions.
inspection, you must ensure that he or
nanometers. The provisions in this subpart do not she is present (legal counsel may
United States means the States, the preclude any State or any political accompany the employee).
District of Columbia, the subdivision of a State from:
(f) If you have facilities in other
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the (a) Adopting and enforcing any
countries, we expect you to locate them
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana emission standard or limitation
in places where local law does not keep
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and applicable to anyone subject to the
us from inspecting as described in this
the U.S. Virgin Islands. provisions of this part; or
section. We will not try to inspect if we
U.S.-directed production volume (b) Requiring the regulated entity to
learn that local law prohibits it, but we
means the amount of portable fuel obtain permits, licenses, or approvals
may suspend your certificate if we are
containers, subject to the requirements prior to initiating construction,
not allowed to inspect.
of this subpart, produced by a modification, or operation of a facility
manufacturer for which the for manufacturing a consumer product. § 59.699 How do I request a hearing?
manufacturer has a reasonable (a) You may request a hearing under
§ 59.698 May EPA enter my facilities for
assurance that sale was or will be made inspections? certain circumstances, as described
to ultimate purchasers in the United elsewhere in this subpart. To do this,
States. (a) We may inspect your portable fuel
containers, testing, manufacturing you must file a written request with the
Useful life means the period during Designated Compliance Officer,
which a portable fuel container is processes, storage facilities (including
port facilities for imported containers or including a description of your
required to comply with all applicable objection and any supporting data,
emission standards. See § 59.611. other relevant facilities), or records, as
authorized by the Act, to enforce the within 30 days after we make a
Void means to invalidate a certificate decision.
or an exemption ab initio (i.e. provisions of this subpart. Inspectors
retroactively). Portable fuel containers will have authorizing credentials and (b) For a hearing you request under
introduced into U.S. commerce under will limit inspections to reasonable the provisions of this subpart, we will
the voided certificate or exemption is a times—usually, normal operating hours. approve your request if we find that
violation of this subpart, whether or not (b) If we come to inspect, we may or your request raises a substantial factual
they were introduced before the may not have a warrant or court order. issue.
certificate or exemption was voided. (1) If we do not have a warrant or (c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we
We (us, our) means the Administrator court order, you may deny us entry. will use the procedures specified in 40
of the Environmental Protection Agency (2) If we have a warrant or court CFR part 1068, subpart G.
and any authorized representatives. order, you must allow us to enter the
facility and carry out the activities it PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS
§ 59.685 What symbols, acronyms, and describes. AND FUEL ADDITIVES
abbreviations does this subpart use? (c) We may seek a warrant or court
The following symbols, acronyms, order authorizing an inspection ■ 3. The authority citation for part 80 is
and abbreviations apply to this subpart: described in this section, whether or not revised to read as follows:
CFR Code of Federal Regulations we first tried to get your permission to Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(1), 7545
EPA Environmental Protection Agency inspect. and 7601(a).
Subpart D—[Amended] received an extension of its small refiner ■ o. In newly designated paragraph
gasoline sulfur standards under (d)(11)(ii) revise the reference
■ 4. Section 80.41 is amended as § 80.553, the NOX emissions ‘‘(c)(11)(i)’’ to read ‘‘(d)(11)(i)’’.
follows: performance reduction specified in ■ p. In newly designated paragraph
■ a. By redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall no (d)(13)(v)(G) revise the reference
paragraph (e)(1). longer apply beginning January 1, 2011. ‘‘(c)(8)(i)’’ to read ‘‘(d)(8)(i)’’.
■ b. By adding paragraphs (e)(2) and (3)(i) Beginning January 1, 2011, or
(e)(3). January 1, 2015 for small refiners § 80.68 Compliance surveys.
■ c. By redesignating paragraph (f) as approved under § 80.1340, the toxic air (a)(1) Beginning January 1, 2007, the
paragraph (f)(1). pollutants emissions performance compliance surveys for NOX emissions
■ d. By adding paragraphs (f)(2) and reduction and benzene content specified performance under this section shall
(f)(3). in paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall cease to be required.
apply only to reformulated gasoline that
§ 80.41 Standards and requirements for (2) Beginning January 1, 2011, the
compliance. is not subject to the benzene standard of compliance surveys for toxics emissions
§ 80.1230, pursuant to the provisions of
* * * * * performance under this section shall
(e) * * * § 80.1235.
cease to be required.
(2)(i) The NOX emissions performance (ii) The toxic air pollutants emissions
performance reduction and benzene * * * * *
reduction specified in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section shall no longer apply content specified in paragraph (f)(1) of
Subpart E—[Amended]
beginning January 1, 2007, except as this section shall not apply to
provided in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this reformulated gasoline produced by a
■ 6. Section 80.101 is amended by
section. refinery approved under § 80.1334,
adding paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) to
(ii) For a refiner subject to the small pursuant to § 80.1334(c).
read as follows:
refiner gasoline sulfur standards at * * * * *
§ 80.240, the NOX emissions ■ 5. Section 80.68 is amended as § 80.101 Standards applicable to refiners
follows: and importers.
performance reduction specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall no ■ a. By redesignating paragraphs (a) * * * * *
longer apply beginning January 1, 2008. through (c) as paragraphs (b) through (c) * * *
For a refiner subject to the gasoline (d), respectively. (3)(i) The NOX emissions standard
sulfur standards at § 80.240 that has ■ b. By adding new paragraph (a). specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this
received an extension of its small refiner ■ c. In newly designated paragraph section shall no longer apply beginning
gasoline sulfur standards under (b)(2) revise the reference ‘‘(c)’’ to read January 1, 2007, except as provided in
§ 80.553, the NOX emissions ‘‘(d)’’. paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section.
performance reduction specified in ■ d. In newly designated paragraph (c)
(ii) For a refiner subject to the small
paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall no introductory text revise the reference
refiner gasoline sulfur standards at
longer apply beginning January 1, 2011. ‘‘(a)’’ to read ‘‘(b)’’.
§ 80.240, the NOX emissions standard
(3)(i) Beginning January 1, 2011, or ■ e. In newly designated paragraph
specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this
January 1, 2015 for small refiners (c)(2)(i) revise the reference ‘‘(b)(1)’’ to
section shall no longer apply beginning
approved under § 80.1340, the toxic air read ‘‘(c)(1)’’.
January 1, 2008. For a refiner subject to
pollutants emissions performance ■ f. In newly designated paragraph
the gasoline sulfur standards at § 80.240
reduction and benzene content specified (c)(2)(ii) revise the reference ‘‘(c)’’ to
that has received an extension of its
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall read ‘‘(d)’’, revise all references ‘‘(b)(1)’’
small refiner gasoline sulfur standards
apply to reformulated gasoline that is to read ‘‘(c)(1)’’, and revise all references
under § 80.553, the NOX emissions
not subject to the benzene standard of ‘‘(b)(2)(i)’’ to read ‘‘(c)(2)(i)’’.
standard specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i)
§ 80.1230, pursuant to the provisions of ■ g. In newly designated paragraph
of this section shall no longer apply
§ 80.1235. (c)(3) revise the reference ‘‘(c)’’ to read
beginning January 1, 2011.
(ii) The toxic air pollutants emissions ‘‘(d)’’.
performance reduction and benzene ■ h. In newly designated paragraph (4)(i) Beginning January 1, 2011, or
content specified in paragraph (e)(1) of (c)(4)(i) revise the reference ‘‘(a)’’ to read January 1, 2015 for small refiners
this section shall not apply to ‘‘(b)’’. approved under § 80.1340, the exhaust
reformulated gasoline produced by a ■ i. In newly designated paragraph toxics emissions standard specified in
refinery approved under § 80.1334, (d)(1)(ii)(A) revise the reference ‘‘(c)(6)’’ paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section shall
pursuant to § 80.1334(c). to read ‘‘(d)(6)’’. apply only to conventional gasoline that
(f) * * * ■ j. In newly designated paragraph is not subject to the benzene standard of
(2)(i) The NOX emissions performance (d)(1)(ii)(B) revise the reference ‘‘(c)(6)’’ § 80.1230, pursuant to the provisions of
reduction specified in paragraph (f)(1) of to read ‘‘(d)(6)’’. § 80.1235.
this section shall no longer apply ■ k. In newly designated paragraph (ii) The exhaust toxic emissions
beginning January 1, 2007, except as (d)(2)(i) revise the reference ‘‘(c)(6)’’ to standard specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i)
provided in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this read ‘‘(d)(6)’’. of this section shall not apply to
section. ■ l. In newly designated paragraph conventional gasoline produced by a
(ii) For a refiner subject to the small (d)(8)(i)(C) revise the reference refinery approved under § 80.1334,
refiner gasoline sulfur standards at ‘‘(c)(8)(i)(B)’’ to read ‘‘(d)(8)(i)(B)’’. pursuant to § 80.1334(c).
§ 80.240, the NOX emissions ■ m. In newly designated paragraph * * * * *
performance reduction specified in (d)(9)(ii)(B) revise the reference

paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall no ‘‘(c)(9)(i)(B)’’ to read ‘‘(d)(9)(i)(B)’’. Subpart F—[Amended]
longer apply beginning January 1, 2008. ■ n. In newly designated paragraph
For a refiner subject to the gasoline (d)(10)(v) revise the reference ■ 7. Section 80.128 is amended by
sulfur standards at § 80.240 that has ‘‘(c)(10)(iv)’’ to read ‘‘(d)(10)(iv)’’. revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 80.128 Alternative agreed upon 80.1238 How is a refinery’s or importer’s subpart and liability for violations of this
procedures for refiners and importers. average benzene concentration subpart?
* * * * * determined? 80.1360 Who is liable for violations under
80.1240 How is a refinery’s or importer’s the gasoline benzene program?
(a) Read the refiner’s or importer’s 80.1361 What penalties apply under the
compliance with the gasoline benzene
reports filed with EPA for the previous requirements of this subpart determined? gasoline benzene program?
year as required by §§ 80.75, 80.83(g),
80.105, 80.990 and 80.1354. Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT) Foreign Refiners
Program 80.1363 What are the additional
* * * * *
80.1270 Who may generate benzene credits requirements under this subpart for
Subpart J—[Amended] under the ABT program? gasoline produced at foreign refineries?
80.1275 How are early benzene credits
■ 8. Section 80.815 is amended by generated? Subpart L—Gasoline Benzene
redesignating paragraph (d)(1) as 80.1280 How are refinery benzene baselines
calculated? §§ 80.1200–80.1219 [Reserved]
paragraph (d)(1)(i) and adding 80.1285 How does a refiner apply for a
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows: General Information
benzene baseline?
§ 80.815 What are the gasoline toxics 80.1290 How are standard benzene credits § 80.1220 What are the implementation
generated? dates for the gasoline benzene program?
performance requirements for refiners and
80.1295 How are gasoline benzene credits (a) Benzene standard. (1) For the
importers?
used?
* * * * * annual averaging period beginning
(d) * * * Hardship Provisions January 1, 2011, and for each annual
(1) * * * 80.1334 What are the requirements for early averaging period thereafter, gasoline
(ii)(A) Beginning January 1, 2011, or compliance with the gasoline benzene produced at each refinery of a refiner or
January 1, 2015 for small refiners program? imported by an importer, must meet the
80.1335 Can a refiner seek relief from the benzene standard specified in
approved under § 80.1340, the gasoline
requirements of this subpart? § 80.1230(a), except as otherwise
toxics performance requirements of this 80.1336 What if a refiner or importer cannot
subpart shall apply only to gasoline that specifically provided for in this subpart.
produce gasoline conforming to the (2) For the period July 1, 2012 through
is not subject to the benzene standard of requirements of this subpart?
§ 80.1230, pursuant to the provisions of December 31, 2013, and for each annual
§ 80.1235.
Small Refiner Provisions averaging period thereafter, gasoline
(B) The gasoline toxics performance 80.1338 What criteria must be met to produced at each refinery of a refiner or
requirements of this subpart shall not qualify as a small refiner for the gasoline imported by an importer, must meet the
apply to gasoline produced by a refinery
benzene requirements of this subpart? maximum average benzene standard
80.1339 Who is not eligible for the specified in § 80.1230(b), except as
approved under § 80.1334, pursuant to provisions for small refiners?
§ 80.1334(c). otherwise specifically provided for in
80.1340 How does a refiner obtain approval this subpart.
* * * * * as a small refiner? (3) Small refiners approved under
80.1342 What compliance options are
■ 9. Section 80.1035 is amended by § 80.1340 may defer meeting the
available to small refiners under this
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: subpart? benzene standard specified in
80.1343 What hardship relief provisions are § 80.1230(a) until the annual averaging
§ 80.1035 What are the attest engagement
available only to small refiners? period beginning January 1, 2015 and
requirements for gasoline toxics
compliance applicable to refiners and 80.1344 What provisions are available to a may defer meeting the benzene standard
importers? non-small refiner that acquires one or specified in § 80.1230(b) until the
more of a small refiner’s refineries? averaging period beginning July 1, 2016,
* * * * *
Sampling, Testing and Retention as described in § 80.1342.
(h) Beginning January 1, 2011, or (b) Early credit generation. (1)
January 1, 2015 for small refiners Requirements
80.1347 What are the sampling and testing
Effective with the averaging period
approved per § 80.1340, the beginning June 1, 2007, a refiner for
requirements of this section shall apply requirements for refiners and importers?
80.1348 What gasoline sample retention each of its refineries that has an
only to gasoline that is not subject to the approved benzene baseline per
requirements apply to refiners and
benzene standard of § 80.1230, pursuant § 80.1285 may generate early benzene
importers?
to the provisions of § 80.1235. credits in accordance with the
■ 10. Subpart L is added to read as Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
provisions of § 80.1275.
follows: 80.1350 What records must be kept? (2) Early benzene credits may be
80.1352 What are the pre-compliance generated through the end of the
Subpart L—Gasoline Benzene reporting requirements for the gasoline averaging period ending December 31,
Sec. benzene program?
80.1200–80.1219 [Reserved] 80.1354 What are the reporting
2010, or through the end of the
requirements for the gasoline benzene averaging period ending December 31,
General Information program? 2014 for small refiners approved under
80.1220 What are the implementation dates § 80.1340.
for the gasoline benzene program? Attest Engagements (c) Standard credit generation. (1)
80.1225 Who must register with EPA under 80.1356 What are the attest engagement Effective with the annual averaging
the gasoline benzene program? requirements for gasoline benzene period beginning January 1, 2011, a
compliance? refiner for any of its refineries or an
Gasoline Benzene Requirements
importer for its imported gasoline, may
80.1230 What are the gasoline benzene Violations and Penalties

requirements for refiners and importers? 80.1358 What acts are prohibited under the generate standard benzene credits in
80.1235 What gasoline is subject to the gasoline benzene program? accordance with the provisions of
benzene requirements of this subpart? 80.1359 What evidence may be used to § 80.1290.
80.1236 What requirements apply to determine compliance with the (2) Effective with the annual
California gasoline? prohibitions and requirements of this averaging period beginning January 1,
2015, a small refiner approved under concentration in any averaging period (1) Reformulated gasoline.
§ 80.1340, for any of its refineries, may shall not exceed 1.30 volume percent. (2) Conventional gasoline.
generate standard benzene credits in (2) Compliance with the standard (3) Reformulated gasoline blendstock
accordance with the provisions of specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this for oxygenate blending (‘‘RBOB’’).
§ 80.1290. section is determined in accordance (4) Conventional gasoline blendstock
with § 80.1240(b). that becomes finished conventional
§ 80.1225 Who must register with EPA (3) The averaging period for achieving gasoline upon the addition of oxygenate
under the gasoline benzene program? compliance with the requirement of (‘‘CBOB’’).
(a) Refiners and importers that are paragraph (b)(1) of this section is July 1, (5) Blendstock that has been
registered by EPA under § 80.76, 2012 through December 31, 2013 and combined with finished gasoline, other
§ 80.103, § 80.190, or § 80.810 are each calendar year thereafter, or July 1, blendstock, transmix, or gasoline
deemed to be registered for purposes of 2016 through December 31, 2017, and produced from transmix to produce
this subpart. each calendar year thereafter for small gasoline.
(b) Refiners and importers subject to refiners approved under § 80.1340. (6) Blendstock that has been
the requirements in § 80.1230 that are (c) Deficit carry-forward. (1) A combined with previously certified
not registered by EPA under §§ 80.76, refinery or importer creates a benzene gasoline (‘‘PCG’’) to produce gasoline.
80.103, 80.190 or 80.810 shall provide deficit for a given averaging period Such blendstock must be sampled in
to EPA the information required in when its compliance benzene value, per accordance with the provisions at
§ 80.76 by September 30, 2010, or not § 80.1240(a), is greater than the benzene § 80.1347(a)(5).
later than three months in advance of (b) The following products are not to
standard specified in paragraph (a) of
the first date that such person produces be included in a refinery’s or importer’s
this section.
or imports gasoline, whichever is later. (2) A refinery or importer may carry compliance determination under
(c) Refiners that plan to generate early the benzene deficit forward to the § 80.1240:
credits under § 80.1275 and that are not (1) Blendstock that has not been
calendar year following the year the
registered by EPA under §§ 80.76, combined with other blendstock or
benzene deficit is created but only if no
80.103, 80.190, or 80.810 must provide finished gasoline to produce gasoline.
deficit had been previously carried (2) Oxygenate added to finished
to EPA the information required in forward to the year the deficit is created.
§ 80.76 not later than 60 days prior to gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB downstream
If a refinery or importer carries forward of the refinery that produced the
the end of the first year of credit a deficit, the following provisions apply
generation. gasoline or import facility where the
in the second year: gasoline was imported.
Gasoline Benzene Requirements (i) The refinery or importer must (3) Butane added to finished gasoline,
achieve compliance with the benzene RBOB, CBOB downstream of the
§ 80.1230 What are the gasoline benzene standard specified in paragraph (a) of
requirements for refiners and importers?
refinery that produced the gasoline or
this section. import facility where the gasoline was
(a) Annual average benzene standard. (ii) The refinery or importer must imported.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (c) achieve further reductions in its (4) Gasoline produced by separating
of this section, a refinery’s or importer’s gasoline benzene concentrations gasoline from transmix.
average gasoline benzene concentration sufficient to offset the benzene deficit of (5) PCG.
in any annual averaging period shall not the previous year. (6) Gasoline produced or imported for
exceed 0.62 volume percent. (iii) Benzene credits may be used, per use in Guam, American Samoa, and the
(2) Compliance with the standard § 80.1295, to meet the requirements of Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this Islands.
section, or creation of a deficit in section. (7) Gasoline exported for use outside
accordance with paragraph (c) of this (iv) A refinery that has banked credits the United States.
section, is determined in accordance per § 80.1295(a)(3) must use all of its (8) Gasoline produced by a small
with § 80.1240(a). banked credits to achieve compliance refiner approved under § 80.1340 prior
(3) The annual averaging period for with the benzene standard specified in to January 1, 2015, or prior to the small
achieving compliance with the paragraph (a) of this section before refiner’s first compliance period
requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this creating a deficit. pursuant to § 80.1342(a), whichever is
section is January 1 through December (3) EPA may allow an extended earlier.
31 of each calendar year beginning period of deficit carry-forward if it (9) Gasoline that is used to fuel
January 1, 2011, or beginning January 1, grants hardship relief under §§ 80.1335 aircraft, racing vehicles or racing boats
2015 for small refiners approved under or 80.1336 from the annual average that are used only in sanctioned racing
§ 80.1340. standard specified in paragraph (a) of events, provided that —
(4) Refinery grouping per § 80.101(h) this section. (i) Product transfer documents
does not apply to compliance with the associated with such gasoline, and any
gasoline benzene requirement specified § 80.1235 What gasoline is subject to the pump stand from which such gasoline
in this paragraph (a). benzene requirements of this subpart? is dispensed, identify the gasoline either
(5) Gasoline produced at foreign (a) For the purposes of determining as gasoline that is restricted for use in
refineries that is subject to the gasoline compliance with the requirements of aircraft, or as gasoline that is restricted
benzene requirements per § 80.1235 § 80.1230, all of the following products for use in racing motor vehicles or
shall be included in the importer’s that are produced or imported for use in racing boats that are used only in
compliance determination beginning the United States during a refinery’s or sanctioned events;
January 1, 2011, or beginning January 1, importer’s applicable compliance period (ii) The gasoline is completely
2015 for small foreign refiners approved are collectively ‘‘gasoline’’ and are to be segregated from all other gasoline
under § 80.1340. included in a refinery’s or importer’s throughout production, distribution and
(b) Maximum average benzene compliance determination under sale to the ultimate consumer; and
standard. (1) A refinery’s or importer’s § 80.1240, except as provided in (iii) The gasoline is not made
maximum average gasoline benzene paragraph (b) of this section: available for use as motor vehicle
gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor Vi = Volume of gasoline in batch i (gallons). requirement at § 80.1230(a) is achieved
vehicles, except for motor vehicles used Bi = Benzene concentration of batch i for calendar year y.
only in sanctioned racing events. (volume percent benzene), per § 80.46(e). (ii) If CBVy > Vy × (0.62)/100, then
(10) California gasoline, as defined in (b) A refiner or importer may include compliance with the benzene
§ 80.1236. the volume of oxygenate added requirement at § 80.1230(a) is not
downstream from the refinery or import achieved for calendar year y, and a
§ 80.1236 What requirements apply to facility in the calculation specified in
California gasoline?
deficit is created per § 80.1230(c). The
paragraph (a) of this section, provided deficit value to be included in the
(a) Definition. For purposes of this the following requirements are met: following year’s compliance calculation
subpart, ‘‘California gasoline’’ means (1) For oxygenate added to per paragraph (a) of this section is
any gasoline designated by the refiner or conventional gasoline, the refiner or calculated as follows:
importer as for use only in California importer must comply with the
and that is actually used in California. requirements of § 80.101(d)(4)(ii) and
 0.62 
(b) California gasoline exemption. the calculation methodologies of D y = CBVy − Vy ×  
California gasoline that complies with § 80.101(g)(3).  100 
all the requirements of this section is (2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the Where:
exempt from the requirements in refiner or importer must comply with Dy = Benzene deficit created in compliance
§ 80.1230. the requirements of § 80.69(a). period y (gallons benzene).
(c) Requirements for California (c) Refiners and importers must
gasoline. The following requirements exclude from the calculation specified (b) Compliance with the maximum
apply to California gasoline: in paragraph (a) of this section all of the average benzene standard at
(1) Each batch of California gasoline following: § 80.1230(b) is achieved by a refinery or
must be designated as such by its refiner (1) Gasoline that was not produced at importer if the value of Bavg calculated
or importer. the refinery or imported by the in accordance with § 80.1238(a) is no
(2) Designated California gasoline importer. greater 1.30 volume percent for an
must be kept segregated from gasoline (2) Except as provided in paragraph applicable averaging period per
that is not California gasoline at all (b) of this section, any blendstocks or § 80.1230(b)(3).
points in the distribution system. unfinished gasoline transferred to
Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT)
(3) Designated California gasoline others.
Program
must ultimately be used in the State of (3) Gasoline that has been included in
California and not used elsewhere in the the compliance calculations for another § 80.1270 Who may generate benzene
United States. refinery or importer. credits under the ABT program?
(4) In the case of California gasoline (4) Gasoline exempted from the (a) Early benzene credits. Early
produced outside the State of California, standards under § 80.1235(b). benzene credits are credits generated
the transferors and transferees must prior to 2011, or prior to 2015 if
§ 80.1240 How is a refinery’s or importer’s
meet the product transfer document compliance with the gasoline benzene generated by a small refiner approved
requirements under § 80.81(g). requirements of this subpart determined? under § 80.1340.
(5) Gasoline that is ultimately used in (1)(i) Early credits may be generated
(a) A refinery’s or importer’s
any part of the United States outside of under § 80.1275 by a refiner for any
compliance with the annual average
the State of California must comply with refinery it owns that has an approved
benzene standard at § 80.1230(a) is
the requirements specified in § 80.1230, benzene baseline under § 80.1285,
determined as follows:
regardless of any designation as (1)(i) The compliance benzene value including a refinery of a foreign refiner
California gasoline. for a refinery or importer is: that is subject to the provisions of
§ 80.1238 How is a refinery’s or importer’s § 80.1363.
average benzene concentration  Bavg , y  (ii) The refinery specified in
determined? CBVy = Vy ×   + D y −1 − BC − OC paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section must
(a) The average benzene concentration  100  process crude oil and/or intermediate
of gasoline produced at a refinery or Where: feedstocks through refinery processing
imported by an importer for an CBVy = Compliance benzene value (gallons units.
applicable averaging period is benzene) for year y. (iii) Early benzene credits shall be
calculated according to the following Vy = Gasoline volume produced or imported calculated separately for each refinery of
equation: in year y (gallons). a refiner.
Bavg,y = Average benzene concentration in (iv) A refinery that is approved for
n year y (volume percent benzene), early compliance under § 80.1334 may
∑(V × B ) i i
calculated in accordance with § 80.1238.
Dy-1 = Benzene deficit from the previous
not generate early credits for the
Bavg = i =1
reporting period, per § 80.1230(c)
gasoline subject to the early compliance
n
provisions.
∑V
i =1
i
(gallons benzene).
BC = Banked benzene credits used to show (2)(i) A refinery that was shut down
during the entire 2004–2005 benzene
ER26FE07.014</MATH>
compliance (gallons benzene).

Where: OC = Benzene credits obtained by the baseline period is not eligible to
Bavg = Average benzene concentration for the refinery or importer used to show generate early credits under § 80.1275.
applicable averaging period (volume compliance (gallons benzene). (ii) A refinery not in full production,
percent benzene). (ii) Benzene credits used in the excluding normal refinery downtime, or
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced at
ER26FE07.013</MATH>
calculation specified in paragraph not showing consistent or regular

the refinery or imported during the

applicable averaging period. (a)(1)(i) of this section must be used in gasoline production activity during
n = Total number of batches of gasoline accordance with the requirements at 2004–2005 may be eligible to generate
produced at the refinery or imported § 80.1295. early benzene credits under § 80.1275
during the applicable annual averaging (2)(i) If CBVy ≤ Vy × (0.62)/100, then upon petition to and approval by EPA,
ER26FE07.012</MATH>
period. compliance with the benzene pursuant to § 80.1285(d).
(3) Importers may not generate early prior to or during the first early credit § 80.101(d)(4) must include the volume
credits. averaging period, per paragraph (b) of and benzene concentration of this
(b) Standard benzene credits. this section, in which it generates early oxygenate in the benzene baseline
Standard benzene credits are credits credits: calculation for that refinery under
generated after 2010, or after 2014 if (1) Since 2005, has made operational paragraph (a) of this section.
generated by a small refiner approved changes and/or improvements in
under § 80.1340. benzene control technology to reduce § 80.1285 How does a refiner apply for a
benzene baseline?
(1) Unless otherwise provided for gasoline benzene levels, including at
elsewhere in this subpart, standard least one of the following: (a) A benzene baseline application
credits may be generated under (i) Treating the heavy straight run must be submitted for each refinery that
§ 80.1290 as follows: naphtha entering the reformer using plans to generate early credits under
(i) A refiner may generate standard light naphtha splitting and/or § 80.1275. The application must include
credits separately for each of its isomerization. the information specified in paragraph
refineries. (ii) Treating the reformate stream (c) of this section and must be submitted
(ii) An importer may generate exiting the reformer using benzene to EPA at least 60 days before the first
standard credits for all of its imported extraction or benzene saturation. averaging period in which the refinery
gasoline. (iii) Directing additional refinery plans to generate early credits.
(2) Oxygenate blenders, butane streams to the reformer for treatment (b) For U.S. Postal delivery, the
blenders, and transmix producers may described paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of benzene baseline application shall be
not generate standard credits. this section. sent to: Attn: MSAT2 Benzene, Mail
(3) Foreign refiners may not generate (iv) Directing reformate streams to Stop 6406J, U.S. Environmental
standard credits. other refineries with treatment Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
capabilities described in paragraph Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. For
§ 80.1275 How are early benzene credits (d)(1)(ii) of this section. commercial delivery: MSAT2 Benzene,
generated? 202–343–9038, U.S. Environmental
(2) Has not included gasoline
(a) For each averaging period per blendstock streams transferred to, from, Protection Agency, 1310 L Street, NW.,
paragraph (b) of this section in which a or between refineries, except as noted in Washington, DC 20005.
refinery plans to generate early credits, paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section. (c) The benzene baseline application
its average gasoline benzene (e) Early benzene credits calculated in must include the following information:
concentration calculated according to accordance with paragraph (c) of this (1) A listing of the names and
§ 80.1238(a) must be at least 10% lower section shall be expressed to the nearest addresses of all refineries owned by the
than its benzene baseline concentration gallon. Fractional values shall be company.
approved under § 80.1280. rounded down if less than 0.50, and (2) The benzene baseline for gasoline
(b) The early credit averaging periods rounded up if greater than or equal to produced in 2004–2005 at the refinery,
are as follows: 0.50. calculated in accordance with § 80.1280.
(1) For 2007, the seven-month period (3) Copies of the annual reports
from June 1, 2007 through December 31, § 80.1280 How are refinery benzene required under § 80.75 for RFG and
2007. baselines calculated? § 80.105 for conventional gasoline.
(2) For 2008, 2009 and 2010, the 12- (a) A refinery’s benzene baseline is (4) A letter signed by the president,
month calendar year. based on the refinery’s 2004–2005 chief operating officer, or chief
(3) For small refiners approved under average gasoline benzene concentration, executive officer, of the company, or
§ 80.1340, the 12-month calendar years calculated according to the following his/her designee, stating that the
2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 in addition equation: information contained in the benzene
to the periods specified in paragraphs baseline determination is true to the
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. n best of his/her knowledge.
(c) The number of early benzene ∑(V × B ) i i (5) Name, address, phone number,
credits generated shall be calculated for BBase = i =1 facsimile number and e-mail address of
n
a corporate contact person.
each applicable averaging period as
follows: ∑V
i =1
i (d) For a refinery that may be eligible
to generate early credits under
Where: § 80.1270(a)(2)(ii), a refiner may submit
 BBase − Bavg , y 
EC y =   × Ve , y
BBase = Benzene baseline concentration to EPA a benzene baseline application
100 (volume percent benzene). per the requirements of this section. The
 
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced at refiner must also submit information
Where: the refinery from January 1, 2004 regarding the nature and cause of the
ECy = Early credits generated in averaging through December 31, 2005.
refinery’s production activity that
period y (gallons benzene). n = Total number of batches of gasoline
produced at the refinery from January 1, resulted in irregular or less than full
BBase = Baseline benzene concentration of the
refinery (volume percent benzene), per 2004 through December 31, 2005 (or the production, how it affected the baseline
§ 80.1280(a). total number of batches of gasoline benzene concentration, and whether
Bavg,y = Average benzene concentration of pursuant to § 80.1285(d)). and how an alternative calculation to
gasoline produced at the refinery during Vi = Volume of gasoline in batch i (gallons). the calculation specified in § 80.1280
averaging period y (volume percent Bi = Benzene content of batch i (volume produces a more representative benzene
benzene), per § 80.1238. percent benzene). baseline value. Upon consideration of
Ve,y = Total volume of gasoline produced at
ER26FE07.016</MATH>
(b) A refiner for a refinery that the submitted information, EPA may
the refinery during averaging period y included oxygenate blended approve a benzene baseline for such a
(gallons). downstream of the refinery in refinery.
(d) A refinery that plans to generate compliance calculations for RFG or (e) EPA will notify the refiner of
early credits must also show that it has conventional gasoline for calendar years approval of the refinery’s benzene
ER26FE07.015</MATH>
met all of the following requirements 2004 or 2005 under § 80.69 or baseline or any deficiencies in the
application. However, except for used interchangeably in all credit use with the gasoline benzene content
applications submitted in accordance scenarios, subject to the credit life requirement of § 80.1230(a), regardless
with paragraph (d) of this section, the provisions specified in paragraph (c) of of the transferee’s good-faith belief that
refinery’s benzene baseline application this section. the gasoline benzene credits were valid.
may be considered approved 60 days (3) Gasoline benzene credits may be (ii) The refiner or importer that used
after EPA’s receipt of the baseline used by a refiner or importer to comply the gasoline benzene credits and any
application, subject to paragraph (f) of with the gasoline benzene content transferor of the gasoline benzene
this section. standard of § 80.1230(a), may be banked credits must adjust their credit records,
(f) If at any time the baseline by a refiner or importer for future use reports, and compliance calculations as
submitted in accordance with the or transfer, may be transferred to necessary to reflect the proper gasoline
requirements of this section is another refinery or importer within a benzene credits.
determined to be incorrect, EPA will company (intracompany trading), or (iii) Any properly created gasoline
notify the refiner of the corrected may be transferred to another refiner or benzene credits existing in the
baseline. importer outside of the company. transferor’s credit balance following the
(b) Credit transfers. (1) Gasoline corrections and adjustments specified in
§ 80.1290 How are standard benzene benzene credits obtained from another paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section must
credits generated? refinery or importer may be used to first be applied to correct the invalid
(a) The standard credit averaging comply with the gasoline benzene transfers to the transferee, before the
periods are the calendar years beginning content requirement of § 80.1230(a) transferor uses, trades or banks the
January 1, 2011, or beginning January 1, provided the following conditions are gasoline benzene credits.
2015 for small refiners approved under met: (c) Credit life. (1)(i) Early credits, per
§ 80.1340. (i) The credits are generated and § 80.1275, may be used for compliance
(b) [Reserved] reported according to the requirements purposes under § 80.1240(a) for any of
(c)(1) The number of standard of this subpart, and the transferred the following annual averaging periods:
benzene credits generated shall be credits have not expired, per paragraph 2011, 2102, 2013.
calculated annually for each applicable (c) of this section. (ii) Early credits, per § 80.1275, may
averaging period according to the (ii) Any credit transfer takes place no be used for compliance purposes under
following equation: later than the last day of February § 80.1240(a) by small refiners approved
following the calendar year averaging under § 80.1340 for any of the following
 0.62 − Bavg , y  period when the credits are used. averaging periods: 2015, 2016, 2017.
SC y =   × Vy (iii) The credit has not been (2)(i) Standard credits, per § 80.1290,
 100  transferred more than twice. The first may be used for compliance purposes
Where: transfer by the refinery or importer that under § 80.1240(a) within five years
generated the credit may only be made from the year they were generated,
SCy = Standard credits generated in year y
(gallons benzene). to a refiner or importer that intends to except as noted under paragraph
Bavg,y = Annual average benzene use the credit; if the transferee cannot (c)(2)(ii) of this section. Example:
concentration for year y (volume percent use the credit, it may make the second, Standard credits generated during 2011
benzene), per § 80.1238. and final, transfer only to a refiner or may be used to achieve compliance
Vy = Total volume of gasoline produced or importer that intends to use or to under § 80.1240(a) for any calendar year
imported in year y (gallons). terminate the credit. In no case may a averaging period prior to the 2017
(2) No credits shall be generated credit be transferred more than twice averaging period.
unless the value SCy is positive. before being used or terminated. (ii) Standard credits, per § 80.1290,
(d) Standard benzene credits (iv) The credit transferor has applied may be used for compliance purposes
calculated in accordance with paragraph any gasoline benzene credits necessary under § 80.1240(a) within seven years
(c) of this section shall be expressed to to meet its own annual compliance from the year they were generated if
the nearest gallon. Fractional values requirements (including any deficit traded to and ultimately used by a small
shall be rounded down if less than 0.50, carried forward, pursuant to refiner approved under § 80.1340.
and rounded up if greater than or equal § 80.1230(c), if applicable) before Example: Standard credits generated in
to 0.50. transferring any gasoline benzene 2011 may be used to achieve
credits to any other refiner or importer. compliance under § 80.1240(a) for any
§ 80.1295 How are gasoline benzene (v) The credit transferor does not calendar year averaging period prior to
credits used? create a deficit as a result of a credit the 2019 averaging period if traded to
(a) Credit use. (1) Gasoline benzene transfer. and ultimately used by a small refiner
credits may be used to comply with the (vi) The transferor supplies records to approved under § 80.1340.
gasoline benzene standard of the transferee indicating the year the (d) Deficit provision limitation. A
§ 80.1230(a) provided that— gasoline benzene credits were refiner or importer possessing gasoline
(i) The gasoline benzene credits were generated, the identity of the refiner benzene credits must use all gasoline
generated according to §§ 80.1275 or (and refinery) or importer that generated benzene credits in its possession before
80.1290. the gasoline benzene credits, and the applying the benzene deficit provisions
(ii) The recordkeeping requirements identity of the transferring entity if it is of § 80.1230(c).
for gasoline benzene credits under not the same entity that generated the Hardship Provisions
§ 80.1350 are met. gasoline benzene credits.
(iii) The gasoline benzene credits are (2) In the case of gasoline benzene § 80.1334 What are the requirements for
correctly reported according to credits that have been calculated or early compliance with the gasoline benzene
§§ 80.1352 and 80.1354. created improperly, or that EPA has program?

(iv) The conditions of this section are otherwise determined to be invalid, the (a)(1) A refinery may comply with the
met. following provisions apply: benzene requirements at § 80.1230 for
(2) Gasoline benzene credits generated (i) Invalid gasoline benzene credits its RFG and/or conventional gasoline
ER26FE07.017</MATH>
under §§ 80.1275 and 80.1290 may be cannot be used to achieve compliance (CG) prior to the 2011 compliance
period if it applies for this early (i) For the compliance period (ii) A detailed description of the
compliance option as specified in beginning January 1, 2007, and each refinery configuration and operations
paragraph (b) of this section, and is annual compliance period through including, at minimum, the following
approved by EPA. 2010; or information:
(2) Only refineries that produce (ii) For the compliance period (A) The refinery’s total reformer unit
gasoline by processing crude and/or beginning January 1, 2008, and each throughput capacity;
intermediate feedstocks through refinery annual compliance period through (B) The refinery’s total crude capacity;
processing units may apply for this 2010. (C) Total crude capacity of any other
early compliance option. (2) The refinery must notify EPA refineries owned by the same entity;
(b) Refiners must submit an under which compliance period (D) Total volume of gasoline
application in order to be considered for specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this production at the refinery;
early compliance as described in this section it will begin compliance. (E) Total volume of other refinery
section. (3) Beginning with the compliance products;
(1) Applications for early compliance period chosen pursuant to paragraph (F) Geographic location(s) where the
as described in this section must be (c)(2) of this section— refinery’s gasoline will be sold;
submitted to EPA by December 31, (i) For early compliance approved for (G) Detailed descriptions of efforts to
2007. a refinery’s RFG pool, the toxics air obtain capital for refinery investments;
(2) Applications must be sent to: U.S. pollutants emissions performance (H) Bond rating of entity that owns
EPA, NVFEL–ASD, Attn: MSAT2 Early requirements specified in §§ 80.41(e)(1) the refinery; and
Compliance, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann and (f)(1) and 80.815 shall not apply to (I) Estimated capital investment
Arbor, MI 48105. the reformulated gasoline produced by needed to comply with the requirements
(3) Application must be made the refinery. of this subpart.
separately for a refinery’s RFG and CG (ii) For early compliance approved for (iii) For a hardship related to
pools. a refinery’s CG pool, the annual average complying with the requirement at
(4) The early compliance application exhaust toxics emissions requirements § 80.1230(a), detailed descriptions of
must show that all the following criteria specified in §§ 80.101(c)(2) and 80.815 efforts to obtain credits, including the
are met: shall not apply to conventional gasoline prices of credits available, but deemed
(i) For an RFG early compliance produced by the refinery. uneconomical by the refiner.
application— (4) Refineries approved for early (2) Applicants must also provide any
(A) The refinery’s RFG baseline value compliance under this section may not other relevant information requested by
under § 80.915 is greater than or equal generate early credits under § 80.1275. EPA.
to 30 percent reduction. (d) If EPA finds that a refiner (3) An application for relief from the
(B) The refinery’s 2003 RFG annual provided false or inaccurate information requirements specified in § 80.1230(b)
average benzene concentration was less in its application for early compliance, must be submitted to EPA by January 1,
than or equal to 0.62 vol%. the early compliance approval will be 2008, or by January 1, 2013 for small
(C) The refinery’s 2003 RFG annual void ab initio. refiners approved under § 80.1340.
average sulfur concentration was less (c)(1) Approval of a hardship
than or equal to 140 ppm. § 80.1335 Can a refiner seek relief from the application under this section for relief
(D) The refinery’s 2003 RFG annual requirements of this subpart?
from the annual average benzene
average MTBE concentration was greater (a) A refiner may apply for relief from standard at § 80.1230(a) shall be in the
than or equal to 6 vol%. the requirements specified in form of an extended period of deficit
(ii) For a CG early compliance § 80.1230(a) or (b) for a refinery, if it can carry-forward, per § 80.1230(c), for such
application— show that— period of time as EPA determines is
(A) The refinery’s CG baseline under (1) Unusual circumstances exist that appropriate.
§ 80.915 is less than or equal to 80 mg/ impose extreme hardship and (2) Approval of a hardship application
mile. significantly affect the ability to comply under this section for relief from the
(B) The refinery’s 2003 CG annual with the gasoline benzene standards at maximum average benzene standard at
average benzene concentration was less § 80.1230(a) or (b) by the applicable § 80.1230(b) shall be in the form of a
than or equal to 0.62 vol%. date(s); and waiver of the standard for such period
(C) The refinery’s 2003 CG annual (2) It has made best efforts to comply of time as EPA determines is
average sulfur concentration was less with the requirements of this subpart. appropriate.
than or equal to 140 ppm. (b) A refiner must apply for and be (3) EPA may deny any application for
(D) The refinery’s 2003 CG annual approved for relief under this section. appropriate reasons, including
average MTBE concentration was greater (1) An application must include the unacceptable environmental impact.
than or equal to 6 vol%. following information: (d) EPA may impose any other
(5) In addition, the application must (i) A plan demonstrating how the reasonable conditions on relief provided
demonstrate that the refinery has refiner will comply with the under this section, including rescinding,
extremely limited ability to adjust its requirements of § 80.1230(a) or (b), as or reducing the length of, the extended
operations in order to comply with its applicable, as expeditiously as possible. deficit carry-forward period if
applicable RFG or CG toxics The plan shall include a showing that conditions or situations change between
performance requirements under contracts are or will be in place for approval of the hardship application
§ 80.815. engineering and construction of benzene and the end of the approved relief
(6) The refiner must provide reduction technology, a plan for period.
additional information as requested by applying for and obtaining any permits
EPA. necessary for construction, a description § 80.1336 What if a refiner or importer

(c)(1) If approved for early compliance of plans to obtain necessary capital, and cannot produce gasoline conforming to the
with the provisions of this subpart, the a detailed estimate of when the requirements of this subpart?
refinery may comply with the requirements of § 80.1230(a) or (b), as In extreme, unusual, and unforeseen
provisions of § 80.1230 as follows: applicable, will be met. circumstances (for example, a natural
disaster or a refinery fire) that are crude oil production of the government permitting, construction, and start-up
clearly outside the control of the refiner to which the governmental entity is a work to be completed. Such
or importer and that could not have part. applications must include detailed
been avoided by the exercise of (3) Any refiner owned and controlled technical information supporting the
prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA by an Alaska Regional or Village need for additional time. EPA will base
may permit a refinery or importer to Corporation organized pursuant to the its decision to approve additional time
exceed the allowable average benzene Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 on the information provided by the
levels specified in § 80.1230(a) or (b), as U.S.C. 1601) is not considered an refiner and on other relevant
applicable, if— affiliate of such entity, or with other information. In no case will EPA extend
(a) It is in the public interest to do so; concerns owned by such entity, solely the compliance date beyond December
(b) The refiner or importer exercised because of their common ownership. 31, 2014.
prudent planning and was not able to (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of (4) During the period provided under
avoid the violation and has taken all paragraph (a) of this section, a refiner paragraph (e)(2) of this section, and any
reasonable steps to minimize the extent that reactivates a refinery that it had extension provided under paragraph
of the nonconformity; previously operated, and that was shut (e)(3) of this section, the refiner may not
(c) The refiner or importer can show down or non-operational for the entire generate gasoline benzene credits under
how the requirements at § 80.1230(a) or period between January 1, 2005 and § 80.1275 or § 80.1290.
(b), as applicable, will be achieved as December 31, 2005, may apply for small (f) A small refiner approved under
expeditiously as possible; refiner status in accordance with the § 80.1340 which notifies EPA that it
(d) The refiner or importer agrees to provisions of § 80.1340. wishes to withdraw its small refiner
make up any air quality detriment status pursuant to § 80.1340(g).
associated with the nonconformity, § 80.1339 Who is not eligible for the
where practicable; and provisions for small refiners? § 80.1340 How does a refiner obtain
(e) The refiner or importer pays to the The following are not eligible for the approval as a small refiner?
U.S. Treasury an amount equal to the hardship provisions for small refiners: (a) Applications for small refiner
economic benefit of the nonconformity (a) A refiner with one or more status must be submitted to EPA by
minus the amount expended making up refineries built after December 31, 2005. December 31, 2007.
the air quality detriment pursuant to (b) A refiner that exceeds the (b) For U.S. Postal delivery,
paragraph (d) of this section. employee or crude oil capacity criteria applications for small refiner status
under § 80.1338 but that meets these must be sent to: Attn: MSAT2 Benzene,
Small Refiner Provisions criteria after December 31, 2005, Mail Stop 6406J, U.S. Environmental
§ 80.1338 What criteria must be met to regardless of whether the reduction in Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
qualify as a small refiner for the gasoline employees or crude capacity is due to Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. For
benzene requirements of this subpart? operational changes at the refinery or a commercial delivery: MSAT2 Benzene,
(a) A small refiner is any person that company sale or reorganization. 202–343–9038, U.S. Environmental
demonstrates that it— (c) Importers. Protection Agency, 1310 L Street, NW.,
(1) Produced gasoline at a refinery by (d) A refiner that produce gasoline Washington, DC 20005.
processing crude oil through refinery other than by processing crude oil (c) The small refiner status
processing units from January 1, 2005 through refinery processing units. application must contain the following
through December 31, 2005. (e)(1) A small refiner approved under information for the company seeking
(2) Employed an average of no more § 80.1340 that subsequently ceases small refiner status, and for all
than 1,500 people, based on the average production of gasoline from processing subsidiary companies, all parent
number of employees for all pay periods crude oil through refinery processing companies, all subsidiaries of the parent
from January 1, 2005 through December units, employs more than 1,500 people, companies, and all joint venture
31, 2005. or exceeds the 155,000 bpcd crude oil partners:
(3) Had a corporate average crude oil capacity limit after December 31, 2005 (1) Employees. For joint ventures, the
capacity less than or equal to 155,000 as a result of merger with or acquisition total number of employees includes the
barrels per calendar day (bpcd) for 2005. of or by another entity, is disqualified as combined employee count of all
(4) Following the submission of a a small refiner, except that this shall not corporate entities in the venture. For
small refiner application, pursuant to apply in the case of a merger between government-owned refiners, the total
§ 80.1340, has been approved as a small two previously approved small refiners. employee count includes all
refiner for this subpart. If disqualification occurs, the refiner government employees.
(b) For the purpose of determining the shall notify EPA in writing no later than (i) Pursuant to paragraph (c) of this
number of employees and the crude oil 20 days following this disqualifying section, a listing of each company
capacity under paragraph (a) of this event. facility and each facility’s address
section, the following determinations (2) Except as provided under where any employee, as specified in
shall be observed: paragraph (e)(3) of this section, any paragraph (a)(1) of this section, worked
(1) The refiner shall include the refiner whose status changes as during the 12 months preceding January
employees and crude oil capacity of any specified in paragraph (e)(1) under this 1, 2006.
subsidiary companies, any parent paragraph (b) shall meet the applicable (ii) The average number of employees
company, subsidiaries of the parent standards of § 80.1230 within 30 months at each facility based upon the number
company in which the parent has a of the disqualifying event for all its of employees for each pay period for the
controlling interest, and any joint refineries. However, such period shall 12 months preceding January 1, 2006.
venture partners. not extend beyond December 31, 2014. (iii) The type of business activities
(2) For any refiner owned by a (3) A refiner may apply to EPA for an carried out at each location.
governmental entity, the number of additional six months to comply with (iv) In the case of a refiner that
employees and total crude oil capacity the standards of § 80.1230 if it believes reactivates a refinery that it previously
as specified in paragraph (a) of this that more than 30 months will be owned and operated and that was shut
section shall include all employees and required for the necessary engineering, down or non-operational between
January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006, (f) If EPA finds that a refiner provided granted to any small refiner prior to the
include the following: false or inaccurate information on its EPA issuing a review of the credit
(A) Pursuant to paragraph (c) of this application for small refiner status, the program.
section, a listing of each company refiner’s small refiner status will be void (3) A small refiner may request one or
refinery each refinery’s address where ab initio. more extensions of an approved delay if
any employee, as specified in paragraph (g) Prior to January 1, 2014, and upon it can continue to demonstrate extreme
(a)(1) of this section, worked since the notification to EPA, a small refiner difficulty in achieving compliance,
refiner acquired or reactivated the approved per this section may withdraw through the use of credits, with the
refinery. its status as a small refiner. Effective on annual average benzene standard at
(B) The average number of employees January 1 of the year following such § 80.1230(a).
at any such reactivated refinery during notification, the small refiner will (b) In the case of a small refiner
each calendar year since the refiner become subject to the standards at approved under § 80.1340 for which
reactivated the refinery. § 80.1230. compliance with the maximum average
(C) The type of business activities benzene requirement at § 80.1230(b) is
carried out at each location. § 80.1342 What compliance options are not feasible, the refiner may apply for
(2) Crude oil capacity. available to small refiners under this hardship relief under § 80.1335.
(i) The total corporate crude oil subpart?
capacity of each refinery as reported to (a) A refiner that has been approved § 80.1344 What provisions are available to
the Energy Information Administration as a small refiner under § 80.1340 may— a non-small refiner that acquires one or
(1)(i) Defer meeting the standard more of a small refiner’s refineries?
(EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), for the period January 1, 2005 specified in § 80.1230(a) until the (a) In the case of a refiner that is not
through December 31, 2005. annual averaging period beginning an approved small refiner under
(ii) The information submitted to EIA January 1, 2015; or § 80.1340 and that acquires a refinery
is presumed to be correct. In cases (ii) Meet the standard specified in from a small refiner approved under
where a company disagrees with this § 80.1230(a) in any annual averaging § 80.1340, the small refiner provisions
information, the company may petition period from 2011 through 2014, of the gasoline benzene program of this
EPA with appropriate data to correct the inclusive, provided it notifies EPA in subpart continue to apply to the
record when the company submits its writing no later than November 15 prior acquired refinery for a period of up to
application for small refiner status. to the year in which it will produce 30 months from the date of acquisition
(3) The type of business activity compliant gasoline. of the refinery. In no case shall this
carried out at each location. (2)(i) Defer meeting the standard period extend beyond December 31,
(4) For each refinery, an indication of specified in § 80.1230(b) until the 2014.
the small refiner option(s), pursuant to averaging period beginning July 1, 2016; (b) A refiner may apply to EPA for up
§ 80.1342, intended to be utilized at the or to an additional six months to comply
refinery. (ii) Meet the standard specified in with the standards of § 80.1230 for the
(5) A letter signed by the president, § 80.1230(b) in any averaging period acquired refinery if it believes that more
chief operating officer or chief executive specified in § 80.1230(b)(3) prior to the than 30 months would be required for
officer of the company, or his/her averaging period beginning July 1, 2016 the necessary engineering, permitting,
designee, stating that the information provided it notifies EPA in writing no construction, and start-up work to be
contained in the application is true to later than November 15 prior to the year completed. Such applications must
the best of his/her knowledge, and that in which it will produce compliant include detailed technical information
the company owned the refinery as of gasoline. supporting the need for additional time.
January 1, 2006. (b) Any refiner that makes an election EPA will base a decision to approve
(6) Name, address, phone number, under paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this additional time on information provided
facsimile number, and e-mail address of section must comply with the by the refiner and on other relevant
a corporate contact person. applicable benzene standards at information. In no case shall this period
(d) Approval of a small refiner status § 80.1230 beginning with the first extend beyond December 31, 2014.
application will be based on the averaging period subsequent to the (c) A refiner that acquires a refinery
information submitted under paragraph status change. from a small refiner approved per
(c) of this section and any other relevant (c) The provisions of paragraph (a) of § 80.1340 shall notify EPA in writing no
information. this section shall apply separately for later than 20 days following the
(e) EPA will notify a refiner of each of an approved small refiner’s acquisition.
approval or disapproval of small refiner refineries. Sampling, Testing and Retention
status by letter. Requirements
(1) If approved, all refineries of the § 80.1343 What hardship relief provisions
refiner may defer meeting the standard are available only to small refiners? § 80.1347 What are the sampling and
specified in § 80.1230(a) until the (a)(1) In the case of a small refiner testing requirements for refiners and
annual averaging period beginning approved under § 80.1340 for which importers?
January 1, 2015, and the standard compliance with the requirement at (a) Sample and test each batch of
specified in § 80.1230(b) until the § 80.1230(a) would be feasible only gasoline. (1) The sampling and testing
averaging period beginning July 1, 2016. through the purchase of credits, but for requirements specified in subpart D for
(2) If disapproved, all refineries of the whom purchase of credits is not reformulated gasoline shall continue to
refiner must meet the standard specified practically or economically feasible, apply to reformulated gasoline and shall
in § 80.1230(a) beginning with the EPA may approve a delay of the be extended to conventional gasoline
annual averaging period beginning requirements applicable to the first (CG) for the purpose of complying with
January 1, 2011, and must meet the compliance period for that refiner for up the benzene requirements of this
standard specified in § 80.1230(b) to two years. subpart, except as modified by
beginning with the averaging period (2) No delay in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this
beginning July 1, 2012. paragraph (a) of this section will be section.
(2) Refiners and importers shall negative benzene content in the refiner’s (ii) Its benzene baseline value, per
collect a representative sample from compliance calculations in accordance § 80.1280, if the refinery or importer
each batch of gasoline produced or with the requirements at § 80.1238. submitted a benzene baseline
imported, according to the earliest (iv) For each batch of conventional application to EPA per § 80.1285.
applicable date in the following gasoline produced at the refinery using (iii) The number of early benzene
schedule: previously certified gasoline, the refiner credits generated under § 80.1275,
(i) Beginning January 1, 2011; must determine the volume and separately by year of generation.
(ii) Beginning January 1, 2015 for benzene content and include each batch (iv) The number of early benzene
small refiners approved under in the refinery’s compliance credits obtained, separately by
§ 80.1340; calculations at § 80.1240 without regard generating refinery and year of
(iii) Beginning January 1 of the year to the presence of previously certified generation.
prior to 2015 in which a small refiner gasoline in the batch. (v) The number of valid credits in
approved under § 80.1340 has opted, (v) The refiner must use any possession of the refinery or importer at
per § 80.1342(a), to begin meeting the previously certified gasoline that it the beginning of each averaging period,
standards at § 80.1230; includes as a negative batch in its separately by generating facility and
(iv) Beginning June 1, 2007, for any compliance calculations pursuant to year of generation.
refinery planning to generate early § 80.1240 as a component in gasoline (vi) The number of standard credits
credits for the averaging period production during the annual averaging generated by the refinery or importer
specified at § 80.1275(b)(1); period in which the previously certified under § 80.1290, separately by transferor
(v) Beginning January 1 of each gasoline was included as a negative (if applicable), by facility and by year of
averaging period specified at batch in the refiner’s compliance generation.
§ 80.1275(b)(2) or (b)(3) for which the calculations. (vii) The number of credits used,
refinery plans to generate early credits; separately by generating facility and
(b) Batch numbering. The batch
(vi) Beginning January 1 of the year, year of generation.
numbering convention of § 80.365(b)
per § 80.1334(c)(1), in which a refinery (viii) If any credits were obtained
shall apply to batches of conventional
approved for early compliance under from, or transferred to, other parties, for
gasoline beginning with earliest
§ 80.1334 opts to begin early each other party, its name, its EPA
applicable date specified in paragraph
compliance. The provisions shall only refinery or importer registration
(a)(2) of this section.
apply to the type of gasoline, RFG or number, and the number of credits
CG, for which early compliance was § 80.1348 What gasoline sample retention obtained from, or transferred to, the
approved. requirements apply to refiners and other party, and the price per credit.
(3)(i) Each sample shall be tested in importers? (ix) The number of credits that
accordance with the methodology Beginning with earliest applicable expired at the end of each averaging
specified at § 80.46(e) to determine its date specified in § 80.1347(a)(2), the period, separately by generating facility
benzene concentration for compliance gasoline sample retention requirements and year of generation.
with the requirements of this subpart. specified in subpart H of this part for (x) The number of credits that will be
(ii) Independent sample analysis, the gasoline sulfur provisions apply for carried over into a subsequent averaging
under § 80.65(f), is not required for the purpose of complying with the period, separately by generating facility
conventional gasoline. requirements of this subpart, except that and year of generation.
(4) Any refiner or importer may in addition to including the sulfur test (xi) Contracts or other commercial
release CG prior to obtaining the test result as provided by § 80.335(a)(4)(ii), documents that establish each transfer
results for benzene required under the refiner, importer, or independent of credits from the transferor to the
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. laboratory shall also include with the transferee.
(5) Exclusion of previously certified retained sample the test result for (xii) A copy of all reports submitted
gasoline. benzene as conducted pursuant to to EPA under §§ 80.1352 and 80.1354;
(i) Any refiner who uses previously however, duplicate records are not
§ 80.46(e).
certified reformulated or conventional required.
gasoline or RBOB to produce Recordkeeping and Reporting (2)(i) Beginning July 1, 2012, any
conventional gasoline at a refinery, must Requirements refiner for each of its refineries, and any
exclude the previously certified gasoline importer for the gasoline it imports,
§ 80.1350 What records must be kept?
(‘‘PCG’’) for purposes of demonstrating shall include, in the records required by
compliance with the benzene standards (a) General requirements. The paragraph (b)(1) of this section, its
at § 80.1230. recordkeeping requirements specified in maximum average benzene value for the
(ii) To accomplish the exclusion §§ 80.74 and 80.104, as applicable, period July 1, 2012 through December
required in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this apply for the purpose of complying with 31, 2013, and for each annual
section, the refiner must determine the the requirements of this subpart; compliance period thereafter.
volume and benzene content of the however, duplicate records are not (ii) Notwithstanding the requirements
previously certified gasoline used at the required. specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
refinery and the volume and benzene (b) Additional records that refiners section, beginning July 1, 2016, a small
content of gasoline produced at the and importers shall keep. (1) Beginning refiner approved under § 80.1340, for
refinery, and use the compliance with earliest applicable date specified in each of its refineries, shall include, in
calculation procedures in paragraphs § 80.1347(a)(2), any refiner for each of the records required by paragraph (b)(1)
(a)(5)(iii) and (a)(5)(iv) of this section. its refineries, and any importer for the of this section, its maximum average
(iii) For each batch of previously gasoline it imports, shall keep records benzene value for the period July 1,
certified gasoline that is used to produce that include the following information, 2016 through December 31, 2017, and
conventional gasoline the refiner must as applicable: for each annual compliance period
include the volume and benzene (i) Its compliance benzene value per thereafter.
content of the previously certified § 80.1240, and the calculations used to (3) Records of all supporting
gasoline as a negative volume and a obtain that value. calculations pursuant to paragraphs
(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section shall also early credits and standard credits (3) Any benzene deficit from the
be kept. expected to be generated. previous reporting period, per
(c) Length of time records shall be (ii) If the refinery is expecting to use § 80.1230(b).
kept. Records required in this section benzene credits per § 80.1295, the actual (4) The number of banked benzene
shall be kept for five years from the date or estimated, as applicable, numbers of credits from the previous reporting
they were created, except that records early credits and standard credits period.
relating to credit transfers shall be kept expected to be banked, transferred or (5) The number of benzene credits
by the transferor for five years from the used to achieve compliance in generated under § 80.1275, if applicable.
date the credits were transferred, and accordance with § 80.1240. (6) The number of benzene credits
shall be kept by the transferee for five (6) Information on any project generated under § 80.1290, if applicable.
years from the date the credits were (7) The number of benzene credits
schedule by quarter of known or
transferred, used or terminated, transferred to the refinery or importer,
projected completion date, by the stage
whichever is later. per § 80.1295(c), and the cost of the
of the project. See, for example, the five
(d) Make records available to EPA. On credits, if applicable.
project phases described in EPA’s June (8) The number of benzene credits
request by EPA, the records specified in 2002 Highway Diesel Progress Review
this section shall be provided to the transferred from the refinery or
report (EPA420–R–02–016, http:// importer, per § 80.1295(c), and the price
Administrator. For records that are www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/
electronically generated or maintained, of the credits, if applicable.
420r02016.pdf): Strategic planning, (9) The number of benzene credits
the equipment and software necessary Planning and front-end engineering, terminated or expired.
to read the records shall be made Detailed engineering and permitting, (10) The compliance benzene value
available, or upon approval by EPA, Procurement and Construction, and per § 80.1240.
electronic records shall be converted to Commissioning and startup. (11) The number of banked benzene
paper documents which shall be (7) Basic information regarding the credits.
provided to the Administrator. selected technology pathway for (12) Projected credit generation
§ 80.1352 What are the pre-compliance compliance (e.g., precursor re-routing or through compliance year 2015.
reporting requirements for the gasoline other technologies, revamp vs. (13) Projected credit use through
benzene program? grassroots, etc.). compliance year 2015.
(8) Whether capital commitments (c) EPA may require submission of
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
have been made or are projected to be additional information to verify
(c) of this section, a refiner for each of compliance with the requirements of
its refineries shall submit the following made.
(b) The pre-compliance reports due in this subpart.
information, as applicable, to EPA by (d) The report required by paragraph
June 1, 2008 and annually thereafter 2008 and succeeding years must provide
(a) of this section shall be—
through June 1, 2011, or through June 1, an update of the progress in each of (1) Submitted on forms and following
2015 for small refiners approved under these areas and include actual values procedures specified by the
§ 80.1340: where available. Administrator.
(1) Changes to the information (c) The pre-compliance reporting (2) Submitted to EPA by the last day
submitted in the company’s registration; requirements of this section do not of February each year for the prior
(2) Changes to the information apply to refineries that only produce calendar year averaging period.
submitted for any refinery or import products exempt from the requirements (3) Signed and certified as correct by
facility registration; of this subpart per § 80.1235(b). the owner or a responsible corporate
(3) Gasoline production. officer of the refiner or importer.
(i) An estimate of the average daily § 80.1354 What are the reporting
requirements for the gasoline benzene Attest Engagements
volume (in gallons) of gasoline program?
produced at each refinery. This estimate § 80.1356 What are the attest engagement
shall include RFG, RBOB, conventional (a) Beginning with earliest applicable
requirements for gasoline benzene
gasoline and conventional gasoline date specified in § 80.1347(a)(2), any compliance?
blendstock that becomes finished refiner for each of its refineries, and any
In addition to the requirements for
gasoline solely upon the addition of importer for the gasoline it imports,
attest engagements that apply to refiners
oxygenate but shall exclude gasoline shall submit to EPA an Annual Gasoline
and importers under §§ 80.125 through
exempted pursuant to § 80.1235. Benzene Report that contains the
80.130, 80.410, and 80.1030, the attest
(ii) The volume estimates specified in information required in this section, and
engagements for refiners and importers
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section must such other information as EPA may must include the following:
be provided for the periods of June 1, require for each applicable averaging (a) EPA Early Credit Generation
2007 through December 31, 2007, and period. Baseline Years’ Reports. (1) Obtain and
calendar years 2008 through 2015. (b) The Annual Gasoline Benzene read a copy of the refinery’s or
(4) Benzene concentration. An Report shall contain the following importer’s annual reports and batch
estimate of the average gasoline benzene information: reports filed with EPA for 2004 and
concentration corresponding to the time (1) Benzene volume percent and 2005 that contain gasoline benzene and
periods specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) volume of any RFG, RBOB, and gasoline volume information.
of this section. conventional gasoline, separately by (2) Agree the yearly volumes of
(5) ABT participation. For each year batch, produced by the refinery or gasoline and benzene concentration, in
through 2015, the following information imported, and the sum of the volumes volume percent and benzene gallons,
related to crdits shall be provided to and the volume-weighted benzene reported to EPA in the reports specified
EPA, if applicable: concentration, in volume percent. in paragraph (a)(1) of this section with
(i) If the refinery is expecting to (2)(i) The annual average benzene the inventory reconciliation analysis
generate benzene credits per § 80.1275 concentration, per § 80.1238. under § 80.128.
and/or § 80.1290, the actual or (ii) The maximum average benzene (3) Verify that the information in the
estimated, as applicable, numbers of concentration per § 80.1240(b). refinery’s or importer’s batch reports
filed with EPA under §§ 80.75 and (d)(1) of this section, and agree this (iii) Credits purchased under
80.105, and any laboratory test results, number with the number reported to paragraph (f) of this section; minus
agree with the information contained in EPA. (iv) Credits sold under paragraph (f) of
the reports specified in paragraph (a)(1) (e) Credits Required. The following this section; minus
of this section. attest procedures shall be completed for (v) Credits used under paragraphs (e)
(4) Calculate the average benzene refineries and importers: of this section; minus
concentration for all of the refinery’s or (1) Obtain the annual average benzene (vi) Credits expired; minus
importer’s gasoline volume over 2004 concentration and volume from the (vii) Credit deficit from the previous
and 2005 and verify that those values annual benzene report per § 80.1285. year.
agree with the values reported to EPA (2) If the value in paragraph (e)(1) of (3) Agree the credits remaining or the
per § 80.1285. this section is greater than 0.62 percent credit deficit at the conclusion of the
(b) Baseline for Early Credit by volume, compute and report as a year being reviewed with the report to
Generation. Take the following steps for finding the difference between 0.62 EPA.
the first attest reporting period percent by volume and the value in
(4) If the refinery or importer had a
following approval of a benzene paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
credit deficit for both the previous year
baseline: (3) Compute and report as a finding
and the year being reviewed, report this
(1) Obtain the EPA benzene baseline the total benzene credits required by
fact as a finding.
approval letter for the refinery to multiplying the value in paragraph
determine the refinery’s applicable (e)(2) of this section times the volume of Violations and Penalties
benzene baseline under § 80.1285. gasoline in paragraph (e)(1) of this
(2) Obtain a written statement from section, and agree this number with the § 80.1358 What acts are prohibited under
the gasoline benzene program?
the company representative identifying report to EPA.
the benzene value used as the refinery’s (4) Obtain a statement from the refiner No person shall—
baseline and agree that number to or importer as to the portion of the (a)(1) Produce or import gasoline
paragraph (b)(1) of this section and to deficit under paragraph (e)(3) of this subject to this subpart that does not
the reports to EPA. section that was resolved with credits, comply with the applicable benzene
(c) Early Credit Generation. The or that was carried forward as a deficit standards under § 80.1230.
following procedures shall be under § 80.1230(b), and agree these (2) Fail to meet any other
completed for a refinery or importer that figures with the report to EPA. requirements of this subpart.
generates early benzene credits per (f) Credit Purchases and Sales. The (b) Cause another person to commit
§ 80.1275: following attest procedures shall be an act in violation of paragraph (a) of
(1) Obtain the baseline benzene completed for a refinery or importer that this section.
concentration and gasoline volume from is a transferor or transferee of credits
paragraph (a)(4) of this section. during an averaging period: § 80.1359 What evidence may be used to
determine compliance with the prohibitions
(2) Obtain the annual benzene report (1) Obtain contracts or other
and requirements of this subpart and
per § 80.1354. documents for all credits transferred to liability for violations of this subpart?
(3) If the benzene value under another refinery or importer during the
paragraph (c)(2) of this section is at least year being reviewed; compute and (a) Compliance with the benzene
10 percent less than the value in report as a finding the number and year standards of this subpart shall be
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, compute of creation of credits represented in determined based on the benzene
and report as a finding the difference these documents as being transferred; concentration of the gasoline, measured
according to § 80.1275. and agree these figures with the report using the methodologies specified in
(4) Compute and report as a finding to EPA. § 80.46(e), and other allowable
the total number of benzene credits (2) Obtain contracts or other adjustments. Any evidence or
generated by multiplying the value documents for all credits received information, including the exclusive use
calculated in paragraph (c)(3) of this during the year being reviewed; of such evidence or information, may be
section by the volume of gasoline listed compute and report as a finding the used to establish the benzene
in the report specified in paragraph number and year of creation of credits concentration of the gasoline if the
(c)(2) of this section, and agree this represented in these documents as being evidence or information is relevant to
number with the number reported to received; and agree with the report to whether the benzene concentration of
EPA. EPA. the gasoline would have been in
(d) Standard Credit Generation. The (g) Credit Reconciliation. The compliance with the standard if the
following procedures shall be following attest procedures shall be appropriate sampling and testing
completed for a refinery or importer that completed each year credits were in the methodologies had been correctly
generates benzene credits per § 80.1290: refiner’s or importer’s possession at any performed. Such evidence may be
(1) Obtain the annual average benzene time during the year: obtained from any source or location
value from the annual benzene report (1) Obtain the credits remaining or the and may include, but is not limited to,
per § 80.1285. credit deficit from the previous year test results using methods other than
(2) If the annual average benzene from the refiner’s or importer’s report to those specified in § 80.46(e), business
value under paragraph (d)(1) of this EPA for the previous year. records, and commercial documents.
section is less than 0.62 percent by (2) Compute and report as a finding (b) Determinations of compliance
volume, compute and report as a finding the net credits remaining at the with the requirements of this subpart
the difference according to § 80.1290. conclusion of the year being reviewed other than the benzene standards, and
(3) Compute and report as a finding by totaling credits as follows: determinations of liability for any
the total number of benzene credits (i) Credits remaining from the violation of this subpart, may be based
generated by multiplying the value previous year; plus on information from any source or
calculated in paragraph (d)(2) of this (ii) Credits generated under location. Such information may include,
section by the volume of gasoline listed paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section; but is not limited to, business records
in the report specified in paragraph plus and commercial documents.
§ 80.1360 Who is liable for violations Mariana Islands (collectively referred to information, EPA will not assign an
under the gasoline benzene program? in this section as ‘‘the United States’’). individual refinery baseline.
(a) The following persons are liable (2) A foreign refiner is a person that (c) General requirements for Benzene-
for violations of prohibited acts: meets the definition of refiner under FRGAS foreign refiners. A foreign
(1) Any refiner or importer that § 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery. refiner of a refinery that is approved
violates § 80.1358(a) is liable for the (3) Benzene-FRGAS means gasoline under the benzene foreign refiner
violation. produced at a foreign refinery that has program of this subpart must designate
(2) Any person that causes another been assigned an individual refinery each batch of gasoline produced at the
party to violate § 80.1358(a) is liable for benzene baseline under § 80.1285, has foreign refinery that is exported to the
a violation of § 80.1358(b). been approved as a small refiner under United States as either Certified
(3) Any parent corporation is liable § 80.1340, or has been granted Benzene-FRGAS or as Non-Certified
for any violations of this subpart that are temporary relief under § 80.1335, and Benzene-FRGAS, except as provided in
committed by any of its wholly-owned that is imported into the United States. paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
subsidiaries. (4) Non-Benzene-FRGAS means (1) In the case of Certified Benzene-
(4) Each partner to a joint venture, or (i) Gasoline meeting any of the FRGAS, the foreign refiner must meet
each owner of a facility owned by two conditions specified in paragraph (a)(3) all requirements that apply to refiners
or more owners, is jointly and severally of this section that is not imported into under this subpart.
liable for any violation of this subpart the United States. (2) In the case of Non-Certified
that occurs at the joint venture facility (ii) Gasoline meeting any of the Benzene-FRGAS, the foreign refiner
or a facility that is owned by the joint conditions specified in paragraph (a)(3) shall meet all the following
owners, or a facility that is committed of this section during a year when the requirements:
foreign refiner has opted to not (i) The designation requirements in
by the joint venture operation or any of
participate in the Benzene-FRGAS this section;
the joint owners of the facility.
program under paragraph (c)(3) of this (ii) The recordkeeping requirements
(b) Any person who violates § 80.1358 in this section and in § 80.1350;
is liable for the violation. section.
(iii) The reporting requirements in
(iii) Gasoline produced at a foreign
§ 80.1361 What penalties apply under the this section and in §§ 80.1352 and
refinery that has not been assigned an
gasoline benzene program? 80.1354;
individual refinery benzene baseline (iv) The product transfer document
(a) Any person liable for a violation under § 80.1285, or that has not been
under § 80.1360 is subject to civil requirements in this section;
approved as a small refiner under (v) The prohibitions in this section
penalties as specified in sections 205 § 80.1340, or that has not been granted and in § 80.1358; and
and 211(d) of the Clean Air Act for temporary relief under § 80.1335. (vi) The independent audit
every day of each such violation and the (5) Certified Benzene-FRGAS means requirements in this section and in
amount of economic benefit or savings Benzene-FRGAS the foreign refiner § 80.1356.
resulting from each violation. intends to include in the foreign (3)(i) Any foreign refiner that
(b) Any person liable under refinery’s benzene compliance generates early benzene credits under
§ 80.1358(a) and (b) for a violation of the calculations under § 80.1240 or credit § 80.1275 shall designate all Benzene-
applicable benzene standards or causing calculations under § 80.1275 and does FRGAS as Certified Benzene-FRGAS for
another person to violate the include in these calculations when any year that such credits are generated.
requirements during any averaging reported to EPA. (ii) Any foreign refiner that has been
period, is subject to a separate day of (6) Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS approved to produce gasoline subject to
violation for each and every day in the means Benzene-FRGAS that is not the benzene foreign refiner program for
averaging period. Any person liable Certified Benzene-FRGAS. a foreign refinery under this subpart
under § 80.1360(b) for a failure to fulfill (b) Baseline for Early Credits. For any may elect to classify no gasoline
any requirement of credit generation, foreign refiner to obtain approval under imported into the United States as
transfer, use, banking, or deficit carry- the benzene foreign refiner program of Benzene-FRGAS provided the foreign
forward correction is subject to a this subpart for any refinery in order to refiner notifies EPA of the election no
separate violation for each and every generate early credits under § 80.1275, it later than November 1 preceding the
day in the averaging period in which must apply for approval under the beginning of the next compliance
invalid credits are generated, banked, applicable provisions of this subpart. period.
transferred or used. (1) The refiner shall follow the (iii) An election under paragraph
(c) Any person liable under procedures specified in §§ 80.1280 and (c)(3)(ii) of this section shall be for a 12
§ 80.1360(b) for failure to meet, or 80.1285 to establish a baseline of the month compliance period and apply to
causing a failure to meet, a provision of volume of gasoline that was produced at all gasoline that is produced by the
this subpart is liable for a separate day the refinery and imported into the foreign refinery that is imported into the
of violation for each and every day such United States during the applicable United States, and shall remain in effect
provision remains unfulfilled. years. for each succeeding year unless and
Foreign Refiners (2) In making determinations for until the foreign refiner notifies EPA of
foreign refinery baselines EPA will the termination of the election. The
§ 80.1363 What are the additional consider all information supplied by a change in election shall take effect at the
requirements under this subpart for foreign refiner, and in addition may rely beginning of the next annual
gasoline produced at foreign refineries? on any and all appropriate assumptions compliance period.
(a) Definitions. necessary to make such determinations. (d) Designation, product transfer
(1) A foreign refinery is a refinery that (3) Where a foreign refiner submits a documents, and foreign refiner
is located outside the United States, the petition that is incomplete or certification. (1) Any foreign refiner of a
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the inadequate to establish an accurate foreign refinery that has been approved
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, baseline, and the refiner fails to correct by EPA to produce gasoline subject to
and the Commonwealth of the Northern this deficiency after a request for more the benzene foreign refiner program
must designate each batch of Benzene- (2) The foreign refiner obtains paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this
FRGAS as such at the time the gasoline sufficient evidence in the form of section, within thirty days following the
is produced, unless the refiner has documentation that the gasoline was not date of the independent third party’s
elected to classify no gasoline exported imported into the United States. inspection. This report shall include a
to the United States as Benzene-FRGAS (f) Load port independent sampling, description of the method used to
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section. testing and refinery identification. determine the identity of the refinery at
(2) On each occasion when any (1) On each occasion that Benzene- which the gasoline was produced,
person transfers custody or title to any FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel for assurance that the gasoline remained
Benzene-FRGAS prior to its being transport to the United States a foreign segregated as specified in paragraph
imported into the United States, it must refiner shall have an independent third (n)(1) of this section, and a description
include the following information as party: of the gasoline’s movement and storage
part of the product transfer document (i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading between production at the source
information: and determine the volume of any tank refinery and vessel loading.
(i) Designation of the gasoline as bottoms; (4) The independent third party must:
Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as Non- (ii) Determine the volume of Benzene- (i) Be approved in advance by EPA,
Certified Benzene-FRGAS; and FRGAS loaded onto the vessel based on a demonstration of ability to
(ii) The name and EPA refinery (exclusive of any tank bottoms before perform the procedures required in this
registration number of the refinery loading); paragraph (f);
where the Benzene-FRGAS was (iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned (ii) Be independent under the criteria
produced. registration number of the foreign specified in § 80.65(f)(2)(iii); and
(3) On each occasion when Benzene- refinery; (iii) Sign a commitment that contains
FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or other (iv) Determine the name and country the provisions specified in paragraph (i)
transportation mode for transport to the of registration of the vessel used to of this section with regard to activities,
United States, the foreign refiner shall transport the Benzene-FRGAS to the facilities and documents relevant to
prepare a certification for each batch of United States; and compliance with the requirements of
the Benzene-FRGAS that meets the (v) Determine the date and time the this paragraph (f).
following requirements. vessel departs the port serving the (g) Comparison of load port and port
(i) The certification shall include the foreign refinery. of entry testing. (1)(i) Any foreign refiner
report of the independent third party (2) On each occasion that Certified and any United States importer of
under paragraph (f) of this section, and Benzene-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel Certified Benzene-FRGAS shall compare
the following additional information: for transport to the United States a the results from the load port testing
(A) The name and EPA registration foreign refiner shall have an under paragraph (f) of this section, with
number of the refinery that produced independent third party: the port of entry testing as reported
the Benzene-FRGAS; (i) Collect a representative sample of under paragraph (o) of this section, for
(B) The identification of the gasoline the Certified Benzene-FRGAS from each the volume of gasoline and the benzene
as Certified Benzene-FRGAS or Non- vessel compartment subsequent to content value; except as specified in
Certified Benzene-FRGAS; loading on the vessel and prior to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section.
(C) The volume of Benzene-FRGAS departure of the vessel from the port (ii) Where a vessel transporting
being transported, in gallons; serving the foreign refinery; Certified Benzene-FRGAS off loads this
(D) In the case of Certified Benzene- (ii) Determine the benzene content gasoline at more than one United States
FRGAS: value for each compartment using the port of entry, and the conditions of
(1) The benzene content as methodology as specified in § 80.46(e) paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met
determined under paragraph (f) of this by one of the following: at the first United States port of entry,
section, and the applicable designations (A) The third party analyzing each the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of
stated in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this sample; or this section do not apply at subsequent
section; and (B) The third party observing the ports of entry if the United States
(2) A declaration that the Benzene- foreign refiner analyze the sample; importer obtains a certification from the
FRGAS is being included in the (iii) Review original documents that vessel owner that meets the
applicable compliance calculations reflect movement and storage of the requirements of paragraph (s) of this
required by EPA under this subpart. Certified Benzene-FRGAS from the section, that the vessel has not loaded
(ii) The certification shall be made refinery to the load port, and from this any gasoline or blendstock between the
part of the product transfer documents review determine: first United States port of entry and the
for the Benzene-FRGAS. (A) The refinery at which the subsequent port of entry.
(e) Transfers of Benzene-FRGAS to Benzene-FRGAS was produced; and (2)(i) The requirements of this
non-United States markets. The foreign (B) That the Benzene-FRGAS paragraph (g)(2) apply if—
refiner is responsible to ensure that all remained segregated from: (A) The temperature-corrected
gasoline classified as Benzene-FRGAS is (1) Non-Benzene-FRGAS and Non- volumes determined at the port of entry
imported into the United States. A Certified Benzene-FRGAS; and and at the load port differ by more than
foreign refiner may remove the Benzene- (2) Other Certified Benzene-FRGAS one percent; or
FRGAS classification, and the gasoline produced at a different refinery. (B) The benzene content value
need not be imported into the United (3) The independent third party shall determined at the port of entry is higher
States, but only if: submit a report: than the benzene content value
(1) The foreign refiner excludes: (i) To the foreign refiner containing determined at the load port, and the
(i) The volume of gasoline from the the information required under amount of this difference is greater than
refinery’s compliance report under paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this the reproducibility amount specified for
§ 80.1354; and section, to accompany the product the port of entry test result by the
(ii) In the case of Certified Benzene- transfer documents for the vessel; and American Society of Testing and
FRGAS, the volume of the gasoline from (ii) To the Administrator containing Materials (ASTM) for the test method
the compliance report under § 80.1354. the information required under specified at § 80.46(e).
(ii) The United States importer and results differ by more than the amounts (7) In order to complete the
the foreign refiner shall treat the allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, requirements of this paragraph (h) an
gasoline as Non-Certified Benzene- and determine whether the foreign auditor shall:
FRGAS, and the foreign refiner shall refiner adjusted its refinery calculations (i) Be independent of the foreign
exclude the gasoline volume from its as required in paragraph (g) of this refiner;
gasoline volumes calculations and section. (ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public
benzene standard designations under (ii) Obtain the documents used by the Accountant in the United States and a
this subpart. independent third party to determine citizen of the United States, or be
(h) Attest requirements. Refiners, for transportation and storage of the approved in advance by EPA based on
each annual compliance period, must Certified Benzene-FRGAS from the a demonstration of ability to perform the
arrange to have an attest engagement refinery to the load port, under procedures required in §§ 80.125
performed of the underlying paragraph (f) of this section. Obtain tank through 80.130 and this paragraph (h);
documentation that forms the basis of activity records for any storage tank and
any report required under this subpart. where the Certified Benzene-FRGAS is (iii) Sign a commitment that contains
The attest engagement must comply stored, and pipeline activity records for the provisions specified in paragraph (i)
with the procedures and requirements any pipeline used to transport the of this section with regard to activities
that apply to refiners under §§ 80.125 Certified Benzene-FRGAS, prior to being and documents relevant to compliance
through 80.130, § 80.1356, and other loaded onto the vessel. Use these with the requirements of §§ 80.125
applicable attest engagement provisions, records to determine whether the through 80.130 and this paragraph (h).
and must be submitted to the Certified Benzene-FRGAS was produced (i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any
Administrator of EPA for the prior at the refinery that is the subject of the foreign refiner shall commit to and
annual compliance period within the attest engagement, and whether the comply with the provisions contained
time period required under § 80.130. Certified Benzene-FRGAS was mixed in this paragraph (i) as a condition to
The following additional procedures with any Non-Certified Benzene- being approved as a foreign refiner
shall be carried out for any foreign FRGAS, Non-Benzene-FRGAS, or any under this subpart.
refiner of Benzene-FRGAS. Certified Benzene-FRGAS produced at a (1) Any United States Environmental
(1) The inventory reconciliation different refinery. Protection Agency inspector or auditor
analysis under § 80.128(b) and the (5) Select a sample from the list of must be given full, complete and
tender analysis under § 80.128(c) shall vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of immediate access to conduct
include Non-Benzene-FRGAS. this section used to transport Certified inspections and audits of the foreign
(2) Obtain separate listings of all refinery.
and Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, in
tenders of Certified Benzene-FRGAS (i) Inspections and audits may be
accordance with the guidelines in
and of Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, either announced in advance by EPA, or
§ 80.127, and for each vessel selected
and obtain separate listings of Certified unannounced.
perform the following:
Benzene-FRGAS based on whether it is (ii) Access will be provided to any
(i) Obtain a commercial document of
small refiner gasoline, gasoline location where:
general circulation that lists vessel
produced through the use of credits, or (A) Gasoline is produced;
arrivals and departures, and that
other applicable designation under this (B) Documents related to refinery
includes the port and date of departure
subpart. Agree the total volume of operations are kept;
of the vessel, and the port of entry and (C) Gasoline or blendstock samples
tenders from the listings to the gasoline
date of arrival of the vessel. are tested or stored; and
inventory reconciliation analysis in
(ii) Agree the vessel’s departure and (D) Benzene-FRGAS is stored or
§ 80.128(b), and to the volumes
arrival locations and dates from the transported between the foreign refinery
determined by the third party under
independent third party and United and the United States, including storage
paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(3) For each tender under paragraph States importer reports to the tanks, vessels and pipelines.
(h)(2) of this section, where the gasoline information contained in the (iii) Inspections and audits may be by
is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as commercial document. EPA employees or contractors to EPA.
a finding the name and country of (6) Obtain separate listings of all (iv) Any documents requested that are
registration of each vessel, and the tenders of Non-Benzene-FRGAS, and related to matters covered by
volumes of Benzene-FRGAS loaded onto perform the following: inspections and audits must be
each vessel. (i) Agree the total volume and provided to an EPA inspector or auditor
(4) Select a sample from the list of benzene content of tenders from the on request.
vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of listings to the gasoline inventory (v) Inspections and audits by EPA
this section used to transport Certified reconciliation analysis in § 80.128(b). may include review and copying of any
Benzene-FRGAS, in accordance with the (ii) Obtain a separate listing of the documents related to:
guidelines in § 80.127, and for each tenders under this paragraph (h)(6) (A) Refinery baseline establishment, if
vessel selected perform the following: where the gasoline is loaded onto a applicable, including the volume and
(i) Obtain the report of the marine vessel. Select a sample from this benzene content of gasoline; transfers of
independent third party, under listing in accordance with the title or custody of any gasoline or
paragraph (f) of this section, and of the guidelines in § 80.127, and obtain a blendstocks whether Benzene-FRGAS or
United States importer under paragraph commercial document of general Non-Benzene-FRGAS, produced at the
(o) of this section. circulation that lists vessel arrivals and foreign refinery during the period
(A) Agree the information in these departures, and that includes the port January 1, 2004 through December 31,
reports with regard to vessel and date of departure and the ports and 2005, and any work papers related to
identification, gasoline volumes and dates where the gasoline was off loaded refinery baseline establishment;
benzene content test results. for the selected vessels. Determine and (B) The volume and benzene content
(B) Identify, and report as a finding, report as a finding the country where of Benzene-FRGAS;
each occasion the load port and port of the gasoline was off loaded for each (C) The proper classification of
entry benzene content and volume vessel selected. gasoline as being Benzene-FRGAS or as
not being Benzene-FRGAS, or as foreign refiner, its agents and employees Where:
Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as Non- in any court or other tribunal in the Bond = amount of the bond in U.S. dollars
Certified Benzene-FRGAS, and all other United States for conduct that violates G = the largest volume of gasoline produced
relevant designations under this the requirements applicable to the at the foreign refinery and exported to
subpart; foreign refiner under this subpart, the United States, in gallons, during a
(D) Transfers of title or custody to including conduct that violates the single calendar year among the most
Benzene-FRGAS; False Statements Accountability Act of recent of the following calendar years,
(E) Sampling and testing of Benzene- up to a maximum of five calendar years:
1996 (18 U.S.C. 1001) and section the calendar year immediately preceding
FRGAS; 113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. the date the refinery’s baseline petition
(F) Work performed and reports 7413). is submitted, the calendar year the
prepared by independent third parties (6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or baseline petition is submitted, and each
and by independent auditors under the employees, will not seek to detain or to succeeding calendar year.
requirements of this section, including impose civil or criminal remedies (2) Bonds shall be posted by:
work papers; and against EPA inspectors or auditors, (i) Paying the amount of the bond to
(G) Reports prepared for submission whether EPA employees or EPA the Treasurer of the United States;
to EPA, and any work papers related to contractors, for actions performed (ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper
such reports. within the scope of EPA employment amount from a third party surety agent
(vi) Inspections and audits by EPA related to the provisions of this section. that is payable to satisfy United States
may include taking samples of gasoline, (7) The commitment required by this administrative or judicial judgments
gasoline additives or blendstock, and paragraph (i) shall be signed by the against the foreign refiner, provided
interviewing employees. owner or president of the foreign refiner EPA agrees in advance as to the third
(vii) Any employee of the foreign business. party and the nature of the surety
refiner must be made available for (8) In any case where Benzene-FRGAS agreement; or
interview by the EPA inspector or produced at a foreign refinery is stored (iii) An alternative commitment that
auditor, on request, within a reasonable or transported by another company results in assets of an appropriate
time period. between the refinery and the vessel that liquidity and value being readily
(viii) English language translations of transports the Benzene-FRGAS to the available to the United States, provided
any documents must be provided to an United States, the foreign refiner shall EPA agrees in advance as to the
EPA inspector or auditor, on request, obtain from each such other company a alternative commitment.
within 10 working days. commitment that meets the (3) Bonds posted under this paragraph
(ix) English language interpreters requirements specified in paragraphs (k) shall—
must be provided to accompany EPA (i)(1) through (7) of this section, and (i) Be used to satisfy any judicial
inspectors and auditors, on request. these commitments shall be included in judgment that results from an
(2) An agent for service of process the foreign refiner’s petition to administrative or judicial enforcement
located in the District of Columbia shall participate in any benzene foreign action for conduct in violation of this
be named, and service on this agent refiner program. subpart, including where such conduct
constitutes service on the foreign refiner (j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting violates the False Statements
or any employee of the foreign refiner a petition for participation in any Accountability Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C.
for any action by EPA or otherwise by benzene foreign refiner program under 1001) and section 113(c)(2) of the Clean
the United States related to the this subpart (and baseline, if applicable) Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7413);
requirements of this subpart. under this section, or by producing and (ii) Be provided by a corporate surety
(3) The forum for any civil or criminal exporting gasoline to the United States that is listed in the United States
enforcement action related to the under any such program, the foreign Department of Treasury Circular 570
provisions of this section for violations refiner, and its agents and employees, ‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of
of the Clean Air Act or regulations without exception, become subject to Authority as Acceptable Sureties on
promulgated thereunder shall be the full operation of the administrative Federal Bonds’’; and
governed by the Clean Air Act, and judicial enforcement powers and (iii) Include a commitment that the
including the EPA administrative forum provisions of the United States without bond will remain in effect for at least
where allowed under the Clean Air Act. limitation based on sovereign immunity, five years following the end of latest
(4) United States substantive and with respect to actions instituted against annual reporting period that the foreign
procedural laws shall apply to any civil the foreign refiner, its agents and refiner produces gasoline pursuant to
or criminal enforcement action against employees in any court or other tribunal the requirements of this subpart.
the foreign refiner or any employee of in the United States for conduct that (4) On any occasion a foreign refiner
the foreign refiner related to the violates the requirements applicable to bond is used to satisfy any judgment,
provisions of this section. the foreign refiner under this subpart, the foreign refiner shall increase the
(5) Submitting a petition for including conduct that violates the bond to cover the amount used within
participation in the benzene foreign False Statements Accountability Act of 90 days of the date the bond is used.
refiner program or producing and 1996 (18 U.S.C. 1001) and section (5) If the bond amount for a foreign
exporting gasoline under any such 113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. refiner increases, the foreign refiner
program, and all other actions to comply 7413). shall increase the bond to cover the
with the requirements of this subpart (k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner shortfall within 90 days of the date the
relating to participation in any benzene shall meet the requirements of this bond amount changes. If the bond
foreign refiner program, or to establish paragraph (k) as a condition to approval amount decreases, the foreign refiner
an individual refinery gasoline benzene as benzene foreign refiner under this may reduce the amount of the bond
baseline under this subpart constitute subpart. beginning 90 days after the date the
actions or activities covered by and (1) The foreign refiner shall post a bond amount changes.
within the meaning of the provisions of bond of the amount calculated using the (l) [Reserved]
28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2), but solely with following equation: (m) English language reports. Any
respect to actions instituted against the Bond = G × $0.01 report or other document submitted to
EPA by a foreign refiner shall be in (A) Collect a representative sample (B) All Non-Certified Benzene-
English language, or shall include an from each vessel compartment FRGAS.
English language translation. subsequent to the vessel’s arrival at the (C) All Non-Benzene-FRGAS;
(n) Prohibitions. (1) No person may United States port of entry and prior to (iii) Procedures for obtaining and
combine Certified Benzene-FRGAS with off loading any gasoline from the vessel; reviewing truck loading records and
any Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS or (B) Obtain the compartment samples; United States import documents for
Non-Benzene-FRGAS, and no person and Certified Benzene-FRGAS to ensure that
may combine Certified Benzene-FRGAS (C) Determine the benzene content such gasoline is only loaded into trucks
with any Certified Benzene-FRGAS value of each compartment sample making deliveries to the United States;
produced at a different refinery, until using the methodology specified at (iv) Attest procedures to be conducted
the importer has met all the § 80.46(e) by the third party analyzing annually by an independent third party
requirements of paragraph (o) of this the sample or by the third party that review loading records and import
section, except as provided in paragraph observing the importer analyze the documents based on volume
(e) of this section. sample. reconciliation, or other criteria, to
(2) No foreign refiner or other person (4) Any importer shall submit reports confirm that all Certified Benzene-
may cause another person to commit an within 30 days following the date any FRGAS remains segregated throughout
action prohibited in paragraph (n)(1) of vessel transporting Benzene-FRGAS the distribution system and is only
this section, or that otherwise violates arrives at the United States port of entry: loaded into trucks for import into the
(i) To the Administrator containing United States.
the requirements of this section.
the information determined under (3) The petition required by this
(o) United States importer
paragraph (o)(3) of this section; and section must be submitted to EPA along
requirements. Any United States (ii) To the foreign refiner containing
importer shall meet the following with the application for temporary
the information determined under refiner relief individual refinery
requirements: paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section, and
(1) Each batch of imported gasoline benzene standard under this subpart.
including identification of the port at (q) Withdrawal or suspension of
shall be classified by the importer as which the product was offloaded.
being Benzene-FRGAS or as Non- foreign refiner status. EPA may
(5) Any United States importer shall withdraw or suspend a foreign refiner’s
Benzene-FRGAS, and each batch meet all other requirements of this
classified as Benzene-FRGAS shall be benzene baseline or standard approval
subpart for any imported gasoline that is for a foreign refinery where—
further classified as Certified Benzene- not classified as Certified Benzene-
FRGAS or as Non-Certified Benzene- (1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any
FRGAS under paragraph (o)(2) of this requirement of this section;
FRGAS. section. (2) A foreign government fails to
(2) Gasoline shall be classified as (p) Truck imports of Certified
allow EPA inspections as provided in
Certified Benzene-FRGAS or as Non- Benzene-FRGAS produced at a foreign
paragraph (i)(1) of this section;
Certified Benzene-FRGAS according to refinery. (3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of,
the designation by the foreign refiner if (1) Any refiner whose Certified
or a right to claim, sovereign immunity
this designation is supported by product Benzene-FRGAS is transported into the
in an action to enforce the requirements
transfer documents prepared by the United States by truck may petition EPA
in this subpart; or
foreign refiner as required in paragraph to use alternative procedures to meet the
(4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil
(d) of this section, unless the gasoline is following requirements:
(i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5) or criminal penalty that is not satisfied
classified as Non-Certified Benzene- using the foreign refiner bond specified
FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this of this section;
(ii) Load port and port of entry in paragraph (k) of this section.
section. Additionally, the importer shall (r) Early use of a foreign refiner
comply with all requirements of this sampling and testing under paragraphs
(f) and (g) of this section; benzene baseline.
subpart applicable to importers. (1) A foreign refiner may begin using
(3) For each gasoline batch classified (iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this
section; and an individual refinery benzene baseline
as Benzene-FRGAS, any United States under this subpart before EPA has
importer shall perform the following (iv) Importer testing under paragraph
(o)(3) of this section. approved the baseline, provided that:
procedures. (i) A baseline petition has been
(2) These alternative procedures must
(i) In the case of both Certified and ensure Certified Benzene-FRGAS submitted as required in paragraph (b)
Non-Certified Benzene-FRGAS, have an remains segregated from Non-Certified of this section;
independent third party: Benzene-FRGAS and from Non- (ii) EPA has made a provisional
(A) Determine the volume of gasoline Benzene-FRGAS until it is imported finding that the baseline petition is
in the vessel; into the United States. The petition will complete;
(B) Use the foreign refiner’s Benzene- be evaluated based on whether it (iii) The foreign refiner has made the
FRGAS certification to determine the adequately addresses the following: commitments required in paragraph (i)
name and EPA-assigned registration (i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline of this section;
number of the foreign refinery that shipments, if applicable, from the (iv) The persons that will meet the
produced the Benzene-FRGAS; refinery, that ensure segregation of independent third party and
(C) Determine the name and country Certified Benzene-FRGAS from that independent attest requirements for the
of registration of the vessel used to refinery from all other gasoline; foreign refinery have made the
transport the Benzene-FRGAS to the (ii) Contracts with any terminals and/ commitments required in paragraphs
United States; and or pipelines that receive and/or (f)(3)(iii) and (h)(7)(iii) of this section;
(D) Determine the date and time the transport Certified Benzene-FRGAS, that and
vessel arrives at the United States port prohibit the commingling of Certified (v) The foreign refiner has met the
of entry. Benzene-FRGAS with any of the bond requirements of paragraph (k) of
(ii) In the case of Certified Benzene- following: this section.
FRGAS, have an independent third (A) Other Certified Benzene-FRGAS (2) In any case where a foreign refiner
party: from other refineries. uses an individual refinery baseline
before final approval under paragraph § 85.1515 Emission standards and test temperature NMHC family emission
(r)(1) of this section, and the foreign procedures applicable to imported level than the fleet average standards in
refinery baseline values that ultimately nonconforming motor vehicles and motor Table S10–1 of 40 CFR 86.1811–10 as
vehicle engines.
are approved by EPA are more stringent specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii)
than the early baseline values used by * * * * * of this section, unless it demonstrates to
the foreign refiner, the foreign refiner (c) * * * the Administrator at the time of
shall recalculate its compliance, ab (2) * * * certification that it has obtained
initio, using the baseline values (vii) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs
appropriate and sufficient NMHC
approved by the EPA, and the foreign originally manufactured in OP years
credits from another manufacturer, or
refiner shall be liable for any resulting 2009 and later must meet the
has generated them in a previous model
violation of the requirements of this evaporative emission standards in Table
year or in the current model year and
subpart. S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e).
not traded them to another
(s) Additional requirements for However, LDV/LLDTs originally
manufacturer or used them to address
petitions, reports and certificates. Any manufactured in OP years 2009 and
2010 and imported by ICIs who qualify other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR
petition for approval to produce 86.1864–10.
gasoline subject to the benzene foreign as small volume manufacturers as
defined in 40 CFR 86.1838–01 are (v) Where an ICI desires to obtain a
refiner program, any alternative
exempt from the LDV/LLDT evaporative certificate of conformity using a higher
procedures under paragraph (p) of this
emission standards in Table S09–1 in 40 cold temperature NMHC family
section, any report or other submission
CFR 86.1811–09(e), but must comply emission level than specified in
required by paragraph (c), (f)(2), or (i) of
with the Tier 2 evaporative emission paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this
this section, and any certification under
standards in Table S04–3 in 40 CFR section, but does not have sufficient
paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall
86.1811–04(e). credits to cover vehicles imported under
be—
(1) Submitted in accordance with (viii) Nonconforming HLDTs and such certificate, the Administrator may
procedures specified by the MDPVs originally manufactured in OP issue such certificate if the ICI has also
Administrator, including use of any years 2010 and later must meet the obtained a certificate of conformity for
forms that may be specified by the evaporative emission standards in Table vehicles certified using a cold
Administrator. S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e). temperature NMHC family emission
(2) Be signed by the president or However, HLDTs and MDPVs originally level lower than that required under
owner of the foreign refiner company, or manufactured in OP years 2010 and paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this
by that person’s immediate designee, 2011 and imported by ICIs, who qualify section. The ICI may then import
and shall contain the following as small volume manufacturers as vehicles to the higher cold temperature
declaration: defined in 40 CFR 86.1838–01, are NMHC family emission level only to the
exempt from the HLDTs and MDPVs extent that it has generated sufficient
I hereby certify: (1) That I have actual credits from vehicles certified to a
evaporative emission standards in Table
authority to sign on behalf of and to bind
[insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e), but family emission level lower than the
all statements contained herein; (2) that I am must comply with the Tier 2 cold temperature NMHC fleet average
aware that the information contained herein evaporative emission standards in Table standard during the same model year.
is being Certified, or submitted to the United S04–3 in 40 CFR 86.1811–04(e). (vi) ICIs using cold temperature
States Environmental Protection Agency, * * * * * NMHC family emission levels higher
under the requirements of 40 CFR part 80, (8)(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs
subpart L, and that the information is
than the cold temperature NMHC fleet
material for determining compliance under
originally manufactured in OP years average standards specified in
these regulations; and (3) that I have read and 2010 and later must meet the cold paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this
understand the information being Certified or temperature NHMC emission standards section must monitor their imports so
submitted, and this information is true, in Table S10–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811– that they do not import more vehicles
complete and correct to the best of my 10(g). certified to such family emission levels
knowledge and belief after I have taken (ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and than their available credits can cover.
reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the MDPVs originally manufactured in OP
accuracy thereof. I affirm that I have read and
ICIs must not have a credit deficit at the
years 2012 and later must meet the cold end of a model year and are not
understand the provisions of 40 CFR part 80,
subpart L, including 40 CFR 80.1363 apply
temperature NHMC emission standards permitted to use the deficit carryforward
to [insert name of foreign refiner]. Pursuant in Table S10–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811– provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1864–
to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and 18 U.S.C. 10(g). 10.
1001, the penalty for furnishing false, (iii) ICIs, which qualify as small
(vii) The Administrator may condition
incomplete or misleading information in this volume manufacturers, are exempt from
certification or submission is a fine of up to the certificates of conformity issued to
the cold temperature NMHC phase-in
$10,000 U.S., and/or imprisonment for up to ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles
intermediate percentage requirements
five years. subject to this paragraph (c)(8) comply
described in 40 CFR 86.1811–10(g)(3).
with the applicable cold temperature
PART 85—CONTROL OF AIR See 40 CFR 86.1811–04(k)(5)(vi) and
NMHC fleet average standard for each
POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES (vii).
(iv) As an alternative to the model year.
■ 11a. The authority citation for part 85 requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and * * * * *
continues to read as follows: (ii) of this section, ICIs may elect to
meet a cold temperature NMHC family PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY
emission level below the cold
temperature NMHC fleet average VEHICLES AND ENGINES

Subpart P—[Amended]
standards specified in Table S10–1 of 40
■ 11b. Section 85.1515 is amended by CFR 86.1811–10 and bank or sell credits ■ 12. The authority citation for part 86
adding paragraphs (c)(2)(vii), (c)(2)(viii), as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864–10. An continues to read as follows:
and (c)(8) to read as follows. ICI may not meet a higher cold Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart H—[Amended] passenger vehicles were certified and hundredth, is greater than the 20 °F FEL
sold for that model year. pass limit, the vehicle will be presumed
■ 13. Section 86.701–94 is amended by * * * * * to have a defeat device unless the
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: ■ 15. Section 86.1805–04 is amended by
manufacturer provides evidence to
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: EPA’s satisfaction that the cause of the
§ 86.701–94 General applicability. test result in question is not due to a
(a) The provisions of this subpart § 86.1805–04 Useful life. defeat device.
apply to: 1994 through 2003 model year * * * * * (2) If the CO emission level does not
Otto-cycle and diesel light-duty (g) Where cold temperature NMHC exceed the 20 °F emission standard, the
vehicles; 1994 through 2003 model year standards are applicable, the useful life Administrator may investigate the
Otto-cycle and diesel light-duty trucks; requirement for compliance with the vehicle design for the presence of a
and 1994 and later model year Otto- cold temperature NMHC standard only defeat device under paragraph (d) of this
cycle and diesel heavy-duty engines; is as follows: section. If the intermediate temperature
and 2001 and later model year Otto- (1) For LDV/LLDTs, 10 years or NMHC emission level, rounded to the
cycle heavy-duty vehicles and engines 120,000 miles, whichever occurs first. nearest hundredth, does not exceed the
certified under the provisions of subpart (2) For HLDT/MDPVs, 11 years or 20 °F FEL pass limit the Administrator
S of this part. The provisions of subpart 120,000 miles, whichever occurs first. may investigate the vehicle design for
B of this part apply to this subpart. The the presence of a defeat device under
■ 16. A new § 86.1809–10 is added to paragraph (d) of this section.
provisions of § 86.1811–04(a)(5) and (p)
Subpart S to read as follows: (d) The following provisions apply for
apply to 2004 and later model year
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, § 86.1809–10 Prohibition of defeat devices. vehicle designs designated by the
and medium duty passenger vehicles. Administrator to be investigated for
(a) No new light-duty vehicle, light- possible defeat devices:
* * * * * duty truck, medium-duty passenger (1) The manufacturer must show to
vehicle, or complete heavy-duty vehicle the satisfaction of the Administrator that
Subpart S—[Amended] shall be equipped with a defeat device. the vehicle design does not incorporate
(b) The Administrator may test or strategies that unnecessarily reduce
■ 14. Section 86.1803–01 is amended by require testing on any vehicle at a
revising the definition of ‘‘Banking’’ and emission control effectiveness exhibited
designated location, using driving during the Federal Test Procedure or
adding the definition for ‘‘Fleet average cycles and conditions that may
cold temperature NMHC standard’’ in Supplemental Federal Test Procedure
reasonably be expected to be (FTP or SFTP) when the vehicle is
alphabetical order to read as follows: encountered in normal operation and operated under conditions that may
§ 86.1803–01 Definitions. use, for the purposes of investigating a reasonably be expected to be
* * * * * potential defeat device. encountered in normal operation and
(c) For cold temperature CO and cold use.
Banking means one of the following:
temperature NMHC emission control, (2) The following information
(1) The retention of NOX emission the Administrator will use a guideline
credits for complete heavy-duty vehicles requirements apply:
to determine the appropriateness of the (i) Upon request by the Administrator,
by the manufacturer generating the CO and NMHC emission control at
emission credits, for use in future model the manufacturer must provide an
ambient temperatures between 25 °F explanation containing detailed
year certification programs as permitted (the upper bound of the temperatue test
by regulation. information regarding test programs,
range) and 68 °F (the lower bound of the engineering evaluations, design
(2) The retention of cold temperature FTP range). The guideline for CO specifications, calibrations, on-board
non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emission congruity across the computer algorithms, and design
emission credits for light-duty vehicles, intermediate temperature range is the strategies incorporated for operation
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty linear interpolation between the CO both during and outside of the Federal
passenger vehicles by the manufacturer standard applicable at 25 °F and the CO emission test procedure.
generating the emission credits, for use standard applicable at 68 °F. The (ii) For purposes of investigations of
in future model year certification guideline for NMHC emission congruity possible cold temperature CO or cold
programs as permitted by regulation. across the intermediate temperature temperature NMHC defeat devices
* * * * * range is the linear interpolation between under this paragraph (d), the
Fleet average cold temperature NMHC the NMHC FEL pass limit (e.g. 0.3499 manufacturer must provide an
standard means, for light-duty vehicles, g/mi for a 0.3 g/mi FEL) applicable at explanation to show, to the satisfaction
light-duty trucks and medium-duty 20 °F and the Tier 2 NMOG standard to of the Administrator, that CO emissions
passenger vehicles, an NMHC cold which the vehicle was certified at 68 °F, and NMHC emissions are reasonably
temperature standard imposed over an where the intermediate temperature controlled in reference to the linear
individual manufacturer’s total 50-State NMHC level is rounded to the nearest guideline across the intermediate
U.S. sales (or a fraction of total U.S. hundredth for comparison to the temperature range.
sales during phase-in years), as ‘‘U.S. interpolated line. For vehicles that (e) For each test group of Tier 2 LDV/
sales’’ is defined to include all national exceed this CO emissions guideline or LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs and interim
sales, including points-of-first sale in this NMHC emissions guideline upon non-Tier 2 LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/
California, of a given model year. intermediate temperature cold testing: MDPVs the manufacturer must submit,
Manufacturers determine their (1) If the CO emission level is greater with the Part II certification application,
compliance with such a standard by than the 20 °F emission standard, the an engineering evaluation
averaging, on a sales-weighted basis, the vehicle will automatically be considered demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
individual NMHC ‘‘Family Emission to be equipped with a defeat device Administrator that a discontinuity in
Limits’’ (FEL—as defined in this without further investigation. If the emissions of non-methane organic gases,
subpart) to which light-duty vehicles, intermediate temperature NMHC carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen
light-duty trucks and medium-duty emission level, rounded to the nearest and formaldehyde measured on the
Federal Test Procedure (subpart B of manufacturers must submit an in Table S09–1 of § 86.1811–09(e) until
this part) does not occur in the engineering evaluation indicating that 2013, and defer 100% compliance with
temperature range of 20 to 86 °F. For common calibration approaches are the LDV/LLDT evaporative emissions
diesel vehicles, the engineering utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation standards in Table S09–2 of § 86.1811–
evaluation must also include particulate from low altitude emission control 09(e) until 2016. (The hardship relief
emissions. practices must be included in the may be extended one additional model
■ 17. A new § 86.1810–09 is added to auxiliary emission control device year—two model years total.)
Subpart S to read as follows: (AECD) descriptions submitted at (vii) Defer compliance with the
certification. Any AECD specific to high HLDT/MDPV evaporative emissions
§ 86.1810–09 General standards; increase altitude must require engineering standards in Table S09–1 of § 86.1811–
in emissions; unsafe condition; waivers. 09(e) until 2014, and defer 100%
emission data for EPA evaluation to
Section 86.1810–09 includes text that quantify any emission impact and compliance with the HLDT/MDPV
specifies requirements that differ from validity of the AECD. evaporative emissions standards in
§ 86.1810–01. Where a paragraph in (g) through (p) [Reserved]. For Table S09–2 of § 86.1811–09(e) until
§ 86.1810–01 is identical and applicable guidance see § 86.1810–01. 2016. (The hardship relief may be
to § 86.1810–09, this may be indicated ■ 18. Section 86.1811–04 is amended by extended one additional model year—
by specifying the corresponding adding paragraphs (k)(5)(iv) through two model years total.)
paragraph and the statement (vii) and (q)(1)(vi) through (ix) to read as (viii) Defer 100% compliance with the
‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see LDV/LLDT cold temperature NMHC
follows:
§ 86.1810–01.’’ Where a corresponding standards in Table S10–X of § 86.1811–
paragraph of § 86.1810–01 is not § 86.1811–04 Emission standards for light- 10(g) until 2015. (The hardship relief
applicable, this is indicated by the duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and may be extended one additional model
statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’ This section medium-duty passenger vehicles. year—two model years total.)
applies to model year 2009 and later * * * * * (ix) Defer 100% compliance with the
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (k) * * * HLDT/MDPV cold temperature NMHC
fueled by gasoline, diesel, methanol, (5) * * * standards in Table S10–X of § 86.1811–
ethanol, natural gas and liquefied (iv) Vehicles produced by small 10(g) until 2017. (The hardship relief
petroleum gas fuels. This section also volume manufacturers, as defined in may be extended one additional model
applies to MDPVs and complete heavy- § 86.1838–01, are exempt from the LDV/ year—two model years total.)
duty vehicles certified according to the LLDT evaporative emissions standards * * * * *
provisions of this subpart. Multi-fueled in Table S09–1 of § 86.1811–09(e) for
■ 19. A new § 86.1811–09 is added to
vehicles (including dual-fueled and model years 2009 and 2010, but must
Subpart S to read as follows:
flexible-fueled vehicles) must comply comply with the Tier 2 evaporative
with all requirements established for emission standards in Table S04–3 in § 86.1811–09 Emission standards for light-
each consumed fuel (or blend of fuels in paragraph (e)(1) of this section for duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and
the case of flexible fueled vehicles). The model years 2009 and 2010. medium-duty passenger vehicles.
standards of this subpart apply to both (v) Vehicles produced by small Section 86.1811–09 includes text that
certification and in-use vehicles unless volume manufacturers, as defined in specifies requirements that differ from
otherwise indicated. This section also § 86.1838–01, are exempt from the § 86.1811–04. Where a paragraph in
applies to hybrid electric vehicles and HLDT/MDPV evaporative emissions § 86.1811–04 is identical and applicable
zero emission vehicles. Unless standards in Table S09–1 of § 86.1811– to § 86.1811–09, this may be indicated
otherwise specified, requirements and 09(e) for model years 2010 and 2011, by specifying the corresponding
provisions of this subpart applicable to but must comply with the Tier 2 paragraph and the statement
methanol fueled vehicles are also evaporative emission standards in Table ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see
applicable to Tier 2 and interim non- S04–3 in paragraph (e)(1) of this section § 86.1811–04.’’ Where a corresponding
Tier 2 ethanol fueled vehicles. for model years 2010 and 2011. paragraph of § 86.1811–04 is not
(a) through (e) [Reserved]. For (vi) Small volume manufacturers, as applicable, this is indicated by the
guidance see § 86.1810–01. defined in § 86.1838–01, are exempt statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’
(f) Altitude requirements. (1) All from the LDV/LLDT cold temperature (a) Applicability. (1) This section
emission standards apply at low altitude NMHC phase-in requirements in Table contains regulations implementing
conditions and at high altitude S10–1 of § 86.1811–10(g) for model emission standards for all LDVs, LDTs
conditions, except for supplemental years 2010, 2011, and 2012, but must and MDPVs. This section applies to
exhaust emission standards, cold comply with the 100% requirement for 2009 and later model year LDVs, LDTs
temperature NMHC emission standards, 2013 and later model years for cold and MDPVs fueled by gasoline, diesel,
and the evaporative emission standards temperature NMHC standards. methanol, ethanol, natural gas and
as described in § 86.1811–09(e). (vii) Small volume manufacturers, as liquefied petroleum gas fuels, except as
Supplemental exhaust emission defined in § 86.1838–01, are exempt noted. Additionally, this section applies
standards, as described in § 86.1811– from the HLDT/MDPV cold temperature to hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and
04(f), apply only at low altitude NMHC phase-in requirements in Table zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). Unless
conditions. Cold temperature NMHC S10–1 of § 86.1811–10(g) for model otherwise specified, multi-fueled
emission standards, as described in years 2012, 2013, and 2014, but must vehicles must comply with all
§ 86.1811–10(g), apply only at low comply with the 100% requirement for requirements established for each
altitude conditions. Tier 2 evaporative 2015 and later model years for cold consumed fuel.
emission standards apply at high temperature NMHC standards. (2) through (4) [Reserved]. For
altitude conditions as specified in * * * * * guidance see § 86.1811–04.

§ 86.1810–01(f) and (j), and § 86.1811– (q) * * * (5) The exhaust emission standards
04(e). (1) * * * and evaporative emission standards of
(2) For vehicles that comply with the (vi) Defer compliance with the LDV/ this section apply equally to
cold temperature NMHC standards, LLDT evaporative emissions standards certification and in-use LDVs, LDTs and
MDPVs, unless otherwise specified. See petroleum gas-fueled, ethanol-fueled methanol-fueled and multi-fueled
paragraph (t) of this section for interim and methanol-fueled vehicles must not vehicles when operating on gasoline
evaporative emission in-use standards exceed the standards in this paragraph must not exceed the diurnal plus hot
that are different than the certification (e). The standards apply equally to soak standards shown in Table S09–1
evaporative emission standards certification and in-use vehicles. for the full three diurnal test sequence
specified in paragraph (e) of this (1) Diurnal-plus-hot soak evaporative and for the supplemental two diurnal
section. hydrocarbon standards. (i) test sequence. The standards apply
(b) through (d) [Reserved]. For Hydrocarbons for LDV/LLDTs, HLDTs equally to certification and in-use
guidance see § 86.1811–04. and MDPVs that are gasoline-fueled,
vehicles, except as otherwise specified
(e) Evaporative emission standards. dedicated natural gas-fueled, dedicated
in paragraph (t) of this section. Table
Evaporative emissions from gasoline- liquefied petroleum gas-fueled,
fueled, natural gas-fueled, liquefied dedicated ethanol-fueled, dedicated S09–1 follows:
TABLE S09–1.—LIGHT-DUTY DIURNAL PLUS HOT SOAK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

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

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

LLDTs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.65 0.85
HLDTs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.90 1.15
MDPVs ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1.00 1.25
(iii) For multi-fueled vehicles TABLE S09–3.—PHASE-IN PERCENT- low altitude testing in accordance with
operating on non-gasoline fuel, AGES FOR LIGHT-DUTY DIURNAL California test conditions and test
manufacturers must comply with the PLUS HOT SOAK EVAPORATIVE procedures (in lieu of the evaporative
phase-in requirements in Table S09–3 of EMISSION STANDARDS: NON-GASO- emission test condition and test
this paragraph for the evaporative procedure requirements of subpart B of
LINE PORTION OF MULTI-FUELED VE-
emission requirements specified in this part).
HICLES
Table S09–2 of this section. Phase-in (f) through (s) [Reserved]. For
schedules are grouped together for LDV/ Percentage of guidance see § 86.1811–04.
LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs. These vehicles that (t) Evaporative emission in-use
requirements specify the minimum Model year must meet evap- standards. (1) For LDVs and LLDTs
orative emission certified prior to the 2012 model year,
percentage of the manufacturer’s LDV/ requirements
LLDT/HLDT/MDPV 50-State sales, by the Tier 2 LDV/LLDT evaporative
model year, that must meet the 2012 .................................. 30 emissions standards in Table S04–3 of
requirements for their full useful lives. 2013 .................................. 60 § 86.1811–04(e) shall apply to in-use
Table S09–3 follows: 2014 and subsequent ....... 100 vehicles for only the first three model
years after an evaporative family is first
(2) through (6) [Reserved]. For certified to the LDV/LLDT evaporative
guidance see § 86.1811–04. emission standards in Table S09–1 of
(7) In cases where vehicles are paragraph (e) of this section, as shown
certified to evaporative emission in Table S09–4. For example,
standards in Tables S09–1 and S09–2 of evaporative families first certified to the
this section, the Administrator may LDV/LLDT standards in Table S09–1 in
accept evaporative emissions data for the 2011 model year must meet the Tier
2 LDV/LLDT evaporative emission TABLE S09–5—SCHEDULE FOR IN- (f) [Reserved]. For guidance see
standards (Table S04–3) in-use for 2011, USE HLDT/MDPV DIURNAL PLUS § 86.1811–04.
2012, and 2013 model year vehicles HOT SOAK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION (g) Cold temperature exhaust
(applying Tier 2 standards in-use is STANDARDS emission standards. (1) Cold
limited to the first three years after temperature CO standards. These cold
introduction of a vehicle). Model Year of Intro- temperature CO standards are
2010 2011 2012 applicable only to gasoline fueled LDV/
(2) For HLDTs and MDPVs certified duction 2010
prior to the 2013 model year, the Tier Ts and MDPVs. Cold temperature CO
2 HLDT/MDPV evaporative emissions Models Years That exhaust emission standards apply over
Tier 2 Standards a useful life of 50,000 miles or 5 years
standards in Table S04–3 of § 86.1811– Apply to In-use
04(e) shall apply to in-use vehicles for (whichever occurs first) as follows:
Vehicles ............... 2010 2011 2012
only the first three model years after an 2011 2012 2013
(i) For LDVs and LDT1s, the standard
evaporative family is first certified to 2012 2013 2014 is 10.0 grams per mile CO.
the HLDT/MDPV evaporative emission (ii) For LDT2s, LDT3s and LDT4s, and
standards in Table S09–1 of paragraph MDPVs, the standard is 12.5 grams per
■ 20. A new § 86.1811–10 is added to mile CO.
(e) of this section, as shown in Table
Subpart S to read as follows: (iii) These standards do not apply to
S09–5. For example, evaporative
families first certified to the HLDT/ § 86.1811–10 Emission standards for light- interim non-Tier 2 MDPVs.
MDPV standards in Table S09–1 in the duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and (2) Cold temperature NMHC
2012 model year must meet the Tier 2 medium-duty passenger vehicles. standards. Full useful life fleet average
HLDT/MDPV evaporative emission Section 86.1811–10 includes text that cold temperature NMHC standards are
standards (Table S04–3) in-use for 2012, specifies requirements that differ from applicable only to gasoline fueled LDV/
2013, and 2014 model year vehicles § 86.1811–04 and § 86.1811–09. Where a LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs, and apply
(applying Tier 2 standards in-use is paragraph in § 86.1811–04 or § 86.1811– equally to certification and in-use
limited to the first three years after 09 is identical and applicable to except as otherwise specified in
introduction of a vehicle). § 86.1811–10, this may be indicated by paragraph (u) of this section for in-use
specifying the corresponding paragraph standards for applicable phase-in
TABLE S09–4.—SCHEDULE FOR IN- and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For models. Testing with other fuels such as
USE LDV/LLDT DIURNAL PLUS HOT guidance see § 86.1811–04’’ or E85, or testing on diesel vehicles, is not
SOAK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see required. Multi-fuel, bi-fuel or dual-fuel
vehicles must comply with
STANDARDS § 86.1811–09.’’ Where a corresponding
paragraph of § 86.1811–04 or § 86.1811– requirements using gasoline only. For
LDV/LLDTs, the useful life is 120,000
2011 09 is not applicable, this is indicated by
Model Year of Intro- 2009 2010 miles or 10 years, whichever comes
duction the statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’
first. For HLDT/MDPVs, the useful life
Models Years That (a) [Reserved]. For guidance see is 120,000 miles or 11 years, whichever
Tier 2 Standards § 86.1811–09. comes first. There is not an intermediate
Apply to In-use (b) through (d) [Reserved]. For useful life standard for cold temperature
Vehicles ............... 2009 2010 2011 guidance see § 86.1811–04. NMHC standards.
2010 2011 2012
2011 2012 2013
(e) [Reserved]. For guidance see (i) The standards are shown in the
§ 86.1811–09. following table:
TABLE S10–1—FLEET AVERAGE COLD TEMPERATURE NMHC FULL USEFUL LIFE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS
Cold temperature
NMHC sales-
Vehicle weight category weighted fleet
average standard
(grams/mile)
LDVs & LLDTs (≤6,000 lbs GVWR) ................................................................................................................................................ 0.3

HLDTs (>6,000–8,500 lbs GVWR) & MDPVs (>8,500–10,000 lbs GVWR) ................................................................................... 0.5
(ii) The manufacturer must calculate early NMHC credits as permitted under are provided for LDV/LLDTs and for
its fleet average cold temperature NMHC § 86.1864–10(o)(5), the manufacturer HLDT/MDPVs. These requirements
emission level(s) as described in must achieve a fleet average standard specify the minimum percentage of the
§ 86.1864–10(m). below the applicable standard. manufacturer’s LDV/LLDT and HLDT/
(iii) During a phase-in year, the Manufacturers must determine MDPV 50-State sales, by model year,
manufacturer must comply with the compliance with the cold temperature that must meet the fleet average cold
fleet average standards for the required NMHC fleet average standard according temperature NMHC standard for their
phase-in percentage for that year as to § 86.1864–10(o). full useful lives. LDVs and LLDTs must
specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this (3) Phase-in of the cold temperature be grouped together to determine
section, or for the alternate phase-in NMHC standards. Except as permitted compliance with these phase-in
percentage as permitted under in § 86.1811–04(k)(5)(vi) and (vii) requirements, and HLDTs and MDPVs
paragraph (g)(4) of this section. regarding small volume manufacturers, must also be grouped together to
(iv) For model years prior to 2010 manufacturers must comply with the determine compliance with these phase-
(LDV/LLDTs) and 2012 (HLDT/MDPVs), phase-in requirements in Tables S10–2 in requirements. Tables S10–2 and S10–
where the manufacturer desires to bank and S10–3. Separate phase-in schedules 3 follow:
TABLE S10–2—PHASE-IN PERCENT- acceptable, except as prohibited in Application for Certification for the first
AGES FOR LDV/LLDT COLD TEM- paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (iii) of this year in which it intends to use such a
PERATURE NMHC REQUIREMENTS section. In addition, manufacturers schedule, and in each succeeding year
electing to use an alternate phase-in during the phase-in, the intended phase-
Percentage of schedule for compliance with the cold in percentages for that model year and
Model year LDV/LLDTs temperature NMHC exhaust emission the remaining phase-in years along with
that must meet standards must ensure that the sum of the intended final sum of those
requirement products is at least 100% for model percentages as described in paragraph
2010 ...................................... 25
years 2010 and earlier for LDV/LLDTs. (g)(4)(i) of this section. This information
2011 ...................................... 50 For example, a phase-in schedule for may be included with the information
2012 ...................................... 75 LDV/LLDTs of 5/10/10/45/80/100 that required under § 86.1844–01(d)(13). In
2013 and subsequent ........... 100 begins in 2008 would calculate as its year end annual reports, as required
(6×5%) + (5×10%) + (4×10%) = 120% under § 86.1844–01(e)(4), the
and would be acceptable for 2008–2010. manufacturer must include sufficient
TABLE S10–3—PHASE-IN PERCENT- The full phase-in would calculate as information so that the Administrator
AGES FOR HLDT/MDPV COLD TEM- (6×5%) + (5×10%) + (4×10%) + (3×45%) can verify compliance with the alternate
PERATURE NMHC REQUIREMENTS + (2×80%) + (1×100%) = 515% and phase-in schedule established under
would be acceptable for 2008–2013. paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section.
Percentage of (B) For HLDT/MDPVs, if the sum of
HLDT/MDPVs products in paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this (6)(i) Sales percentages for the
Model year purpose of determining compliance
that must meet
requirement section is greater than or equal to 500%,
with the phase-in of the cold
which is the sum of products from the
temperature NMHC requirements must
2012 ...................................... 25 primary phase-in schedule (4×25% +
be based upon projected 50-State sales
2013 ...................................... 50 3×50% + 2×75% + 1×100% = 500%),
2014 ...................................... 75 then the alternate phase-in schedule is of LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/MDPVs of the
2015 and subsequent ........... 100 acceptable, except as prohibited in applicable model year by the
manufacturer to the point of first sale.
paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (iii) of this
(4) Alternate phase-in schedules for section. In addition, manufacturers Such sales percentages must be rounded
cold temperature NMHC standards. (i) electing to use an alternate phase-in to the nearest 0.1 percent.
Manufacturers may apply for alternate schedule for compliance with the cold (ii) Alternatively, the manufacturer
phase-in schedules that would still temperature NMHC exhaust emission may petition the Administrator to allow
result in 100% phase-in by 2013 and standards must ensure that the sum of actual volume produced for U.S. sales to
2015, respectively, for LDV/LLDTs and products is at least 100% for model be used in lieu of projected U.S. sales
HLDT/MDPVs. An alternate phase-in years 2012 and earlier for HLDT/ for purposes of determining compliance
schedule submitted by a manufacturer is MDPVs. Alternately, if the sum of with the phase-in percentage
subject to EPA approval. The alternate products is greater than or equal to requirements under this section. The
phase-in will not be used to delay full 600%, then the alternate phase-in manufacturer must submit its petition
implementation past the last year of the schedule is acceptable, except as within 30 days of the end of the model
primary phase-in schedule (2013 for prohibited in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and year. For EPA to approve the use of
LDV/LLDTs, 2015 for HLDT/MDPVs). (iii) of this section. If the sum of actual volume produced for U.S. sales,
An alternate phase-in schedule will be products is greater than or equal to the manufacturer must establish to the
acceptable if it satisfies the following 600%, then there are no requirements satisfaction of the Administrator, that
conditions (where API = Anticipated on the sum of products for model years actual production volume is
Phase-In percentage for the referenced 2012 and earlier. functionally equivalent to actual sales
model year): (iii) Under an alternate phase-in volume of LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/
LDV/LLDTs: schedule, the projected phase-in MDPVs sold in all 50 U.S. States.
(6×API2008) + (5×API2009) + (4×API2010) + percentage is not binding for a given (h) through (s) [Reserved]. For
(3×API2011) + (2×API2012) + model year, provided the sums of the guidance see § 86.1811–04.
(1×API2013) ≥ 500%, and (6×API2008) actual phase-in percentages that occur (t) [Reserved]. For guidance see
+ (5×API2009) + (4×API2010) ≥ 100% meet the appropriate total sums as
§ 86.1811–09.
HLDT/MDPVs: required in the equations of paragraph
(u) Cold temperature NMHC exhaust
(6×API2010) + (5×API2011) + (4×API2012) + (g)(4)(i) of this section, and provided emission in-use standards for applicable
(3×API2013) + (2×API2014) + that 100% actual compliance is reached
phase-in models. An interim full useful
(1×API2015) ≥ 500%, and (6×API2010) for the appropriate model year, either life in-use compliance standard is
+ (5×API2011) + (4×API2012) ≥ 100%, 2013 for LDV/LLDTs or 2015 for HLDT/ calculated by adding 0.1 g/mi to the FEL
or MDPVs.
(5) Manufacturers must determine to which each test group is newly
(6×API2010) + (5×API2011) + (4×API2012) + compliance with required phase-in certified, and applies to that test group
(3×API2013) + (2×API2014) + schedules as follows: only for the model years shown in
(1×API2015) ≥ 600% (i) Manufacturers must submit Tables S10–4 and S10–5. Otherwise, the
(ii)(A) For LDV/LLDTs, if the sum of information showing compliance with in-use standard is the certification
products in paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this all phase-in requirements of this section standard from paragraph (g)(2) of this
section is greater than or equal to 500%, with their Part I applications as required section. The standards apply for
which is the sum of products from the by § 86.1844(d)(13). purposes of in-use testing only and does
primary phase-in schedule (4×25% + (ii) A manufacturer electing to use any not apply to certification or Selective
3×50% + 2×75% + 1×100% = 500%), alternate phase-in schedule permitted Enforcement Auditing. Tables S10–4
then the alternate phase-in schedule is under this section must provide in its and S10–5 follow:
TABLE S10–4.—IN-USE STANDARDS FOR APPLICABLE PHASE-IN LDV/LLDTS

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

Model Year of Introduction 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Models years that the interim in-use standard is available ......................................................... 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2013 2014 2015
■ 21. Section 86.1823–01 is amended by (5) Subject to the same emission is required for both the worst-case cold
revising paragraph (a)(3)(i)(C) to read as standards (or FEL in the case of cold temperature CO vehicle and the worst-
follows: temperature NMHC standards), except case cold temperature NMHC vehicle.
that a manufacturer may request to ■ 24. Section 86.1829–01 is amended by
§ 86.1823–01 Durability demonstration group vehicles into the same test group
procedures for exhaust emissions. revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
as vehicles subject to more stringent follows:
* * * * * standards, so long as all the vehicles
(a) * * * within the test group are certified to the § 86.1829–01 Durability and emission
(3) * * * most stringent standards applicable to testing requirements; waivers.
(i) * * * any vehicle within that test group. * * * * *
(C) The DF calculated by these Light-duty trucks subject to the same (b) * * *
procedures will be used for determining emission standards as light-duty (3) Cold temperature CO and cold
compliance with FTP exhaust emission vehicles, with the exception of the light- temperature NMHC Testing. The
standards, SFTP exhaust emission duty truck idle CO standard and/or total manufacturer must test one EDV in each
standards, cold temperature NMHC HC standard, may be included in the durability group for cold temperature
emission standards, and cold same test group. CO and cold temperature NMHC
temperature CO emission standards. At exhaust emission compliance in
the manufacturer’s option and using * * * * *
■ 23. A new § 86.1828–10 is added to
accordance with the test procedures in
procedures approved by the subpart C of this part or with alternative
Administrator, a separate DF may be Subpart S to read as follows:
procedures approved in advance by the
calculated exclusively using cold § 86.1828–10 Emission data vehicle Administrator. The selection of which
temperature CO test data to determine selection. EDV and test group within the
compliance with cold temperature CO Section 86.1828–10 includes text that durability group will be tested for cold
emission standards. Similarly, at the specifies requirements that differ from temperature CO and cold temperature
manufacturer’s option and using § 86.1828–01. Where a paragraph in NMHC compliance will be determined
procedures approved by the § 86.1828–01 is identical and applicable under the provisions of § 86.1828–10(c)
Administrator, a separate DF may be to § 86.1828–10, this may be indicated and (g).
calculated exclusively using cold by specifying the corresponding * * * * *
temperature NMHC test data to paragraph and the statement ■ 25. Section 86.1844–01 is amended by
determine compliance with cold ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see
temperature NMHC emission standards. revising paragraph (d)(11) to read as
§ 86.1828–01.’’ Where a corresponding follows:
For determining compliance with full paragraph of § 86.1828–01 is not
useful life cold temperature NMHC applicable, this is indicated by the § 86.1844–01 Information requirements:
emission standards, the 68–86 °F statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’ application for certification and submittal of
120,000 mile full useful life NMOG DF (a) through (f) [Reserved]. For information upon request.
may be used. Also at the manufacturer’s guidance see § 86.1828–01. * * * * *
option and using procedures approved (g) Cold temperature NMHC testing. (d) * * *
by the Administrator, a separate DF may For cold temperature NMHC exhaust (11) A list of all auxiliary emission
be calculated exclusively using US06 emission compliance for each durability control devices (AECD) installed on any
and/or air conditioning (SC03) test data group, the manufacturer must select the applicable vehicles, including a
to determine compliance with the SFTP vehicle expected to emit the highest justification for each AECD, the
emission standards. NMHC emissions at 20 °F on candidate parameters they sense and control, a
* * * * * in-use vehicles from the test vehicles detailed justification of each AECD
■ 22. Section 86.1827–01 is amended by specified in § 86.1828–01(a). When the which results in a reduction in
revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as expected worst-case cold temperature effectiveness of the emission control
follows: NMHC vehicle is also the expected system, and rationale for why the AECD
worst-case cold temperature CO vehicle is not a defeat device as defined under
§ 86.1827–01 Test group determination. as selected in paragraph (c) of this §§ 86.1809–01 and 86.1809–10. For any
* * * * * section, then cold testing is required AECD uniquely used at high altitudes,
(a) * * * only for that vehicle; otherwise, testing EPA may request engineering emission
data to quantify any emission impact certificate only if the manufacturer referenced in the certificate that
and validity of the AECD. For any AECD fulfills this condition upon which the otherwise would have applied to the
uniquely used on multi-fuel vehicles certificate was issued. vehicles.
when operated on fuels other than (6) Vehicles are covered by a (i) Failure to meet the fleet average
gasoline, EPA may request engineering certificate of conformity only if they are cold temperature NMHC requirements
emission data to quantify any emission in all material respects as described in will be considered a failure to satisfy the
impact and validity of the AECD. the manufacturer’s application for terms and conditions upon which the
* * * * * certification (Part I and Part II). certificate(s) was (were) issued and the
(7) For Tier 2 and interim non-Tier 2 vehicles sold in violation of the fleet
■ 26. A new § 86.1848–10 is added to
vehicles, all certificates of conformity average NMHC standard will not be
Subpart S to read as follows: issued are conditional upon compliance covered by the certificate(s).
§ 86.1848–10 Certification. with all provisions of §§ 86.1811–04, (ii) Failure to comply fully with the
86.1860–04, 86.1861–04 and 86.1862–04 prohibition against selling credits that
Section 86.1848–10 includes text that
both during and after model year are not generated or that are not
specifies requirements that differ from
production. The manufacturer must bear available, as specified in § 86.1864–10,
§ 86.1848–01. Where a paragraph in
the burden of establishing to the will be considered a failure to satisfy the
§ 86.1848–01 is identical and applicable
satisfaction of the Administrator that the terms and conditions upon which the
to § 86.1848–10, this may be indicated
terms and conditions upon which the certificate(s) was (were) issued and the
by specifying the corresponding
certificate(s) was (were) issued were vehicles sold in violation of this
paragraph and the statement
satisfied. For recall and warranty prohibition will not be covered by the
‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see
purposes, vehicles not covered by a certificate(s).
§ 86.1848–01.’’ Where a corresponding certificate of conformity will continue to
paragraph of § 86.1848–01 is not (iii) Failure to comply fully with the
be held to the standards stated or phase-in requirements of § 86.1811–10
applicable, this is indicated by the referenced in the certificate that
statement ‘‘[Reserved].’’ will be considered a failure to satisfy the
otherwise would have applied to the terms and conditions upon which the
(a) through (b) [Reserved]. For vehicles.
guidance see § 86.1848–01. certificate(s) was (were) issued and the
(i) Failure to meet the fleet average vehicles sold that do not comply with
(c) The following conditions apply to NOX requirements of 0.07g/mi, 0.3 g/mi
all certificates: cold temperature NMHC requirements,
or 0.2 g/mi, as applicable, will be up to the number needed to comply,
(1) The manufacturer must supply all considered to be a failure to satisfy the
required information according to the will not be covered by the certificate(s).
terms and conditions upon which the (d) through (i) [Reserved]. For
provisions of §§ 86.1843–01 and certificate(s) was (were) issued and the
86.1844–01. guidance see § 86.1848–01.
vehicles sold in violation of the fleet
(2) The manufacturer must comply ■ 27. A new § 86.1864–10 is added to
average NOX standard will not be
with all certification and in-use Subpart S to read as follows:
covered by the certificate(s).
emission standards contained in (ii) Failure to comply fully with the § 86.1864–10 How to comply with the fleet
subparts S and H of this part both prohibition against selling credits that it average cold temperature NMHC standards.
during and after model year production. has not generated or that are not (a) Applicability. Cold temperature
(3) The manufacturer must comply available, as specified in § 86.1861–04, NMHC exhaust emission standards
with all implementation schedules sales will be considered to be a failure to apply to the following vehicles, subject
percentages as required in § 86.1810 or satisfy the terms and conditions upon to the phase-in requirements in
elsewhere in this part. Failure to meet which the certificate(s) was (were) § 86.1811–10(g)(3) and (4):
a required implementation schedule issued and the vehicles sold in violation (1) 2010 and later model year LDV/
sales percentage will be considered to of this prohibition will not be covered LLDTs.
be a failure to satisfy a condition upon by the certificate(s). (2) 2012 and later model year HLDT/
which the certificate was issued and any (iii) Failure to comply fully with the MDPVs.
vehicles or trucks sold in violation of phase-in requirements of § 86.1811–04, (3) Aftermarket conversion systems as
the implementation schedule are not to will be considered to be a failure to defined in 40 CFR 85.502, including
be covered by the certificate. satisfy the terms and conditions upon conversion of MDPVs.
(4) For incomplete light-duty trucks which the certificate(s) was (were) (4) Vehicles imported by ICIs as
and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles, a issued and the vehicles sold which do defined in 40 CFR 85.1502.
certificate covers only those new motor not comply with Tier 2 or interim non- (b) Useful life requirements. Full
vehicles that, when completed by Tier 2 requirements, up to the number useful life requirements for cold
having the primary load-carrying device needed to comply, will not be covered temperature NMHC standards are
or container attached, conform to the by the certificate(s). defined in § 86.1805–04(g). There is not
maximum curb weight and frontal area (8) For LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/ an intermediate useful life standard for
limitations described in the application MDPVs, all certificates of conformity cold temperature NMHC standards.
for certification as required in issued are conditional upon compliance (c) Altitude. Altitude requirements for
§ 86.1844–01. with all provisions of §§ 86.1811–10 and cold temperature NMHC standards are
(5) The manufacturer must meet the 86.1864–10 both during and after model provided in § 86.1810–09(f).
in-use testing and reporting year production. The manufacturer (d) Small volume manufacturer
requirements contained in §§ 86.1845– bears the burden of establishing to the certification procedures. Certification
01, 86.1846–01, and 86.1847–01, as satisfaction of the Administrator that the procedures for small volume
applicable. Failure to meet the in-use terms and conditions upon which the manufacturers are provided in
testing or reporting requirements shall certificate(s) was (were) issued were § 86.1838–01.
be considered a failure to satisfy a satisfied. For recall and warranty (e) Cold temperature NMHC
condition upon which the certificate purposes, vehicles not covered by a standards. Fleet average cold
was issued. A vehicle or truck is certificate of conformity will continue to temperature NMHC standards are
considered to be covered by the be held to the standards stated or provided in § 86.1811–10(g)(2).
(f) Phase-in. Phase-in of the cold in the application for certification, in test group to meet the emission standard
temperature NMHC standards are accordance with §§ 86.1844–01(d)(11) or FEL to which the vehicles were
provided in § 86.1811–10(g)(3) and (4). and 86.1810–09(f), stating what the certified.
(g) Phase-in flexibilities for small different strategies are and why they are (3) Each manufacturer must comply
volume manufacturers. Phase-in used. For example, unless a with the applicable cold temperature
flexibilities for small volume manufacturer states otherwise, air NMHC fleet average standard on a sales-
manufacturer compliance with the cold pumps used to control emissions on weighted average basis, at the end of
temperature NMHC standards are dedicated gasoline vehicles or multi- each model year, using the procedure
provided in § 86.1811–04(k)(5). fuel vehicles during low altitude described in paragraph (m) of this
(h) Hardship provisions for small conditions must also be used to control section.
volume manufacturers. Hardship emissions at high altitude conditions, (4) During a phase-in year, the
provisions for small volume and software used to control emissions manufacturer must comply with the
manufacturers related to the cold or closed loop operation must also applicable cold temperature NMHC fleet
temperature NMHC standards are operate similarly at low and high average standard for the required phase-
provided in § 86.1811–04(q)(1). altitude conditions and similarly when in percentage for that year as specified
(i) In-use standards for applicable multi-fueled vehicles are operated on in § 86.1811–10(g)(3) or (4).
phase-in models. In-use cold gasoline and alternate fuels. These (5) Manufacturers must compute
temperature NMHC standards for examples are for illustrative purposes separate cold temperature NMHC fleet
applicable phase-in models are only; similar strategies would apply to averages for LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/
provided in § 86.1811–10(u). other currently used emission control MDPVs. The sales-weighted cold
(j) Durability procedures and method technologies and/or emerging or future temperature NMHC fleet averages must
of determining deterioration factors technologies. be compared with the applicable fleet
(DFs). The durability data vehicle (l) Emission data vehicle (EDV) average standard.
selection procedures of § 86.1822–01 selection. Provisions for selecting the (6) Each manufacturer must comply
and the durability demonstration appropriate EDV for the cold on an annual basis with the fleet average
procedures of § 86.1823–06 apply for temperature NMHC standards are standards as follows:
cold temperature NMHC standards. For provided in §§ 86.1828–10(g) and (i) Manufacturers must report in their
determining compliance with full useful 86.1829–01(b)(3). annual reports to the Agency that they
life cold temperature NMHC emission (m) Calculating the fleet average cold met the relevant corporate average
standards, the 68–86 °F, 120,000 mile temperature NMHC standard. standard by showing that their sales-
full useful life NMOG DF may be used. Manufacturers must compute separate weighted average cold temperature
(k) Vehicle test procedure. (1) The test sales-weighted fleet average cold NMHC emissions of LDV/LLDTs and
procedure for demonstrating temperature NMHC emissions at the end HLDT/MDPVs, as applicable, are at or
compliance with cold temperature of the model year for LDV/LLDTs and below the applicable fleet average
NMHC standards is contained in HLDT/MDPVs, using actual sales, and standard;
subpart C of this part. With prior EPA certifying test groups to FELs, as defined (ii) If the sales-weighted average is
approval, alternative testing procedures in § 86.1803–01. The FEL becomes the above the applicable fleet average
may be used, as specified in § 86.106– standard for each test group, and every standard, manufacturers must obtain
96(a), provided cold temperature NMHC test group can have a different FEL. The and apply sufficient NMHC credits as
emissions test results are equivalent or certification resolution for the FEL will permitted under paragraph (o)(8) of this
superior. be 0.1 grams/mile. LDVs and LLDTs section. A manufacturer must show via
(2) Testing of all LDVs, LDTs and must be grouped together when the use of credits that they have offset
MDPVs to determine compliance with calculating the fleet average, and HLDTs any exceedence of the corporate average
cold temperature NMHC exhaust and MDPVs must also be grouped standard. Manufacturers must also
emission standards set forth in this together to determine the fleet average. include their credit balances or deficits.
section must be on a loaded vehicle Manufacturers must compute the sales- (iii) If a manufacturer fails to meet the
weight (LVW) basis, as defined in weighted cold temperature NMHC fleet corporate average cold temperature
§ 86.1803–01. averages using the following equation, NMHC standard for two consecutive
(3) Testing for the purpose of rounded to the nearest 0.1 grams/mile: years, the vehicles causing the corporate
providing certification data is required average exceedence will be considered
Fleet average cold temperature NMHC
only at low altitude conditions and only not covered by the certificate of
exhaust emissions (grams/mile) =
for vehicles that can operate on conformity (see paragraph (o)(8) of this
S(N × FEL) ÷ Total number of
gasoline, except as requested in section). A manufacturer will be subject
vehicles sold of the applicable
§§ 86.1810–09(f) and 86.1844–01(d)(11). to penalties on an individual-vehicle
weight category (i.e., either LDV +
If hardware and software emission basis for sale of vehicles not covered by
LLDTs, or HLDT + MDPVs)
control strategies used during low Where: a certificate.
altitude condition testing are not used N = The number of LDVs and LLDTs, or (iv) EPA will review each
similarly across all altitudes for in-use HLDTs and MDPVs, sold within the manufacturer’s sales to designate the
operation, the manufacturer must applicable FEL, based on vehicles vehicles that caused the exceedence of
include a statement in the application counted to the point of first sale. the corporate average standard. EPA
for certification, in accordance with FEL = Family Emission Limit (grams/mile). will designate as nonconforming those
§§ 86.1844–01(d)(11) and 86.1810–09(f), (n) Certification compliance and vehicles in test groups with the highest
stating what the different strategies are enforcement requirements for cold certification emission values first,
and why they are used. If hardware and temperature NMHC standards. (1) continuing until reaching a number of
software emission control strategies Compliance and enforcement vehicles equal to the calculated number
used during testing with gasoline are requirements are provided in § 86.1864– of noncomplying vehicles as determined
not used similarly with all fuels that can 10 and § 86.1848–10(c)(8). above. In a group where only a portion
be used in multi-fuel vehicles, the (2) The certificate issued for each test of vehicles would be deemed
manufacturer will include a statement group requires all vehicles within that nonconforming, EPA will determine the
actual nonconforming vehicles by average calculated according to (ii) The use of credits shall not be
counting backwards from the last paragraph (m) of this section. permitted to address Selective
vehicle produced in that test group. Total Number of Vehicles Sold = Total 50- Enforcement Auditing or in-use testing
State sales based on the point of first
Manufacturers will be liable for sale.
failures. The enforcement of the
penalties for each vehicle sold that is averaging standard occurs through the
not covered by a certificate. (5) The following provisions apply for vehicle’s certificate of conformity. A
(o) Requirements for the cold early banking: manufacturer’s certificate of conformity
temperature NMHC averaging, banking (i) Manufacturers may certify LDV/ is conditioned upon compliance with
and trading (ABT) program. (1) LLDTs to the cold temperature NMHC the averaging provisions. The certificate
Manufacturers must average the cold exhaust standards in § 86.1811–10(g)(2) will be void ab initio if a manufacturer
temperature NMHC emissions of their for model years 2008–2009 to bank fails to meet the corporate average
vehicles and comply with the cold credits for use in the 2010 and later standard and does not obtain
temperature NMHC fleet average model years. Manufacturers may certify appropriate credits to cover its shortfalls
corporate standard. Manufacturers may HLDT/MDPVs to the cold temperature in that model year or in the subsequent
generate credits during and after the NMHC exhaust standards in § 86.1811– model year (see deficit carryforward
phase-in period. Manufacturers may 10(g)(2) for model years 2010–2011 to provision in paragraph (o)(8) of this
generate credits prior to the phase-in bank credits for use in the 2012 and section). Manufacturers must track their
periods as described in paragraph (o)(5) later model years. certification levels and sales unless they
of this section. A manufacturer whose (ii) This process is referred to as produce only vehicles certified to cold
cold temperature NMHC fleet average ‘‘early banking’’ and the resultant temperature NMHC levels below the
emissions exceed the applicable credits are referred to as ‘‘early credits.’’ standard and do not plan to bank
standard must complete the calculation To bank early credits, a manufacturer credits.
in paragraph (o)(4) of this section to must comply with all exhaust emission (8) The following provisions apply if
determine the size of its NMHC credit standards and requirements applicable debits are accrued:
deficit. A manufacturer whose cold to LDV/LLDTs and/or HLDT/MDPVs. To (i) If a manufacturer calculates that it
temperature NMHC fleet average generate early credits, a manufacturer has negative credits (also called
emissions are less than the applicable must separately compute the sales- ‘‘debits’’ or a ‘‘credit deficit’’) for a given
standard must complete the calculation weighted cold temperature NMHC model year, it may carry that deficit
in paragraph (o)(4) of this section to average of the LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/ forward into the next model year. Such
generate NMHC credits. MDPVs it certifies to the exhaust a carry-forward may only occur after the
(2) There are no property rights requirements and separately compute manufacturer exhausts any supply of
associated with NMHC credits generated credits using the calculations in banked credits. At the end of that next
under this subpart. Credits are a limited paragraph (o)(4) of this section. Early model year, the deficit must be covered
authorization to emit the designated HLDT/MDPV credits may not be applied with an appropriate number of credits
amount of emissions. Nothing in this to LDV/LLDTs before the 2010 model that the manufacturer generates or
part or any other provision of law year. Early LDV/LLDT credits may not purchases. Any remaining deficit is
should be construed to limit EPA’s be applied to HLDT/ MDPV before the subject to an enforcement action, as
authority to terminate or limit this 2012 model year. described in this paragraph (o)(8).
authorization through a rulemaking. (6) NMHC credits are not subject to Manufacturers are not permitted to have
(3) Each manufacturer must comply any discount or expiration date except a credit deficit for two consecutive
with the reporting and recordkeeping as required under the deficit years.
requirements of paragraph (p) of this carryforward provisions of paragraph (ii) If debits are not offset within the
section for NMHC credits, including (o)(8) of this section. There is no specified time period, the number of
early credits. The averaging, banking discounting of unused credits. NMHC vehicles not meeting the fleet average
and trading program is enforceable credits have unlimited lives, subject to cold temperature NMHC standards (and
through the certificate of conformity the limitations of paragraph (o)(2) of this therefore not covered by the certificate)
that allows the manufacturer to section. must be calculated by dividing the total
introduce any regulated vehicles into (7) Credits may be used as follows: amount of debits for the model year by
commerce. (i) Credits generated and calculated the fleet average cold temperature
(4) Credits are earned on the last day according to the method in paragraph NMHC standard applicable for the
of the model year. Manufacturers must (o)(4) of this section may be used only model year in which the debits were
calculate, for a given model year, the to offset deficits accrued with respect to first incurred.
number of credits or debits it has the standard in § 86.1811–10(g)(2). (iii) EPA will determine the number
generated according to the following Credits may be banked and used in a of vehicles for which the condition on
equation, rounded to the nearest 0.1 future model year in which a the certificate was not satisfied by
grams/mile: manufacturer’s average cold designating vehicles in those test groups
NMHC Credits or Debits = (Cold temperature NMHC level exceeds the with the highest certification cold
Temperature NMHC Standard— applicable standard. Credits may be temperature NMHC emission values
Manufacturer’s Sales-Weighted exchanged between the LDT/LLDT and first and continuing until reaching a
Fleet Average Cold Temperature HLDT/MDPV fleets of a given number of vehicles equal to the
NMHC Emissions) × (Total Number manufacturer. Credits may also be calculated number of noncomplying
of Vehicles Sold) traded to another manufacturer vehicles as determined above. If this
according to the provisions in paragraph calculation determines that only a
Where: (o)(9) of this section. Before trading or portion of vehicles in a test group
Cold Temperature NMHC Standard = 0.3 carrying over credits to the next model contribute to the debit situation, then
grams/mile for LDV/LLDTs or 0.5 grams/
mile for HLDT/MDPV, per § 86.1811– year, a manufacturer must apply EPA will designate actual vehicles in
10(g)(2). available credits to offset any credit that test group as not covered by the
Manufacturer’s Sales-Weighted Fleet Average deficit, where the deadline to offset that certificate, starting with the last vehicle
Cold Temperature NMHC Emissions = credit deficit has not yet passed. produced and counting backwards.
(iv)(A) If a manufacturer ceases following information in adequately and sufficient information to show
production of LDV/LLDTs and HLDT/ organized records for each model year: compliance with all phase-in or
MDPVs, the manufacturer continues to (A) Model year. alternate phase-in requirements.
be responsible for offsetting any debits (B) Applicable fleet average cold (ii) For each applicable fleet average
outstanding within the required time temperature NMHC standards. cold temperature NMHC standard, the
period. Any failure to offset the debits (C) Fleet average cold temperature annual report must also include
will be considered a violation of NMHC value. documentation on all credit transactions
paragraph (o)(8)(i) of this section and (D) All values used in calculating the the manufacturer has engaged in since
may subject the manufacturer to an fleet average cold temperature NMHC those included in the last report.
enforcement action for sale of vehicles value. Information for each transaction must
not covered by a certificate, pursuant to (ii) Manufacturers producing any include all of the following:
paragraphs (o)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, or
medium-duty passenger vehicles subject (A) Name of credit provider.
section.
(B) If a manufacturer is purchased by, to the provisions in this subpart must (B) Name of credit recipient.
merges with, or otherwise combines establish, maintain, and retain all the (C) Date the trade occurred.
with another manufacturer, the following information in adequately (D) Quantity of credits traded.
controlling entity is responsible for organized records for each LDV/T or (E) Model year in which the credits
offsetting any debits outstanding within MDPV subject to this subpart: were earned.
the required time period. Any failure to (A) Model year.
(iii) Unless a manufacturer reports the
offset the debits will be considered a (B) Applicable fleet average cold
data required by this section in the
violation of paragraph (o)(8)(i) of this temperature NMHC standard.
(C) EPA test group. annual production report required
section and may subject the
(D) Assembly plant. under § 86.1844–01(e), a manufacturer
manufacturer to an enforcement action
(E) Vehicle identification number. must submit an annual report for each
for sale of vehicles not covered by a
(F) Cold temperature NMHC FEL to model year after production ends for all
certificate, pursuant to paragraphs
which the LDV, LDT, or MDPV is affected vehicles produced by the
(o)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(v) For purposes of calculating the certified. manufacturer subject to the provisions
statute of limitations, a violation of the (G) Information on the point of first of this subpart and no later than May 1
requirements of paragraph (o)(8)(i) of sale, including the purchaser, city, and of the calendar year following the given
this section, a failure to satisfy the state. model year. Annual reports must be
conditions upon which a certificate(s) (iii) Manufacturers must retain all submitted to: Director, Compliance and
was issued and hence a sale of vehicles required records for a period of eight Innovative Strategies Division, U.S.
not covered by the certificate, all occur years from the due date for the annual Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
upon the expiration of the deadline for report. Records may be stored in any Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan
offsetting debits specified in paragraph format and on any media, as long as 48105.
(o)(8)(i) of this section. manufacturers can promptly send EPA (iv) Failure by a manufacturer to
(9) The following provisions apply to organized, written records in English if submit the annual report in the
NMHC credit trading: we ask for them. Manufacturers must specified time period for all vehicles
(i) EPA may reject NMHC credit keep records readily available as EPA subject to the provisions in this section
trades if the involved manufacturers fail may review them at any time. is a violation of section 203(a)(1) of the
to submit the credit trade notification in (iv) The Administrator may require Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522 (a)(1)) for
the annual report. A manufacturer may the manufacturer to retain additional each applicable vehicle produced by
not sell credits that are not available for records or submit information not that manufacturer.
sale pursuant to the provisions in specifically required by this section. (v) If EPA or the manufacturer
paragraphs (o)(7)(i) of this section. (v) Pursuant to a request made by the determines that a reporting error
(ii) In the event of a negative credit Administrator, the manufacturer must occurred on an annual report previously
balance resulting from a transaction that submit to the Administrator the submitted to EPA, the manufacturer’s
a manufacturer could not cover by the information that the manufacturer is credit or debit calculations will be
reporting deadline for the model year in required to retain. recalculated. EPA may void erroneous
which the trade occurred, both the (vi) EPA may void ab initio a credits, unless traded, and will adjust
buyer and seller are liable, except in certificate of conformity for vehicles erroneous debits. In the case of traded
cases involving fraud. EPA may void ab certified to emission standards as set erroneous credits, EPA must adjust the
initio the certificates of conformity of all forth or otherwise referenced in this selling manufacturer’s credit balance to
engine families participating in such a subpart for which the manufacturer fails reflect the sale of such credits and any
trade. to retain the records required in this resulting credit deficit.
(iii) A manufacturer may only trade section or to provide such information
(3) Notice of opportunity for hearing.
credits that it has generated pursuant to to the Administrator upon request.
Any revoking of the certificate under
paragraph (o)(4) of this section or (2) Reporting. (i) Each covered
paragraph (p)(1)(vi) of this section will
acquired from another party. manufacturer must submit an annual
be made only after EPA has offered the
(p) Maintenance of records and report. The annual report must contain
affected manufacturer an opportunity
submittal of information relevant to for each applicable cold temperature
for a hearing conducted in accordance
compliance with fleet average cold NMHC standard, the calculated fleet
with § 86.614–84 for light-duty vehicles
temperature NMHC standards. (1) average cold temperature NMHC value,
or § 86.1014–84 for light-duty trucks
Maintenance of records. (i) all values required to calculate the cold
and, if a manufacturer requests such a

Manufacturers producing any light-duty temperature NMHC emissions value, the
hearing, will be made only after an
vehicles, light-duty trucks, or medium- number of credits generated or debits
initial decision by the Presiding Officer.
duty passenger vehicles subject to the incurred, all the values required to
provisions in this subpart must calculate the credits or debits, the [FR Doc. E7–2667 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am]
establish, maintain, and retain all the resulting balance of credits or debits, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Monday,

February 26, 2007

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

I. Summary 2. Health Risk Associated With MSATs

3. What Are the Health Effects of Air A. Introduction a. Overview

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

effects (noncancer).8 We estimated this level of ‘‘lower’’ based on consideration of the

11 U.S. EPA. 2007. The HAPEM6 User’s Guide.

benzene, an aromatic hydrocarbon, as a Washington, DC for the Office of Air Quality

metabolism. Chem Biol Interact. 153–154:103–109. of recognizable hematopoietic cells up to seven

58 EPA 2005 ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-

lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/

78 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003)

relevant traffic patterns, the role of co- available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036.

and an improvement in visibility is a decrease in

1997 PM2.5 Standards: 39 areas currently designated ............................................................................................. 208 88,394,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................................... 257 106,592,676

126 Reduction in fuel benzene will reduce

emissions through the whole distribution chain.

MSAT 1999 Without With Without Without

Gasoline Onroad Mobile

Benzene 1999 Without With Without Without

Gasoline Onroad Mobile

127 Napthalene reductions from controls in this

rule are not quantified, due to limitations in

VOC Without Rule (tons) ................................................................................................. 5,224,921 2,944,491 2,892,134 3,281,752

128 U.S. EPA. 2005. Cold-temperature exhaust

particulate matter emissions. Memorandum from

1999 2010 2015 2020 2030

3. PFC Standards PFC standard. In 2015, VOC emissions

estimate the effects of the emission

a. Gasoline Sulfur requirements will also provide

www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/index.htm. 133 65 FR 6697, February 10, 2000.

139 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004 (standards for non-

TABLE V.B–1.—20 °F FTP EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

fuel economy labeling, (71 FR 77872, December 27,

(Euro4), many manufacturers responded

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

148 Memo to docket ‘‘Discussions Regarding Automotive Manufacturers and Suppliers of

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

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

TABLE V.C–1.—FINAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

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

TABLE V.C–3.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LDVS/LLDTS

Models Years That Tier 2 2009 2010 2011

TABLE V.C–3.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LDVS/LLDTS—Continued

Standards Apply to In-use Vehicles ............................................................................................ 2010 2011 2012

TABLE V.C–4.—SCHEDULE FOR IN-USE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HLDTS/MDPVS

vehicles per year) include ICIs, alternative fuel

178 Although this program will supersede several

octane in the gasoline pool of about 0.14

only is lost octane replaced by other

other gasoline parameters for every January 1, 2011, we believe that

early credits because, unlike refineries,

by the refinery cost model and future growth rates

December 31, 2007. The application

MSAT2 program, 2011 c (Fuel + vehicle standards) ....... 2011 64 72 48 56 74 47 70 78

published a Federal Register notice that

finalizing durability tests that are based

programs in the long term.

standard in January 2015 at the same time as the

Cost (c/gal) ....................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.35 0.15 0.55 1.21 0.268

program with a nationwide 0.60 vol%