May 30, 2006

[BY EMAIL AND FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION;]{.underline}

[HARD COPY TO FOLLOW]{.underline}

Air Docket

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 6102T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

*Attention: EPA Public Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0036*

> Re: Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Proposed
> Rule; Published on March 29, 2006 (70 Fed. Reg. 15,803)

The signatories below appreciate the opportunity to submit written
comments on EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking to establish standards
for benzene and other hazardous air pollution from mobile sources,
referenced above. We are non-profit, non-governmental and non-partisan
health and environmental organizations. We are commenting on behalf of
hundreds of thousands of members and supporters that live in communities
across the country that would benefit from cleaner, healthier air if EPA
finalizes a more protective MSAT rule. We respectfully and strongly
believe that as an acutely toxic air pollutant, benzene should be more
effectively controlled than EPA has proposed. All of the documents cited
in these comments are hereby incorporated by reference as part of these
comments and as part of the administrative record for this rulemaking
proceeding.

**BENZENE CAUSES OR CONTRIBUTES TO SERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS**

Exposure to benzene presents a serious risk to human health. It is
responsible for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects through
all routes of exposure, and is found in considerable concentrations in
communities throughout the United States.

> **Benzene is one of the largest contributors to cancer risks from air
> toxics in the ambient air**

The toxicity and prevalence of benzene make it a major threat to public
health. Benzene is one of the most significant contributors to cancer
risk of all air toxics in the ambient air, according to EPA's NATA for
1999.[^1] Assuming continuous exposure to 1999 levels of all outdoor air
toxics, the nationwide lifetime population cancer risk was 42 per
million. Benzene was responsible for 24% of this cancer risk, and was
responsible for 45% of the total inhalation cancer risk from mobile
source air toxics.[^2]

Benzene exposure is associated primarily with cancers of the
hematopoetic, or blood cell, system. Specifically, exposure to benzene
can cause acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic
leukemia.[^3] While the majority of epidemiological studies of the
health effects of benzene have taken place in occupational environments,
there is also evidence for an association between benzene and leukemia
at ambient levels of exposure.[^4] EPA estimates that exposure to 1
μg/m^3^ benzene over the course of a lifetime leads to two to eight
excess leukemia cases per million people.[^5]

Much of the risk associated with benzene is attributable to emissions
from mobile sources. In 1999, 68 percent of benzene emissions nationwide
were from mobile sources.[^6] In the coming years, mobile sources will
continue to be a major source of benzene. They will account for 22
percent of total air toxic emissions, and 44 percent of benzene
emissions in 2020.[^7]

Because benzene is emitted primarily by mobile sources, concentrations
are elevated near major roadways.[^8] This is a significant health
consideration; in 2003 12.6 percent of U.S. housing units were within
300 feet of a major transportation source.[^9] EPA cites dozens of
studies showing increased benzene exposure for people who spend time on
or near major roadways. These groups include regular commuters and
highway patrol officers, people who live near major roadways, and
children who go to school near major traffic sources. Additionally,
people who have garages attached to their homes are exposed to elevated
concentrations of benzene and other air toxics.[^10]

Spending time near roadways also increases the risk of adverse health
effects associated with benzene exposure. A 2004 study from northern
Italy found that children whose homes were heavily exposed to benzene
from nearby road traffic were more likely to develop childhood leukemia
than children with less traffic related benzene exposure.[^11]

**Benzene causes dangerous non-cancer health effects**

There are also significant non-carcinogenic, adverse health effects
associated with exposure to benzene. First, benzene is known to cause a
variety of hematological disorders, including aplastic anemia and
pancytopenia.[^12] Additionally, benzene exposure has been associated
with the onset and exacerbation of asthma in children.[^13] Benzene
exposure is also responsible for reproductive health effects. It has
been found to cause damage to sperm DNA and increase the risk of
spontaneous abortion for pregnant women.[^14]

**STRONG BENZENE STANDARDS ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH**

Our organizations support EPA's proposal to implement an annual average
national gasoline benzene standard for reformulated gasoline (RFG) and
conventional gasoline (CG). As was the goal of the previous RFG and
Anti-dumping rules, we agree that in order to make comprehensive
reductions in benzene, it is necessary to limit the toxic benzene
composition of both fuels. We also believe that EPA's proposal falls
short of an effective and comprehensive national program to protect
human health from benzene and we therefore respectfully recommend EPA
significantly strengthen its benzene pollution control standards in
adopting the final rule.

**EPA's national benzene standard must be more protective**

We believe that the annual average standard of 0.62% vol is not adequate
to protect public health from the deleterious effects of benzene.
Benzene is one of the most harmful toxics and the most significant
contributor to cancer risk from all outdoor air toxics -- second only to
diesel engine exhaust. As EPA explains in the notice of proposed
rulemaking and the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), all four of the
technologies used to achieve benzene reductions in gasoline "have been
demonstrated in many refineries since the mid-90s in the U.S. and should
be considered by the refining community as commercially proven
technologies" (RIA, 6-30). Moreover, these technologies have been in use
for about a decade to meet the standards required under the RFG rules
(70 Fed. Reg. at 15,887). We believe that an average annual standard of
0.52 vol%, as proposed by EPA as an alternative, is feasible and
necessary to protect public health. We recommend EPA adopt this standard
in the final rule.

As EPA points out, the average level of benzene in RFG is currently at
0.62 vol%. Further, once the proposed rule is fully implemented, average
national benzene levels will be reduced by only 36 percent (70 Fed. Reg.
at 15,868). By contrast, EPA has shown that available technology,
primarily benzene saturation and benzene extraction, are able to reduce
benzene levels by 96 percent. And a refinery-by-refinery model found
that both technologies were able to reduce benzene levels to 0.50 vol%.
While it is argued that the use of benzene extraction is limited to
refineries on the East and Gulf Coasts, EPA explains that the use of
benzene saturation is not limited and "each refinery in the U.S. is able
to install one of these two benzene control technologies" (RIA, 6-32).
Therefore, the administrative record demonstrates that an average annual
benzene level of 0.52 vol% is achievable by all refineries (RIA, 6-31).

**A more protective standard is economically reasonable**

EPA claims that the lower annual average was not proposed due to cost
restrictions. While a 0.52 vol% standard may impose slightly greater
costs, there are important human health benefits that would result. EPA
has failed to quantify or monetize the human health or environmental
benefits of the reduction in air toxics. EPA explains "...we are unable
to estimate the benefits from reduced air toxics exposures because the
available tools and methods to assess mobile source air toxics risk at
the national scale are not adequate for extrapolation to incidence
estimations or benefits assessment." (70 Fed. Reg. at 15,910). But the
human health impacts of benzene and EPA's own exposure data generated
under NATA are manifest in qualitatively demonstrating that significant
human health benefits would be realized from a more protective standard.

Moreover, EPA\'s stated reason for refusing to set stronger average
standards is that they would be \"very challenging economically for many
refineries\" (70 Fed. Reg. 15,866). However, Clean Air Act section
202(l)(2) requires that "regulations shall contain standards . . . which
the Administrator determines reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology which will be
available, taking into consideration . . . the availability and costs of
the technology, and noise, energy, and safety factors, and lead time."
[42 U.S.C.S. §
7521](http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=42+USCS+%A7+7521)(l)(2).
The operative legal language is not whether stronger standards would be
\"challenging," but whether they would be \"achievable.\" EPA clearly
states in the notice of proposed rulemaking that "... a standard at this
level would require all refiners to invest in the most effective
technologies used today that remove the benzene from their reformate
product streams (benzene saturation and benzene extraction, as discussed
below). If the ABT program were fully utilized (all credits generated
were used), we believe all refiners might comply with this average
standard" (70 Fed. Reg. 15,866). In short, a 0.52vol% standard is
achievable for the refining industry, as a whole, and therefore anything
less than a 0.52% standard would not reflect the greatest achievable
degree of reduction required under the Clean Air Act.

We would also like to point out the extraordinary profit margins of
refiners that would more than allow for the very modest investments in
vital human health protection. This year, Exxon Mobil made nearly \$37
billion in profits, up over 42 percent from 2004, while Conoco Phillips
made nearly \$14 billion, an increase of 66 percent since 2004 (Fortune
500, *Our Annual Ranking of America's Largest Corporations*, 2006).
These exuberant profits are consistent among most of the nation's
refiners. Meanwhile, the difference in aggregate capital cost between
the 0.62 vol% standard proposed by EPA and the more stringent 0.52 vol%
standard is \$375 million (RIA, 9-35, Table 9.6-5), a cost to be shared
by up to 115 refineries. Therefore, although Clean Air Act section
202(l)(2) requires EPA to look at the costs of the technology, it is
clear that these modest capital costs are certainly economically
reasonable in contrast to refiners' annual profits.

Further, the cost of reducing benzene in fuel to 0.52 vol% is
significantly less expensive than the cost of reducing sulfur in
gasoline, as was finalized in the Tier 2 gasoline rule. EPA estimates
the per-gallon cost of the 0.52 vol% standard to be 0.36 cents/gallon in
2002 dollars (RIA, 9-35; Table 9.6-5). The per-gallon cost of the 30ppm
Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard was estimated by EPA to be 1.7
cents/gallon in 1997 dollars (Tier 2 gasoline RIA, V-61). When adjusted
for inflation, the sulfur in gasoline limits cost 1.9 cents/gallon in
2002 dollars.[^15] Therefore, the additional significant protections
from lowering benzene emissions could be achieved at a small fraction of
other highly cost-effective fuels programs such as the limits on sulfur
in gasoline.

**WE BELIEVE JANUARY 1, 2011 START DATE FOR A 0.52% STANDARD IS
REASONABLE**

The Clean Air Act section 202(l)(2) asks EPA to consider lead time when
promulgating MSAT standards, stating that EPA should take "into
consideration . . . the availability and costs of the technology, and
noise, energy, and safety factors, and lead time." So, EPA is proposing
a start date of January 1, 2011 to meet an annual average benzene
standard of 0.62 vol%. EPA explains that up to 3.5 years could be needed
for the installation of saturation or extraction technology. We believe
that a January 1, 2011 start date is also suitable to meet a 0.52 vol%
standard. As discussed earlier, the average benzene content of RFG is
currently at 0.62 vol%. In addition, the technology needed to meet the
0.62 vol% standard is the same technology required to meet the more
protective 0.52 vol% standard (RIA, 6-32). Therefore, no additional
technology requirements would be needed before January 1, 2011. The only
difference would be that more manufacturers would be required to install
the benzene reducing technology within the same lead-time. For these
reasons, we support a start date of January 1, 2011 for a 0.52 vol%
standard.

**TO PREVENT BACKSLIDING IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT EPA RETAIN THE PER GALLON
CAP FOR RFG**

We respectfully urge EPA to retain the 1.3 vol% annual per-gallon cap
for RFG under 40 CFR 80.41 (70 Fed. Reg. at 15,870). Manufacturers are
already meeting this standard under the current RFG rule. Retaining the
cap will impose no new costs. At the same time, we believe it is crucial
to retain this standard in order to prevent backsliding. Retaining the
per-gallon cap on RFG will prevent manufacturers from increasing benzene
in RFG as part of their strategy for achieving the combined average
standard for RFG and CG. By comparison, California currently has a 1.1
vol% per gallon cap for RFG, while South Korea, Japan and the European
Union have, or will shortly have, a 1.0 vol% cap (70 Fed. Reg. 15,867.
Table VII-C-1). This illustrates the viability of maintaining the
per-gallon cap for RFG currently in place in the U.S. and the
international fuels harmonization that would result from maintaining the
protections currently in effect.

We are also disappointed that EPA did not thoughtfully analyze options
for establishing a per-gallon cap on CG and the implications of such a
policy. We firmly believe that a per-gallon cap is necessary to protect
all Americans, in all areas of the country, from extremely high levels
of a known carcinogen that would result from credit trading. A
per-gallon benzene cap on both RFG and CG would ensure that no refiner
is allowed to sell fuel above 1.3vol%. EPA argues that a per-gallon
benzene limit would have to be so high (to accommodate all refiners)
that it wouldn\'t provide the greatest achievable degree of reduction
(70 Fed. Reg.15,865). However, Clean Air Act section 202(l)(2) requires
that "\[t\]he regulations shall contain standards for such fuels or
vehicles, or both, which the Administrator determines reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application
of technology which will be available. . .", as opposed to what's
convenient for every refiner as EPA suggests. [42 U.S.C.S. §
7521](http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=42+USCS+%A7+7521)(l)(2).
Further, EPA failed to explain why variability between refiners shows
that a meaningful per-gallon cap couldn\'t be achieved. We respectfully
request that EPA conduct such analysis and engage in a dialogue with key
stakeholders on this issue well before issuing its final rule.

**EPA'S PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR TRADING BENZENE PUTS HUMAN HEALTH AT RISK**

While ABT programs can be an effective policy tool for securing
pollution reductions in a cost-effective manner, EPA's proposed ABT
program for benzene is contrary to good public policy and fails to
adequately protect human health. As discussed above, benzene is the one
of the most significant contributors to cancer risk from all outdoor air
toxics and is second only to diesel engine exhaust. Benzene is
associated with a suite of serious adverse health effects. Further, the
benzene risks from mobile sources can vary sharply depending on where
people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they engage.
People who live or work near major roads, or people that spend a large
amount of time in vehicles, are likely to have significantly higher
exposures and higher risks. As explained in EPA's proposed rule, a
substantial number of studies show elevated concentrations of benzene
and other MSATs in close proximity to major roads. In short, benzene is
a toxic air pollutant and the variations in emissions and concentrations
permitted under EPA's proposed rule allow for hot spots and disparate
exposures of a serious hazardous air pollutant across different regions
and communities. We urge EPA to revise and strengthen its proposal when
it takes final action to ensure that all Americans are effectively
protected from this toxic contaminant. EPA has failed to explain how its
proposed rule is consistent with it's duty to establish standards under
202(l)(2) and other provisions of the CAA. [42 U.S.C.S. §
7521](http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=42+USCS+%A7+7521)(l)(2).
A strengthened national limit on benzene and a per-gallon cap to prevent
backsliding are essential elements of an EPA program to more rigorously
protect millions against disparate exposures to this hazardous air
pollutant.

**IF EPA RELIES ON THE ABT PROGRAM THEN A STRENGTHENED NATIONAL AVERAGE
BENZENE LIMIT [TOGETHER WITH]{.underline} A MAXIMUM AVERAGE REFINERY
STANDARD IS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH FROM HARMFUL BENZENE
EXPOSURE**

We are deeply concerned that the lack of an upper limit standard for
benzene under EPA's ABT program allows refiners to either decline to
make any meaningful reductions in benzene levels or to increase benzene
over current levels. Further, the absence of a per-gallon cap or a
not-to-be-exceed level on a refinery basis allows refiners to increase
toxic benzene levels through the transfer of credits under the ABT
program. In such a case, even though there would be average national
benzene reductions, a refiner in a particular area or market could rely
on the ABT program to avoid any reductions in benzene or even increase
benzene levels.

In many respects throughout the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA
compares the proposed MSAT rule to the nation's low sulfur fuel program.
We applaud EPA's landmark low sulfur fuels program and the far-reaching
health and environmental benefits it will realize.

EPA states that it adopted an upper limit for highway gasoline and
diesel sulfur rules and the nonroad sulfur rule because the technology
needed to meet the emission standards depends on the low sulfur fuel,
and the technology could be damaged if batches of fuel with higher
sulfur contents were allowed into circulation (65 Fed. Reg. 6,697; 66
Fed. Reg. 5,001; 69 Fed. Reg. 38,957). We strongly agree with this.

At the same time, EPA reasons that because new emissions-reducing engine
technology is not affected by the level of benzene in gasoline, an upper
limit for benzene is therefore not necessary. This argument is
misplaced. A limitation on benzene is imperative to protect human health
and the body of health effects literature on benzene is manifest in
demonstrating that benzene levels are directly associated with increased
risk. In the same way that EPA's argument for an upper limit on sulfur
in fuels is tied to the co-benefits of reducing NOx and PM under the
"systems" based approach to fuels and engine technologies, a maximum
limit on benzene is directly and integrally related to human health
risk. Accordingly, should EPA decline to adopt a national per gallon
limit on benzene, we believe that an annual maximum average refinery
standard for benzene is essential to protect public health in the same
way a sulfur cap was needed to protect advanced engine technology and to
secure critical collateral human health benefits from new diesel
engines. As one of the most harmful air toxics, it is only appropriate
for EPA to ensure nationwide protection from the harmful effects of
benzene.

Without a refinery cap on average benzene levels, EPA estimates that
"...after full implementation of the program, the benzene content of
gasoline produced by the 115 U.S. refineries would range from 0.36 to
2.07 vol% with an overall volume-weighted average of 0.62 vol%" (RIA,
6-50). In other words, some refineries would be producing gasoline with
benzene levels more than **3 times** the annual average. And these high
levels would be allowed to endure with the use of the ABT program.
Therefore, it is imperative that EPA set an average annual refinery cap
for benzene to ensure that human health protection accrues to all
Americans. A well-designed, protective refinery limit would work in
tandem with the adoption of a more protective national average benzene
standard.

EPA asserts that the proposed program with no cap would make significant
reductions in all PADDs. But even EPA's own limited analysis shows that
after final capital investments (up to 2014 with use of credits) three
of the five PADDS will still have average benzene levels in excess of
the national average of .62% (RIA, 6-50). In fact, PADD 4 will have an
annual average level of 0.95 vol% and PADD 5 will have average annual
benzene level of 1.04 vol%, both well above the 0.62 vol%. (RIA, 9-38).

While an annual average level of 0.52 vol% would result in the greatest
reductions across all PADDs, a protective and well-designed maximum
limit per refinery would address concerns about disparate exposures to
toxic benzene pollution. EPA's own analysis reveals the benefits of such
a policy. EPA states in the RIA that imposing a maximum average refinery
standard of 1.3 vol% would result in a different pattern of benzene
reductions across the country, and that benzene levels will "decrease in
PADD 4 and 5 and increase in PADD 3" (RIA, 9-37). In fact, this
statement is incomplete. A closer look at EPA's analysis illustrates the
benefits of an average maximum refinery limit. Reductions will still be
made across all PADDs, with even greater reductions being made in PADD 4
and PADD 5, where benzene levels are currently the highest in the
nation, and slightly less reductions being made in PADD 3 (0.56 compared
to 0.55 vol%), an area that will have annual average benzene levels
below the 0.62 vol% with or without the maximum average (RIA, Table
9.6-7).

EPA's analysis shows, for example, that with a maximum average refinery
standard of 1.3 vol%, PADD 4 would have an annual benzene level of 0.90
vol%, down from 0.95 vol%. And PADD 5 would see a reduction from 1.04
vol% average to 0.88 vol% benzene. This results in an additional 5
percent and 15 percent reduction, respectively and demonstrates the
benefits of a maximum refinery limit in protecting human health.

Moreover, a 0.52 vol% fuel national average benzene standard together
with a maximum average refinery standard, would provide greater human
health protection than EPA estimated.

The additional benzene reductions that would result from a maximum
average refinery benzene standard, especially in PADD 4 and PADD 5,
would require minimal extra costs. In fact, EPA predicts that if an
upper limit average were imposed, only 5-6 of the 115 refineries across
the national would have to install additional or different benzene
control technology to meet the maximum standards than they would to meet
the proposed rule without an upper limit (RIA, Table 9.6-7). So
refineries could meet a more protective limit with their existing
control technology platforms or compliance strategies.

In addition, EPA itself estimated that the cost of imposing a 1.3 vol%
upper limit standard on a 0.62 vol% national average fuel standard would
not change the per gallon costs; they would be 0.13 cents/gallon with or
without the maximum standard. EPA estimated a minimal increase in total
annual costs from \$170 to \$180 million/year and the aggregate capital
cost would increase from \$500 to \$590 million (RIA, Table 9.6-5).
These additional costs are reasonable considering the benefits that
would result from such significantly reduced benzene levels in two of
the five PADDs alone. Accordingly, we respectfully urge EPA to establish
an annual maximum refinery average in conjunction with a protective
national average standard.

**CURRENT DIESEL RULES DO NOT MAKE THE GREATEST REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE**

EPA has made significant progress in adopting new emission standards to
reduce diesel emissions from highway and nonroad mobile sources through
its national diesel rulemakings. However, there is a tremendous amount
of work yet to be done to protect human health from this serious toxic
pollutant. EPA states that benzene is the largest contributor to cancer
risk of all 133 pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 1999 NATA

(70 Fed. Reg. 15,810). However, because diesel exhaust was not fully
integrated into the NATA exposure analyses and assessment, EPA fails to
consider the full and deleterious cancer risks from diesel exhaust
(Environmental Defense Petition to List Diesel Engine Exhaust As A
Hazardous Air Pollutant Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 112(b)(3), 42
U.S.C. § 7412(b)(3); August 11, 2003).

EPA claims in this proposed rulemaking that \"the existing major diesel
fuel sulfur programs being implemented in the next few years for highway
and nonroad diesel fuel will have a very large impact on reducing MSAT
emissions,\" and that these rulemakings provide \"the greatest
reductions achievable\" (70 Fed. Reg. 15,863). While we greatly
appreciate EPA\'s leadership in adopting these new standards, we reject
EPA\'s claim that the greatest reductions achievable are being made, as
is required by section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act. [42 U.S.C.S. §
7521](http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=42+USCS+%A7+7521)(l)(2).
The full pollution reduction and public health benefits of the highway
and nonroad diesel rules will not be realized for more than twenty years
due to the lag in time before the emission standards come into effect
and because of the very long life spans of heavy-duty diesel engines.
The ultimate consequence of the time lag in emissions reductions for
diesel equipment is a corresponding lag in achieving the health benefits
promised by EPA\'s rules. To accelerate the transition to cleaner diesel
engines and realize more immediate public health protections, diesel
retrofit, repowering, and other similar programs are urgently needed
(Environmental Defense Report, *Speeding the Transition to Cleaner
Diesel Engines to Help Americans Breather Easier Today*; June 2004).

In addition, EPA has failed to promulgate protective emission standards
for locomotive and commercial marine engines, two of the most
significant sources of our nation\'s diesel air pollution (STAPPA/ALAPCO
Report, *Danger in Motion: It\'s Time to Clean Up Trains and Boats*
(January 2006), Environmental Defense comments to EPA on the Control of
Emissions of Air Pollution from Marine Diesel Vessels and Locomotives;
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (August 30, 2004), and Natural
Resources Defense Council Comments to EPA on Control of Emissions from
New Locomotive Engines and New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less
than 30 Liters per Cylinder (August 26, 2004)). EPA\'s failure to list
diesel exhaust as a HAP and address existing heavy-duty diesel engines
and new and existing marine and locomotive engines is manifest evidence
that EPA\'s claim that current diesel rules are making the \"greatest
reductions achievable\" is without merit (70 Fed. Reg. 15,863). More can
and must be done to protect human health and the environment from
deleterious diesel engine exhaust.

**IT IS EPA'S DUTY TO ADDRESS ALL AIR TOXICS FROM MOBILE SOURCES**

The focus on benzene in the proposed regulation fails to address the
myriad of other toxic emissions from mobile sources, such as
1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, aromatics, and other toxic compounds that
contribute to unacceptable public health risks. EPA is required under
section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act, [42 U.S.C.S. §
7521](http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=42+USCS+%A7+7521)(l)(2),
to establish regulation that "at a minimum, apply to emissions of
benzene and formaldehyde." EPA does not have the authority to announce
in the case of formaldehyde, " no additional federal action appears
warranted at this time" (70 Fed. Reg. 15,860). This claim is without
merit and contrary to law. Therefore, it is EPA's duty to also consider
fuel and vehicle control options that address these other toxic
components in addition to benzene.

Respectfully Submitted,

Janea Scott

Staff Attorney

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

Rich Kassel

Senior Attorney

Natural Resources Defense Council

Emily Figdor

Clean Air Advocate

U.S. PIRG

Paul G. Billings

Vice President, National Policy and Advocacy Division

AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION

[^1]: It is important to note that EPA has not listed diesel engine
    exhaust as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and that, contrary to
    other public health agencies, EPA has failed to establish a unit
    risk factor for diesel engine exhaust.

[^2]: 40 CFR Parts 59, 80, 85 and 86 (March 29, 2006) Control of
    Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources; Proposed Rule.

[^3]: Rinsky RA, Hornung RW, Silver SR, Tseng CY. (2002) Benzene
    exposure and hematopoietic mortality: A long-term epidemiologic risk
    assessment. Am. J. Ind. Med. 42(6):474-480.

    Bloemen LJ, Youk A, Bradley TD, Bodner KM, Marsh G. (20034)
    Lymphohaematopoietic cancer risk among chemical workers exposed to
    benzene. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:270-274.

    Rinsky RA, Young RJ, Smith AB. (1981) Leukemia in benzene workers.
    Am. J. Ind. Med. 2(3):217-245.

    Hayes RB, Songnian Y, Dosemeci M, Linet M. (2001) Benzene and
    lymphohematopoietic malignancies in humans. Am. J. INd. Med.
    40(2):117-126.

[^4]: Crosignani P, Tittarelli A, Borgini A, Codazzi T, Rovelli A, Porro
    E, Contiero P, Bianchi N, Tagliabue G, Fissi R, Rossitto F, Berrino
    F. (2004) Childhood leukemia and road traffic: a population-based
    case-control study. Int. J. Cancer 108:596-599.

[^5]: U.S. EPA. (1998) Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An Update,
    National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
    EPA600-P-97-001F.

[^6]: 70 Fed. Reg. 15,807.

[^7]: 70 Fed. Reg. 15,810.

[^8]: Cohen J, Cook R, Bailey CR, Carr E. (2005) Relationship between
    motor vehicle emissions of hazardous pollutants, roadway proximity,
    and ambient concentrations in Portland, Oregon. Environmental
    Modeling and Software 20(1):7-12.

    Kinnee EJ, Tourma JS, Mason R, Thurman J, Beidler A, Bailey C, Cook
    R. (2004) Allocation of onroad mobile emissions to road segments for
    air toxics modeling in an urban area. Transportation Research Part D
    -- Transport and Environment 9(2):139-150.

[^9]: 70 Fed. Reg. 15,811.

[^10]: 70 Fed. Reg. 15,808.

[^11]: Crosignani P, Tittarelli A, Borgini A, Codazzi T, Rovelli A,
    Porro E, Contiero P, Bianchi N, Tagliabue G, Fissi R, Rossitto F,
    Berrino F. (2004) Childhood leukemia and road traffic: a
    population-based case-control study. Int. J. Cancer 108:596-599.

[^12]: U.S. EPA. (2002) Toxicological Review of Benzene (Noncancer
    Effects). Available at
    [http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0276-tr.pdf. Accessed May
    23](http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0276-tr.pdf. Accessed May 23),
    2006.

[^13]: Rumchev K, Spickett J, Bulsara M, Phillips M, Stick S. (2004)
    Association of domestic exposure to volatile organic compounds with
    asthma in young children. Thorax 59:746-751.

    Delfino RJ, Gong H, Linn WS, Hu Y, Pellizzari ED. (2003) Respiratory
    symptoms and peak expiratory flow in children with asthma in
    relation to volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath and ambient
    air. J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 13(5):348-368.

[^14]: Song B, Cai ZM, Li X, Deng LX, Zheng LK. (2005) Effect of benzene
    on sperm DNA. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 11(1):53-55.

    Xu X, Cho S, Sammel M, You L, Cui S, Huang Y, Ma G, Padungtod C,
    Pothier L, Niu T, Christiani D, Smith T, Ryan L, Wang L. (1998)
    Association of petrochemical exposure with spontaneous abortion.
    Ocup. Environ. Med. 55:31-36.

[^15]: This assumes 12.07% inflation between 1997 and 2002. From
    [www.inflationdata.com](http://www.inflationdata.com/)