17230 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 80, and 86

[AMS–FRL–6924–1]

RIN 2060–AI55

Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air

Pollutants From Mobile Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today’s action addresses

emissions of hazardous air pollutants

(HAPs) from motor vehicles and their

fuels. Hazardous air pollutants refer to

a range of compounds that are known or

suspected to have serious health or

environmental impacts. Motor vehicles

are significant contributors to national

emissions of several hazardous air

pollutants, notably benzene,

formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene,

acetaldehyde, and diesel particulate

matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.

In today’s action, we list 21

compounds emitted from motor vehicles

that are known or suspected to cause

cancer or other serious health effects.

Our Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)

list includes various volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) and metals, as well

as diesel particulate matter and diesel

exhaust organic gases (collectively DPM

+ DEOG). The selection methodology we

used to develop this MSAT list, which

may be used to add compounds to or

remove compounds from the list in the

future as new information becomes

available, is also described. In today’s

action we also examine the mobile

source contribution to national

inventories of these emissions and the

impacts of existing and newly

promulgated mobile source control

programs, including our reformulated

gasoline (RFG) program, our national

low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards,

our Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions

standards and gasoline sulfur control

requirements, and our proposed heavyduty engine and vehicle standards and

on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control

requirements. Between 1990 and 2020,

we project these programs will reduce

on-highway emissions of benzene,

formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and

acetaldehyde by 67 to 76 percent, and

will reduce on-highway diesel PM

emissions by 90 percent.

This action also finalizes new

gasoline toxic emission baseline

requirements which require refiners to

maintain current levels of overcompliance with toxic emissions

performance standards that apply to

federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) and

anti-dumping standards that apply to

conventional gasoline (CG). Because the

new baseline requirements do not

require refiners to install new

equipment or use technologies beyond

what they were using in the baseline

period (1998–2000), we project that this

program will impose only negligible

costs. The new baseline requirements

are designed to prevent backsliding and

to ensure that existing overcompliance

with current standards continues. We

are not setting additional vehicle-based

air toxics controls at this time because

the technology-forcing Tier 2 light-duty

vehicle standards and those standards

being developed in response to our

recent proposal for heavy-duty engine

and vehicle standards represent the

greatest degree of toxics control

achievable at this time considering

existing standards, the availability and

cost of the technology, and noise,

energy, and safety factors, and lead

time.

Finally, because of our continuing

concern about the potential health

impacts of public exposure to air toxics,

today’s action also describes a Technical

Analysis Plan through which we will

continue to improve our understanding

of the risk posed by air toxics to public

health and welfare. It will also allow us

to evaluate the need for and

appropriateness of additional mobile

source air toxics controls for onhighway and nonroad sources, and their

fuels. Based on the information

developed through this technical

analysis plan, we will conduct a future

rulemaking, to be completed no later

than July 1, 2004.

DATES: This rule is effective May 29,

2001. The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in this rule is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of May 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments: All comments

and materials relevant to today’s action

have been placed in Public Docket No.

A–2000–12 at the following address:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M–

1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460. EPA’s Air Docket makes

materials related to this rulemaking

available for review at the above address

(on the ground floor in Waterside Mall)

from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except on government

holidays. You can reach the Air Docket

by telephone at (202) 260–7548, and by

facsimile (202) 260–4400. We may

charge a reasonable fee for copying

docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR

part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National

Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory,

2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI

48105; Telephone (734) 214–4334; FAX:

(734) 214–4816; E-mail:

borushko.margaret@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

This action will affect entities that

produce new motor vehicles, alter

individual imported motor vehicles to

address U.S. regulation, or convert

motor vehicles to use alternative fuels.

It will also affect entities that produce,

distribute, or sell gasoline or diesel

motor fuel.

The table below gives some examples

of entities that may have to follow the

regulations. Because these are only

examples, you should carefully examine

the regulations in 40 CFR parts 80 and

86. If you have questions, call the

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Category NAICS

codes (1)

SIC

codes (2) Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry ............... 336111 3711 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.

336112

336120

Industry ............... 336112 3711 Engine and Truck Manufacturers.

336120

Industry ............... 336311 3592 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters.

336312 3714

422720 5172

454312 5984

811198 7549

541514 8742

541690 8931

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17231

Category NAICS

codes (1)

SIC

codes (2) Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry ............... 811112 7533 Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components.

811198 7549

541514 8742

Industry ............... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refiners.

Industry ............... 422710 5171 Gasoline or Diesel Marketers and Distributors.

422720 5172

Industry ............... 484220 4212 Gasoline or Diesel Carriers.

484230 4213

(1) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

(2) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

Access to Rulemaking Documents

through the Internet

Today’s action is available

electronically on the day of publication

from the Office of the Federal Register

Internet Web site listed below.

Electronic copies of this preamble and

regulatory language as well as the

Response to Comments, the Technical

Support Document (TSD) and other

documents associated with today’s

action will be available from the EPA

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Web site listed below shortly after the

rule is signed by the Administrator. This

service is free of charge, except any cost

that you already incur for Internet

connectivity.

EPA Federal Register Web Site:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/epaair/

(Either select a desired date or use the

Search feature.)

Office of Transportation and Air

Quality (OTAQ) Air Toxics Web Site:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm

Please note that due to differences

between the software used to develop

the document and the software into

which the document may be

downloaded, changes in format, page

length, etc., may occur.

Outline of this Preamble

I. Introduction

A. Background

B. Basic Components of Today’s Program

1. Identification of Mobile Source Air

Toxics

2. Assessment of Emission Benefits From

Current Standards

3. Consideration of Additional OnHighway Controls

4. Nonroad Air Toxics

5. Technical Analysis Plan and

Commitment for Further Rulemaking

C. EPA’s Statutory Authority for Today’s

Action

II. What Are the Mobile Source Air Toxics?

A. Introduction

B. The Methodology Used to Identify Our

List of Mobile Source Air Toxics

1. Identifying Pollutants Emitted From

Mobile Sources

2. Using IRIS to Identify Pollutants With

Potential Serious Adverse Health Effects

C. List of Mobile Source Air Toxics

III. How Are Motor Vehicle Emission Control

Programs Reducing MSAT Emissions?

A. Baseline Inventories

B. Impacts of Motor Vehicle Emission

Controls on Emissions Inventories

1. Description of Emission Control

Programs

2. Emission Reductions From Control

Programs

IV. Evaluation of Additional Motor Vehiclebased Controls

A. MSATs and Motor Vehicle-based

Controls

B. Vehicle-based Standards to Reduce

MSATs From Light-Duty Vehicles

C. Vehicle-based Standards to Reduce

MSATs From Heavy-Duty Engines

D. Conclusions Regarding Vehicle-based

Standards

V. Evaluation of Additional Fuel-Based

Controls

A. Form of the Rule

1. What Is the Form of the Rule EPA Is

Promulgating Today?

2. Why Did EPA Change From the

Proposed Benzene Fuel Content Form of

the Rule to the TPR?

3. What Are the Benefits of the TPR?

4. What Are the Costs of the TPR?

B. Issues and Areas of Comment on Nonimplementation Related Aspects of the

Program

1. What Is the Relationship Between the

RFG and Anti-dumping Requirements

and the Toxics Anti-backsliding

Requirements?

2. How Are Incremental Production

Volumes of RFG Affected by This Rule?

3. Does This Rule Contain Any Small

Refiner Provisions?

4. Is This Rule Expected to Constraint the

Potential for Expanded Use of Ethanol in

Conventional Gasoline?

5. Is Diesel Fuel Control a Part of Today’s

Regulation?

C. What Are the Components of the Antibacksliding Toxics Performance

Program?

1. Start Date

2. Separate Compliance Determination for

RFG and CG

3. Baseline Development and Submittal

4. Baseline Adjustment

5. Compliance Margin

6. Foreign Refiner Provisions

7. Default Baseline and Applicability

8. Compliance Period and Deficit and

Credit Carryforward

9. Hardship Provisions

10. California Gasoline

11. Territories

12. Gasoline excluded

D. Why Isn’t EPA Adopting Other Fuel

Controls to Control MSATs?

VI. Nonroad Sources of MSAT Emissions

A. Nonroad MSAT Baseline Inventories

B. Impacts of Current Nonroad Mobile

Source Emission Control Strategies

1. Description of the Emission Control

Program

2. Emission Reductions From Current

Programs

C. Gaps in Nonroad Mobile Source Data

VII. Technical Analysis Plan to Address Data

Gaps and Commitment for Further

Rulemaking

A. Technical Analysis Plan to Address

Data Gaps

B. Commitment for Further Rulemaking

VIII. Public Participation

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Intergovernmental Relations

1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

2. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

3. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

E. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

F. Executive Order 13045: Children’s

Health Protection

G. Congressional Review Act

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Introduction

A. Background

Air toxics, which are also known as

‘‘hazardous air pollutants’’ or HAPs, are

those pollutants known or suspected to

cause cancer or other serious health or

environmental effects. They include

pollutants like benzene,

perchloroethylene, methylene chloride,

heavy metals like mercury and lead,

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and

dioxins. While the harmful effects of air

toxics are of particular concern in areas

closest to where they are emitted, they

can also be transported and affect the

health and welfare of populations in

other geographic areas. Some can persist

for considerable time in the

environment and/or bioaccumulate in

the food chain.

17232 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1See final rules: NLEV, 62 FR 31191 (June 6,

1997); Tier 2, 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000); landbased diesel nonroad, 63 FR 56968 (October 23,

1998); locomotive, 63 FR 18978 (April 16, 1998);

recreational marine, 61 FR 52088 (October 4, 1996);

commercial diesel marine, 64 FR 73300 (December

29, 1999); aircraft, 62 FR 25355 (May 8, 1997); RFG,

59 FR 7812 (February 16, 1994). See proposed rule

HD2007, 65 FR 35430 (June 2, 2000).

2For example, included among the numerous

chemicals that make up total VOC emissions—that

thus are reduced when VOCs are reduced—are

several gaseous toxics (e.g., benzene, formaldehyde,

1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde).

3 65 FR 35430, June 2, 2000.

To address concerns about the

potentially serious impacts of hazardous

air pollutants on public health and the

environment, the Clean Air Act (the

Act), as amended in 1990, includes a

number of provisions that have led EPA

to characterize, prioritize, and control

these emissions as appropriate. Since

1990, the Agency has worked to comply

with the Act through a combination of

regulatory approaches, partnerships,

ongoing research and assessments, risk

initiatives, and education and outreach.

We have put in place many programs to

reduce air toxic emissions that have

resulted, and will continue to result, in

reductions in ambient concentrations of

air toxics. On the stationary source side,

we have developed 46 stationary source

standards for 82 different types of

sources and have more under

development. These standards are

required under Sections 112 and 129 of

the Act and provide for future

evaluation of the need for additional

stationary source regulations based on

the remaining risk from air toxics after

these standards are in effect. These

actions have resulted, or are projected to

result in, substantial reductions in HAP

emissions.

On the mobile source side, many of

the emission control programs put in

place pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments reduce air toxics

emissions from a wide variety of mobile

sources. These include our reformulated

gasoline (RFG) program, which has

substantially reduced mobile source air

toxics, particularly in urban areas which

often have high levels of ambient air

toxics, our national low emission

vehicle (NLEV) program, our Tier 2

motor vehicle emissions standards and

gasoline sulfur control requirements,

and standards for nonroad vehicles and

equipment, such as locomotives,

recreational marine engines, and

aircraft. We have also proposed heavyduty engine and vehicle standards and

on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control

requirements that would reduce toxics

emissions from heavy-duty trucks.1

Finally, certain other mobile source

control programs have been specifically

aimed at reducing toxics emissions from

mobile sources (e.g., our lead phase-out

programs).

While these mobile source standards

were put in place primarily to reduce

ambient concentrations of criteria

pollutants through oxides of nitrogen

(NOX), volatile organic compound

(VOC), carbon monoxide (CO) and

particulate matter (PM) controls, and

thereby to help states and localities

come into attainment with the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone, PM, and CO, they

have reduced and will continue to

reduce on-highway emissions of air

toxics significantly.2 By 2020, we

project these programs will reduce the

levels of on-highway emissions of

benzene by 73 percent, formaldehyde by

76 percent, 1,3-butadiene by 72 percent,

and acetaldehyde by 67 percent from

1990 levels. In addition, by 2020, onhighway diesel PM emission reductions

of 94 percent from 1990 levels are

projected in a recent NPRM for heavyduty engines.3

Nevertheless, because of the

potentially serious effects exposure to

air toxics may have on human health, it

is reasonable to assess whether it is

appropriate to establish additional

mobile source controls that are

specifically designed to reduce further

or minimize increases in national

inventories of these pollutants. In

today’s action, pursuant to Section

202(l)(2) of the Act, the Agency has

identified those compounds emitted

from mobile sources that should be

classified as mobile source air toxics,

evaluated whether there are additional

controls that can be established at this

time, set new toxic emission

performance standards, identified

existing data gaps in our understanding

of the risk posed to the public from

mobile source air toxics, and committed

to reevaluate the need for additional

controls in 2003–2004.

Today’s action provides the mobile

source component of EPA’s National Air

Toxics Program: The Integrated Urban

Strategy (IUATS), published July 19,

1999 (64 FR 38706). The overarching

goal of the IUATS is to reduce cancer

and noncancer risks associated with all

sources of air toxics in urban areas. In

urban areas, toxic air pollutants raise

special concerns because sources of

emissions and people are concentrated

in the same geographic areas, leading to

large numbers of people being exposed

to the emissions of many HAPs from

many sources. The IUATS identified 33

‘‘urban HAPs’’ which pose the greatest

threat to human health in the largest

number of urban areas. These 33

compounds are a subset of the 188

compounds listed in Section 112(b) of

the Clean Air Act and are listed in Table

I–1. Thirteen of these compounds are

also included on our Mobile Source Air

Toxics list (see Section II, below). The

IUATS is described in greater detail in

Chapter 1 of the Technical Support

Document for this rule. Additional

information can also be obtained from

the EPA’s Unified Air Toxics website,

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw.

TABLE I–1.—LIST OF URBAN HAPS FOR THE INTEGRATED URBAN AIR TOXICS STRATEGY

Acetaldehyde a Coke oven emissions Mercury compounds a

Acrolein a ............................. 1,2-dibromomethane .......... Methylene chloride.

Acrylonitrile .......................... 1,2-dichloropropane (propylene dichloride).Nickel compounds. a

Arsenic compounds a ........... 1,3-dichloropropene ........... Polychlorinated biphenyls.

Benzene a ............................ Ethyl dichloride (1,2- .......... Polycyclic organic matter. a

Beryllium compounds .......... Ethylene oxide .................... Quinoline.

1,3-Butadiene a .................... Formaldehyde a ................... 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxine (and cogeners and TCDF cogeners). a

Cadmium compounds ......... Hexachlorobenzene ........... 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.

Carbon tetrachloride ........... Hydrazine ........................... Tetrachloroethylene.

Chloroform .......................... Lead compounds a .............. Trichloroethylene.

Chromium compounds a ...... Manganese compounds a ... Vinyl chloride.

a Included on our Mobile Source Air Toxics list.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17233

Today’s rule is our first attempt at

addressing mobile source air toxics in a

systematic and integrated manner.

Additional analysis, however, will be

necessary to evaluate the sufficiency of

those controls and to determine whether

there is a need for additional controls.

Today’s rule also contains a Technical

Analysis Plan (TAP) that identifies key

information gaps about the risk posed

by mobile source air toxics and the

feasibility of additional controls. In

order to address these data gaps, the

Agency will continue to compile,

analyze, and conduct additional

research in coordination with other

toxics research activities that are

ongoing in the Agency, including the

National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment

(NATA) headed by EPA’s Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards

(OAQPS) and the Air Toxics Research

Strategy (ATRS) headed by EPA’s Office

of Research and Development (ORD).

The results of NATA will be used to

identify areas of the country and

pollutants where additional

investigation is needed. NATA will

begin with an analysis of the risks

associated with the 33 ‘‘urban HAPs’’

identified in Table I–1. In the future,

NATA will evaluate all 188 HAPs

currently listed under Section 112(b) of

the Act as well as diesel PM. NATA is

described in greater detail in Chapter 1

of the Technical Support Document for

this rule. Additional information can

also be obtained from the NATA website

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/nata).

The Air Toxics Research Strategy

(ATRS) is an Agency 10 year plan to

guide and prioritize research in air

toxics from various sources, including

mobile sources. ATRS is also described

in Chapter 1 of the Technical Support

Document.

With this background, we now turn to

an overview of today’s action.

B. Basic Components of Today’s

Program

Today’s action addresses mobile

source air toxics emissions. In it, we

identify our list of 21 mobile source air

toxics (MSATs) and set new gasoline

toxic emission performance baseline

requirements for RFG and conventional

gasoline. We also describe a Technical

Analysis Plan to continue analysis and

research that will aid us in evaluating

and assessing the need for additional

mobile source air toxics controls. The

information acquired through our

technical analysis will form the basis for

a future mobile source air toxics

rulemaking.

1. Identification of Mobile Source Air

Toxics

There are hundreds of different

compounds and elements that are

known to be emitted from passenger

cars, on-highway trucks, and various

types of nonroad equipment. Section II

of today’s action identifies a list of 21

toxic compounds emitted from motor

vehicles and describes the methodology

we used to generate this list. This

methodology may be used to add

compounds to, or remove compounds

from, the MSAT list in the future as new

information becomes available.

2. Assessment of Emission Benefits

From Current Standards

Today’s action also describes how our

current mobile source emission control

programs are expected to reduce MSAT

emissions. By 2020, we expect existing

programs like the reformulated gasoline

(RFG) program, national low emission

vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier 2 motor

vehicle emissions standards and

gasoline sulfur control requirements

(Tier 2), and our proposed heavy-duty

engine and vehicle standards and onhighway diesel fuel sulfur control

requirements (HD2007 rule), to

significantly reduce on-highway

emissions of key air toxics. Section III

contains our on-highway toxics

emissions inventory analysis and

estimates of these expected reductions.

3. Consideration of Additional OnHighway Controls

Although we anticipate substantial

reductions in emissions of key toxic

pollutants by 2020, the serious potential

health effects associated with many of

these compounds lead us to evaluate

whether additional controls are

technologically feasible at this time. For

the purpose of our analysis, we divide

potential control measures into two

broad categories: vehicle-based controls

and fuel-based controls. Vehicle-based

controls include programs that reduce

evaporative and exhaust emissions from

vehicles and engines. Fuel-based

controls explore how changing fuel

formulation can reduce air toxic

emissions. In performing our analysis of

additional controls in Sections IV and

V, we followed the requirements

specified in Section 202(l)(2) of the Act:

these motor vehicle or motor fuel

standards must ‘‘reflect the greatest

degree of emission reduction achievable

through the application of technology

which will be available, taking into

consideration the standards established

under [Section 202(a)], the availability

and costs of the technology, and noise,

energy, and safety factors, and lead

time.’’

Based on our analysis and the

comments we received from various

stakeholders, we are finalizing gasoline

toxic emission performance standards

that will help maintain current levels of

overcompliance with existing gasoline

toxics emission standards. These

requirements are refiner-specific, based

on each refinery’s average 1998–2000

gasoline toxic emission performance

levels for RFG and conventional

gasoline. Consistent with our proposal,

we are not setting additional air toxics

emissions standards for motor vehicles

in today’s action. However, it is

important to note that we have proposed

stringent new diesel particulate matter

standards for heavy-duty vehicles (HDV)

that would reduce HDV PM emissions

by 90%. We expect to issue a final rule

for this category soon. We believe that

it is not technologically feasible at this

time to set additional motor vehicle

controls under Section 202(l)(2) beyond

the controls already adopted or

proposed by the Agency. This decision

is based on consideration of the

technical feasibility, cost, and other

factors relevant to a proposal of further

controls at this time.

4. Nonroad Air Toxics

Section 202(l)(2) of the Act specifies

that we set standards to control

hazardous air pollutants from motor

vehicles and motor vehicle fuels which,

by definition, do not include nonroad

engines or vehicles or their fuels.

However, nonroad engines are also

important contributors to national

inventories of mobile source air toxics

emissions. Therefore, we believe it is

also helpful to include a discussion of

nonroad sources in today’s action. In

addition, as noted above, today’s action

is part of EPA’s Integrated Urban Air

Toxics Strategy. As part of our effort to

establish a comprehensive plan that

seeks to reduce urban air toxic

emissions, we intend to address both

on-highway and motor vehicles and

evaluate emissions and potential

strategies relating to hazardous air

pollutants from nonroad engines and

vehicles.

5. Technical Analysis Plan and

Commitment for Further Rulemaking

We believe our evaluation to date of

the need for, and appropriateness of,

additional mobile source toxics control

measures provides adequate support for

today’s action. At this time, EPA is also

engaged in other toxics-related activities

as part of NATA, the IUATS, ATRS, and

other rulemaking activities. This

emerging information will help us to

17234 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

4Our authority under 202(a) and 211(c) allows us

to address air pollution that impacts health or

welfare. This initial MSAT list focuses on human

health. Additional compounds may be added in the

future due to their ecological impacts, material

damage, or visibility impairment and it is

noteworthy that some of the MSATs on the list have

important ecological impacts.

5We have chosen to call our list of toxics a

mobile sources list to acknowledge that nonroad

sources may also contribute emissions of these

pollutants. For purposes of Section 202(l)(2), each

of the MSATs is considered a ‘‘hazardous air

pollutant from motor vehicles and motor vehicle

fuels.’’

further evaluate potential additional

mobile source air toxics controls in the

future.

Building on these Agency toxics

activities, and to increase our

understanding of mobile source air

toxics, we will implement the Technical

Analysis Plan described in Section VII

below. This Plan will be coordinated

with the other research activities within

the Agency in several key areas,

including development of emission

factors for nonroad sources, analysis of

toxics exposures in microenvironments,

and examination of additional fuel- and

vehicle-based air toxics controls for both

motor vehicles and nonroad engines and

equipment. Our TAP will be fully

coordinated and integrated with

activities conducted as part of NATA,

the IUATS, and the ATRS. This will

allow us to take full advantage of what

is collectively learned and provide a

solid basis for future action, including a

future rulemaking, to be completed no

later than July 1, 2004.

C. EPA’s Statutory Authority for Today’s

Action

Today’s action is established pursuant

to Section 202(l) of the Clean Air Act.

That Section consists of two parts.

Section 202(l)(1) calls on EPA to study

the need for and feasibility of

controlling toxic air pollutants

associated with motor vehicles and

motor vehicle fuels. That study is to

focus on those categories of emissions

that pose the greatest risk to human

health or about which significant

uncertainties remain. The Act specifies

that, at a minimum, the study focus on

emissions of benzene, formaldehyde,

and 1,3-butadiene.

We completed the study required

under Section 202(l)(1) in April 1993.

The report, entitled ‘‘Motor VehicleRelated Air Toxics Study,’’ is available

on our website (http://www.epa.gov/

otaq/toxics.htm). Specific pollutants or

pollutant categories discussed in the

1993 report include benzene,

formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene,

acetaldehyde, diesel particulate,

gasoline particulate, gasoline vapors,

and selected metals. The emissions and

exposure aspects for several of the air

toxics covered in this report were

recently updated in November 1999.

The 1999 report, entitled ‘‘Analysis of

the Impacts of Control Programs on

Motor Vehicle Toxics Emissions and

Exposure in Urban Areas and

Nationwide,’’ is also available on our

website, and is described in more detail

in Section I.E., below. We sought peer

review comments on both the 1993 and

1999 reports. We considered the 1993

comments in developing the 1999

document and will consider the 1999

comments in developing our future

activities (e.g., in the development of

version 4 of the Hazardous Air Pollutant

Exposure Model, HAPEM4, described in

Section VII, below).

Section 202(l)(2) instructs us to set

standards to control hazardous air

pollutants from motor vehicles, motor

vehicle fuels, or both. These standards,

which may be revised from time to time,

are to reflect the greatest degree of

emission reduction achievable through

the application of technology which

will be available, taking into

consideration the motor vehicle

standards established under Section

202(a) of the Act, the availability and

cost of the technology, and noise, energy

and safety factors, and lead time. The

regulations are to apply, at a minimum,

to benzene and formaldehyde

emissions, and are to be set under

Section 202(a) or 211(c) of the Act.

Section 211(c) of the Act authorizes the

Agency to control or prohibit the

manufacturer, introduction into

commerce, offering for sale, or sale, of

any fuel or fuel additive if any emission

product of such fuel or fuel additive

causes or contributes to air pollution

which may reasonably be anticipated to

endanger public health or welfare.

II. What Are the Mobile Source Air

Toxics?

A. Introduction

There are hundreds of different

compounds and elements that are

known to be emitted from passenger

cars, on-highway trucks, and various

nonroad equipment. Several of these

compounds may have adverse effects on

human health and welfare.4 In

recognition of this fact, Congress

instructed EPA, in Section 202(l)(2) of

the Act, to set standards for hazardous

air pollutants from motor vehicles and

their fuels. Except for benzene and

formaldehyde (specifically mentioned

in 202(l)(2)), the Act does not specify

the compounds that should be

considered in such a control program.

Therefore, the first step in developing a

mobile source air toxics control program

is to identify the compounds that

should be treated as hazardous air

pollutants for purpose of Section

202(l)(2). Since EPA data suggest that

nonroad engines and on-highway

vehicles emit the same pollutants, EPA

has identified this list as a list of mobile

source air toxics (MSATs).5 We are

listing 21 MSATs using the

methodology described below.

B. The Methodology Used to Identify

Our List of Mobile Source Air Toxics

EPA developed the list of MSATs by

first searching for lists of compounds in

all available databases and recent

studies (i.e., ten years old or less) which

speciated emissions from motor vehicles

and their fuels. Data for vehicles and

engines more than ten years old are

considered to be outdated and thus are

judged not to be representative of

current emissions. The lists did not

include emissions from alternativefueled vehicles, currently in a very

small number of vehicles, such as

flexible-fueled vehicles. We then

compared the speciated lists of

compounds in these studies to the list

of compounds in EPA’s Integrated Risk

Information System (IRIS) database. IRIS

is a database of compounds that

identifies EPA’s consensus scientific

judgment on the characterization of the

potential serious adverse health effects

that may result from a lifetime exposure

to a substance (discussed in more detail

below).

By comparing the lists of compounds

provided in the emission speciation

databases and studies to the list of

compounds in IRIS, we generated a list

of 21 compounds. An evaluation of the

potential for serious adverse health

effects as reflected in IRIS and in the

ongoing agency scientific assessments of

these compounds indicates that these

compounds warrant inclusion as

MSATs.

It is important to note that inclusion

on the list is not itself a determination

by EPA that emissions of the compound

in fact present a risk to public health or

welfare, or that it is appropriate to adopt

controls to limit the emissions of such

a compound from motor vehicles or

their fuels. The purpose of the list is to

provide a screening tool that identifies

those compounds emitted from motor

vehicles or their fuels for which further

evaluation of emissions controls is

appropriate. In conducting any such

further evaluation, pursuant to sections

202(a) or 211(c) of the Act, EPA would

consider whether emissions of the

compound cause or contribute to air

pollution which may reasonably be

anticipated to endanger public health or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17235

6EPA IRIS Database, http://www.epa.gov/iris/

intro.htm

welfare. Such an evaluation would also

consider the appropriate level of any

controls, based on the criteria

established in section 202(l)(2).

Inclusion of a compound on the MSAT

list does not decide these issues, but

instead identifies those compounds for

which such an evaluation would appear

to be warranted.

With regard to emissions from

alternative-fueled vehicles, most of the

compounds included in the exhaust are

included on our list of MSATs (e.g.,

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde). It should

be noted that, depending on the fuel

used, these vehicles may also emit

unburned ethanol and methanol.

EPA compared the lists of compounds

emitted from motor vehicles with lists

or sources of information on toxic

substances other than IRIS to determine

the reasonableness of the MSAT list.

Based on this comparison, we requested

comments on the possible addition of

propionaldehyde and 2,2,4-

trimethylpentane to the MSAT list. We

are not adding these compounds to the

MSAT list at this time due to the

absence of an Agency consensus view as

expressed on IRIS regarding the adverse

health effects of these compounds. The

MSAT list will be re-evaluated in the

future as new information is acquired

about emissions and/or health effects for

any mobile source pollutant.

Compounds may be added to or

removed from the list in future

rulemaking notices.

1. Identifying Pollutants Emitted From

Mobile Sources

In identifying a list of MSAT, EPA

first searched for lists of compounds

from all available databases and recent

(i.e., ten years old or less) studies that

speciated the emissions from motor

vehicles and their fuels. Many toxic air

pollutants are hydrocarbons (HCs) by

their chemical nature and thus will be

identified only if the HCs are chemically

separated (speciated). In addition, the

compounds that comprise the

particulate phase of mobile source

emissions must also be chemically

speciated. Many test programs that

characterize vehicle emissions identify

only total hydrocarbons and particulate

matter without separating the individual

species of hydrocarbons and other

elements.

The databases and recent studies

reporting emissions from light-duty

gasoline vehicles (LDGV), heavy-duty

diesel vehicles (HDDV), heavy-duty

gasoline vehicles (HDGV), and gasolinepowered nonroad engines are identified

in Appendix I located at the end of

Chapter 2 of the TSD. Data for other

vehicle and engine types (e.g., light-duty

diesel engines and nonroad diesel

engines) either do not exist or are

outdated (more than 10 years old) and

thus are judged not to be representative

of current emissions. However, it is

unlikely that the lack of recent data for

these particular vehicle and engine

types would lead us to overlook

compounds that should be included on

our list of MSATs, because the

combustion processes for these missing

vehicle and engine types are similar to

those for the vehicle and engine types

for which we do have data.

2. Using IRIS to Identify Pollutants With

Potential Serious Adverse Health Effects

The Integrated Risk Information

System (IRIS) is an EPA database of

scientific information that contains the

Agency consensus scientific positions

on the potential serious adverse health

effects that may result from lifetime

(chronic) exposure to substances found

in the environment.6 IRIS currently

provides health effects information on

over 500 specific chemical compounds.

IRIS contains chemical-specific

summaries of qualitative and

quantitative health information. IRIS

information may include the reference

concentration (RfC) for noncancer

health effects resulting from chronic

inhalation exposure, the reference dose

(RfD) for noncancer health effects

resulting from chronic oral exposure,

and the carcinogen assessment for both

oral and inhalation exposure. The RfC

or RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty

spanning perhaps an order of magnitude

or more) of a daily exposure to the

human population (including sensitive

subgroups) that is likely to be without

appreciable risk of deleterious

noncancer effects during a lifetime.

Because of the public health

conservative methodology in deriving

the RfC or RfD, it is possible that

exposure above the RfC or RfD may not

pose an appreciable risk; however the

significance of exceedances must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Combined with information on specific

exposure situations, the summary health

hazard information in IRIS may be used

in evaluating potential public health

risks from environmental contaminants.

IRIS also lists compounds for which the

Agency has reviewed currently available

information and concluded that (1)

there are insufficient data to calculate

an RfC or RfD for the noncancer hazard

potentially posed by the compound(s),

and/or (2) there is an absence of

sufficient information to identify a

cancer hazard.

Before a substance is listed on the

IRIS database, it goes through a

thorough scientific evaluation. This

consensus and review process, managed

by EPA’s Office of Research and

Development (ORD), consists of (1) an

annual Federal Register announcement

of the IRIS agenda and a call for

scientific information from the public

on the selected chemical substances, (2)

a search of the current literature, (3)

development of health assessment and

draft IRIS summaries, (4) internal EPA

peer review, (5) external peer review, (6)

Agency consensus review and

management approval within EPA, (7)

preparation of final IRIS summaries and

supporting documents, and (8) entry of

summaries and supporting documents

into the IRIS database.

C. List of Mobile Source Air Toxics

In our notice of proposed rulemaking

we listed 21 MSATs. We received

comments on six proposed MSATs as

well as other compounds. We are

finalizing this list of 21 compounds, but

we have changed the listing for diesel

exhaust to diesel particulate matter and

diesel exhaust organic gases. A

discussion of the comments received on

the proposed MSAT list is provided

below and the MSAT list is provided in

Table II–1.

TABLE II–1.—LIST OF MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSATS)

Acetaldehyde Diesel Particulate Matter + Diesel Exhaust

Organic Gases (DPM + DEOG) MTBE

Acrolein ............................................................... Ethylbenzene ................................................... Naphthalene.

Arsenic Compounds 1 ......................................... Formaldehyde .................................................. Nickel Compounds. 1

Benzene ............................................................. n-Hexane .......................................................... POM.3

1,3-Butadiene ..................................................... Lead Compounds 1 .......................................... Styrene.

17236 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

7A further discussion of the potential cancer and

noncancer risks, and other dose-response

information for each MSAT can be found in Chapter

3 of the TSD.

TABLE II–1.—LIST OF MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSATS)—Continued

Acetaldehyde Diesel Particulate Matter + Diesel Exhaust

Organic Gases (DPM + DEOG) MTBE

Chromium Compounds 1 .................................... Manganese Compounds 1 ................................ Toluene.

Dioxin/Furans 2 ................................................... Mercury Compounds 1 ..................................... Xylene.

1Although the different metal compounds generally differ in their toxicity, the onroad mobile source inventory contains emissions estimates for

total metal compounds (i.e., the sum of all forms). 2This entry refers to two large groups of chlorinated compounds. In assessing their cancer risks, their quantitative potencies are usually derived from that of the most toxic, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin. 3Polycyclic Organic Matter includes organic compounds with more than one benzene ring, and which have a boiling point greater than or

equal to 100 degrees centigrade. A group of seven polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, which have been identified by EPA as probable human

carcinogens, (benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, and

indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) are used here as surrogates for the larger group of POM compounds.

By comparing the lists of compounds

identified in the motor vehicle emission

databases and studies with the toxic

compounds listed in IRIS, we identified

21 compounds. Each of these pollutants

are known, probable, or possible human

carcinogens (Group A, B or C) and/or

pollutants for which the Agency has

calculated an RfC or RfD.7 We therefore

consider each of these compounds to be

MSATs.

In response to public comments we

are changing the way we list diesel

exhaust as an MSAT. We believe a

better approach is to list diesel

particulate matter and diesel exhaust

organic gases (DPM + DEOG) as the

MSAT. This listing approach is more

precise about the components of diesel

exhaust expected to contribute to the

observed cancer and noncancer health

effects and provides a framework for

developing regulatory control strategies.

Currently available science, while

suggesting an important role for the

particulate phase component of diesel

exhaust, does not attribute the serious

cancer and noncancer health effects

independently to diesel particulate

matter separate from the organic gas

phase components. Therefore, this

listing approach does not constitute two

separate MSAT listings but a single

listing meant to capture the collection of

emissions potentially responsible for the

cancer and noncancer health effects

related to diesel exhaust.

While this listing departs slightly

from the approach described above, we

believe this is reasonable because (1)

there are several nontoxic components

of diesel exhaust (e.g., water vapor,

nitrogen, oxygen) that we are excluding

from the listing, (2) this listing includes

the components of diesel exhaust that

are likely to contribute to either the

cancer or the noncancer hazard (with

the exception of the gaseous phase

criteria pollutants such as NOX, SO2 and

CO which are subject to National

Ambient Air Quality Standards), (3) the

more precise listing provides Federal

and State government, industry, and

public interest groups an ability to focus

on the components of diesel exhaust

that pose a potential concern for public

health, and (4) this focus provides

specific targets for emissions reductions

should future analysis indicate that

additional controls are necessary.

Regarding the listing of metals, we

have chosen to list the entire group of

metal compounds if any compound of

the metal has been detected in motor

vehicle exhaust and any compound of

the metal is listed in IRIS as potentially

causing adverse human health effects.

Literature values report only the total

amount of the metal compound

identified and not the specific form of

the metal being emitted in motor vehicle

exhaust. For example, chromium (Cr)

can be emitted from combustion sources

in different forms, the most toxic of

which is Cr+6. In the literature, the form

of Cr emissions from mobile sources are

unidentified. In our list of MSAT, we

therefore list chromium compounds

generally, and do not attempt to list

specific forms of these metals because

we lack metal speciation information.

When we assess the range of potential

health impacts associated with exposure

to chromium compounds, we consider

the health effects associated with all

forms of the compound for which we

have health effects information. For

chromium, the most toxic form in IRIS

is Cr+6; hence the health impacts

described for chromium compounds

refer to these most serious effects even

though it is highly unlikely that all

motor vehicle emissions are Cr+6. EPA

believes this listing approach is a

reasonable, health-protective way to

handle the uncertainty surrounding

motor vehicle emissions of metals.

Moreover, it is consistent with Congress’

list of HAP for stationary sources in

Section 112(b) of the Act. At the same

time we recognize that to accurately

assess the actual health risks associated

with exposure to metal emissions from

mobile sources, identification of the

specific forms of the metals emitted

would be important.

With regard to emissions from

alternative-fueled vehicles, most of the

compounds included in the exhaust are

included on our list of MSATs (e.g.,

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde). It should

be noted that, depending on the fuel

used, these vehicles may also emit

unburned ethanol and methanol. Low

level ethanol mixtures (10% ethanol

and 90% gasoline) are widely used in

the United States. Higher level ethanol

mixtures (e.g., 85% ethanol) are used as

alternative fuel sources in a small

number of flexible fuel vehicles. There

is a paucity of data on potential

inhalation effects of ethanol, and the

compound is not listed in IRIS. One

commenter responded to our request for

comment on the addition of ethanol to

the list of MSATs based on the presence

of ethanol in alternative fuels and stated

that ethanol should not be listed as an

MSAT. At this time EPA is not

including ethanol in the list of MSATs

because we do not have an Agency

consensus view as expressed on IRIS

regarding the potential adverse health

effects associated with exposure to

ethanol. The Agency is continuing

toxicity testing and risk assessment of

potential adverse health effects resulting

from exposure to this compound. We

will reassess available information

regarding potential health effects of

exposure to ethanol when we evaluate

whether additional controls are

appropriate in 2003.

We did not include methanol on our

proposed list of MSAT because it was

not identified in our analysis of

speciated emissions from motor

vehicles. Instead, in the NPRM, we

requested comment on whether

methanol and ethanol, by virtue of their

use in alternative fuel vehicles, should

be included on the list.

During the comment period, one

commenter directed EPA to studies that

identify methanol as an emissions

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17237

8Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on

Motor Vehicles Toxics Emissions and Exposure in

Urban Areas and Nationwide (Volumes 1 and 2),

November 1999. EPA420–R–99–029/030. This

report can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

toxics.htm.

product of motor vehicles burning

reformulated gasoline. This commenter

suggested that further research needed

to be conducted to determine whether

methanol should be added to the list of

MSAT. Recently submitted comments

echoed the need to conduct further

research and requested more time to

consider the addition of methanol to the

MSAT list.

In order to provide a full opportunity

for public comment and to respond to

these comments in more detail, we will

address the addition of methanol to the

MSAT list in a separate rulemaking. We

believe it is reasonable to defer making

a decision on listing methanol until

after today’s rulemaking, because listing

in today’s rulemaking would not result

in additional controls. The existing

motor vehicle VOC controls will reduce

emissions of methanol along with other

gaseous toxics and fuel controls will

need to be considered in subsequent

rulemakings. As part of the future notice

addressing addition of methanol to our

list of MSAT, we will also evaluate

possible controls in accordance with

section 202(l)(2) as appropriate.

In the notice of proposed rulemaking

we compared lists of emitted

compounds to four lists of toxic air

pollutants to confirm that our MSAT list

was reasonable. The four lists of toxic

air pollutants we used were: the Clean

Air Act (CAA) Section 112(b) list of

hazardous air pollutants; California EPA

(CalEPA) list of toxic air contaminants

(TAC); U.S. Department of Health and

Human Service Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR) list of Minimal Risk Levels

(MRLs); and International Agency for

Research on Cancer (IARC) monographs

on cancer. Comparing these four lists

against the emissions speciation studies

and databases, we identified two

additional compounds not included on

our list of MSATs—propionaldehyde

and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane. Comments

we received on these compounds

suggested either that (1) further study

was needed to determine the potential

for adverse health effects or that (2) both

compounds should be added to the list

of MSATs based on their presence in the

CAA section 112(b) HAP list, or due to

the presence of these compounds on the

emissions lists.

At this time EPA is not including

propionaldehyde or 2,2,4-

trimethylpentane in the list of MSATs

because we do not have an Agency

consensus view as expressed on IRIS

regarding the potential adverse health

effects associated with exposure to these

pollutants. EPA assessments of these

compounds have been proposed and we

will use all currently available

information to reassess the possible

inclusion of these compounds in the list

of MSATs when we evaluate whether

additional controls are appropriate in

2003.

III. How Are Motor Vehicle Emission

Control Programs Reducing MSAT

Emissions?

In the previous section we identified

the 21 MSATs. We now turn to an

evaluation of how our various mobile

source control programs will affect the

inventories of these air toxics.

The data and information available on

emissions of these 21 MSATs vary

considerably. While we have baseline

inventory data for all of the MSATs

except naphthalene, we do not have

inventory projections for all of them.

Therefore, we are examining the

projected impacts of our current and

proposed mobile source control

programs by groupings of air toxics. We

do have specific projections of future

emissions for five gaseous toxics

(benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene,

acetaldehyde, MTBE) and for diesel PM

(as the surrogate for DPM + DEOG) and

we present these in this section. We do

not have emissions projections for the

remaining gaseous toxics (acrolein,

POM, styrene, toluene, xylene,

ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and nhexane) but, because these compounds

are part of VOCs, we believe it is

reasonable to utilize VOC emissions

inventory projections to estimate the

expected impact of our control programs

on these other gaseous MSATs. Finally,

we also do not have emissions inventory

projections for the metals on the MSAT

list (arsenic compounds, chromium

compounds, mercury compounds,

nickel compounds, manganese

compounds, and lead compounds) or for

dioxins/furans. While metal emissions

and dioxin/furans emissions are

associated with particles and it is

possible that some of these compounds

track PM emissions to some extent, we

do not have good data on these

relationships. Therefore, we are not

presenting emission projections for

these compounds in this action. We

believe this is reasonable because the

mobile source contribution to metals

inventories is small and comes

primarily from engine wear and

impurities in engine oil, or from fuel

additives.

As we describe in the following

discussion, there have been and will

continue to be significant reductions in

MSAT emissions as a result of our

mobile source regulations. By 2020, we

project on-highway emission control

programs (up to and including our Tier

2 control program and our proposed

2007 heavy-duty engine rule) will

reduce benzene emissions by 73

percent, formaldehyde emissions by 76

percent, 1,3-butadiene emissions by 72

percent, and acetaldehyde emissions by

67 percent from 1990 levels. Under

these same controls we project onhighway diesel PM emissions will be

reduced by 94 percent by 2020, as

compared with 1990 levels. Nonroad

engines and equipment also contribute

substantially to levels of MSAT

emissions and have only in recent years

been subject to emission standards.

Since nonroad engines are not subject to

the same stringent controls as onhighway vehicles, the reductions from

these sources are more moderate than

those for on-highway sources.

The discussion in this section consists

of two parts. First, we describe current

inventories of MSAT emissions. Next,

we describe how our on-highway

emission control programs will reduce

these inventories. Interested readers

should refer to Chapter 4 of our TSD for

more detailed information about the

methodology we used to compile these

inventories and the results of our

analysis. We consider the impacts of our

nonroad engine control programs on

MSAT emissions in Section VI of this

preamble.

A. Baseline Inventories

We developed inventory estimates for

several gaseous MSATs (acetaldehyde,

benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,

MTBE) and also for diesel PM as part of

the 1999 study, ‘‘Analysis of the Impacts

of Control Programs on Motor Vehicle

Toxic Emissions and Exposure in Urban

Areas and Nationwide,’’ (hereafter

referred to as the 1999 EPA Motor

Vehicle Air Toxics Study, or the 1999

Study).8 The pollutants examined in the

1999 Study were chosen because we

had adequate data to perform a rigorous

modeling analysis for those pollutants.

The 1999 Study examined the impact of

a variety of parameters including fuel

properties, emission control

technologies, and type of in-use

operation on the 1990 and 1996

emissions inventories for these six

pollutants. The 1990 baseline represents

estimated emissions before any of the

programs added by the1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments were implemented.

The 1996 estimates reflect toxics

emissions with some of the new Clean

Air Act programs in place, such as

Phase 1 of the RFG program. Note that

17238 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

9The nonroad inventory in the 1996 NTI includes

emissions data for aircraft, commercial marine

vessel, locomotives, and other nonroad engines.

Note that under the Clean Air Act definition,

nonroad vehicles do not include aircraft. For

convenience, in this action the term ‘‘nonroad’’ will

include aircraft except where otherwise noted. It

should be noted that the NONROAD model, on

which the estimates for nonroad engines other than

locomotive, commercial marine vessels, and aircraft

are based, is still draft, and the emissions estimates

based on this model are subject to change.

10Naphthalene emissions are not reported in the

1996 NTI separately from 16–PAH. See Chapter 3

of the TSD for the explanation of the linkage

between diesel exhaust and diesel PM.

since completion of the 1999 Study, we

have updated our estimates of diesel PM

emissions and our estimates of toxics

emissions from heavy-engines (as part of

improvements made with regard to

heavy-duty engine modeling). Our

updated baseline toxics inventory

estimates are presented in Table III–1. It

should also be noted that these

estimates are only for on-highway

vehicles.

TABLE III–1.—ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM ON-HIGHWAY VEHICLES FOR SELECTED AIR POLLUTANTS

[Short tons per year] a

Compound 1990 Emissions 1996 Emissions b

1,3-Butadiene ..................................................... 36,000 .............................................................. 24,000

Acetaldehyde ...................................................... 41,000 .............................................................. 31,000

Benzene ............................................................. 257,000 ............................................................ 171,000

Formaldehyde ..................................................... 139,000 ............................................................ 93,000

Diesel PM ........................................................... 235,000 c .......................................................... 182,000

MTBE .................................................................. 55,000 .............................................................. 67,000

a In this notice we report emissions in terms of short tons as opposed to metric tons.

bThe 1996 estimates are based on updated inventories taking into consideration the proposed 2007 and later model year heavy-duty engine

standards. cFor 1990, we used diesel PM estimates from EPA’s Trends Report.

The 1996 National Toxics Inventory

(NTI) prepared in connection with the

Agency’s NATA activities also contains

emission estimates for 1,3-butadiene,

acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde

and MTBE. The 1996 NTI emission

estimates for these compounds differ

slightly from those generated in the

1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics

Study, due to revisions made to the NTI

based on updated vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) information provided by a

number of states, minor changes to the

emissions model used (the MOBTOX

model), and revised heavy-duty

information. Since DPM + DEOG is not

included on the list of 112(b) hazardous

air pollutants, which is the focus of the

1996 NTI, DPM + DEOG estimates were

not compiled in the 1996 NTI.

The 1996 NTI also contains 1996

emissions estimates for several other

MSATs, and includes data for nonroad 9

as well as on-highway sources. We

present these data in Table III–2. We

also indicate the on-highway and

nonroad percentages of the national

inventories for these MSATs (the total

national inventories include emissions

from on-highway and nonroad mobile

sources, major and area stationary

sources, and other sources such as forest

fires). Between the 1999 EPA Motor

Vehicle Air Toxics Study and the 1996

NTI, we have baseline inventory data for

all of the 21 MSATs except

naphthalene.10 (For DPM + DEOG, we

do not have inventory data on the DEOG

portion. For this analysis, we are using

DPM as a surrogate for DPM + DEOG.)

While good baseline data exist for many

of the MSATs, they do not exist for all.

As noted earlier, we plan to conduct

additional research in coordination with

other toxics research activities that are

ongoing in the Agency to improve our

characterization of toxics emission from

mobile sources.

TABLE III–2.—1996 ON-HIGHWAY AND NONROAD EMISSION INVENTORIES OF SOME MSATS FROM THE 1996 NTI

[Short tons]

Compound

On-Highway Nonroad Mobile Sources

Tons

Percent of

Total National

Emmissions

Tons

Percent of

Total National

Emmissions

Tons

Percent of

Total National

Emmissions

1,3-Butadiene a ................................................................. 23,500 42 9,900 18 33,400 60

Acetaldehyde a ................................................................. 28,700 29 40,800 41 69,500 70

Acrolein a .......................................................................... 5,000 16 7,400 23 12,400 39

Arsenic Compounds a ...................................................... 0.25 0.06 2.01 0.51 2.26 0.57

Benzene a ......................................................................... 168,200 48 98,700 28 266,900 76

Chromium Compounds a .................................................. 14 1.2 35 3 49 4.2

Dioxins/Furans a, b ............................................................. 0.0001 0.2 N.A. N.A. 0.0001 0.2

Ethylbenzene ................................................................... 80,800 47 62,200 37 143,000 84

Formaldehyde a ................................................................ 83,000 24 86,400 25 169,400 49

Lead Compounds a .......................................................... 19 0.8 546 21.8 565 22.6

Manganese Compounds a ................................................ 5.8 0.2 35.5 1.3 41.3 1.5

Mercury Compounds a ..................................................... 0.2 0.1 6.6 4.1 6.8 4.2

MTBE ............................................................................... 65,100 47 53,900 39 119,000 86

n-Hexane .......................................................................... 63,300 26 43,600 18 106,600 44

Naphthalene ..................................................................... N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

Nickel Compounds a ......................................................... 10.7 0.9 92.8 7.6 103.5 8.5

POM (as sum of 7 PAH) a ............................................... 42.0 4 19.3 2 61.3 6

Styrene ............................................................................. 16,300 33 3,500 7 19,800 40

Toluene ............................................................................ 549,900 51 252,200 23 802,100 74

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17239

11Aviation gasoline is used by a relatively small

number of aircraft, those with piston engines,

which are generally used for personal

transportation, sightseeing, crop dusting, and

similar activities.

12 It should be noted that the nonroad diesel PM

emissions estimate is based on the draft NONROAD

model and is subject to change.

TABLE III–2.—1996 ON-HIGHWAY AND NONROAD EMISSION INVENTORIES OF SOME MSATS FROM THE 1996 NTI—

Continued

[Short tons]

Compound

On-Highway Nonroad Mobile Sources

Tons

Percent of

Total National

Emmissions

Tons

Percent of

Total National

Emmissions

Tons

Percent of

Total National

Emmissions

Xylene .............................................................................. 311,000 43 258,400 36 569,400 79

aThese compounds are also on the list of urban HAPs for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.

b Mass given in tons of TEQ (toxic equivalency quotient). The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has recently developed an inventory for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds using different methods than those used in the 1996 NTI. For 1995, the EPA–ORD estimate of onhighway emissions of dioxin compounds is 0.00005 tons TEQ, comprising 1.5 percent of the national inventory in that year. (The TEQ rates the

toxicity of each dioxin and furan relative to that of 2,3,7,8–TCDD, which is assigned a TEQ of 1.0.)

The above inventory data reflect

certain interesting characteristics of

mobile source air toxics emissions.

First, mobile sources account for the

majority of the national inventory of

three of the gaseous MSATs that are

included on the urban HAP list. These

three are 1,3-butadiene (60 percent),

acetaldehyde (70 percent), and benzene

(76 percent). Mobile sources account for

39 percent of the national inventory of

acrolein, and 49 percent of the national

inventory of formaldehyde, two other

gaseous urban HAPs. All of these

MSATs are formed as part of the

combustion process except for benzene,

which is also released through

evaporative emissions from gasoline.

Second, with regard to the other

MSATs that are included on the urban

HAP list, the mobile source contribution

generally is small (arsenic compounds,

chromium compounds, manganese

compounds, mercury compounds,

nickel compounds, POM, and dioxins/

furans). The sole exception is lead

compounds. Mobile sources contribute

23 percent to national inventories of

lead compound emissions, due

primarily to nonroad sources and, more

specifically, to the use of a lead-additive

package used to boost the octane of

aviation gasoline.11 The mobile source

contribution to the other metals on the

urban HAP list comes primarily from

engine wear, some fuel additives, or

impurities in engine oil.

With regard to the gaseous MSATs

that are not included on the urban HAP

list (ethylbenzene, MTBE, n-hexane,

toluene, and xylene), mobile source

contributions are high because of the

presence of these compounds in

gasoline.

In addition, mobile sources account

for almost all diesel PM emissions. A

limited number of stationary sources,

such as large generators, do operate on

diesel fuel. Because there are relatively

few stationary sources that operate on

diesel fuel, we believe that diesel PM

from stationary sources is relatively

small compared to diesel PM from

mobile sources. (However, for this

analysis we have not generated an

estimate of diesel PM from stationary

sources.) As shown in Table III–1,

above, we estimate that 1996 onhighway diesel PM emissions are

approximately 182,000 tons. We

estimate that 1996 nonroad diesel PM

emissions are approximately 346,000

tons, as discussed in Section VI of this

notice.12

B. Impacts of Motor Vehicle Emission

Controls on Emission Inventories

1. Description of Emission Control

Programs

Many of the programs that we have

put in place since the passage of the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to

achieve attainment of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone, PM and CO have

also reduced MSAT emissions. For

example, measures to control

hydrocarbons from motor vehicles are

also effective in controlling gaseous

toxics. In addition, certain programs

address air toxics directly, such as the

RFG program and the gasoline lead

phase-out. In this section we briefly

describe several categories of mobile

source emission control measures that

have helped reduce inventories of these

harmful compounds. These programs

include:

• More stringent vehicle standards

and test procedures. The 1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments set specific emission

standards for hydrocarbons and for PM.

Air toxics are present in both of these

pollutant categories. As vehicle

manufacturers develop technologies to

comply with the hydrocarbon and

particulate standards (e.g., more

efficient catalytic converters), we expect

air toxics to be reduced as well. Since

1990, we have developed a number of

programs to address exhaust and

evaporative hydrocarbon emissions and

PM emissions. Some of the key

programs are the Tier 1 and NLEV

standards for light-duty vehicles and

trucks; enhanced evaporative emissions

standards; the supplemental federal test

procedures (SFTP); urban bus standards;

and heavy-duty diesel and gasoline

standards for the 2004/2005 time frame.

• Recent motor vehicle/fuel control

initiatives. Two of our recent initiatives

to control emissions from motor

vehicles and their fuels are the Tier 2

control program and our proposed 2007

heavy-duty engine rule. Together these

two initiatives define a set of

comprehensive standards for light-duty

and heavy-duty motor vehicles and their

fuels. In both of these initiatives, we

treat vehicles and fuels as a system. The

Tier 2 control program establishes

stringent tailpipe and evaporative

emission standards for light-duty

vehicles and a reduction in sulfur levels

in gasoline fuel beginning in 2004. The

proposed 2007 heavy-duty engine rule

would establish stringent exhaust

emission standards for heavy-duty

engines and vehicles for the 2007 model

year as well as reductions in diesel fuel

sulfur levels starting in 2006.

• Limits on gasoline volatility.

Volatility is a measure of how easily a

liquid evaporates. As described earlier,

some toxics such as benzene are present

in gasoline and get into the air when

gasoline evaporates. We imposed limits

on gasoline volatility in the early 1990s

to control evaporative emissions of both

hydrocarbon and toxic compounds

(most air toxics are hydrocarbons, so

programs designed to reduce

hydrocarbon emissions also reduce air

toxics).

• Reformulated gasoline. The 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments required

17240 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

13The analysis methodology is described in a

memorandum from Meredith Weatherby, Eastern

Research Group, to Rich Cook, EPA, entitled

‘‘Estimating of 1990 VOC and TOG Emissions’’ in

EPA Air Docket A–2000–12.

14EPA, 2000. National Air Pollution Emission

Trends, 1900–1998 (March 2000). Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle

Park, NC. Report No. 454/R–00–002.

15 ‘‘Early Release of the Annual Energy Outlook

2001,’’ available at www.eia.doe.gov/oaif/aeo/

earlyrelease/index.html, Energy Information

reformulated gasoline to be introduced

in the nation’s most polluted cities

beginning in 1995. From 1995 through

1999, these gasolines were required to

provide a minimum 16.5 percent

reduction in air toxics emissions over

typical 1990 gasolines, increasing to a

21.5 percent minimum reduction

beginning in the year 2000. The air

toxics reductions have been achieved

mainly by further reducing gasoline

volatility and by reducing the benzene,

aromatics, sulfur, and olefin content of

the gasoline.

• Phase-out of lead in gasoline. One

of the first programs to control toxic

emissions from motor vehicles was the

removal of lead from gasoline.

Beginning in the mid-1970s, unleaded

gasoline was phased in to replace

leaded gasoline. The phase-out of

leaded gasoline was completed January

1, 1996 when lead was banned from

motor vehicle gasoline. The removal of

lead from gasoline has essentially

eliminated on-highway mobile source

emissions of this highly toxic substance.

• Ensuring emissions are controlled

throughout the vehicle’s life. Many of

our vehicle standards require

certification of new engines and

vehicles, but ensuring continued

performance of emission controls can be

difficult. The Clean Air Act establishes

several programs to make sure vehicle

emission controls are functioning

properly in actual use. These programs

include requirements for periodic

emission inspections (I/M, or inspection

and maintenance programs) and for

computerized on-board diagnostic

systems that alert drivers and mechanics

to malfunctioning emission controls.

We encourage the interested reader to

refer to Chapter 1 of our TSD for more

detailed information about these

programs.

2. Emission Reductions From Control

Programs

We expect the mobile source

emissions control programs described

above to have beneficial impacts on

national inventories of MSATs. The

remainder of this section summarizes

our MSAT inventory projections. First,

we present an overview of the

methodologies used to project future

emissions inventories. Next, we present

the results of our inventory projections.

We encourage interested readers to refer

to Chapter 4 of our TSD for a more

detailed discussion of these projections

and how we developed them. The

inventory projections in this section are

for on-highway vehicles only.

Projections of nonroad MSAT emissions

are included in Section VI of this

preamble.

a. Overview of Inventory Sources

We developed inventory projections

that reflect our current and proposed

control programs, described above, for

five gaseous MSATs, for VOC, and for

diesel PM for the years 2007 and 2020.

The inventory projections for the five

gaseous toxics are based on the 1999

EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study,

updated to incorporate a variety of new

information on on-highway vehicles.

The 1999 Study estimated onhighway motor vehicle air toxics

emissions for ten urban areas (Atlanta,

Chicago, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis,

New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix,

Spokane, and St. Louis) and 16

geographic regions. These areas were

selected to reflect the range of potential

fuels, temperatures, and I/M programs

observed in the United States. Every

county in the country was then

‘‘mapped’’ to one of these modeled areas

or regions. Mapping was done based on

a combination of geographic proximity,

I/M program, and fuel control programs.

The estimation methodology used in the

1999 Study was similar to that used in

our original 1993 Motor Vehicle Related

Air Toxics Study. In our approach, the

MOBILE model is used to generate total

organic gas (TOG) emissions from onhighway motor vehicles by vehicle class

and model year. Toxics fractions,

developed as a percentage of the toxic

compound of interest contained in TOG

emissions, are then applied to the

MOBILE-based TOG emission rates

(reported in grams per mile) to arrive at

toxics emission rates (reported in grams

per mile or milligrams per mile). For

light-duty vehicles, information

developed for the Complex Model was

used to develop these relationships.

These toxics fractions are developed as

a function of vehicle class (e.g., lightduty, heavy-duty), fuel type (e.g.,

gasoline or diesel), fuel composition,

and technology type (e.g., non-catalyst,

catalyst).

We do not have detailed emissions

data for gaseous MSATs other than the

five gaseous MSATs examined in the

1999 Study. However, we expect the

trend for other gaseous MSATs,

including acrolein, POM, styrene,

xylene, toluene, ethylbenzene,

naphthalene, and n-hexane, to follow

that of VOC, since all of these

compounds are VOCs. We recognize

that some gaseous MSATs may not

decrease at the same rate as VOCs

overall. Without having more detailed

emission data for each of the MSATs,

however, we are unable to project how

those rates may differ. Because we do

not have emissions data for DEOG, we

are using diesel PM as the surrogate for

the MSAT listed as DPM and DEOG.

Where we have data regarding specific

constituents in the diesel exhaust

organic gas phase we present that

information.

Our VOC and diesel PM emission

estimates are derived from several

sources. The 1996 and later values are

based on updated modeling that factors

in the impact of the proposed 2007

heavy duty engine standards. The 1990

VOC emission estimate is based on the

1999 EPA Motor Vehicle Air Toxics

Study,13 and the 1990 diesel PM is from

EPA’s Trends Report.14

We are not reporting inventory trends

for the metals on our list of MSATs

(arsenic compounds, chromium

compounds, mercury compounds,

nickel compounds, manganese

compounds, and lead compounds) or for

dioxins/furans because we do not have

good data on these relationships at this

time. Metals in mobile source exhaust

can come from fuel, fuel additives,

engine oil, engine oil additives, or

engine wear. Formation of dioxin and

furans requires a source of chlorine.

Thus, while metal emissions and

dioxin/furan emissions are associated

with particles and it is possible that

some of these compounds track PM

emissions to some extent, there are a

number of other factors that contribute

to emissions, and we do not have good

data on these relationships.

We did receive one comment

regarding inputs to the emission

inventory modeling performed for the

NPRM. The National Petrochemical and

Refiners Association (NPRA)

commented that the vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) growth rates for heavyduty vehicles, which were based on

1998 estimates from the Energy

Information Agency (EIA), were too

high. In support of their comments,

NPRA submitted EIA’s 1999 estimates

which were lower than those from 1998

used by EPA. For the inventory

projections contained in today’s action,

we have retained the same growth rates

used in the NPRM analysis. Based on

discussions with EIA, we believe the

2000 growth estimates will be higher

than both the 1999 estimates NPRA

referenced and the 1998 estimates we

used in the NPRM analysis.15 However,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17241

Administration, downloaded from EIA web site on

December 12, 2000.

because the final 2000 numbers are not

yet available from EIA, we are retaining

the use of the growth rates used in the

NPRM as a more reasonable estimate

than the 1999 growth estimates.

b. Emission Reductions

Table III–3 presents the annual

emission projections for on-highway

vehicles for five gaseous toxics, VOC,

and diesel PM with our current onhighway control programs and the

proposed 2007 and later model year

heavy-duty engine standards. The 1996

inventories presented in Table III–3 are

slightly higher than the 1996 inventories

presented in Table III–2 because the

estimates of heavy-duty vehicle VMT

have been updated and improved since

the VMT estimates for the 1996 NTI

were prepared.

TABLE III–3.—ANNUAL EMMISSIONS INVENTORIES FROM ON-HIGHWAY VEHICLES a

[Thousand short tons per year]

Compound 1990 1996 2007 2020

1,3 Butadiene ........................................................................................................... 36 24 12 10

Acetaldehyde ........................................................................................................... 41 31 17 13

Benzene ................................................................................................................... 257 171 89 68

Formaldehyde .......................................................................................................... 139 93 43 34

Diesel PM ................................................................................................................ 235 182 85 15

MTBEb ..................................................................................................................... 55 67 26 18

VOC ......................................................................................................................... 7,585 4,933 3,028 2,153

a Includes the impact of our current on-highway control programs and the proposed 2007 and later model year heavy-duty engine standards. bThese estimates do not include consideration of EPA’s examination of options to phase down or otherwise control the use of MTBE under the

Toxic Substances Control Act, or legislative authority that EPA has asked Congress to provide the Agency to address MTBE use in gasoline.

Table III–4 summarizes the percent

reductions we expect in on-highway

emissions of gaseous MSATs, VOC, and

diesel PM from 1990 and 1996 levels in

2007 and 2020 as a result of our current

on-highway control programs and the

proposed 2007 and later model year

heavy-duty engine standards.

TABLE III–4.—REDUCTIONS IN ON-HIGHWAY VEHICLE EMISSIONS a

Compound

Reduction in 2007 Reduction in 2020

From 1990

(Percent)

From 1996

(Percent)

From 1990

(Percent)

From 1996

(Percent)

1,3 Butadiene ........................................................................................................... 67 50 72 57

Acetaldehyde ........................................................................................................... 58 46 67 57

Benzene ................................................................................................................... 65 48 73 60

Formaldehyde .......................................................................................................... 69 54 76 64

Diesel PM ................................................................................................................ 64 53 94 92

MTBEb ..................................................................................................................... 52 61 67 73

VOC ......................................................................................................................... 60 39 72 56

a Includes the impact of our current on-highway control programs and the proposed 2007 and later model year heavy-duty engine standards. bThese estimates do not include consideration of EPA’s examination of options to phase down or otherwise control the use of MTBE under the

Toxic Substances Control Act, or legislative authority that EPA has asked Congress to provide the Agency to address MTBE use in gasoline.

The results of this analysis show that

on-highway emissions of the five

gaseous MSATs examined are expected

to decline by 67 to 76 percent by 2020

from 1990 levels with our existing and

proposed control programs. For some

gaseous MSATs, the reductions are even

greater. Likewise, VOC inventories from

on-highway vehicles are projected to

decrease by 72 percent between 1990

and 2020 and we assume that other

gaseous toxics would decrease by

approximately 72 percent as well.

Finally, diesel PM emissions are

projected to decline by 94 percent by

2020 from 1990 levels.

IV. Evaluation of Additional Motor

Vehicle-Based Controls

We are not establishing new standards

for motor vehicles in this rulemaking to

control MSAT emissions. Based on the

information available to the Agency at

this time, we have determined that our

proposed and current control programs

for VOC and diesel PM emissions from

motor vehicles will achieve the greatest

degree of MSAT control that is feasible

when cost and other relevant factors are

considered. This section summarizes

our rationale for this determination,

including the relationship between

EPA’s vehicle-based control programs

and the control of MSATs (especially for

those programs established after the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments), the

impact of our most recent efforts to

control VOCs, and the possibility of

additional control. The Technical

Support Document contains additional

information.

It is important to note that while we

are not adopting new vehicle-based

controls in this rulemaking, we will

continue to consider the need for, and

feasibility of, vehicle-based controls in

the future and as part of our Technical

Analysis Plan. As we have in the past,

we will also continue to look for

opportunities to control MSAT

emissions in conjunction with other

pollutants (e.g., NOX, SO2, VOC). Most

of the vehicle-based comments focused

on these types of controls. These

17242 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

16EPA recently created the new category of

‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicles’’ (MDPVs) that

includes passenger vehicles 8,500–10,000 pounds

GVWR.

17Our programs achieve VOC reductions through

standards that limit HC, NMHC, or NMOG.

comments are addressed in the

Response To Comments document.

A. MSATs and Motor Vehicle-Based

Controls

The majority of gaseous MSATs are

hydrocarbons that are primarily the

result of incomplete combustion of

petroleum fuels. Since a small amount

of raw fuel passes through the engine

unburned, MSATs present in the fuel

are also emitted in the exhaust. In either

case, the technologies used to reduce

exhaust hydrocarbons also reduce the

hydrocarbon species listed as MSATs.

This is true whether control is achieved

through engine or component

modifications, add-on devices, or the

use of aftertreatment devices such as

oxidation or three-way catalysts. We are

not aware of vehicle or engine

technologies that selectively reduce

MSATs without reducing other

hydrocarbons to a similar degree.

The other major source of

hydrocarbon emissions from motor

vehicles is fuel vapors. These emissions

occur when components of the liquid

fuel (gasoline or diesel) evaporate when

on board the vehicle. The emissions are

normally separated into refueling

emissions and evaporative emissions

(hot soak, diurnal, and running losses).

The nature and amount of potential

MSATs associated with fuel vapors

depend primarily on the fuel

composition and the temperatures

involved. Gasoline is volatile and

evaporates at normal ambient

temperatures, while diesel fuel is

relatively non-volatile. Thus evaporative

emissions are only a significant issue for

gasoline-fueled vehicles (or vehicles

using volatile alternative fuels).

Evaporative and refueling emissions are

controlled by eliminating sources of

potential liquid and vapor leaks within

the vehicle fuel system and venting any

vapors to an activated carbon canister or

similar device. Activated carbon

effectively adsorbs most hydrocarbon

compounds, including the common

evaporative-related MSATs.

Particulate matter emissions from

motor vehicles are primarily composed

of partially burned carbon and

hydrocarbons from the fuel and engine

oil, and to a lesser degree, metals and

other inorganic compounds from

contaminants or additives in the fuel or

engine oil, or products of engine wear

in the oil. Since our PM exhaust

emission standards apply without

regard to the source of the PM,

manufacturers must account for all of

these emissions. Manufacturers have

significantly reduced PM emissions

associated with unburned fuel and

engine oil through combustion system

and engine modifications. In some

cases, they have also achieved

reductions using aftertreatment.

To understand the relationship

between the Agency’s current emission

control program for on-highway

vehicles and the control of MSATs, it is

important to first understand the

structure and scope of our current

emission control programs. EPA’s

emission control program for onhighway vehicles has historically been

divided into two broad vehicle/engine

categories that we regulate: ‘‘light-duty’’

(vehicles 8,500 pounds gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) or less) and

‘‘heavy-duty’’ (vehicles above 8,500

pounds GVWR).16 Within these lightduty and heavy-duty categories, we

further distinguish vehicles and

sometimes establish different emission

limits based on vehicle size or other

factors.

B. Vehicle-Based Standards To Reduce

MSATs From Light-Duty Vehicles

Before we began regulating

automobile exhaust, vehicles typically

emitted more than 9 grams per mile

(gpm) HC in exhaust emissions. Our HC

emission standards in the 1970s and

1980s cut these levels by more than an

order of magnitude, to 0.41 gpm in

1980. In 1991, we finalized Tier 1

controls for light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks to be phased in from

1994 to 1996 (56 FR 25724). In 1998, we

developed an innovative, voluntary

nationwide program to make new cars,

called National Low Emission Vehicles

(NLEV), significantly cleaner than Tier 1

cars (63 FR 926). The NLEV program

went into effect in the Northeast states

in 1999 and will go into effect in the rest

of the country in 2001. Table IV–1

illustrates the declining HC exhaust

standards through the NLEV program.17

Also shown in the table are the number

of miles for which the standards apply,

which has increased with time. Thus

manufacturers need to make their

emission control systems more durable

and reliable over a longer period of

time.

TABLE IV–1.—HYDROCARBON (HC) EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

[GPM]

Year 1972 1975 1980 1994 2001

Standard ............................................................................... 3.4 1.5 0.41 a 0.31 b 0.09

Applicability (Miles) .............................................................. 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 120,000

aThe 1994 standard is a nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standard.

bThe 2001 standard is a nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) standard. This standard will be replaced by the new multi-level Tier 2 NMOG

standards, but the average standard level should remain at approximately 0.09 gpm.

In December 1999, the Agency

finalized the Tier 2/sulfur rule

establishing light-duty requirements

that will be phased-in beginning with

the 2004 model year. These

requirements phase-in a set of tailpipe

emission standards that will, for the first

time, apply the same standards to

passenger cars, light-duty trucks (LDTs),

and larger passenger vehicles. To enable

the very clean Tier 2 vehicle emission

control technology to be introduced and

to maintain its effectiveness, nationwide

gasoline sulfur requirements were also

put into place. The Tier 2 program

begins in 2004 for passenger cars and

light LDTs (LDTs up to 6,000 pounds

GVWR), while an interim program

begins in 2004 for heavy LDTs (LDTs

over 6,000 pounds GVWR). For heavy

LDTs and MDPVs (medium-duty

passenger vehicles), the Tier 2 standards

will be phased in beginning in 2008,

with full compliance in 2009. Thus,

when fully implemented, all vehicles

designed for passenger use will have to

meet the stringent new emission

standards.

The Tier 2 program is designed to

focus on reducing the ozone and

particulate matter air quality impact of

these vehicles. Ozone reductions will be

achieved through control of nitrogen

oxides and non-methane hydrocarbons.

As discussed above, it is the control of

HC through the NMOG standards that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17243

18 65 FR 35429, June 2, 2000.

results in the control of the gaseous

toxics. The Tier 2 rule also established

stringent PM standards. Control of PM

emissions will occur through reductions

in gasoline sulfur and the use of

aftertreatment for diesel vehicles.

Because all Tier 2 standards are fuel

neutral, the PM standards apply to both

gasoline and diesel vehicles.

The Tier 2 standards will reduce new

vehicle NOX levels to an average of 0.07

grams per mile. The NMOG standards

vary depending on which of the various

‘‘bins’’ (i.e., certification categories) the

manufacturers choose to use in

complying with the average NOX

standard. However, we expect

significant reductions in NMOG

emissions from these vehicles as a result

of the more stringent NMOG standards

in the bins and the need to select bins

to meet the NOX average. When fully

phased-in, we expect fleet average

NMOG levels at or below the 0.09 g/mi

level. This will represent a 99 percent

reduction from uncontrolled pre-1970

levels. Since these controls should be at

least as effective at reducing MSATs,

these standards should also reduce

MSATs to a similar extent from

uncontrolled levels.

The Tier 2 rule also finalized

formaldehyde standards that harmonize

federal standards with the California’s

LEV II program. Section 202(l)(2) of the

Clean Air Act instructs the Agency to

promulgate regulations that, at a

minimum, apply to emissions of

benzene and formaldehyde. We believe

that the shift to a toxics emissions

performance requirement will limit

emissions of these two pollutants. In

response to comments, we also

considered setting more stringent

vehicle-based formaldehyde standards

in this FRM. However, since we are not

aware of any technology that could

specifically reduce formaldehyde

emissions, we have no confidence that

more stringent vehicle or engine

formaldehyde standards would be

feasible. Nevertheless, we remain

confident that the combination of our

Toxics Performance Standard, Tier 2

formaldehyde standards and Tier 2

NMOG standards described above will

achieve significant reductions in

formaldehyde emissions.

In order to meet strict Tier 2 standards

on a fleet-wide average, manufacturers

will have to use a combination of

sophisticated calibration changes and

emission system hardware

modifications to increase and maintain

high control system efficiency. They

will be challenged to maintain tight airfuel control and improved catalyst

performance, especially achieving better

catalyst thermal management.

Minimizing the time necessary for the

catalyst to reach its operating

temperature will be especially critical,

since the vast majority of emissions

occur in the minute or less which passes

before the catalyst ‘‘lights off.’’ Many

manufacturers are going to have to

depend more on the precious metal

palladium for oxidation of NMOG and

CO emissions, as well as the reduction

of NOX. Palladium is more tolerant to

high temperatures and will enable

manufacturers to increase catalyst

efficiency in a broad range of in-use

conditions. These technologies will be

highly effective at reducing MSATs,

including benzene and formaldehyde.

Our existing regulations also contain

test procedures to measure evaporative

hydrocarbon emissions during a

simulated parking event (diurnal

emissions) and immediately following a

drive (hot soak emissions). In 1993, we

finalized more stringent evaporative

emission test procedures which apply to

light-duty and heavy-duty gasoline

vehicles. That rule also addressed fuel

spitback and spillage during refueling.

These procedures were fully phased in

by 1999 (58 FR 16002). The Tier 2 rule

included even more stringent

requirements. The Tier 2 evaporative

standards represent, for most vehicles,

more than a 50-percent reduction in

diurnal plus hot soak standards from

those that will be in effect in the years

immediately preceding Tier 2

implementation. These standards

should achieve similar reductions in

gaseous MSATs. In fact, since the

activated carbon used to capture

evaporative emissions preferentially

adsorbs larger organic molecules, these

controls may achieve a greater degree of

control of MSATs, which are generally

larger and heavier than many other

gasoline components. Under these

requirements, it is likely that

manufacturers will also need to upgrade

materials and both increase the

reliability of fuel/vapor hose

connections and fittings and reduce the

number used in the system. We have

also finalized on-board refueling vapor

recovery (ORVR) requirements for lightduty gasoline vehicles (59 FR 16262,

April 6, 1994). ORVR is a nationwide

program for capturing refueling

emissions by collecting vapors from the

vehicle gas tank and storing them in the

vehicle during refueling. The fuel

vapors are then purged into the engine

air intake to be burned while the vehicle

is being driven.

Taken as a whole, the Tier 2 program

presents the manufacturers with

significant challenges in the coming

years. It will require the use of hardware

and emission control techniques and

strategies not used in the fleet today.

Bringing essentially all passenger

vehicles under the same emission

control program regardless of their size,

weight, and application is a major

engineering challenge. While there may

be other prototype technologies on the

horizon which could potentially reduce

cold-start emissions and therefore air

toxics, we have concluded that it would

not be appropriate to set tighter

standards in this FRM based on these

prototype technologies. We are not

convinced that these technologies

would be feasible and cost effective on

a fleet-wide basis in the near future.

This is discussed in more detail in

Chapter 6 of the TSD.

C. Vehicle-Based Standards To Reduce

MSATs From Heavy-Duty Engines

Table IV–2 summarizes the

hydrocarbon and PM standards for

heavy-duty engines. Also shown in the

table are estimates of emission rates

from uncontrolled engines. In addition,

the standards in our recently proposed

2007 heavy-duty rulemaking are also

shown in the table.18

TABLE IV–2.—HC AND PM EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND STANDARDS FOR HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES

Gasoline (Otto-Cycle) Diesel

Exhaust HC Exhaust HC Exhaust PM

Uncontrolled Emissions ........................................................................... 10–13 g/bhp-hr .......... 4 g/bhp-hr .................. 0.7 g/bhp-hr.

Current Standards ................................................................................... 1.1 g/bhp-hr a ............. 1.3 g/bhp-hr ............... 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

2004/5 Standards .................................................................................... 0.25 g/bhp-hr b ........... 0.4 g/bhp-hr c ............. 0.10 g/bhp-hr.

17244 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE IV–2.—HC AND PM EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND STANDARDS FOR HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES—Continued

Gasoline (Otto-Cycle) Diesel

Exhaust HC Exhaust HC Exhaust PM

Proposed 2007 Standards ....................................................................... 0.14 g/bhp-hr ............. 0.14 g/bhp-hr ............. 0.01 g/bhp-hr.

a Current standard is 1.9 g/bhp-hr for Otto-cycle vehicles over 14,000 GVWR.

bStandard was set as a 2005 NMHC+NOX standard; level shown is estimated equivalent NMHC standard. cStandard is a 2004 NMHC+NOX standard; level shown is estimated equivalent NMHC standard.

With regard to exhaust emission

standards, the proposed 2007 heavyduty engine standards would reduce

hydrocarbon emissions to levels

approaching 0.1 g/bhp-hr for both

gasoline and diesel. This would result

in a significant reduction even when

compared to the 2004 standards.

Similarly, the new exhaust PM standard

for heavy-duty diesel engines is

stringent. This standard (0.01 g/bhp-hr)

is a 90-percent reduction from current

standards which are currently being

achieved with significant combustion

chamber and engine modifications.

Achieving a 0.01 g/bhp-hr standard will

require the use of catalyzed PM traps.

This technology will also result in HC

emission reductions. It is further worth

noting that the proposed 2007 standards

include provisions for a closed

crankcase for turbocharged diesel

engines. Crankcase emissions from these

engines are a significant source of

MSATs (PM and hydrocarbons) that has

previously remained uncontrolled.

For chassis-certified gasoline-powered

heavy-duty vehicles, EPA proposed that

beginning in 2007 they meet exhaust

hydrocarbon standards of similar

stringency to those discussed above for

Tier 2. These include hydrocarbon

standards of 0.195 g/mi for vehicles of

8,500–10,000 lbs GVWR and 0.23 g/mi

for vehicles of 10,001–14,000 lbs

GVWR.

Fuel quality changes will enable

gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles/

engines to meet the more stringent

standards over their full life. As part of

the Tier 2 rule, EPA promulgated

provisions limiting gasoline sulfur

levels to 30 ppm average and 80 ppm

cap. This program phases in beginning

in 2004, and will enable a new

generation of vehicle emission control

for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles and

also improve the emission performance

of the current fleet. Sulfur is a fuel

contaminant, and controlling sulfur will

also reduce sulfate PM emissions. The

2007 heavy-duty proposal mentioned

above also includes provisions that

would greatly reduce the sulfur content

of current on-highway diesel fuel. Not

only would this reduction enable the

emission control technology now under

development, but it would also reduce

sulfate PM emissions .

We have recently extended our

onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements

to heavy-duty gasoline engines up to

14,000 pounds GVWR (65 FR 59896,

October 6, 2000). These OBD provisions

require that vehicle manufacturers

install dashboard indicators that alert

drivers to the need for emission-related

maintenance, and electronic monitors

that store codes in the vehicle’s

computer to assist mechanics in the

diagnosis and repair of the malfunction.

As some of the commenters noted,

requiring that all highway vehicles

incorporate these OBD systems will

ensure good control of in-use emissions,

including MSAT emissions. We are in

the process of developing a proposal

that would address OBD provisions for

all other heavy-duty vehicles.

We have also proposed in the 2007

rulemaking more stringent evaporative

standards, which will force even further

refinements in fuel/vapor systems.

Beginning in 2005, onboard refueling

vapor control will be required for all

heavy-duty gasoline-powered vehicles

(65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000). This

would reduce emissions by 95 percent

from current uncontrolled levels. In

addition, as part of the proposed 2007

rulemaking, EPA proposed to reduce

evaporative emission standards by 50

percent over current standards. Both

refueling controls and further

evaporative controls will reduce

evaporative emissions of air toxics from

heavy-duty vehicles even further.

The proposed rulemaking for 2007

heavy-duty engine and vehicle

standards contains extensive analysis

and discussion of the technological

feasibility of potential HC and PM

emission controls for heavy-duty

engines. That draft analysis

demonstrated EPA’s belief at the time of

the proposal that those heavy-duty

standards would be the greatest degree

of emission reduction achievable

through the application of technology

that will be available considering costs

and other relevant factors. EPA believes

that the proposed rule to establish 2007

model year standards for heavy-duty

diesel engines satisfies the criteria in

section 202(a) as well as 202(l)(2) and

therefore defers to the technical

decisions made in that rulemaking.

D. Conclusions Regarding Vehicle-Based

Standards

We are not establishing new standards

for motor vehicles in this rulemaking to

control MSAT emissions. We believe

our decision in this regard is

appropriate given the information

currently available. We are also

confident that our existing programs

(and proposed programs, if finalized)

will continue to achieve very significant

reductions in MSAT emissions.

The Tier 2 program represents a

comprehensive, integrated package of

exhaust, evaporative, and fuel quality

standards. The Tier 2 program will

achieve significant reductions in

NMHC, NOX, and PM emissions from all

light-duty vehicles in the program.

These reductions will include

reductions in MSATs. Emission control

in the Tier 2 program will be based on

the widespread implementation of

advanced catalyst and related control

system technology. The standards are

very stringent and will require

manufacturers to make full use of nearly

all available emission control

technologies. To illustrate this point, it

is worth noting that about 80 percent of

all remaining emissions from a wellmaintained Tier 2 vehicle will occur in

the first 60 seconds of operation, before

the catalyst ‘‘lights-off.’’ Manufacturers

will have to optimize both their coldstart strategies and the efficiency of

warmed systems to achieve the Tier 2

levels. Compliance with the Tier 2

standards will require the application of

emission technology not widely used in

the light-duty fleet today and in some

cases the use of technological

approaches still under development.

Based on the information available to

the Agency at this time, we believe that

the technologies that will be applied to

meet the Tier 2 requirements provide

the greatest achievable reductions in

emissions of air toxics as well,

considering costs and other relevant

factors.

The existing emission control

program for heavy-duty engines and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17245

19The Complex Model is a regulatory tool for

estimating emissions for the reformulated gasoline

and anti-dumping programs. The Complex Model

inputs are eight specified fuel parameters: benzene,

oxygen content (by oxygenate type), sulfur, Reid

Vapor Pressure, aromatics, olefins and the percents

evaporated at 200°F and 300°F (E200 and E300).

Complex Model outputs are the estimated

emissions (VOC, toxics, NOX) resulting from the

fuel parameters specified. The Complex Model also

calculates percent reductions of the input slate of

fuel parameters and resulting emissions compared

to a base set of fuel parameters and resulting base

emissions.

vehicles has already achieved major

reductions in MSAT emissions . New

more stringent emission standards for

heavy-duty engines will take effect in

2004 and 2005. We have also proposed

a further initiative that would require

additional control of heavy-duty

vehicle/engine emissions (65 FR 35430,

June 2, 2000). This would establish new

heavy-duty engine and vehicle emission

standards beginning with model year

2007. The 2007 rulemaking is being

finalized separately in a broader

rulemaking that addresses the

complicated implementation issues

associated with proposed emission

standards. In developing a final rule that

would establish these standards, the

Agency intends to adopt standards that

would result in the greatest achievable

reductions in emissions of air toxics as

well, considering costs and other

relevant factors.

We have also made significant

progress in the area of in-use operation.

To address the malmaintenance issue,

we have established OBD requirements

for manufacturers (both light-duty and

heavy-duty). To address both the

malmaintenance and tampering issues,

we are working with states to develop

and optimize inspection and

maintenance (I/M) programs that

monitor the emission performance of inuse vehicles. Historically, these

programs have relied on tailpipe testing

to identify high-emitting vehicles.

However, these programs have begun to

rely more on the OBD systems to

identify the high-emitting vehicles, as

well as the cause of the emission

problem. We are also investigating ways

in which we could encourage the use of

new emission controls on older

vehicles. As described in the Response

to Comments, these are not being

finalized in this FRM.

V. Evaluation of Additional Fuel-Based

Controls

The previous section evaluated motor

vehicle controls in the context of mobile

source air toxics (MSATs). The primary

purpose of this section is to discuss the

fuel program being promulgated today.

We discuss the form of the rule, major

areas of comment including our

response and final decisions on those

aspects, and the details of the fuels

program. We also discuss why we are

not at this time considering other fuel

controls as a means of reducing MSATs.

The details of our technical analyses of

these fuel issues can be found in

Chapter 7 of the Technical Support

Document (TSD). The Response to

Comments Document contains our

responses to all of the relevant

comments on the fuels aspects of this

rulemaking.

A. Form of the Rule

1. What Is the Form of the Rule EPA Is

Promulgating Today?

We are finalizing new toxics

emissions performance requirements

(TPR) for gasoline. This anti-backsliding

program will require, beginning with

calendar year 2002, that a refinery’s or

importer’s annual average total toxics

emissions performance, as predicted by

the Complex Model, for its baseline

production volume of reformulated

gasoline (RFG) not exceed its 1998–2000

baseline RFG total toxics emissions

performance. Likewise for conventional

gasoline (CG), this rule will require that

the exhaust toxics emissions

performance of a refinery’s or importer’s

baseline production volume of CG not

exceed its 1998–2000 baseline exhaust

toxics emissions performance for CG.

The 1998–2000 baseline RFG or CG

toxics emissions performance value is

the average performance of the gasoline

produced at the refinery (or imported)

over the three year period 1998 through

2000. Emission values are determined

using the Complex Model,19 and

compliance with the program is

determined separately for RFG and CG.

We have included in our program a

number of compliance flexibilities, such

as a deficit and credit carryforward, and

a compliance margin, to offset

unexpected or unusual variances in the

gasoline quality of a refinery (or

importer). We believe that these

provisions will help to ensure that this

program does not require new capital

investments or changes in refinery

operations, and thus will not pose an

additional burden on refiners. Were this

program to require new investments in

the refining sector, we would be

concerned that it would impose an

economic burden on refiners that would

be inconsistent with our finding that an

anti-backsliding program at negligible

cost is the most stringent program that

we can justify in the near term.

The current rule is designed to avoid

increases in toxic emissions from

gasoline while imposing the least cost

on the refining industry. Some have

claimed that a refinery-specific

performance requirement is inherently

unfair because those refineries that have

overcomplied to the greatest extent will

receive the most stringent new baseline

requirement. We recognize generally

that setting standards based on current

production may appear to penalize

those who have voluntarily

overcomplied. In fact, there is at least

one refinery that has sought and

received Agency recognition for its

efforts to voluntarily overcomply with

existing requirements.

The Agency recognizes as a general

matter the importance of providing

appropriate incentives for the regulated

community to take actions consistent

with improving the environment.

However, in this case, we believe that

setting refinery-specific standards is the

most appropriate and equitable

approach to ensuring that emissions do

not increase above current levels. As we

explained in the NPRM, we believe that

these refineries that have overcomplied

have done so primarily because it was

economically advantageous. In most

cases, the financial incentive to

overcomply is due to proximity to a

market for chemical benzene. If the

Agency were to establish a single,

nationwide standard, commenters could

legitimately characterize such an action

as penalizing those refineries that are

not located near petrochemical markets.

Since each refinery is unique in terms

of construction and location, any single

standard will create varying degrees of

challenges. Faced with a situation

where a significant number of refineries

have overcomplied with existing

standards, the Agency has sought to

craft a rule that represents the greatest

degree of emission reductions

achievable considering costs. The

regulation that we finalize today

achieves these goals.

2. Why Did EPA Change From the

Proposed Benzene Fuel Content Form of

the Rule to the TPR?

In the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, we proposed a benzene

content requirement in order to capture

the significant amount of

overcompliance above and beyond the

requirements of the federal reformulated

gasoline and anti-dumping programs.

Average benzene levels in 1998 and

1999 were 0.66 volume percent for RFG

and 1.11 volume percent for

conventional gasoline. These national

average benzene levels are significantly

below current requirement of 0.95

volume percent for RFG and average

conventional gasoline baselines of 1.3

volume. Benzene emissions account for

17246 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

roughly 70% of motor vehicle air toxics

(i.e., benzene, formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and POM).

The Agency asked for comment on

two other forms of the rule: benzene

emissions performance and toxics

emissions performance. The Agency did

not propose a toxics performance form

because of concerns that capping the

total mass of toxics would allow

benzene emissions to potentially

increase if other air toxics declined.

However, subsequent refinery modeling

showed that benzene emissions would

be unlikely to increase in the future

following implementation of RFG Phase

II and Tier 2 low sulfur gasoline

standards, and the proposed low sulfur

diesel standards. We viewed a benzene

emissions requirement as tantamount to

a benzene content requirement, but

more difficult to quantify and enforce

because there is not currently such a

rule in effect.

We received a significant number of

comments on this proposal during the

public hearing and in written comments

submitted to the Agency. In general,

commenters from the petroleum

industry stated that there are significant

costs associated with the benzene

content form of the rule. These same

commenters pointed out that there was

little environmental benefit to the

proposed requirements to justify their

costs. Others commented that the

Agency’s concern about benzene

emissions would be better served by a

performance requirement since there is

expected to be upward pressure on

aromatics due to future environmental

regulations and capping benzene fuel

content will not prevent increases in

fuel aromatics. Several commenters

found that the rule did not go far

enough to protect public health and

welfare from the potential risk from

mobile source air toxics.

In response to these comments, and

based on refinery modeling performed

for this rulemaking, the Agency will

finalize a toxics performance

requirement instead of a benzene

content requirement. The Agency’s

general rationale is twofold: a toxics

performance requirement captures a

larger amount of the overcompliance

with the existing standards while

imposing less costs on the refining

industry than the proposed benzene

content requirement. This action is

consistent with comments received from

the regulated industry and the Agency’s

updated refinery modeling.

Evaluation of a Benzene Content

Standard

The Agency evaluated the benzene

content standard in terms of its

expected environmental performance

and its potential cost to industry.

Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act

identifies five toxic air pollutants

related to gasoline—benzene, 1,3-

butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde

and POM. Benzene emissions are about

70 percent of the total mass of these

toxics, but all of these toxics are known

or probable human carcinogens and

pose a risk to public health and welfare.

Benzene emissions are a function of

benzene fuel content, but other

components in the fuel also influence

benzene emissions, such as total

aromatics, sulfur, and Reid Vapor

Pressure. Controlling the benzene

content of RFG and CG would in effect

control only a portion of the benzene

emissions, which in turn are only a

portion of total toxic emissions. The

Agency is concerned ultimately with

reducing ambient concentrations and

exposure to air toxics.

The costs related to a benzene content

standard were calculated using a

refinery model. The Agency found that

a benzene content standard would

impose aggregate annual costs

(including amortized capital and all the

operating costs) of $74 million for

refineries in PADDs I, II, and III. On a

per gallon basis, the annual cost of the

proposed benzene content standard was

predicted to be 0.0702 c/gal. Since

gasoline production in PADDs I, II, and

III represents about 91% of the national

gasoline supply without California

refiners, if we extrapolate this cost to

the rest of the U.S., the aggregate cost

would be approximately $81 million for

the nation. California gasoline

production is not included in this cost

analysis because this regulation does

not apply to California gasoline.

It is important to note that there are

some advantages related to fuel content

standards. Compliance and enforcement

are aided by the ability to test the fuel

rather than relying on estimates derived

from a model. A fuel content standard

does not rely on an emissions model

that may not fully estimate emissions

from the vehicle fleet on the road today

or in the future. Thus the decision to

shift from a fuel content to an emissions

based requirement in this rule should

not be viewed by the reader as

suggesting that the Agency in a general

sense is no longer interested in controls

on specific fuel components. It is simply

in this particular case that we found an

emissions performance requirement to

be superior under a combined

consideration of broader environmental

benefits and lower costs.

Evaluation of a Toxics Performance

Requirement

There are several advantages for

adopting a toxics performance

requirement. It allows for a more

comprehensive approach to capping air

toxics emissions at current levels. By

focusing on the five toxic compounds

modeled by the Complex Model instead

of only benzene, the mass emissions of

air toxics placed under anti-backsliding

constraints is substantially increased.

Also, by focusing on emissions instead

of fuel content, the new rule will

establish an appropriate performance

requirement while simultaneously

providing some additional flexibility to

regulated entities. Finally, it offers

broader protection to public health

because all five toxics included in the

toxics performance requirement are

known or probable human carcinogens.

Section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act

instructs the Agency to promulgate

regulations that, at a minimum, apply to

emissions of benzene and

formaldehyde. The shift to a toxics

emissions performance requirement will

limit emissions of these two pollutants

along with emissions of 1,3-butadiene,

POM and acetaldehyde. Thus, while

refiners will have the ability to adjust

fuel parameters in ways that will

increase the emissions of one or more of

these pollutants, any such increase must

be offset by reductions in the emissions

of the other pollutants.

All of the pollutants covered by the

toxics performance control are

carcinogens. The nationwide

inventories and ambient concentrations

of all of these five pollutants are heavily

influenced by motor vehicle emissions.

Without today’s anti-backsliding

program, the current standards would

leave room for toxics emissions from

gasoline-fueled motor vehicles to

increase by 70,000 tons per year (based

on 1996 inventory levels) as described

in the Technical Support Document.

This would amount to a 14% increase,

on average, in RFG areas, and a 18%

increase, on average, in CG areas.

Capping the overall toxics emissions

performance of gasoline to reflect

current overcompliance is an

appropriate means of addressing the

potential adverse public health impacts

that could occur if this backsliding from

current levels were to occur. While we

are not able to quantify the risk to

public health that would result if

backsliding were to occur, we believe a

precautionary approach is appropriate.

By adopting anti-backsliding controls,

this precautionary approach will protect

public health by reducing the potential

risks to public health from backsliding.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17247

20Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts.

21Achieving Clean Air and Clean Water: The

Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in

Gasoline, EPA420–R–99–21, September, 1999, at 6–

7.

The Act also instructs the Agency to

take costs into consideration. As stated

previously, numerous petroleum

refineries provided written testimony

that a benzene content requirement

would impose significant costs on the

industry. The Agency conducted

refinery modeling for this rule which

accounted for the impact on refinery

operations and fuel properties of Tier 2

low sulfur gasoline and low sulfur

diesel fuel. This modeling analysis,

discussed in more detail in the TSD,

found that the costs associated with the

benzene content requirement were

significantly higher than the costs that

a toxics performance requirement would

impose on the industry.

3. What Are the Benefits of the TPR?

The purpose of today’s action is to

prevent future increases above the

current level of air toxic emissions

derived from existing fuel properties.

This anti-backsliding measure will

ensure that mass emission rates (in

milligrams per mile, mg/mi) of air toxics

from motor vehicles do not increase

while the Agency gathers additional

information for a forthcoming

rulemaking in 2003–2004.

The Clean Air Act identified five air

toxics in the federal reformulated

gasoline program: benzene, 1,3-

butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,

and POM. The RFG program established

a toxics emissions performance standard

for RFG, and an anti-backsliding toxics

standard for conventional gasoline

based on 1990 baseline toxics levels for

each refinery. On average, refineries

have overcomplied with the toxics

emissions performance standards for

both RFG and CG. Table V–1 compares

the percent reductions required for RFG

Phase I and the national average CG

mass toxics emissions with actual

national average performance in 1998,

which was the most recent year for

which complete and accurate data was

available. On a national average, greater

overcompliance was experienced for

RFG than for CG.

TABLE V–1.—OVERCOMPLIANCE WITH TOXICS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR RFG AND CG

Phase I Standards 1998 Average

Percent

difference in

emissions

(Percent)

RFG, Percent Reduction from statutory baseline, ..............................

Total Toxics Performance (equivalent mg/mi) ....................................

16.5% reduction .............

(45.3 mg/mi) ...................

28.1% reduction .............

(38.4 mg/mi) ...................

15%

CG, Mass Emissions, .......................................................................... 47.3 mg/mi a ................... 44.7 mg/mi ..................... 6%

Exhaust Toxics Performance

aVolume-weighted average of refinery-specific standards.

The 1998 average values were based

on volume-weighted toxics performance

values for batch reports for all refineries

in the U.S. which produced gasoline in

1998. The data available to us at this

time does not allow us to account for

the impact of imports on these

nationwide average values. The values

in Table V–1 differ slightly from those

in the NPRM because we excluded

noncomplying refineries from the

analysis and volume-weighted only

actual emissions in units of mg/mi

instead of percent change values for

each refinery.

Overcompliance with RFG standards

resulted in substantial toxics reductions

beyond what was required by law. We

have estimated reductions in the total

toxics inventories due to

overcompliance of 70 thousand tons in

1996 and 40 thousand tons in 2007,

using the inventories from the 1999 EPA

Motor Vehicle Air Toxics Study (see

TSD). While we do not believe that

refiners are likely to increase their

toxics content in the absence of this

regulation, it is nonetheless important to

ensure that these benefits are

maintained in the event of unforeseen

circumstances that may otherwise result

in backsliding on toxics standards up to

existing legal limits. Without this

regulation, such backsliding could occur

if refineries increase benzene or

aromatics to increase octane levels, or if

they change their refinery operations in

reaction to unforeseen future

circumstances.

4. What Are the Costs of the TPR?

In conjunction with this rulemaking,

we analyzed refinery modeling results

for gasoline production regions in the

Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, specifically

PADDs 20 I and III. This modeling

analysis used the average regional

gasoline fuel properties produced in

1999 to quantify the emissions

performance of gasoline in these regions

in 1999. The refinery modeling also

predicted the likely regional fuel

properties after refineries modified their

operations to comply with the future

requirements for Phase II RFG, Tier 2

low sulfur gasoline, and proposed low

sulfur diesel fuel (hereafter future fuel

regulations). The Agency applied the

Complex Model to evaluate the

projected emissions performance of the

predicted gasoline properties in these

regions. The reader should refer to the

TSD which accompanies this rule for

more detailed discussion of the refinery

modeling.

The Agency is currently pursuing a

separate rulemaking under the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) to

address the use of MTBE, and thus we

have deferred consideration of MTBE

controls to that rulemaking. Note that

the EPA and the United States

Department of Agriculture jointly

announced, on March, 2000, the

Administration’s legislative principles

for protecting drinking water supplies,

preserving clean air benefit and

promoting renewable fuels and urged

Congress to take action consistent with

these principles. These actions were

based initially on recommendations of

EPA’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates

in Gasoline.

The Agency recognizes that the use of

MTBE does have an impact on

emissions of toxic air pollutants from

motor vehicles. The Blue Ribbon Panel

found that present toxic emission

performance of RFG can be attributed, to

some degree, to the use of oxygenates.

Further, the Panel recommended that

any future change in the use of MTBE

in gasoline should ‘‘ensure that there is

no loss of current air quality

benefits.’’ 21 The anti-backsliding nature

of this rulemaking is consistent with the

Panel’s recommendations. Should the

Agency take action in the future to limit

the amount of MTBE in fuel, its impact

on emissions of air toxics—and the

potential for additional costs due to

today’s action—would be carefully

considered. As EPA develops any

regulatory actions to address MTBE and

water resource issues, the Agency will

consider the overall impact on the

17248 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

refining industry of any such action

and, along with today’s rule, and other

relevant factors.

Because the new baseline

requirements do not require refiners to

install new equipment or use new

technologies beyond what they were

using in the baseline period (1998–

2000), this program imposes only

negligible costs. This conclusion is

based on our analyses of likely refiner

behavior based on the expected

requirements in the time frame

applicable for this rulemaking.

Unforeseen circumstances could change

a refiner’s actions needed to comply

with this rule, which in turn could lead

to additional costs depending on their

chosen course of action.

In contrast, the proposed benzene

content standard was predicted to

impose higher costs while capturing a

smaller amount of the existing

overcompliance with toxic standards.

As stated previously, the Agency found

that a benzene content standard would

impose aggregate annual costs

(including amortized capital and all the

operating costs) of $74 million for

refineries in PADDs I, II, and III. On a

per gallon basis, the annual cost of the

proposed benzene content standard was

predicted to be 0.0702 c/gal. Since

gasoline production in PADDs I, II, and

III represents about 91% of the national

gasoline supply without California

refiners, if we extrapolate this cost to

the rest of the U.S., the aggregate cost

would be approximately $81 million for

the nation. California gasoline

production is not included in this cost

analysis because this regulation does

not apply to California gasoline.

There are limitations to the ability of

a refinery model to predict the costs

associated with each refinery. This

inherent limitation of refinery modeling

is of particular concern with the

refinery-specific requirement that is

adopted today. To help ensure that each

refinery affected by this rule is faced

with the type of costs estimated by the

Agency’s refinery modeling, we

incorporated several flexibilities into

the final rule. We have expanded the

baseline period from two to three years,

provided a one-year carryforward for

credits and deficits, and adopted

compliance margins for RFG and CG.

B. Issues and Areas of Comment on

Non-implementation Related Aspects of

the Program

1. What Is the Relationship Between the

RFG and Anti-dumping Requirements

and the Toxics Anti-backsliding

Requirements?

The reformulated gasoline program

established a toxics performance

standard for gasoline used in those

metropolitan areas with the worst ozone

levels. An anti-dumping toxics standard

was established for gasoline used in

those areas not required to have RFG

and which did not opt to use RFG. The

anti-dumping toxics standard was

intended to prevent refineries from

shifting certain less desirable fuel

components into the conventional

gasoline pool as a result of RFG

production. The anti-dumping program

was an anti-backsliding program for

exhaust toxics and NOX relative to the

baseline year of that program, 1990.

Today’s anti-backsliding requirements

are in addition to the applicable RFG or

anti-dumping requirements for gasoline.

Today we are establishing refineryspecific toxics performance

requirements (TPR) for reformulated

and conventional gasoline. A refiner

will now have to meet both today’s

toxics requirements and the applicable

toxics performance for RFG or antidumping.

In the NPRM, we asked for comment

on repealing the anti-dumping program.

We received comments from many

refiners in support of this

recommendation from the National

Petrochemical & Refiners Association

(NPRA). However, we find that we

cannot repeal the anti-dumping

program. The anti-dumping program is

required by the Clean Air Act and we

cannot ensure that today’s requirements

and the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur

requirements will exactly duplicate the

anti-dumping program. For example, the

gasoline sulfur standards do not

guarantee that all conventional gasoline

will meet the individual NOX

performance standards because some

anti-dumping individual baselines have

even lower average sulfur levels than

the gasoline sulfur program will require.

Additionally, the flexibilities provided

in today’s rule, such as deficit and

credit carryforward, could cause the

anti-backsliding toxics emissions

performance to exceed the anti-dumping

toxics performance requirement in a

given year. Nonetheless, we understand

the refiners’ concerns on this issue, and

we will take steps to ensure that the

compliance process, including any

reporting requirements, is as

streamlined as possible.

Because we are promulgating toxics

performance requirements that are

identical in form to the toxic

performance standards already in place,

today’s rule does not change the ability

of States to regulate gasoline

characteristics or components. As

discussed in the NPRM, we believe a

toxics performance requirement may not

cause States to be prohibited by section

211(c)(4) of the Act from setting their

own fuel benzene standard. Note that

any such State fuel benzene standard

could only be set for conventional

gasoline because the reformulated

gasoline regulations impose a federal

benzene standard on RFG, thus

preempting States from setting a more

stringent RFG benzene standard.

EPA recognizes the concerns

expressed by the petroleum industry

that a patchwork of different state fuel

standards, sometimes referred to as

‘‘boutique’’ fuels, may increase the

likelihood of disruptions in the fuel

supply. In most situations, EPA believes

that a uniform national program is the

best way to protect public health and

minimize disruption to the efficiency of

the country’s fuel distribution network.

EPA’s general expectation is that States

will consider these issues in evaluating

whether adoption of a state fuel program

would be warranted.

2. How Are Incremental Production

Volumes of RFG Affected by This Rule?

In the NPRM, we proposed to apply

the RFG requirements determined for

this final rule to those volumes of RFG

up to the baseline volume of RFG. We

did not propose to extend the

requirements to incremental RFG

production volumes, but asked for

comment on the appropriate

requirements to apply to a refinery’s

incremental volume of RFG.

Incremental volume of RFG means that

amount of RFG produced in a calendar

year above the RFG annual average

baseline (1998–2000) volume of the

refinery. Based on projections of vehicle

miles traveled (VMT), RFG demand is

expected to increase about 1.5% per

year.

We sought comment on two

approaches for regulating the

incremental RFG volume. The first

would be to apply the individual

refinery requirement to the incremental

volume, in effect subjecting all of a

refinery’s annual RFG production to its

individual baseline under today’s

program. The other would be to apply

a non-individual requirement to the

incremental volume. This could be a

national control level based on the

current national average toxics

performance of RFG (or some less

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17249

22The estimated acetaldehyde contribution of 6.4

percent was based on a Complex Model output from

1998 production of CG.

stringent level), but would not be less

stringent than the applicable standard

under the RFG program.

Many refiners did not want the

incremental volume of RFG subject to

any controls (i.e., the individual refinery

baseline or the national average

baseline) other than the current

applicable RFG standards. Some refiners

commented that we should exempt

incremental volumes of CG from the

final requirements as well. DOE pointed

out that future growth in gasoline

demand will likely be addressed

through increased imports as well as

greater use of existing FCC units and

reformers, all of which would likely

increase the toxic emission

characteristics of all gasoline, be it RFG

or CG.

This rulemaking contains several

unique factual circumstances that bear

on this issue. The Agency has a strong

interest in creating incentives, and not

creating disincentives, for refiners to

produce additional barrels of cleanerburning RFG in the future. Placing new

constraints on incremental RFG

production may unnecessarily hamper

the expanded use of RFG and its

associated air quality benefits.

Gasoline production in the United

States is expected to increase by about

1.5 percent per year for the next several

years. In the few years between

promulgation of this rule and the

reevaluation in 2003–2004, incremental

volumes will only account for a small

fraction of total US gasoline production

and consumption. Such a small fraction

is unlikely to have a material effect on

the anti-backsliding goal of this rule.

Moreover, to determine the potential

effect of excluding incremental volumes

from this regulation, we investigated the

historical impact of volume increases on

fuel benzene content for RFG and CG.

Pool-average benzene levels in CG did

not show a statistically significant

increase. While pool-average RFG did

show a statistically significant increase

when production volume increased, the

increase was small—on the order of an

increase of 0.005 benzene volume

percent per 1 percent total volume.

Thus the incremental volume exclusion

is unlikely to have a material impact on

air toxic emissions from gasoline. See

the Technical Support Document for

details.

While our analysis focused only on

fuel benzene content, there is some

reason to believe that other changes in

fuel properties associated with

incremental volumes (e.g., increases in

sulfur and olefins) may contribute to

some toxics emissions. These

incremental volumes could affect both

the fuel properties and toxics emissions

of both CG and RFG, because

incremental volumes are primarily a

function of growth in demand for

gasoline, which affects both CG and

RFG. However, requiring refiners to

meet a more stringent toxics standard

for these incremental volumes could

require additional capital investment

and thereby impose a constraint on

incremental gasoline production. As a

result, we have decided to exclude

incremental volumes from our antibacksliding program for both RFG and

CG.

After consideration of these

comments on this issue and our analysis

of incremental production volumes, we

are finalizing a program in which the

toxics performance requirements

finalized today will not apply to

incremental volumes of RFG or CG. Any

volumes of gasoline that are above a

refinery’s baseline volume will thus be

subject only to the existing toxics

standards under either the RFG or antidumping programs. For RFG,

incremental volumes will remain

subject to the current 21.5 percent

standard for total toxics given in 40 CFR

§ 80.41(f). Incremental volumes of CG

will remain subject to the current CG

requirements for exhaust toxics

emissions. For those refineries or

importers that are unable to establish a

volume baseline for 1998 to 2000 either

because they were not operating during

that period, or did not exist as a refining

or importing facility, the applicable

standard shall be the 1998–2000

national average toxics performance for

RFG and CG. We believe this approach

ensures that increasing gasoline demand

can be addressed without requiring

additional toxics reductions that might

not be achievable under Section

202(l)(2) in the near-term.

3. Does This Rule Contain Any Small

Refiner Provisions?

We did not have a SBREFA panel for

this rule because we believe this rule

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small refiners. At

the same time, however, we are

sensitive to small refiner concerns about

their ability to meet these antibacksliding requirements. Nevertheless,

we believe that no small refiner

provisions are needed in this rule for

two reasons. First, because this is an

anti-backsliding measure, refiners are

not expected to have to install new

equipment or change their operations to

comply with the requirements. Second,

we included a number of flexibilities in

this program, such as deficit and credit

carryforward, and a compliance margin.

These flexibilities will help those small

refiners that may experience temporary

short-term difficulties due to supply or

operational problems. We believe these

flexibilities are sufficient to preclude

significant negative impacts of this rule

on both small and large refiners.

4. Is This rule Expected to Constrain the

Potential for Expanded Use of Ethanol

in Conventional Gasoline?

While refinery modeling to answer

this particular question has not been

performed, the Agency does not believe

that the toxics performance requirement

will constrain the potential for

expanded use of ethanol in

conventional gasoline. If ethanol is used

in conventional gasoline at ten percent

by volume, gasoline components such

as aromatics, benzene and olefins will

be diluted by ten percent, thus lowering

associated toxic emissions. Ethanol does

have the effect of increasing exhaust

emissions of acetaldehyde, but

acetaldehyde contributes only about 6

percent to the mass of five toxics air

pollutants used in the Complex Model

to model toxics performance (benzene,

1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde, and POM).22 Thus even a

relatively large increase in acetaldehyde

emissions should be offset by a ten

percent decrease in more than 90

percent of the remainder of toxic

emissions.

5. Is Diesel Fuel Control a Part of

Today’s Regulation?

The fuel controls being set in today’s

action are only for gasoline. We are not

setting air toxics requirements for diesel

fuels because, unlike for gasoline, we do

not have data that would allow us to

correlate individual diesel fuel

properties with toxics emissions. We do

not have a model to explore the toxics

impacts of different diesel fuel

formulations and therefore, a diesel fuel

reformulation program, similar to the

reformulated gasoline program, is not a

viable toxics control option. We intend

to include research on diesel fuelrelated air toxics in our Technical

Analysis Plan.

C. What Are the Components of the

Anti-backsliding Toxics Performance

Program?

1. Start Date

We are finalizing the January 1, 2002,

program start date as proposed. Because

this is an anti-backsliding program, lead

time is not needed to install hardware

or make operational changes. Thus,

beginning with the 2002 calendar year,

a refinery’s or importer’s annual average

17250 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

toxic emissions performance,

determined separately for RFG and CG,

cannot exceed its baseline toxics

emissions performance, determined

over the three years 1998–2000. The

first report associated with today’s rule

will be due February 28, 2003, the same

date as the reformulated gasoline and

anti-dumping reports are due for

calendar year 2002.

2. Separate Compliance Determination

for RFG and CG

As discussed in the NPRM, our

proposal to keep compliance separate

for RFG and CG under this program is

consistent with the current treatment of

these two fuel types in the RFG and

anti-dumping programs. Separate

compliance determinations for RFG and

CG ensure that one pool is not made

cleaner at the expense of the other. No

supporting arguments for combining the

pools were provided in the comments.

Thus, we are finalizing this provision as

proposed.

3. Baseline Development and Submittal

We proposed a two-year baseline

period, 1998–1999, and requested

comment on this and other baseline

period options. There were many

comments on this issue. Many

commenters expressed concern about

refinery fluctuations during a given time

period which could cause a baseline not

to reflect typical operations. Many

commenters suggested that we should

provide flexibility in the baseline setting

process. Several individual refiners and

one industry commenter suggested

lengthening the baseline period to

encompass more refinery operational

fluctuations, thus establishing a more

accurate baseline that is true to normal

operations.

In the final rule, we are finalizing a

three year baseline period,

encompassing the years 1998, 1999 and

2000. This baseline period, which is one

year longer than the baseline period we

proposed, provides baseline values

which are truer to a refinery’s ‘‘normal’’

operating mode. Though two

commenters opposed inclusion of 2000

because it was a transition year (from

Phase 1 to Phase 2 RFG requirements)

and, according to these commenters, not

representative of refinery operations

over time, we believe that including

2000, precisely because it is a Phase II

RFG year, improves the baseline

because it adds data to the baseline

determination which is the most recent

available. Including 2000 also helps to

further offset (by virtue of a 3-year

average versus a 2-year average) the

effects of unit turnarounds at the

refinery. At the same time, we do not

expect significant differences, on

average, between a baseline established

using the 2-year averaging approach and

one developed using the 3-year

approach. However, we believe that for

an individual refinery, the 3-year

averaging approach provides that

refinery with a more robust baseline.

Finally, given that this rule does not

require any capital improvements or

operational changes by refiners to

achieve its goals, and since refiners will

have the 2000 data, we believe this data

should be included in the baseline

determination.

We are requiring that refiners and

importers submit to us information

which establishes separate TPR

baselines for their RFG and CG. For

RFG, the applicable TPR baseline is

total toxics emissions, calculated as a

percent reduction from the statutory

baseline. For CG, the applicable TPR

baseline is exhaust toxics emissions, in

mg/mile. Both baselines are determined

using the Complex Model. These forms

of the TPR are consistent in form with

the existing toxic emission requirements

of the reformulated gasoline and antidumping programs.

The baseline submittal must contain

the batch report number and volume of

each batch (or composite) of gasoline

produced or imported in 1998, 1999 and

2000. Additionally, the refiner or

importer must determine and report the

applicable toxics emission performance

level of each batch by evaluating the

measured fuel parameters of each batch

in the appropriate seasonal version of

the Phase II Complex Model. Because

this data is already required to

demonstrate compliance with RFG and

anti-dumping requirements, a refiner

must simply submit the same

information found in its original

submittals of its RFG and anti-dumping

reports. Submissions of these baselines

will be very similar to the streamlined

electronic process which has been

implemented for Tier 2 gasoline sulfur

baseline submissions. The Agency will

handle the toxics baselines under

today’s program in a manner consistent

with the submissions and associated

guidance for Tier 2 sulfur baseline

submissions.

Finally, all of the toxics emissions

performance of RFG and CG produced

over the 3-year baseline time period

must be volume-weighted to determine

the baseline toxic emission performance

levels for RFG and CG. The average

annual volume over the 3-year baseline

time period must also be reported. A

refinery which exceeded (that is, was

out of compliance) with the applicable

toxics standard in any of the baseline

years must use the applicable RFG or

CG standard as its toxics emission

performance value for gasoline

produced that year in its baseline

determination.

Baselines must be submitted no later

than June 30, 2001. Though we

proposed to notify refiners of their

toxics baselines within 120 days of

submittal, after further consideration we

are modifying this provision slightly

from the proposal: we will notify

refiners and importers of their baseline

approvals by October 31, 2001, or

within 4 months of submittal,

whichever is later.

4. Baseline Adjustment

In response to the proposed benzene

content requirement, one commenter

suggested that a refiner that has a low

baseline benzene level (because it

produced benzene for the petrochemical

market during the baseline period)

should be able to increase its baseline

benzene level to some minimum

benzene level which would be set by

EPA. Because we have switched to a

TPR for this final rule, this regulation

does not directly affect on fuel benzene

content. Nonetheless, we can address

the issue raised by the commenter since

it is relevant, in a broad sense, to the

baseline setting process.

In general, we do not believe that EPA

should allow baselines established

under this rule to be adjusted because

of refining or marketing decisions of the

refiner. It is our belief that, in general

(and absent refinery disasters or other

similar, critical events), during the

baseline period, every refinery was

operating to maximize profits,

considering its crude slate, operating

units, product mix, marketing plan, etc.

With regard to refineries that achieved

low emissions levels due to benzene

extraction, we do not believe there is

any basis for expecting the benzene

market to change in such a way that

warrants setting a minimum toxics

performance level. In fact, projections of

the benzene market suggest continued

growth (see TSD).

In addition, because we are

promulgating a TPR, which is a function

of all of the fuel parameters evaluated

by the Complex Model, and not a single

fuel parameter requirement (like a fuel

benzene content requirement), it is not

clear how we would set such a

minimum toxics emission level to

account for changes in the

petrochemical market. We would have

to consider each of the eight Complex

Model fuel parameters separately, and

this would be complicated by the fact

that the fuel parameters’ effects on

toxics emissions vary considerably.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17251

Nonetheless, we are allowing a refiner

to petition EPA for a permanent

adjustment of its TPR baseline. Refiners

requesting such an adjustment must

demonstrate how circumstances during

1998–2000 materially affected the

baseline toxics determination. Because

we believe that the deficit and credit

carryforward, compliance margin, and

inclusion of a third baseline year

sufficiently consider and minimize the

potential compliance burden for those

refiners that experience unusual

refinery operational issues, we expect

that the number of baseline adjustments

will be small. Baseline adjustments will

likely be limited to those refineries that

experienced unexpected operational

problems during the baseline period

which could not have been avoided

through due diligence and planning.

5. Compliance Margin

A compliance margin refers to the

cushion refiners typically included in

their fuel production to ensure that their

fuel will meet compliance requirements

over a 12-month period. Without such a

cushion, the refiner could fall into

noncompliance due to minor

operational problems. Compliance

margins are most important to a refiner

when trying to meet a per-gallon

requirement, but can also be useful for

meeting averaging requirements, for

example, to account for test method

variability, or other factors that might

affect a refiner’s ability to comply.

Though we did not propose to include

a compliance margin on the fuel

benzene content requirement in our

NPRM, additional information gleaned

from refinery modeling and comments

has led us to include a compliance

margin on the TPR being finalized

today. Though refinery modeling shows

that post-2004 RFG total toxics and CG

exhaust toxics emissions in PADDs I

and III will, on average, be lower than

during the baseline period, the

difference is not large enough to ensure

that refiners won’t have to go beyond

what our anti-backsliding requirements

strictly call for. Also, at this time, we do

not know whether the lower toxics

emissions predicted by refinery

modeling is true of gasoline in the other

PADDs. Thus we believe that a

compliance margin is needed to ensure

that this rule is achievable in the near

term.

We are instituting separate

compliance margins for RFG and CG

because of the different format in which

compliance with the applicable

requirement is determined. EPA

examined batch data from selected

refineries in 1998. The toxic emission

properties of each batch of RFG and CG

were compared against their respective

regulatory limits. A statistical analysis

was performed to quantify the

difference between the regulatory

standard and the actual emissions

characteristics of the fuel. This

difference is commonly referred to as a

‘‘compliance cushion.’’ A more detailed

discussion of the methodology used to

determine the values of the compliance

margins associated with today’s rule is

located in the TSD.

The compliance margin we

determined for RFG toxics performance

is 0.7%. Thus, for example, if refinery

X has a volume-weighted RFG total

toxics performance during 1998–2000 of

¥29.6% (percent change from the

statutory baseline), without a

compliance margin ¥29.6% is its antibacksliding requirement. With a

compliance margin of 0.7%, refinery X’s

anti-backsliding requirement becomes

¥28.9%, that is, its requirement

becomes slightly less stringent as a

result of including the compliance

margin. Thus, under this program,

refinery X’s RFG must have an annual

average total toxics emissions reduction

from the statutory baseline of at least

28.9%.

EPA determined a compliance margin

of 2.5 mg/mile for CG. Thus for refinery

Y with a volume-weighted CG exhaust

toxics performance during 1998–2000 of

105.0 mg/mile, including the

compliance margin increases its CG

anti-backsliding toxics requirement to

107.5 mg/mile. Thus, for refinery Y’s

CG, its annual average exhaust toxics

emissions must be no greater than 107.5

mg/mile.

6. Foreign Refiner Provisions

Under the anti-dumping program,

foreign refiners are allowed to develop

an individual baseline representing the

quality and quantity of gasoline they

shipped to the U.S. in 1990. Those that

develop an individual baseline can

designate each batch of gasoline

destined for the U.S. as subject to their

individual requirement or, by default, as

subject to the importer’s anti-dumping

requirement, which in most cases is the

statutory baseline.

A similar provision is included in this

rule. Under this rule, a foreign refiner

may develop a toxics anti-backsliding

baseline for gasoline it sent to the U.S.

during the baseline period (1998–2000)

if it already has an individual antidumping baseline or is simultaneously

developing such a baseline. For

compliance purposes, it may then

designate, on a batch-by-batch basis,

whether that gasoline will be subject to

its individual anti-backsliding

requirement or will be included in the

importer’s compliance determination. A

foreign refiner with both an individual

anti-dumping baseline and an

individual toxics anti-backsliding

baseline must make a single designation

for the batch. In other words, if the

foreign refiner includes that batch in its

own anti-dumping compliance

determination, it is also included in its

anti-backsliding compliance

determination. In this way, foreign

refiners are treated in the same manner

as domestic refiners, and the potential

compliance confusion surrounding

different designations on a single batch

are avoided.

7. Default Baseline and Applicability

The default toxics anti-backsliding

baseline is the set of values used by a

regulated party that has insufficient data

from which to establish a unique

individual anti-backsliding baseline. In

the proposal, we discussed that a refiner

or importer with less than 12

consecutive months of applicable data

during the baseline period would have

the default anti-backsliding baseline as

its individual baseline under this

program. We are finalizing this

provision as proposed. Additionally, a

refiner or importer which did not

produce or import one or more types of

gasoline (either RFG or CG) during the

baseline period but who produces or

imports that type of gasoline after

December 31, 2000 will have the

applicable default toxics antibacksliding baseline; it will be subject to

the default toxics baseline plus the

compliance margin for that type of

gasoline.

The default baseline consists of a

reformulated gasoline total toxics

emissions performance value (measured

as a percent reduction from statutory

baseline) and a conventional gasoline

exhaust toxics emissions performance

value (measured in mg/mile). The final

default baseline will be the average of

all of the reported applicable (i.e., RFG

or CG) toxics emissions performance

values over the baseline period 1998

through 2000. However, since the 2000

annual compliance reports are not due

from refiners and others to EPA until

February 2001, we will not be able to

determine a default set of baseline

values which corresponds to our

baseline period (1998–2000) until later

in 2001. At that time, we will issue the

final default baseline.

At this time, we have calculated draft

default baseline values based on 1998–

1999 RFG and CG reports; these interim

default baseline values are 26.01%

(reduction from statutory baseline) for

RFG and 92.14 mg/mile for CG,

representing compliance under the

17252 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

23By limiting the exemption to California

gasoline ‘‘actually used’’ in California, we generally

mean to limit where the gasoline is dispensed. We

do not intend to restrict the state in which the

gasoline is actually combusted.

Phase II Complex Model. As discussed

in the TSD, we do not expect the final

default baseline to be significantly

different from these values. Until the

final default baseline is issued by EPA,

the draft default baseline values plus the

compliance margins discussed above

(26.71% reduction from statutory

baseline for RFG and 94.64 mg/mile for

CG) are the requirements for those

subject to the default baseline under this

Subpart. Even though the default

baseline represents only two of the three

baseline years, we believe it is

sufficient, in the absence of the 2000

information, for two reasons. First, the

three year baseline period was

designated to better capture normal

operations at a refinery. In most cases,

there are no normal operations to

capture for an entity subject to the

default baseline. Second, we do not

expect a baseline determined using 1998

through 2000 data to be significantly

different from a baseline determined

using 1998 through 1999 data.

8. Compliance Period and Deficit and

Credit Carryforward

In the proposal, we discussed

compliance periods of varying length

different from the proposed single

calendar year compliance period.

Refiners who commented on this issue

supported either a one-year compliance

period with deficit carryforward or a

two-year compliance period. As

discussed in the NPRM, a one-year

compliance period is consistent with

the compliance periods of other gasoline

programs (and thus represents minimal

additional reporting burden for refiners

and importers), and it is short enough

that temporal variations in toxics

emissions are minimized. For these

reasons, we are finalizing a one-year

compliance period as proposed.

We do realize, however, that even for

an anti-backsliding program, unusual

situations can happen which can

significantly affect refinery operations,

and which could cause the refinery to

be out of compliance with its

requirement. To this end, we proposed

and are finalizing a one year deficit

carryforward. This will allow a refinery

to exceed its anti-backsliding toxics

requirement for one year. In the next

year, it must make up the deficit as well

as be in compliance for that year.

Additionally, though not proposed, we

are also including a one year credit

carryforward. Under this provision, a

refinery producing gasoline that is

cleaner than required by its toxics antibacksliding requirement may use the

overcompliance to cover any deficit in

the following year. Because we are also

providing a TPR compliance margin,

overcompliance will be creditable for

purposes of a credit carryforward only

to the extent that it is overcompliance

beyond the compliance margin. The

overcompliance credits may not be

traded to another company, and they

expire at the end of the next calendar

year.

We have provided refiners with

compliance flexibility in several

forms—deficit and credit carryforward,

a compliance margin, and extended

baseline time period. In the NPRM, we

discussed the possibility of including

another flexibility in the form of a credit

trading program. Comments about this

option were mixed. Some refiners

supported such a program, and offered

other suggestions to enhance or clarify

the program. At least one refiner did not

support such a program, saying it would

provide an unfair competitive

advantage. Other industry commenters

were unsure of the actual

implementation and feasibility of the

program, given the unequal baselines

among refiners. Because of these

implementation, feasibility and anticompetitive concerns, and because of

the many other compliance flexibilities

provided in today’s program, we are not

including a credit program as part of

this rulemaking.

9. Hardship Provisions

We are adopting a provision

permitting a refiner to seek a temporary

waiver from the toxics anti-backsliding

requirements in certain circumstances.

Such a waiver will be granted at EPA’s

discretion. Under this provision, a

refiner may seek permission to exceed

its toxics anti-backsliding requirements

based on the refiner’s inability to meet

these requirements because of extreme

and unusual circumstances outside of

the refiner’s control that could not have

been avoided through the exercise of

due diligence. This provision is similar

to a provision in EPA’s RFG and

gasoline sulfur regulations. It is

intended to provide refiners limited

relief in unanticipated circumstances

that cannot be reasonably foreseen at

this time or in the near future. The

conditions for obtaining such a waiver

are similar to those in the RFG

regulations. These conditions are

necessary and appropriate to ensure that

any waivers granted are limited in

scope, and that a refiner does not gain

an economic benefit from a waiver.

Therefore, a refiner seeking a waiver

must show that the waiver is in the

public interest; that the refiner was not

able to avoid the nonconformity; that it

will make up, where practicable, the air

quality detriment associated with the

waiver, that it will pay back any

economic benefit from the waiver; and

that it will meet its toxics antibacksliding requirements as

expeditiously as possible. The refiner

must also show that it will be unable to

meet its toxics anti-backsliding

requirements even considering the

deficit and credit carryforward

flexibility provisions included in

today’s program.

10. California Gasoline

We are not requiring gasoline

intended for and actually used 23 in

California to be included in a refinery’s

or importer’s compliance determination

under today’s rule. This action is

consistent with other Agency actions on

similar fuel issues. California gasoline is

exempt from the recently promulgated

federal gasoline sulfur requirements,

and while subject to the RFG and antidumping provisions, California

refineries have been exempted from

several of the enforcement and

compliance mechanisms of those

programs.

Most of the gasoline used in

California is produced by California

refineries which are subject to the

California Cleaner Burning Gasoline

(CBG) requirements. The current (Phase

2) set of CBG requirements began in

1996 and runs through 2002; beginning

in 2003, the California Phase 3 gasoline

requirements take effect. In 1998, under

the 0.8 vol% Phase 2 benzene standard,

California refineries averaged 0.57

vol%. For almost every fuel parameter,

including benzene and aromatics, the

Phase 3 standards are more stringent

than the Phase 2 standards. Given the

benzene overcompliance in 1998, and

the upcoming more stringent Phase 3

standards, it is likely that toxics

emissions under Phase 3 will not be

greater than toxics emissions under

Phase 2. Thus, we do not expect

California refineries, on average, to

backslide relative to their 1998–2000

average toxic emission level.

Additionally, given the compliance

margin we are including in today’s rule,

it is highly unlikely that any backsliding

would exceed the combination of the

actual 1998–2000 baseline plus the

compliance margin.

Given this exemption for California

gasoline, gasoline intended for use in

California must be segregated from all

other gasoline.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17253

11. Territories

Though in the NPRM we did not

discuss the applicability of this rule to

the American territories of Guam,

American Samoa and the Northern

Mariana Islands, we have recently

exempted gasoline for these areas from

several requirements, including

compliance with the anti-dumping

program. These areas are a significant

distance from any gasoline producers,

and in the case of the anti-dumping

requirements, could only be serviced

with complying gasoline at a significant

cost. Additionally, the air quality in

these areas is pristine, and gasoline

consumption is low, such that no

human health or environmental

detriment is expected from the

exemption.

Likewise for today’s rule, requiring

gasoline destined for these areas to be

included in a refinery’s or importer’s

compliance determination would be of

little value for several reasons. First, the

same conventional gasoline cost and

supply issues discussed above would

apply. In addition to transportation

costs, it is very expensive for a refinery

to produce small batches of complying

gasoline. Also, most of the refineries

that produce gasoline for these areas are

foreign refineries which have not

chosen to pursue individual baselines in

other rules (e.g., the anti-dumping or

gasoline sulfur rules), and are not likely

to pursue an individual baseline for

today’s rule. Thus, because of the

Agency’s precedent for exempting

gasoline to these areas from certain fuel

regulations, and because of the lack of

environmental harm from exempting

such gasoline, we are exempting the

gasoline sent to these areas from the

requirements of this rule.

12. Gasoline Excluded

In addition to California gasoline and

gasoline that is used in the U.S.

territories, we are also exempting

certain other gasoline from the

requirements of this rule. We proposed

to exempt gasoline used in certain

circumstances, including racing

gasoline and gasoline used for research,

development and testing. These

categories are the same categories for

which gasoline is exempt from the

applicable regulations of other

programs, including the RFG and antidumping programs and gasoline sulfur.

We are finalizing these exempt gasoline

categories as proposed.

D. Why Isn’t EPA Adopting Other Fuel

Controls To Control MSATs?

Section 202(l)(2) requires EPA to

adopt regulations that contain standards

which reflect the greatest degree of

emissions reductions achievable

through the application of technology

that will be available, taking into

consideration existing motor vehicle

standards, the availability and costs of

the technology, and noise, energy and

safety factors. Today’s rule adopts an

anti-backsliding requirement that EPA

believes is appropriate under section

202(l)(2) as a near-term control, that is,

a control that can be implemented and

take effect within a year or two. We are

not adopting long-term controls (i.e.,

controls that require longer lead time to

implement) at this time because we lack

the information necessary to assess

appropriate long-term controls. We

believe it will be important to address

the appropriateness of MSAT controls

in the context of compliance with other

significant environmental regulations

(discussed below).

Today’s rule addresses toxics

emissions from fuels in the near-term.

The rule will cap the toxics performance

levels of gasoline beginning in 2002.

Adopting an anti-backsliding program is

a reasonable control on toxics emissions

from fuels. The technology to maintain

the current toxics performance of

gasoline produced at each refinery is

already available and continued

compliance will not be costly even with

implementation of our recently adopted

sulfur controls (see discussion in

Section V, and in Chapter 7 of the

Technical Support Document).

We do not believe, however, that we

could reasonably adopt further controls

to be implemented in this near-term

time frame. First, the lead time is too

short to allow for investments and

upgrading of refinery equipment in any

significant manner. Second, we have

recently adopted, or proposed to adopt,

two regulations that will achieve very

significant emissions reductions by

setting tight limits on the sulfur content

of fuels used in on-highway vehicles. To

comply with these new regulations,

industry is already planning and

investing in capital improvements and

pursuing the necessary permitting to

upgrade their refineries. While we lack

the information to fully assess the costs

and benefits of further controls in the

2002 time frame, we have serious

concerns that further toxics controls in

the 2002 time frame could interfere with

refiners’ planning and affect their ability

to meet our recently promulgated, or

proposed, sulfur standards.

Even though today’s rule focuses on

near-term options for controlling toxic

emissions from fuels, we plan to

evaluate in our future rulemaking

whether additional controls will be

needed or appropriate in the longer

term. We are not ready, however, to

address these long-term controls in this

rulemaking. We need to collect the

information outlined in our Technical

Analysis Plan (see Section V), so that we

can assess the costs and benefits of

potential fuel controls. This information

will allow us to more accurately

consider the impact of our recently

promulgated, or proposed, fuel sulfur

controls and assess how toxics controls

can be incorporated. As part of the

Technical Analysis Plan we will also

collect information, which is currently

lacking, on the availability and

feasibility of further controls and the

risk posed to public health and welfare

by air toxic hot spots.

Based on our conclusion that the antibacksliding controls are reasonable

controls for the near-term, the fact that

we lack information suggesting further

controls are appropriate in near-term,

and the fact that we are not ready to

address long-term controls in this

rulemaking, we conclude that today’s

anti-backsliding requirement satisfies

the criteria of section 202(l)(2).

Section 202(l)(2) directs EPA to adopt

toxics controls and from time to time

review and revise those controls.

Today’s rule adopts near-term controls

and puts EPA on a schedule to review,

and if appropriate, revise those controls

in accordance with the criteria in

202(l)(2). We note that the Agency has

not prejudged the outcome of our 2003–

2004 rulemaking, and will evaluate the

sufficiency of the controls and whether

there is a need for additional controls

based on the information available at

that time. We believe this two-step

approach is the most reasonable means

to address toxics in the near-term in the

face of incomplete information and the

significant changes underway at many

refineries across the country.

As discussed in the NPRM, a number

of other MSATs such as acrolein,

styrene, dioxin/furans, xylene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and hexane

are not controlled by the RFG or antidumping programs. We do not currently

have sufficient information on how

changes in fuel properties affect

emissions of these compounds, and thus

we cannot estimate the costs associated

with controlling these compounds in

fuels.

Motor vehicle emissions of metals are

being addressed in other actions. Metals

generally arise from contaminants in

lube oils. The recent proposed rule on

heavy-duty engines and vehicles

beginning in model year 2007 also

proposes controls on the use of used oil

as a diesel fuel additive/extender.

We are not controlling MTBE

emissions in this rulemaking. The

17254 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

24 ‘‘Nonroad’’ is a term that covers a diverse

collection of engines, vehicles and equipment, as

described in detail later in this section. The terms

‘‘off-road’’ and ‘‘off-highway’’ are sometimes used

interchangeably with nonroad. Section 202(l)

instructs the Agency to address emissions from

motor vehicles, which do not include nonroad

vehicles or engines.

25 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994.

26 63 FR 56968, October 23, 1998.

primary mechanism for controlling

MTBE emissions would be to limit the

use of MTBE in gasoline. The Agency is

currently pursuing a separate

rulemaking under the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA) to consider phasing

down or eliminating the use of MTBE,

and thus we have deferred

consideration of MTBE controls to that

rulemaking. Note that the EPA and the

United States Department of Agriculture

jointly announced, on March, 2000, the

Administration’s legislative principles

for protecting drinking water supplies,

preserving clean air benefit and

promoting renewable fuels and urged

Congress to take action consistent with

these principles.

Finally, as discussed in Section V. B

above, there is insufficient data at this

time to allow us to quantify how

changes in individual diesel fuel

properties would affect emissions of

compounds such as aldehydes, dioxins/

furans, and POM. As a result, we cannot

specify how refiners might change their

operations or what capital equipment

they might need to install in order to

reformulate their diesel fuel, and thus

we cannot estimate costs associated

with this type of control.

VI. Nonroad Sources of MSAT

Emissions

In this section, we will look at MSAT

emissions from nonroad mobile

sources.24 First, we will briefly review

the nonroad MSAT emission inventories

that were presented in Section III. Next,

we will discuss how the current

nonroad emission control programs are

expected to reduce these nonroad

inventories, as well as briefly touch

upon the expected benefits from our

new actions targeting the control of

emissions from currently unregulated

nonroad categories.

We are looking at nonroad MSAT

emissions separately from motor vehicle

MSAT emissions primarily because our

understanding of nonroad MSAT

emissions is much more limited. This

section ends with a discussion of the

current gaps in our data that we will

need to fill before we can

comprehensively assess the need for,

and appropriateness of, programs

intended to further reduce nonroad

MSAT emissions.

We received two general types of

comments in response to our discussion

of nonroad sources in the proposal.

First, several commenters stated that our

emission projections for the nonroad

category show that our current programs

are effective at reducing toxics from

nonroad sources. These commenters

argued that we do not need to do

anything further to reduce toxics

emissions from nonroad mobile sources.

A second group of commenters pointed

out that the nonroad toxic inventories

clearly argue for further controls on

nonroad sources, and that we should

include such controls in the final rule.

We believe that we need to gather

additional information on nonroad

toxics emissions before we can make an

informed decision regarding future

actions, and are thus not including

additional nonroad controls in today’s

action. Further, we are not required to

set toxic emissions standards for

nonroad sources under section 202(l)(2)

of the Act.

A. Nonroad MSAT Baseline Inventories

We previously presented the 1996

baseline inventories for several key

nonroad MSAT emissions in Table III–

2. This nonroad MSAT data was taken

from the 1996 National Toxics Inventory

(NTI). In general, the data show that

nonroad vehicles tend to be significant

contributors of those same MSAT

emissions for which motor vehicles are

also significant contributors, such as

benzene, formaldehyde, and

acetaldehyde. For some MSAT

emissions, the nonroad inventories are

comparable to, or even higher than,

those for on-highway vehicles. Nonroad

vehicles contribute as much as 39

percent of the national inventory of

some MSAT emissions, such as

acetaldehyde and MTBE, and contribute

significantly to the national inventories

of several others, including 1,3-

butadiene, acrolein, benzene,

formaldehyde, lead compounds, nhexane, toluene and xylene.

Comparing the 1996 estimates of onhighway vehicle VOC and diesel PM

emissions in Table III–3 to the nonroad

VOC and diesel PM numbers presented

later in this section (Tables VI–3 and

VI–4), we see that the nonroad VOC

inventory in 1996 was almost 75 percent

of the on-highway inventory and the

nonroad diesel PM inventory for the

same year was roughly twice that for onhighway diesel PM.

B. Impacts of Current Nonroad Mobile

Source Emission Control Strategies

1. Description of the Emission Control

Programs

Section 213 of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 directed us to

study the contribution of nonroad

engines to air pollution which may

reasonably be anticipated to endanger

public health or welfare, and to regulate

them if warranted. The focus of the 1990

Amendments was on the criteria

pollutants and their implications for

meeting the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS). Due to the variety

of nonroad engine and equipment types

and sizes, combustion processes, uses,

and potential for emissions reductions,

we placed nonroad engines into several

categories. These categories include

land-based diesel engines (e.g., farm and

construction equipment), small landbased spark-ignition (SI) engines (e.g.,

lawn and garden equipment, string

trimmers), large land-based SI engines

(e.g., forklifts, airport ground service

equipment), marine engines (including

diesel and SI, propulsion and auxiliary,

commercial and recreational),

locomotives, aircraft, and recreational

vehicles (large land-based spark ignition

engines used in off-road motorcycles,

‘‘all terrain’’ vehicles and snowmobiles).

Brief summaries of our current and

anticipated programs for these nonroad

categories follow. More detailed

descriptions are contained in Chapter

Eight of the TSD for this rule.

• Land-based diesel engines. Landbased nonroad diesel engines include

engines used in agricultural and

construction equipment, as well as

many other applications (excluding

locomotives, mining equipment, and

marine engines). Under our Tier 1

standards phased in beginning in 1996,

NOX reductions of over 30 percent were

required of new land-based nonroad

diesel engines greater than 50

horsepower (hp).25 Standards applicable

to engines under 50 hp took effect for

the first time in 1999. We have

completed a second set of standards

(Tier 2) which will be phased in from

2001 through 2006 and will require

further NOX reductions, as well as

reductions in diesel PM emissions. Still

more stringent NOX standards for

engines over 50 hp (Tier 3) have been

adopted and will be phased in from

2006 through 2008. When fully phased

in, these Tier 2 and Tier 3 regulations

are projected to result in 50 percent

reductions in VOC and 40 percent

reductions in diesel PM beyond the Tier

1 regulations.26 Finally, we intend to

consider the control of sulfur in

nonroad diesel fuel as part of our Tier

3 technology review. This would allow

more effective diesel PM control

technologies such as catalysts to be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17255

27 60 FR 34582, July 3, 1995.

28 64 FR 15208, March 30, 1999 and 65 FR 24267,

April 25, 2000.

29 65 FR 76797, December 7, 2000.

30 61 FR 52088, October 4, 1996.

31 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999.

32 65 FR 76797, December 7, 2000.

33 63 FR 18978, April 16, 1998.

34Locomotives are typically overhauled to ‘‘as

new’’ condition every four to eight years in a

process known as remanufacturing.

35 65 FR 76797, December 7, 2000. 36 55 FR 34120, August 21, 1990.

applied to nonroad engines and

vehicles.

• Small land-based SI engines. Small

land-based spark-ignition engines at or

below 25 hp are used primarily in lawn

and garden equipment such as lawn

mowers, string trimmers, chain saws,

lawn and garden tractors, and other

similar equipment. Our Phase 1

emission controls for these engines took

effect beginning in 1997 and are

projected to result in a roughly 32

percent reduction in VOC emissions.27

We recently completed Phase 2

regulations for these engines which,

when fully phased in, are projected to

result in additional reductions in

combined HC and NOX beyond the

Phase 1 levels of 60 percent for

nonhandheld engines and 70 percent for

handheld engines.28

• Large land-based SI engines. We do

not currently have emission standards

in place for SI engines above 25 hp used

in commercial applications. Such

engines are used in a variety of

industrial equipment such as forklifts,

airport ground service equipment,

generators and compressors. We are

currently developing an emission

control program for these engines.29

• Marine engines. Due to the wide

variety of marine engine types and

applications we have split these engines

into three general categories for

regulatory purposes. The first category

consists of gasoline outboard and

personal watercraft engines. Our

standards for these engines took effect

in 1998 and become increasingly

stringent over a nine year phase-in

period, they are ultimately projected to

result in a 75-percent reduction in

VOC.30 The second category consists of

commercial diesel marine engines. This

includes diesel engines up to 30 liters

per cylinder in size used in a variety of

commercial marine applications. Our

emission standards for these engines

take effect in 2004 and are similar to our

standards for land-based nonroad diesel

engines.31 These regulations are

projected to ultimately result in VOC

reductions of 13 percent and diesel PM

reductions of 26 percent for engines

subject to the standards. The last

category consists of both gasoline and

diesel recreational sterndrive and

inboard engines. We do not currently

have emission regulations in place for

this category of marine engine, but have

begun developing them.32

• Locomotives. Our regulations for

locomotives and locomotive engines

consist of three tiers of standards,

applicable depending on the date a

locomotive is originally

manufactured.33 The first set of

standards (Tier 0) applies to

locomotives and locomotive engines

originally manufactured from 1973

through 2001, any time they are

manufactured or remanufactured.34 The

second set of standards (Tier 1) applies

to locomotives and locomotive engines

manufactured from 2002 through 2004.

The third set of standards (Tier 2)

applies to locomotives manufactured in

2005 and later. While the Tier 0 and

Tier 1 regulations are primarily

intended to reduce NOX emissions, the

Tier 2 regulations are projected to result

in 50 percent reductions in VOC and

diesel PM from unregulated levels, as

well as additional NOX reductions

beyond the Tier 0 and Tier 1

regulations.

• Aircraft. A variety of emission

regulations have been applied to

commercial gas turbine aircraft engines,

beginning with limits on smoke and fuel

venting in 1974. In 1984, limits were

placed on the amount of unburned HC

that gas turbine engines can emit per

landing and takeoff cycle. Most recently

(1997), we adopted the existing

International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO) NOX and CO

emission regulations for gas turbine

engines. None of these actions has

resulted in significant emissions

reductions, but rather have largely

served to prevent increases in aircraft

emissions. We continue to explore ways

to reduce emissions from aircraft

throughout the nation.

• Recreational Vehicles. Large landbased spark ignition engines used in

recreational vehicles include

snowmobiles, off-road motorcycles and

‘‘all terrain’’ vehicles, and are presently

unregulated. We are currently

developing emission regulations for

recreational vehicles.35

In addition to the above engine-based

emission control programs, fuel controls

will also reduce emissions of air toxics

from nonroad engines. For example,

restrictions on gasoline formulation (the

removal of lead, limits on gasoline

volatility and reformulated gasoline

standards) are projected to reduce

nonroad MSAT emissions because most

gasoline-fueled nonroad vehicles are

fueled with the same gasoline used in

on-highway vehicles. An exception to

this is lead in aviation gasoline.

Aviation gasoline is a high octane fuel

used in a relatively small number of

aircraft (those with piston engines).

Such aircraft are generally used for

personal transportation, sightseeing,

crop dusting, and similar activities.

As just discussed, most of our fuel

controls aimed at gasoline cover both

on-highway and nonroad vehicle fuel.

The same is not true for diesel fuel. We

have regulations in place that will

control the sulfur levels in on-highway

diesel fuel and have proposed to reduce

these levels further. These controls,

however, do not apply to nonroad diesel

fuel. Prior to the sulfur controls for onhighway diesel fuel, which took effect

in October of 1993, there was no

distinction between nonroad and onhighway diesel fuel.36 We are evaluating

the need for controlling sulfur in

nonroad diesel fuel, in order to allow

more effective diesel PM control

technologies such as catalysts to be

applied to nonroad engines and

vehicles.

2. Emission Reductions From Current

Programs

The nonroad mobile source control

programs just summarized are expected

to result in reductions of national

inventories of MSAT emissions from

nonroad engines. This section

summarizes our estimates of nonroad

MSAT inventories into the future, based

on the nonroad emission control

programs we currently have in place.

Interested readers are encouraged to

refer to our TSD for a more detailed

discussion of these projections. The

discussion in this section consists of

three parts. First, we discuss the

inventories of four gaseous MSAT

emissions: benzene, formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene.

Second, we discuss nonroad VOC

emissions inventories as a surrogate for

the other nonroad gaseous MSAT

emissions. Finally, we discuss the trend

in nonroad diesel PM emissions.

We are not reporting inventory trends

for the metals on our list of MSATs

(arsenic compounds, chromium

compounds, mercury compounds,

nickel compounds, manganese

compounds, and lead compounds) or for

dioxin/furans. Metals in mobile source

exhaust can come from fuel, fuel

additives, engine oil, engine oil

additives, or engine wear. Formation of

dioxin and furans requires a source of

17256 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

37 It should be noted that these estimates do not

include locomotives, aircraft or commercial marine

diesel engines. Thus, the 1996 estimates shown

here differ slightly from those shown in Table III–

2.

38The draft NONROAD model is a model we are

developing to project emissions inventories from

nonroad mobile sources. Because this is a draft

model and subject to future revisions, the

inventories derived from the draft NONROAD

model and presented here are subject to change.

chlorine. Thus, while metal emissions

and dioxins/furans emissions are

associated with particles and it is

possible that these compounds track PM

emissions to some extent, there are a

number of other factors that contribute

to emission levels and we do not have

good data on these relationships.

a. Benzene, Acetaldehyde,

Formaldehyde, and 1,3-Butadiene.

Table VI–1 shows our estimates of the

nonroad emissions of these four gaseous

MSATs. These estimates were based on

the 1996 inventories contained in the

1996 NTI study.37 The 1990 estimates

were derived by applying a ratio of

nationwide 1990 to 1996 VOC

inventories from the draft NONROAD

model to the 1996 NTI numbers.38 Toxic

fractions represent the fraction of total

VOC that a given MSAT makes up. The

toxic fractions were derived from

speciated emissions data on different

engines and come from a variety of

studies which are discussed in Chapter

2 of the TSD. By knowing the total VOC

inventory and the toxic fraction for a

given MSAT, we can estimate the

inventory of that specific MSAT

indirectly. The 2007 and 2020 MSAT

estimates were derived from the draft

NONROAD model, with the toxic

fractions applied to the nationwide

NONROAD VOC results. Toxic fractions

were applied separately to the various

sources of nonroad emissions (e.g.,

diesel, gasoline, two-stroke, four-stroke,

exhaust, evaporative) in the NONROAD

model. We then summed the toxic

emissions from the various sources of

nonroad emissions.

TABLE VI–1.—ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR BENZENE, ACETALDEHYDE, FORMALDEHYDE, AND 1,3-BUTADIENE FROM NONROAD

SOURCESa

[Thousand short tons per year]

Compound 1990

Emissions

1996

Emissions

2007

Emissions

2020

Emissions

Benzene ......................................................................................................................... 100.2 98.7 75.4 69

Acetaldehyde ................................................................................................................. 37.7 40.8 26.3 20

Formaldehyde ................................................................................................................ 79.2 86.4 53.8 40.7

1,3-Butadiene ................................................................................................................. 9.4 9.9 8.8 7.8

aThe draft NONROAD model is a model we are developing to project emissions inventories from nonroad mobile sources. Because this is a

draft model and subject to future revisions, the inventories derived from the draft NONROAD model and presented here are subject to change.

Table VI–2 summarizes the percent

reductions from 1990 and 1996 levels

represented by the inventories in Table

VI–1. This table shows that the

reductions expected from our existing

nonroad control programs are

significant, although not as substantial

as the reductions of these pollutants for

on-highway vehicles presented in

Section III.

TABLE VI–2.—PERCENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR BENZENE, ACETALDEHYDE, FORMALDEHYDE, AND 1,3-BUTADIENE

FROM NONROAD SOURCES

Reduction in 2007

(percent)

Reduction in 2020

(percent)

Compound From 1990 From 1996 From 1990 From 1996

Benzene ........................................................................................................................... 25 24 31 30

Acetaldehyde ................................................................................................................... 30 36 47 51

Formaldehyde .................................................................................................................. 32 38 49 53

1,3-Butadiene ................................................................................................................... 7 11 18 21

b. VOCs. With the exception of the

four MSATs shown in Table VI–1, we

cannot estimate emissions from nonroad

mobile sources for the other gaseous

MSAT emissions because we do not

have toxic fraction information for the

other gaseous MSAT emissions.

Therefore, to estimate projected

inventory impacts from our current

nonroad mobile source emission control

programs, we use VOC inventories. We

believe this is appropriate because the

gaseous MSAT emissions are

constituents of total VOC emissions. By

using VOC emissions as a surrogate, we

are assuming that MSAT emissions

track VOC reductions. In reality,

however, as can be seen from Table VI–

2, some gaseous MSAT emissions may

not decrease at the same rate as VOCs

overall. Without having more detailed

emission data for each of the MSAT

emissions, however, we are unable to

offer any insights on how those rates

may differ.

Our VOC emission inventories were

developed using the draft NONROAD

model. Because the draft NONROAD

model does not include locomotives,

commercial marine diesel engines, or

aircraft, we supplemented the draft

NONROAD model inventories with the

locomotive and diesel marine

inventories developed in support of our

regulations for those categories, and

with aircraft emission inventories from

the National Air Pollutant Emissions

Trends, 1900–1996 report. The results of

this analysis, presented in Table VI–3,

show that VOC inventories are projected

to decrease approximately 44 percent

between 1996 and 2020 due to existing

nonroad mobile source emission control

programs. Comparing the results of this

analysis with Tables III–3 and III–4, we

see that expected nonroad VOC

reductions are not as dramatic as those

projected for on-highway vehicles, with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17257

39EPA may also focus on other MSATs in the

next two years, if new information shows that is

appropriate.

40Memo from Brodowicz, P. to Phil Lorang,

Director Assessment and Modeling Division and

Chet France, Director Engines Programs and

Compliance Division. Screening/Ranking Analysis

of the Air Toxic Emissions From Onroad Mobile

Sources to Be Addressed Under Section 202(l)(2).

August 17, 1999.

nonroad and on-highway VOC

inventories expected to be very similar

by 2020. This is not surprising because

the technologies available to reduce

nonroad emissions are not as

sophisticated as those used to control

on-highway emissions. This analysis,

however, shows that our existing

nonroad emission control programs will

nonetheless result in significant gaseous

MSAT reductions (assuming, as

previously discussed, that gaseous

MSAT emissions track VOC reductions).

TABLE VI–3.—ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SOURCES

Year 1996 2007 2020

Million short tons per year ............................................................................................................................. 3.6 2.2 2.0

Cumulative Percent Reduction from 1996 .................................................................................................... * * * 39% 44%

c. Diesel PM. We estimated the

nonroad PM inventories using the draft

NONROAD model. We are using diesel

PM as a surrogate for diesel PM and

diesel exhaust organic gases (DPM +

DEOG). As explained earlier, because

the draft NONROAD model does not

include locomotives, commercial

marine diesel engines, or aircraft we

supplemented the draft NONROAD

model inventories using other sources of

information to cover these emissions.

Table VI–4 shows our estimates of

nonroad diesel PM emissions

inventories. As can be seen, we expect

nonroad diesel PM emissions to begin to

drop with the implementation of some

of our nonroad regulations. However, in

the absence of additional controls, we

expect that nonroad diesel PM emission

inventories will begin to increase due to

expected growth in the populations of

nonroad vehicles and equipment.

Comparing Table VI–4 to Table III–3 we

see that, while the nonroad diesel PM

inventory is roughly twice that for onhighway vehicles in 1996, nonroad

emissions of diesel PM are expected to

be about 20 times as great as onhighway diesel PM emissions by 2020

due to the dramatic reductions in onhighway PM from the application of the

newest technologies and the use of low

sulfur fuels. These estimates assume

projected reductions from the proposed

standards for heavy-duty vehicles in

2007 and future model years, which are

not yet finalized.

As was previously mentioned, we are

considering Tier 3 diesel PM standards

for land-based nonroad diesel engines.

We believe that any specific new

requirements for nonroad diesel PM we

might propose would need to be

carefully considered in the context of a

proposal for nonroad diesel fuel

standards. This is because of the close

interrelationship between fuels and

engines—the best emission control

solutions may not come through either

fuel changes or engine improvements

alone, but perhaps through an

appropriate balance between the two.

Thus, we are working to formulate

proposals covering both nonroad diesel

fuel and engines.

TABLE VI–4.—DIESEL PM EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SOURCES

Year 1996 2007 2020

Thousand short tons per year ....................................................................................................................... 345.8 282.8 310.8

Cumulative Percent Reduction from 1996 .................................................................................................... * * * 18% 10%

C. Gaps in Nonroad Mobile Source Data

There are significant gaps in our data

on MSAT emissions from nonroad

engines. As a result of these data gaps,

our understanding of nonroad MSAT

inventories is less developed than our

understanding of on-highway vehicle

MSAT emissions. The largest single data

gap is in the area of emission factors.

While we have basic emission factors

for VOC and PM for most of the nonroad

categories, we have very little VOC

speciation data for most classes and

categories of nonroad vehicles and

engines which would allow us to use

VOC as a surrogate to estimate

emissions of specific MSAT emissions.

Given the large variety of nonroad

engine sizes, types and uses, as well as

the likelihood that this variety are

projected to result in some differences

in VOC composition, it is important that

we obtain or develop speciated VOC

data specific to each nonroad category

in order to more accurately project

nonroad MSAT inventories. These gaps,

too, must be filled in order to accurately

assess the need for, and the most

appropriate direction of, any future

MSAT control program targeted

specifically at nonroad mobile sources.

We intend to use the technical analysis

plan, described in Section VII, to fill

these data gaps.

VII. Technical Analysis Plan to Address

Data Gaps and Commitment for Further

Rulemaking

A. Technical Analysis Plan to Address

Data Gaps

Because of the potential future health

impacts of public exposure to air toxics

from mobile sources we will continue

our toxics-related research and

activities. Therefore, in addition to

today’s controls, we will continue to

evaluate and re-assess the need for, and

level of controls for both on-highway

and nonroad sources of air toxics.

Among the 21 compounds that EPA has

identified for inclusion on the list of

MSATs, we believe that, considering

single chemical inhalation health

hazards and exposure to the MSAT

emissions from on-highway sources,

diesel particulate matter and diesel

exhaust organic gases (DPM + DEOG),

benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde, and acrolein are likely to

present the highest risks to public

health and welfare.39 The need to focus

short-term work on these six MSATs has

been highlighted in an Agency

screening analysis40 and the States have

indicated these pollutants are major

mobile source pollutants of concern.

Information that is made available from

the work that is now underway in the

NATA National-Scale Analysis will also

be used to determine priority toxics

17258 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

41EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality

(OTAQ), which is responsible for the MSATs

program, will be working in coordination with the

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(OAPQS), which manages NATA, and the Office of

Radiation and Indoor Air, which is examining

issues related to a wide range of indoor air

pollutants. OTAQ will also rely on health effects,

exposure, and risk assessment efforts and

guidelines of EPA’s Office of Research and

Development in conducting its program.

42Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on

Motor Vehicles Toxics Emissions and Exposure in

Urban Areas and Nationwide (Volumes 1 and 2),

November 1999. EPA420-R–99–029/030. This

report can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

toxics.htm.

from mobile sources.41 In addition,

priorities identified from the NATA

National-Scale Analysis will be

considered and incorporated as

appropriate in the Air Toxics Research

Strategy (ATRS) currently being

developed by EPA’s Office of Research

and Development (ORD) in a

coordinated effort with the OAR.

In conducting this Technical Analysis

Plan, we will address four critical areas

where there are data gaps. These areas

are:

• Developing better air toxics

emission factors for nonroad sources;

• Improving estimation of air toxics

exposures in microenvironments;

• Improving consideration of the

range of total public exposures to air

toxics; and

• Increasing our understanding of the

effectiveness and costs of vehicle, fuel,

and nonroad controls for air toxics.

The Agency recognizes the need to

conduct additional work and to focus on

relevant scientific data to address the

needs we outline in this Technical

Analysis Plan. The issues outlined are

complex and while the work conducted

as part of the Technical Analysis Plan

will begin to address the significant data

gaps, resolution of some aspects of these

issues will require a long-term effort.

This effort will be coordinated across

the Agency to maximize available

resources.

Developing emission factors for

nonroad sources. EPA’s Office of

Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)

has initiated emissions testing of a

comprehensive suite of hydrocarbons

and inorganic compounds from nonroad

diesel engines. These emissions will be

characterized using steady-state as well

as transient test cycles using typical

nonroad fuel and low-sulfur nonroad

fuel. OTAQ has also initiated an effort

to characterize emissions (including

speciated hydrocarbons) from in-use

nonroad engines. EPA’s Office of

Research and Development (ORD) also

has information available from testing

programs which will be useful to

characterize emissions of toxic

compounds from certain classes of

gasoline nonroad engines using various

fuels (oxygenated gasoline, reformulated

gasoline and conventional gasoline).

The Agency will use these data, in

addition to other sources of nonroad test

data to develop better air toxics

emissions factors for nonroad sources.

Improving estimation of exposures in

microenvironments. In the past, the

Agency has used carbon monoxide (CO)

measurements outdoors and indoors as

a surrogate for estimating the onhighway mobile source contribution to

air toxics levels from outdoor sources in

different microenvironments (e.g.,

inside vehicles, homes, shopping malls,

and office buildings). This approach has

limitations. Estimates of the on-highway

contribution to air toxics levels in

different microenvironments are then

used in conjunction with activity data to

estimate average exposures. A new

approach was needed that addressed

some of the limitations of the CO

surrogate approach and one that could

be used to estimate exposures from all

outdoor sources. Thus, the Agency

developed the Hazardous Air Pollutant

Exposure Model—Version 4 (HAPEM4),

to estimate microenvironmental

exposures in the National-Scale

Assessment of NATA. HAPEM4 utilizes

peer reviewed, pollutant specific

microenvironmental factors to predict

exposure levels in microenvironments.

The application of these

microenvironmental factors in the

NATA National-Scale Assessment is

currently awaiting peer review by the

Agency’s Science Advisory Board. After

that review, EPA’s OAQPS will

incorporate applicable comments into

HAPEM4 microenvironmental factors

that are needed to provide improved

exposure estimates.

In addition, EPA will use results of

on-going studies at the Mickey Leland

National Urban Air Toxics Research

Center and in the EPA Office of

Radiation and Indoor Air to evaluate

indoor and outdoor concentrations of

gaseous toxics as well as the penetration

of toxics from outdoor sources into

indoor spaces. EPA will also utilize data

from new studies planned or underway

(within and outside the Agency) that are

designed to fill gaps in current data sets

such as personal exposure in

microenvironmental settings (e.g.,

houses with attached garages,

residences and commercial buildings

located near heavily-trafficked

roadways, bus depots, and delivery

terminals).

Another important aspect of

considering microenvironmental

exposures is the amount of time people

spend in each microenvironment. To

address this issue, HAPEM4 uses the

EPA ORD Consolidated Human Activity

Database (CHAD). CHAD contains

information describing activities of

various subgroups in the U.S.

population in different

microenvironmental settings. CHAD is a

more expansive human activity diary

data set than others EPA has used in

past exposure assessment, but the

Agency recognizes that additional field

research may be needed to expand

human activity information for underrepresented demographic groups,

particularly in urban areas. EPA will

update CHAD to take advantage of new

data that becomes available through

peer-reviewed studies. As CHAD is

updated in the future, EPA will

incorporate new data into HAPEM4 to

provide the best reflection of each

subgroup’s activities and thereby enable

subgroup analysis from which EPA

would be likely to gain additional

insights about the potential exposures

for particular subgroups, including

children. The Agency will review the

data to see where special analysis is

warranted to characterize the subgroups

facing greater risks.

Improving consideration of the range

of public exposures. EPA’s analysis to

date has primarily examined average

levels of exposure (see Chapter 5 of the

TSD and our 1999 Study 42). As part of

its National Air Toxics Assessment

(NATA) activities, EPA has also

conducted a national-scale air toxics

analysis to estimate ambient

concentrations of 33 air toxics identified

in the IUATS, plus diesel PM. The

NATA National-Scale Analysis

apportioned the contribution of air

toxics to ambient concentrations

between major, area, nonroad mobile,

and on-highway sources. The NATA

National Scale Analysis also reported

distributions of concentrations across

census tracts nationally and at the

county level. While providing a

significant and informative body of

information, these studies do not

address exposures to toxics in hot spot

areas. As the Agency has stated in the

Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy,

we also want to consider the

disproportionate impacts of air toxics in

hot spot areas. Hot spots are generally

thought of as areas with elevated

pollutant levels that could be associated

with elevated exposures and potentially

serious health risks. At higher pollutant

concentrations, the potential for risk

increases, making it important to

characterize the distribution of exposure

in the population. For example, it

would be important to know how many

people are in the high-end distribution

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17259

43STAPPA/ALAPCO and NESCAUM raised this

concern at an conference on mobile source air

toxics that the Health Effects Institute managed for

EPA in February 2000.

44EPA will characterize the exposure risks of air

toxics in future analysis in the manner prescribed

in the Agency’s Guidance for Risk Characterization,

February 1995.

45This workshop will include ways to

characterize the geographic variability and

exposure/risk impacts of mobile source emissions,

considering both the ubiquitous ambient impact as

well as potential hot spots. Geographic variability

includes the observed elevated urban area ambient

concentrations of mobile source air toxics, peak

ambient concentrations adjacent to roadways in

urban and rural areas, and the elevated, mobile

source-dependent emissions impacts (for example,

waste transfer station operations and bus, marine,

aircraft, and locomotive terminal operations).

Exposure variability includes recognition of factors

that lead to different levels of human exposure,

such as commuting, or living in a residence with

an attached garage. While this workshop will focus

on methods to understand the range of exposures

to mobile source emissions, methods to characterize

additional sources of toxics exposure will also be

examined.

of exposure and whether they have

additional susceptibilities (e.g., the

elderly, young, or those exposed to

other chemicals beyond MSATs) and

what factors place them at high risk

(e.g., proximity to sources). States and

local air pollution control agencies have

raised the hot spots issue as a major

concern that needs to be addressed in a

comprehensive air toxics risk

characterization.43

To improve our ability to characterize

MSAT exposures to highly exposed

subpopulations requires better

information regarding ambient

concentrations of MSATs in hot spot

areas and appropriate

microenvironmental factor values for

high-exposure microenvironments. EPA

is developing local-scale emissions and

dispersion models for mobile sources to

better inform the Agency and the public

about potential hot spots. In addition,

EPA is conducting spatially refined

urban area modeling (including mobile

sources).

Field sampling studies funded by the

Mickey Leland National Urban Air

Toxics Research Center and ambient

monitoring being conducted by States

and local entities will provide

information that will be used to support

real-world characterizations of a few

typical hot spot areas. These field

measurements will also provide

information regarding the distributions

of microenvironmental concentrations

and therefore, exposures. EPA will also

work with the State and local air

pollution control agencies to ensure that

the results of air toxics monitoring data

analyses and urban monitoring pilot

projects underway omission year are

considered in EPA’s development of

mobile source air toxics exposure and

risk analyses.44

Increasing our understanding of the

effectiveness and costs of vehicle, fuel,

and nonroad air toxics controls. The

Agency intends to conduct additional

analysis on additional controls for

motor vehicles, fuels, and nonroad

engines that could lower air toxics

emissions cost-effectively in a reliable

and predictable manner. For DPM +

DEOG, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and

acrolein, the Agency will analyze a

variety of control options, and reevaluate previously considered control

options, for both on-highway and

nonroad sources. This additional

analysis of control options will include

the feasibility of requiring retrofit of

both highway and nonroad heavy-duty

diesel engines with emissions controls

for air toxics.

In each of these four areas of

investigation, EPA will work

collaboratively with industry

representatives, manufacturers of

emissions control technology, State and

local agencies, environmental groups,

and other stakeholders. In keeping with

this approach, the Agency plans to hold

at least three technical workshops with

all interested stakeholders to consider:

• Improvements EPA should make to

existing models and integration of

emission, concentration and exposure

models to enable the Agency to better

assess the risks from air toxics from all

sources;

• Ways to address the significance of

the hot spot issue; 45 and

• Future vehicle, fuel, and nonroad

control technologies for reducing air

toxics.

The results of the Technical Analysis

Plan, workshops, and other efforts to

improve our understanding of air toxics

risks will provide the basis for any

future rulemaking, as discussed below.

B. Commitment for Further Rulemaking

EPA is including a regulatory

provision in section 80.825 that

establishes a schedule for a future

rulemaking to promulgate any

additional vehicle and fuel controls that

EPA determines are appropriate under

section 202(l)(2). This rulemaking will

reassess the standards in place at the

time using the information collected

through the Technical Analysis Plan

described above and other activities

related to mobile sources and air toxics.

The standards that are being

promulgated by EPA in today’s final

rule will remain in effect unless

modified by this or other future

rulemaking. EPA commits to issue a

proposed rule by July 1, 2003, and to

take final action on the proposal by July

1, 2004. The regulation adopted today

establishes a rulemaking schedule for

exercise of EPA’s discretionary

authority under section 202(l)(2), which

directs EPA to ‘‘from time to time

revise’’ regulations under that provision.

We are also stating in section 80.825

that the Agency intends to evaluate

emissions and potential strategies

relating to HAPs from nonroad engines

and vehicles. This is consistent with the

commitment, expressed in the preamble

of the NPRM, to address emissions from

nonroad as well as on-highway vehicles.

The preamble discussion in the NPRM

explained that as part of the rulemaking

envisioned under the proposed section

80.825, EPA would reexamine the

controls available for reducing toxics

emitted from on-highway and nonroad

vehicles and equipment, and their fuels

(see preamble, 65 FR at 48091). The

review would consider whether controls

that reduce emissions from nonroad

sources were appropriate under the Act.

EPA intends to review the regulations of

various categories of nonroad engines

and equipment, and to consider controls

for those pollutants and categories of

new nonroad engines that EPA

determines are appropriate. Controls on

all types of nonroad vehicles and

equipment, or pollutants may not be

warranted. In deciding what pollutants

and categories of engines or equipment

to include in any proposal, EPA intends

to consider a variety of factors such as

cost, risk to public health, available

technology, as well as any other

appropriate factors.

Several commenters urged EPA not to

include a commitment to a future

rulemaking in the regulations. These

commenters argued that it was

premature to commit to a rulemaking

before EPA had completed the

Technical Analysis Plan and that a

future rulemaking could be a waste of

resources if EPA determines no further

controls are appropriate. Several

commenters also questioned EPA’s

authority to commit future

administrations to such a rulemaking.

EPA continues to believe the regulatory

commitment in section 80.825 is

reasonable and entirely within EPA’s

authority.

Other commenters supported EPA’s

commitment to future rulemaking, but

encouraged EPA to extend that

commitment to include a periodic

review of mobile source toxics controls.

They believe that EPA should review

the appropriateness of additional

controls every three years. At this time,

we do not believe it is necessary to

make such a formal commitment.

However, the Act allows us to review

17260 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

and from time to time revise air toxics

standards for mobile sources. Therefore,

in addition to today’s controls, we will

continue to evaluate and re-assess the

need for, and level of controls for both

on-highway and nonroad sources of air

toxics as described above.

VIII. Public Participation

A wide variety of interested parties

participated in the rulemaking process

that culminated with this final rule. The

formal comment period and a public

hearing associated with the NPRM

provided additional opportunities for

public input. EPA also met with a

variety of stakeholders, including

environmental and public health

organizations, oil company

representatives, auto company

representatives, and states at various

points in the process.

We have prepared a detailed

Response to Comments document that

describes the comments received on the

NPRM and presents our response to

each of these comments. The Response

to Comments document is available in

the docket of this rule and on the Office

of Transportation and Air Quality

Internet toxics page (http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm).

Comments and our response are also

included throughout this preamble for

several key issues.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and the

requirements of this Executive Order.

The Executive Order defines a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as any

regulatory action that is likely to result

in a rule that may:

• Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, Local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

• Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

• Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

• Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ because it raises novel legal or

policy issues. Accordingly, this rule was

submitted to OMB for review. Any

written comments from OMB on today’s

action and any responses from EPA to

OMB comments are in the public docket

for this rulemaking.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. EPA has also determined

that this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. Of the approximately 146

petroleum refiners that currently

produce gasoline in the U.S., about 15

meet the Small Business Administration

(SBA) definition of a small business.

According to SBA guidelines, a

petroleum refining company must have

fewer than 1500 employees to qualify as

an SBA small business.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s final rule on small

entities, EPA has concluded that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. As a result of

the toxics performance standard being

finalized today, all refiners will be

required to maintain current levels of

overcompliance with RFG and antidumping toxic emission performance

requirements. Because the standards

finalized in this action are not

technology-forcing, we believe that all

refiners, including small refiners will

not be required to adjust their current

refining practices in any unique way to

meet the toxics performance standard.

Chapter 7 of the TSD supports this

conclusion and we believe that any

future costs that may be incurred by any

refiner to comply with this program will

be negligible.

Although this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the

impact of this rule on small entities. We

have included a number of flexibilities

in this program such as deficit and

credit carryforward that are available to

all refineries to meet the requirements

finalized in today’s action. We believe

these flexibilities are sufficient to

address any unforseen burdens that any

refiner, including a small refiner, may

face, and therefore, no unique

provisions or flexibilities need to be

finalized for small refiners.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this rule have been

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, Collection

Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (2822); 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740.

The information requirements are not

enforceable until OMB approves them.

Under this rulemaking, refiners and

importers are required to determine and

submit to EPA a toxics baseline based

on the quality of the gasoline produced

or imported between 1998 and 2000,

inclusive. The toxics baseline is a onetime submission. Additionally, at the

end of each calendar year beginning

with 2002, refiners and importers are

required to submit certain information

to EPA under this rule. The types of

information and other requirements

associated with these submissions is

presented below.

The data that is used in determining

the toxics baseline is gasoline batch

information which the refiner or

importer already has, and has submitted

(or will submit in the case of 2000 data)

to EPA per the reformulated gasoline

and anti-dumping programs’

requirements. Thus, there is no

requirement under this rule to collect

additional information; refiners and

importers use the information they

already have (gasoline batch quality and

volumes) to determine the baseline for

this rule, a straightforward and

uncomplicated calculation.

In addition to the one-time toxics

baseline determination and submission,

refiners and importers are required to

calculate annually and submit to EPA

the following, separately for

reformulated and conventional gasoline:

(1) The annual average toxics value.

This value is the average quality of all

of the batches of gasoline produced or

imported during the year and is based

on the volume and toxics quality of each

batch (volume weighted combination of

each batch’s toxic value).

(2) The annual volume. This is the

sum of all of the batch volumes of

gasoline produced or imported during

the year.

(3) The incremental volume. This is

the difference between a refiner’s or

importer’s 1998–2000 baseline volume

and the annual volume (see above).

Only positive incremental volumes (that

is, when the annual volume exceeds the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17261

46Burden means the total time, effort, or financial

resources expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information

to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,

install, and utilize technology and systems for the

purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and maintaining

information, and disclosing and providing

information; adjust the existing ways to comply

with any previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able to respond

to a collection of information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

1998–2000 volume) are used in the

compliance baseline calculation (see

below).

(4) The compliance baseline. This

annual calculation is the standard for

this rule, and is the value to which the

annual average toxics value (see above)

is compared. Factors in this calculation

are the baseline quality and volume (as

determined in the one-time baseline

submission, plus a compliance margin

which has been set by EPA), and the

incremental volume (see above).

The annual average toxics value for

each type of gasoline (reformulated,

conventional) is essentially the same

determination refiners and importers

must make for the reformulated gasoline

and anti-dumping programs. The annual

average toxics value determination is

made using the toxics values calculated

for each reformulated gasoline and

conventional gasoline batch in

accordance with the reformulated

gasoline and anti-dumping program

requirements. No new data is required

to be collected for this rule. The annual

volume is also part of the reporting

requirements of those two programs.

Only the incremental volume

determination and the compliance

baseline determination are new

requirements due to this rule. These

latter two determinations require

minimal calculation time. Additionally,

all information required to be submitted

annually under this anti-backsliding

program will be submitted at the same

time and on the same forms as the

annually required information under the

reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping

programs.

Refiners and importers are also

required to annually submit attest

engagements (independent comparison

and calculation of reported values and

related information submitted by

refiners and importers in accordance

with the reformulated gasoline and antidumping requirements). Attest

engagements are also required for this

anti-backsliding rule. The information

the independent auditor must consider

includes the refiner’s or importer’s

baseline toxics value, annual average

toxics value, baseline volume,

incremental volume and compliance

baseline. This addition (on top of the

attest engagement requirements for the

reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping

program attest engagement

requirements) is expected to require

minimal additional resources.

In summary, we believe that the

additional data required by this

rulemaking will require minimum effort

to prepare and submit, and can be

submitted with the same data

submission forms pursuant to the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for the RFG and antidumping rules. While we believe that

the minimal amount of additional data

required by this rulemaking does not

pose significant additional information

collection burden on refiners,46 we have

submitted revisions to the RFG and antidumping Information Collection

Requests (ICRs).

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15. The OMB control number(s) for the

information collection requirements in

this rule will be listed in an amendment

to 40 CFR part 9 in a subsequent

Federal Register document after OMB

approves the ICR.

D. Intergovernmental Relations

1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory action on state, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by state, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted.

Before we establish any regulatory

requirement that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, we must

develop, under section 203 of the

UMRA, a small government agency

plan. The plan must provide for

notifying potentially affected small

governments, enabling officials of

affected small governments to have

meaningful and timely input in the

development of our regulatory proposals

with significant federal

intergovernmental mandates. The plan

must also provide for informing,

educating, and advising small

governments on compliance with the

regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, Local, or

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

for the private sector in any one year.

The anti-backsliding standard that is

being finalized in today’s action,

consisting of a ‘‘cannot exceed’’ toxics

performance standard which is based in

average annual production in 1998–

2000, will not require refiners to install

capital equipment or make substantial

changes to their operations in order to

comply. The rule imposes no

enforceable duties on State, Local, or

Tribal governmental entities and

nothing in the rule would significantly

or uniquely affect small governments.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of section 202 and 205 of

UMRA.

2. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

The proposed rule has no federalism

implications, as specified in Executive

Order 13132. The standards finalized in

today’s action do not change the

existing form of the gasoline toxics

standard and therefore do not change

the states’s rights with respect to

gasoline air toxics controls. The

17262 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

proposed standards will impose no

direct compliance costs on states. Thus,

Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this rule.

EPA consulted with state and local

officials in the process of developing the

proposed regulation to permit them to

have meaningful and timely input into

its development. In the spirit of

Executive Order 13132, and consistent

with EPA policy to promote

communications between EPA and State

and local governments, EPA specifically

solicits comment on this proposed rule

from State and local officials.

3. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not create any

mandates or impose any obligations on

State, Local, or Tribal governments, and

thus does not significantly or uniquely

affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA

to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS) in its regulatory activities unless

to do so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical.

Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (e.g., materials

specifications, test methods, sampling

procedures, business practices) that are

developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies. The

NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This rule references technical

standards adopted by the Agency

through previous rulemakings. No new

technical standards are established in

today’s rule. The standards referenced

in today’s rule involve the measurement

of gasoline fuel parameters. The

measurement standards for gasoline fuel

parameters referenced in today’s rule

are government-unique standards that

were developed by the Agency through

previous rulemakings. These standards

have served the Agency’s emissions

control goals well since their

implementation and have been well

accepted by industry.

F. Executive Order 13045: Children’s

Health Protection

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) is determined to be economically

significant as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to the

Executive Order because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866. In addition, data that provide a

direct insight into the question of

greater susceptibility in children are

lacking. Nevertheless, EPA believes that

it is important to develop a better

understanding of the effects on public

health, including on children’s health,

of the MSATs identified in today’s rule.

Accordingly, EPA intends to address

children’s health issues as part of its

Technical Analysis Plan.

G. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of this rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective on May 29, 2001.

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal

Authority

The statutory authority for the fuels

controls in today’s final rule can be

found in sections 202 and 211(c) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended.

Additional support for the procedural

and enforcement-related aspects of the

fuel controls in today’s rule, including

the recordkeeping requirements, come

from sections 114(a) and 301(a) of the

CAA.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 80

Environmental protection, Fuel

additives, Gasoline, Imports,

Incorporation by reference, Labeling,

Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: December 20, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, parts 80 and 86 of title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS

AND FUEL ADDITIVES

1. The authority citation for part 80 is

revised to read as follows:

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

and 7601(a).

2. Section § 80.2 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17263

§ 80.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

(d) Previously certified gasoline, or

PCG, means gasoline or RBOB that

previously has been included in a batch

for purposes of complying with the

standards in Subparts D, E, H, and J of

this part, as appropriate.

* * * * *

3. Section § 80.46 is amended by

revising paragraphs (e) and (h) to read

as follows:

§ 80.46 Measurement of reformulated

gasoline fuel parameters.

* * * * *

(e) Benzene. (1) Benzene content shall

be determined using ASTM standard

method D–3606–99, entitled ‘‘Standard

Test Method for Determination of

Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor

and Aviation Gasoline by Gas

Chromatography’’; except that

(2) Instrument parameters shall be

adjusted to ensure complete resolution

of the benzene, ethanol and methanol

peaks because ethanol and methanol

may cause interference with ASTM

standard method D–3606–99 when

present.

* * * * *

(h) Incorporations by reference.

ASTM standard methods D 2622–98

‘‘Standard Test Method for Sulfur in

Petroleum Products by Wavelength

Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence

Spectrometry,’’ D 3246–96 ‘‘Standard

Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas

by Oxidative Microcoulometry,’’ D

3606–99 ‘‘Standard Test Method for

Determination of Benzene and Toluene

in Finished Motor and Aviation

Gasoline by Gas Chromatography,’’ D

1319–99 ‘‘Standard Test Method for

Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum

Products by Fluorescent Indicator

Adsorption,’’ D 4815–99 ‘‘Standard Test

Method for Determination of MTBE,

ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl

Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in

Gasoline by Gas Chromatography,’’ and

D 86–90 ‘‘Standard Test Method for

Distillation of Petroleum Products,’’

with the exception of the degrees

Fahrenheit figures in Table 9 of D 86–

90, are incorporated by reference. These

incorporations by reference were

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from the American Society

for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr

Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA

19428. Copies may be inspected at the

Air Docket Section (LE–131), room M–

1500, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Docket No. A–97–03, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700,

Washington, DC.

4. Section 80.81 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 80.81 Enforcement exemptions for

California gasoline.

(a) The requirements of subparts D, E,

F and J of this part are modified in

accordance with the provisions

contained in this section in the case of

California gasoline.

* * * * *

5. Subpart J is added to part 80 to read

as follows:

Subpart J—Gasoline Toxics

General Information

Sec.

80.800–80.805 [Reserved]

80.810 Who shall register with EPA under

the gasoline toxics program?

Gasoline Toxics Performance Requirements

80.815 What are the gasoline toxics

performance requirements for refiners

and importers?

80.820 What gasoline is subject to the toxics

performance requirements of this

subpart?

80.825 How is the refinery or importer

annual average toxics value determined?

80.830 What requirements apply to

oxygenate blenders?

80.835 What requirements apply to butane

blenders?

80.840 [Reserved]

80.845 What requirements apply to

California gasoline?

80.850 How is the compliance baseline

determined?

80.855 What is the compliance baseline for

refineries or importers with insufficient

data?

80.860–80.905 [Reserved]

Baseline Determination

80.910 How does a refiner or importer

apply for a toxics baseline?

80.915 How are the baseline toxics value

and the baseline toxics volume

determined?

80.920–80.980 [Reserved]

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

80.985 What records shall be kept?

80.990 What are the toxics reporting

requirements?

Exemptions

80.995 What if a refiner or importer is

unable to produce gasoline conforming

to the requirements of this subpart?

80.1000 What are the requirements for

obtaining an exemption for gasoline used

for research, development or testing

purposes?

Violation Provisions

80.1005 What acts are prohibited under the

gasoline toxics program?

80.1010 [Reserved]

80.1015 Who is liable for violations under

the gasoline toxics program?

80.1020 [Reserved]

80.1025 What penalties apply under this

subpart?

Provisions for Foreign Refiners With

Individual Toxics Baselines

80.1030 What are the requirements for

gasoline produced at foreign refineries

having individual refiner toxics

baselines?

Attest Engagements

80.1035 What are the attest engagement

requirements for gasoline toxics

compliance applicable to refiners and

importers?

80.1040 [Reserved]

Additional Rulemaking

80.1045 What additional rulemaking will

EPA conduct?

Subpart J—Gasoline Toxics

General Information

§ 80.800–80.805 [Reserved]

§ 80.810 Who shall register with EPA

under the gasoline toxics program?

(a) Refiners and importers who are

registered by EPA under § 80.76 are

deemed to be registered for purposes of

this subpart.

(b) Refiners and importers subject to

the standards in § 80.815 who are not

registered by EPA under § 80.76 shall

provide to EPA the information required

by § 80.76 by October 1, 2001, or not

later than three months in advance of

the first date that such person produces

or imports gasoline, whichever is later.

Gasoline Toxics Performance

Requirements

§ 80.815 What are the gasoline toxics

performance requirements for refiners and

importers?

(a)(1) The gasoline toxics performance

requirements of this subpart require that

the annual average toxics value of a

refinery or importer be compared to that

refinery’s or importer’s compliance

baseline, where compliance has been

achieved if—

(i) For conventional gasoline, the

annual average toxics value is less than

or equal to the compliance baseline;

(ii) For reformulated gasoline and

RBOB, combined, the annual average

toxics value is greater than or equal to

the compliance baseline.

(A) Refineries that only produce

RBOB and importers that only import

RBOB shall treat RBOB as reformulated

gasoline for the purposes of determining

compliance with the requirements of

this subpart.

(B) Refineries that produce both RFG

and RBOB and importers that import

both RFG and RBOB must combine any

RFG and RBOB qualities and volumes

17264 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

for the purposes of determining

compliance with the requirements of

this subpart.

(2) The requirements under this

paragraph (a) shall be met by the

importer for all imported gasoline,

except gasoline imported as Certified

Toxics-FRGAS under § 80.1030.

(b) The gasoline toxics requirements

of this subpart apply separately for each

of the following types of gasoline

produced at a refinery or imported:

(1) Reformulated gasoline and RBOB,

combined;

(2) Conventional gasoline.

(c) Compliance baseline. (1) The

compliance baseline of a refinery or

importer is determined in accordance

with § 80.915 or § 80.855, as applicable.

(2) Refiners who have chosen, under

subpart E of this part, to comply with

the requirements of subpart E of this

part on an aggregate basis, shall comply

with the requirements of this subpart on

the same aggregate basis.

(d) Compliance determination. (1)

The gasoline toxics performance

requirements of this subpart apply to

gasoline produced at a refinery or

imported by an importer during each

calendar year starting January 1, 2002.

The averaging period is January 1

through December 31 of each year.

(2) The annual average toxics value is

calculated in accordance with § 80.825.

(e) Deficit carryforward. (1) A refinery

or importer creates a toxics deficit,

separately for reformulated gasoline and

conventional gasoline, for a given

averaging period, when—

(i) For conventional gasoline, its

annual average toxics value is greater

than the compliance baseline;

(ii) For reformulated gasoline and

RBOB, combined, the annual average

toxics value is less than the compliance

baseline.

(2) In the calendar year following the

year the toxics deficit is created, the

refinery or importer shall:

(i) Achieve compliance with the

refinery or importer toxics performance

requirement specified in paragraph (a)

of this section; and

(ii) Generate additional toxics credits

sufficient to offset the toxics deficit of

the previous year.

(f) Credit carryforward. (1) A refinery

or importer generates toxics credits,

separately for reformulated gasoline and

conventional gasoline, for a given

averaging period, when—

(i) For conventional gasoline, its

annual average toxics value is less than

the compliance baseline;

(ii) For reformulated gasoline and

RBOB, combined, the annual average

toxics value is greater than the

compliance baseline.

(2) Toxics credits may be used to

offset a toxics deficit in the calendar

year following the year the credits are

generated, provided the following

criteria are met:

(i) Reformulated gasoline toxics

credits are only to be used to offset a

reformulated gasoline toxics deficit;

conventional gasoline credits are only to

be used to offset a conventional gasoline

toxics deficit.

(ii) A refiner only offsets a toxics

deficit at a refinery with toxics credits

generated by that refinery.

(iii) Credits generated on an aggregate

basis may only be used to offset a deficit

calculated on an aggregate basis.

(iv) Credits used to offset a deficit

from the previous year may not also be

carried forward to the following year.

Credits in excess of those used to offset

a deficit from the previous year may be

used to offset a deficit in the following

year.

(v) Only toxics credits generated

under this subpart may be used to offset

a toxics deficit created under this

subpart.

§ 80.820 What gasoline is subject to the

toxics performance requirements of this

subpart?

For the purpose of this subpart, all

reformulated gasoline, conventional

gasoline and RBOB, collectively called

‘‘gasoline’’ unless otherwise specified, is

subject to the requirements under this

subpart, as applicable, with the

following exceptions:

(a) Gasoline that is used to fuel

aircraft, racing vehicles or racing boats

that are used only in sanctioned racing

events, provided that:

(1) Product transfer documents

associated with such gasoline, and any

pump stand from which such gasoline

is dispensed, identify the gasoline either

as gasoline that is restricted for use in

aircraft, or as gasoline that is restricted

for use in racing motor vehicles or

racing boats that are used only in

sanctioned racing events;

(2) The gasoline is completely

segregated from all other gasoline

throughout production, distribution and

sale to the ultimate consumer; and

(3) The gasoline is not made available

for use as motor vehicle gasoline, or

dispensed for use in motor vehicles,

except for motor vehicles used only in

sanctioned racing events.

(b) Gasoline that is exported for sale

outside the U.S.

(c) Gasoline designated as California

gasoline under § 80.845, and used in

California.

(d) Gasoline used in American Samoa,

Guam and the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands.

(e) Gasoline exempt per § 80.995.

(f) Gasoline exempt per § 80.1000.

§ 80.825 How is the refinery or importer

annual average toxics value determined?

(a) The refinery or importer annual

average toxics value is calculated as

follows:

T

V T

V

a

i i

i

n

i

i

n =

×

=

=

∑

∑

( )

1

1

Where:

Ta = The refinery or importer annual

average toxics value, as applicable.

Vi = The volume of applicable gasoline

produced or imported in batch i.

Ti = The toxics value of batch i.

n = The number of batches of gasoline

produced or imported during the

averaging period.

i = Individual batch of gasoline

produced or imported during the

averaging period.

(b) The calculation specified in

paragraph (a) of this section shall be

made separately for each type of

gasoline specified at § 80.815(b).

(c) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch

of gasoline is determined using the

Phase II Complex Model specified at

§ 80.45.

(1) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch

of reformulated gasoline or RBOB, and

the annual average toxics value, Ta, for

reformulated gasoline and RBOB,

combined, under this subpart are in

percent reduction from the statutory

baseline described in § 80.45(b) and

volumes are in gallons.

(2) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch

of conventional gasoline, and the annual

average toxics value, Ta, for

conventional gasoline under this

subpart are in milligrams per mile (mg/

mile) and volumes are in gallons.

(d) All refinery or importer annual

average toxics value calculations shall

be conducted to two decimal places.

(e) A refiner or importer may include

oxygenate added downstream from the

refinery or import facility when

calculating the toxics value, provided

the following requirements are met:

(1) For oxygenate added to

conventional gasoline, the refiner or

importer shall comply with the

requirements of § 80.101(d)(4)(ii).

(2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the

refiner or importer shall comply with

the requirements of § 80.69(a).

(f) Gasoline excluded. Refiners and

importers shall exclude from

compliance calculations all of the

following:

(1) Gasoline that was not produced at

the refinery;

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17265

(2) In the case of an importer, gasoline

that was imported as Certified ToxicsFRGAS under § 80.1030;

(3) Blending stocks transferred to

others;

(4) Gasoline that has been included in

the compliance calculations for another

refinery or importer; and

(5) Gasoline exempted from standards

under § 80.820.

§ 80.830 What requirements apply to

oxygenate blenders?

Oxygenate blenders who blend

oxygenate into gasoline downstream of

the refinery that produced the gasoline

or the import facility where the gasoline

was imported are not subject to the

requirements of this subpart applicable

to refiners for this gasoline.

§ 80.835 What requirements apply to

butane blenders?

Butane blenders who blend butane

into gasoline downstream of the refinery

that produced the gasoline or the import

facility where the gasoline was imported

are not subject to the requirements of

this subpart applicable to refiners for

this gasoline.

§ 80.840 [Reserved]

§ 80.845 What requirements apply to

California gasoline?

(a) Definition. For purposes of this

subpart ‘‘California gasoline’’ means any

gasoline designated by the refiner or

importer as for use in California.

(b) California gasoline exemption.

California gasoline that complies with

all the requirements of this section is

exempt from all other provisions of this

subpart.

(c) Requirements for California

gasoline. (1) Each batch of California

gasoline shall be designated as such by

its refiner or importer.

(2) [Reserved]

(3) Designated California gasoline

must ultimately be used in the State of

California and not used elsewhere.

(4) In the case of California gasoline

produced outside the State of California,

the transferors and transferees shall

meet the product transfer document

requirements under § 80.81(g).

(5) Gasoline that is ultimately used in

any part of the United States outside of

the State of California shall comply with

the standards and requirements of this

subpart, regardless of any designation as

California gasoline.

§ 80.850 How is the compliance baseline

determined?

(a) The compliance baseline to which

annual average toxics values are

compared according to § 80.815(a) is

calculated according to the following

equation:

T TVTV

V V CBase

Base Base Exist inc

Base inc

= ×+×

+

Where:

TCBase = Compliance baseline toxics

value.

TBase = Baseline toxics value for the

refinery or importer, calculated

according to § 80.915(b)(1).

VBase = Baseline volume for the refinery

or importer, calculated according to

§ 80.915(b)(2).

TExist = Existing toxics standard, per

paragraph (b) of this section.

Vinc = Volume of gasoline produced

during the averaging period in

excess of VBase.

(b) The value of existing toxics

standard, TExist, is equal to:

(1) 21.5 percent, for reformulated

gasoline and RBOB, combined;

(2) The refinery’s or importer’s antidumping compliance baseline value for

exhaust toxics, in mg/mi, per

§ 80.101(f), for conventional gasoline.

(c) If the refinery or importer

produced less gasoline during the

compliance period than its baseline

volume VBase, the value of Vinc will be

zero.

§ 80.855 What is the compliance baseline

for refineries or importers with insufficient

data?

(a) A refinery or importer shall use the

methodology specified in this section

for determining a compliance baseline if

it cannot determine an applicable toxics

value for every batch of gasoline

produced or imported for 12 or more

consecutive months during January 1,

1998 through December 31, 2000.

(b)(1) A refinery or importer that

cannot determine an applicable toxics

value on every batch of gasoline

produced or imported for 12 or more

consecutive months during the period

January 1, 1998 through December 31,

2000 or a refinery or importer that did

not produce or import reformulated

gasoline and/or RBOB (combined) or

conventional gasoline or both during the

period between January 1, 1998 and

December 31, 2000, inclusive, shall

have the following as its compliance

baseline for the purposes of this subpart:

(i) For conventional gasoline, 94.64

mg/mile.

(ii) For reformulated gasoline, 26.71

percent reduction from statutory

baseline.

(2) By October 31, 2001, EPA will

revise by regulation the default baseline

values specified in paragraph (b)(1) of

this section to reflect the final 1998–

2000 average toxics values.

§ 80.860–80.905 [Reserved]

Baseline Determination

§ 80.910 How does a refiner or importer

apply for a toxics baseline?

(a) A refiner or importer shall submit

an application to EPA which includes

the information required under

paragraph (c) of this section no later

than June 30, 2001 or 3 months prior to

the first introduction of gasoline into

commerce from the refinery or by the

importer, whichever is later.

(b) The toxics baseline request shall

be sent to: U.S. EPA, Attn: Toxics

Program (6406J), 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460. For commercial

(non-postal) delivery: U.S. EPA, Attn:

Toxics Program, 501 3rd Street NW,

Washington, DC 20001.

(c) The toxics baseline application

shall include the following information:

(1) A listing of the names and

addresses of all refineries owned by the

company for which the refiner is

applying for a toxics baseline, or the

name and address of the importer

applying for a toxics baseline.

(2) For each refinery and importer—

(i) The baseline toxics value for each

type of gasoline, per § 80.815(b),

calculated in accordance with § 80.915;

(ii) The baseline toxics volume for

each type of gasoline, per § 80.815(b),

calculated in accordance with § 80.915;

(iii) For those with insufficient data

pursuant to § 80.855, a statement that

the refinery’s or importer’s baseline

toxics value is the default compliance

baseline specified at § 80.855(b), and

that its baseline toxics volume is zero.

(3) A letter signed by the president,

chief operating or chief executive

officer, of the company, or his/her

delegate, stating that the information

contained in the toxics baseline

determination is true to the best of his/

her knowledge.

(4) Name, address, phone number,

facsimile number and E-mail address of

a company contact person.

(5) The following information for each

batch of gasoline produced or imported

during the period 1998–2000, separately

for each type of gasoline listed at

§ 80.815(b):

(i) Batch number assigned to the batch

under § 80.65(d) or § 80.101(i);

(ii) Volume; and

(iii) Applicable toxics value

determined as specified at § 80.915(c).

(d) Foreign refiners shall follow the

procedures specified in § 80.1030(b) to

establish individual toxics baseline

values for a foreign refinery.

(e) By October 31, 2001, or 4 months

after the submission date, whichever is

later, EPA will notify the submitter of

approval of its toxics baseline.

17266 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(f) If at any time the baseline

submitted in accordance with the

requirements of this section is

determined to be incorrect, the

corrected baseline applies ab initio and

the annual average toxics requirements

are deemed to be those applicable under

the corrected information.

§ 80.915 How are the baseline toxics value

and baseline toxics volume determined?

(a)(1) A refinery or importer shall use

the methodology specified in this

section for determining a baseline toxics

value if it can determine an applicable

toxics value for every batch of gasoline

produced or imported for 12 or more

consecutive months during January 1,

1998 through December 31, 2000.

(2) The determination in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section is made separately

for each type of gasoline listed at

§ 80.815(b) produced or imported

between January 1, 1998 and December

31, 2000, inclusive.

(3) All consecutive and nonconsecutive batch toxics measurements

between January 1, 1998 and December

31, 2000, inclusive, are to be included

in the baseline determination, unless

the refinery or importer petitions EPA to

exclude such data on the basis of data

quality, per § 80.91(d)(6), and receives

permission from EPA to exclude such

data.

(b)(1) A refinery’s or importer’s

baseline toxics value is calculated using

the following equation:

T

V T

V

Base M

i i

i

n

i

i

n =

×

+ =

=

∑

∑

( )

1

1

Where:

TBase = Baseline toxics value.

Vi = Volume of gasoline batch i

produced or imported between

January 1, 1998 and December 31,

2000, inclusive.

Ti = Toxics value of gasoline batch i

produced or imported between

January 1, 1998 and December 31,

2000, inclusive.

i = Individual batch of gasoline

produced or imported between

January 1, 1998 and December 31,

2000, inclusive.

n = Total number of batches of gasoline

produced or imported between

January 1, 1998 and December 31,

2000, inclusive.

M = Compliance margin.

(2) A refinery’s or importer’s baseline

toxics volume is calculated using the

following equation:

V

V

Y base

i

i

n

= =

∑

1

Where:

Vbase = Baseline toxics volume.

Vi = Volume of gasoline batch i

produced or imported between

January 1, 1998 and December 31,

2000, inclusive.

i = Individual batch of gasoline

produced or imported between

January 1, 1998 and December 31,

2000, inclusive.

n = Total number of batches of gasoline

produced or imported between

January 1, 1998 and December 31,

2000, inclusive.

Y = Number of years between 1998 and

2000, inclusive, during some or all

of which the refinery produced, or

the importer imported, gasoline.

(c) The calculation specified in

paragraph (b) of this section shall be

made separately for each type of

gasoline listed at § 80.815(b).

(d) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch

of gasoline is determined using the

Phase II Complex Model specified at

§ 80.45.

(1) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch

of reformulated gasoline or RBOB, and

the baseline toxics value, TBase, for

reformulated gasoline and RBOB,

combined, under this subpart are in

percent reduction from the statutory

baseline defined in 40 CFR 80.45(b) and

volumes are in gallons.

(2) The toxics value, Ti, of each batch

of conventional gasoline, and the

baseline toxics value, TBase, for

conventional gasoline under this

subpart are in milligrams per mile (mg/

mile) and volumes are in gallons.

(e) All refinery or importer baseline

toxics value calculations shall be

conducted to two decimal places.

(f) Any refinery for which oxygenate

blended downstream was included in

compliance calculations for 1998–2000,

pursuant to § 80.65 or § 80.101(d)(4),

shall include this oxygenate in the

baseline calculations for toxics value

under paragraph (a) of this section.

(g) Baseline adjustment. (1) A toxics

baseline determined differently than

described in paragraphs (a) through (e)

of this section may be allowed upon

petition by the refiner or importer and

approval by the Administrator or

designee. The petition must be included

with the baseline submittal under

§ 80.910.

(2) A toxics baseline adjustment

petition shall, at minimum, be

accompanied by:

(i) Unadjusted and adjusted baseline

fuel parameters, applicable toxics

values, and volumes; and

(ii) A narrative describing how the

circumstances during 1998–2000

materially affected the baseline toxics

value calculated under paragraph (a) of

this section. The narrative shall also

describe and show the calculations, and

the reasoning supporting the

calculations, used to determine the

adjusted values.

(h) The compliance margin, M, that

will be added to the toxics baseline

calculated according to paragraph (a) of

this section shall be equal to:

(1) ¥0.7% for reformulated gasoline

or RBOB;

(2) 2.5 mg/mile for conventional

gasoline.

§ 80.920–80.980 [Reserved]

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements

§ 80.985 What records shall be kept?

(a) The recordkeeping requirements

specified under § 80.74 applicable to

refiners and importers of reformulated

gasoline, RBOB and/or conventional

gasoline apply under this subpart,

however, duplicate records are not

required.

(b) Additional records that refiners

and importers shall keep. Beginning

January 1, 2002, any refiner for each of

its refineries, and any importer for the

gasoline it imports, shall keep records

that include the following information:

(1) The calculations used to determine

the applicable compliance baseline

under § 80.915.

(2) The calculations used to determine

compliance with the applicable toxics

requirements per § 80.815.

(3) A copy of all reports submitted to

EPA under § 80.990, however, duplicate

records are not required.

(c) Additional records importers shall

keep. Any importer shall keep records

that identify and verify the source of

each batch of Certified Toxics-FRGAS

and Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS

imported and demonstrate compliance

with the requirements for importers

under § 80.1030(o).

(d) Length of time records shall be

kept. The records required in this

section shall be kept for five years from

the date they were created.

(e) Make records available to EPA. On

request by EPA the records required in

paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section

shall be provided to the Administrator’s

authorized representative. For records

that are electronically generated or

maintained the equipment and software

necessary to read the records shall be

made available, or upon approval by

EPA, electronic records shall be

converted to paper documents which

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17267

shall be provided to the Administrator’s

authorized representative.

§ 80.990 What are the toxics reporting

requirements?

Beginning with the 2002 averaging

period, and continuing for each

averaging period thereafter, any refiner

or importer shall submit to EPA the

information required in this section, and

such other information as EPA may

require.

(a) Refiner and importer annual

reports. Any refiner, for each of its

refineries and/or aggregate(s) of

refineries, and any importer for the

gasoline it imports, shall:

(1) Include in its reformulated

gasoline toxics emissions performance

averaging report per § 80.75(e) the

compliance baseline and incremental

volume, Vinc, for its reformulated

gasoline and RBOB, combined, per

§ 80.850.

(2) Include in its conventional

gasoline report per § 80.105 the

compliance baseline and incremental

volume, Vinc, for its conventional

gasoline per § 80.850.

(3) Exclude Certified Toxics-FRGAS

under § 80.1030, if an importer.

(b) Additional reporting requirements

for importers. Any importer shall report

the following information for ToxicsFRGAS imported during the averaging

period:

(1) The EPA refiner and refinery

registration numbers of each foreign

refiner and refinery where the Certified

Toxics-FRGAS was produced; and

(2) The total gallons of Certified

Toxics-FRGAS and Non-Certified

Toxics-FRGAS imported from each

foreign refiner and refinery.

Exemptions

§ 80.995 What if a refiner or importer is

unable to produce gasoline conforming to

the requirements of this subpart?

In appropriate extreme and unusual

circumstances (e.g., natural disaster or

Act of God) which are clearly outside

the control of the refiner or importer

and which could not have been avoided

by the exercise of prudence, diligence,

and due care, EPA may permit a refiner

or importer, for a brief period, to not

meet the requirements of this subpart,

separately for reformulated gasoline

(and RBOB, combined) and

conventional gasoline, provided the

refiner or importer meets all the criteria,

requirements and conditions contained

in § 80.73 (a) through (e).

§ 80.1000 What are the requirements for

obtaining an exemption for gasoline used

for research, development or testing

purposes?

Gasoline used for research,

development or testing purposes is

exempt from the requirements of this

subpart if it is exempted for these

purposes under the reformulated and

conventional gasoline programs, as

applicable.

Violation Provisions

§ 80.1005 What acts are prohibited under

the gasoline toxics program?

No person shall:

(a) Averaging violation. Produce or

import gasoline subject to this subpart

that does not comply with the

applicable toxics requirement under

§ 80.815.

(b) Causing an averaging use

violation. Cause another person to

commit an act in violation of paragraph

(a) of this section.

§ 80.1010 [Reserved]

§ 80.1015 Who is liable for violations

under the gasoline toxics program?

(a) Persons liable for violations of

prohibited acts—(1) Averaging

violation. Any person who violates

§ 80.1005(a) is liable for the violation.

(2) Causing an averaging violation.

Any person who causes another party to

violate § 80.1005(a), is liable for a

violation of § 80.1005(b).

(3) Parent corporation liability. Any

parent corporation is liable for any

violations of this subpart that are

committed by any of its wholly-owned

subsidiaries.

(b) Persons liable for failure to meet

other provisions of this subpart. (1) Any

person who fails to meet a provision of

this subpart not addressed in paragraph

(a) of this section is liable for a violation

of that provision.

(2) Any person who causes another

party to fail to meet a requirement of

this subpart not addressed in paragraph

(a) of this section, is liable for causing

a violation of that provision.

§ 80.1020 [Reserved]

§ 80.1025 What penalties apply under this

subpart?

(a) Any person liable for a violation

under § 80.1015 is subject to civil

penalties as specified in sections 205

and 211(d) of the Clean Air Act for

every day of each such violation and the

amount of economic benefit or savings

resulting from each violation.

(b) Any person liable under

§ 80.1015(a) for a violation of the

applicable toxics requirements or

causing another party to violate the

requirements during any averaging

period, is subject to a separate day of

violation for each and every day in the

averaging period.

(c) Any person liable under

§ 80.1015(b) for failure to meet, or

causing a failure to meet, a provision of

this subpart is liable for a separate day

of violation for each and every day such

provision remains unfulfilled.

Provisions for Foreign Refiners With

Individual Toxics Baselines

§ 80.1030 What are the requirements for

gasoline produced at foreign refineries

having individual refiner toxics baselines?

(a) Definitions. (1) A foreign refinery

is a refinery that is located outside the

United States, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,

American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands (collectively referred to in this

section as ‘‘the United States’’).

(2) A foreign refiner is a person who

meets the definition of refiner under

§ 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.

(3) Toxics-FRGAS means gasoline

produced at a foreign refinery that has

been assigned an individual refinery

toxics baseline under § 80.915 and that

is imported into the U.S.

(4) Non-Toxics-FRGAS means

gasoline that is produced at a foreign

refinery that has not been assigned an

individual refinery toxics baseline,

gasoline produced at a foreign refinery

with an individual refinery toxics

baseline that is not imported into the

United States, and gasoline produced at

a foreign refinery with an individual

toxics baseline during a year when the

foreign refiner has opted to not

participate in the Toxics-FRGAS

program under paragraph (c)(3) of this

section.

(5) Certified Toxics-FRGAS means

Toxics-FRGAS the foreign refiner

intends to include in the foreign

refinery’s toxics compliance

calculations under § 80.825, and does

include in these compliance

calculations when reported to EPA.

(6) Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS

means Toxics-FRGAS that is not

Certified Toxics-FRGAS.

(b) Baseline establishment. Any

foreign refiner may submit a petition to

the Administrator for an individual

refinery toxics baseline pursuant to

§ 80.915 for all gasoline that was

produced at the foreign refinery and

imported into the United States between

January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000.

(1) The refiner shall follow the

procedures specified in §§ 80.91

through 80.93 to establish an antidumping baseline, if it does not already

have such a baseline.

17268 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(2) In making determinations for

foreign refinery baselines, EPA will

consider all information supplied by a

foreign refiner, and in addition may rely

on any and all appropriate assumptions

necessary to make such determinations.

(3)(i) Where a foreign refiner submits

a petition that is incomplete or

inadequate to establish an accurate

toxics baseline, and the refiner fails to

cure this defect after a request for more

information, EPA will not assign an

individual refinery toxics baseline.

(ii) If a foreign refiner does not

already have an anti-dumping

individual baseline per § 80.94, and if

pursuant to § 80.94(b)(5) EPA does not

assign an individual anti-dumping

baseline, EPA will also not assign an

individual refinery toxics baseline.

(c) General requirements for foreign

refiners with individual refinery toxics

baselines. A foreign refiner of a refinery

that has been assigned an individual

toxics baseline according to § 80.915

shall designate all gasoline produced at

the foreign refinery that is exported to

the United States as either Certified

Toxics-FRGAS or as Non-Certified

Toxics-FRGAS, except as provided in

paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(1) In the case of Certified ToxicsFRGAS, the foreign refiner shall meet all

provisions that apply to refiners under

this subpart J.

(2) In the case of Non-Certified

Toxics-FRGAS, the foreign refiner shall

meet all the following provisions,

except the foreign refiner shall use the

name Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS

instead of the names ‘‘reformulated

gasoline’’ or ‘‘RBOB’’ wherever they

appear in the following provisions:

(i) The designation requirements in

this section.

(ii) The recordkeeping requirements

under § 80.985.

(iii) The reporting requirements in

§ 80.990 and this section.

(iv) The product transfer document

requirements in this section.

(v) The prohibitions in this section

and § 80.1005.

(vi) The independent audit

requirements under § 80.1035,

paragraph (h) of this section, §§ 80.125

through 80.127, § 80.128(a), (b), (c), (g)

through (i), and § 80.130.

(3)(i) Any foreign refiner that has been

assigned an individual toxics baseline

for a foreign refinery under § 80.915

may elect to classify no gasoline

imported into the United States as

Toxics-FRGAS, provided the foreign

refiner notifies EPA of the election no

later than November 1 of the prior

calendar year.

(ii) An election under paragraph

(c)(3)(i) of this section shall:

(A) Apply to an entire calendar year

averaging period, and apply to all

gasoline produced during the calendar

year at the foreign refinery that is used

in the United States; and

(B) Remain in effect for each

succeeding calendar year averaging

period, unless and until the foreign

refiner notifies EPA of a termination of

the election. The change in election

shall take effect at the beginning of the

next calendar year.

(4) In the case of information required

under this section which would

duplicate information submitted in

accordance with § 80.94, the refiner may

indicate that such information is also

submitted in accordance with the

requirements of this section. Duplicate

submissions are not required.

(d) Designation, product transfer

documents, and foreign refiner

certification. (1) Any foreign refiner of a

foreign refinery that has been assigned

an individual toxics baseline shall

designate each batch of Toxics-FRGAS

as such at the time the gasoline is

produced, unless the refiner has elected

to classify no gasoline exported to the

United States as Toxics-FRGAS under

paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.

(2) On each occasion when any

person transfers custody or title to any

Toxics-FRGAS prior to its being

imported into the United States, it shall

include the following information as

part of the product transfer document

information in this section:

(i) Identification of the gasoline as

Certified Toxics-FRGAS or as NonCertified Toxics-FRGAS; and

(ii) The name and EPA refinery

registration number of the refinery

where the Toxics-FRGAS was produced.

(3) On each occasion when ToxicsFRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or other

transportation mode for transport to the

United States, the foreign refiner shall

prepare a written verification for each

batch of the Toxics-FRGAS that meets

the following requirements:

(i) The verification shall include the

report of the independent third party

under paragraph (f) of this section, and

the following additional information:

(A) The name and EPA registration

number of the refinery that produced

the Toxics-FRGAS;

(B) The identification of the gasoline

as Certified Toxics-FRGAS or NonCertified Toxics-FRGAS;

(C) The volume of Toxics-FRGAS

being transported, in gallons;

(D) In the case of Certified ToxicsFRGAS:

(1) The toxics value as determined

under paragraph (f) of this section; and

(2) A declaration that the ToxicsFRGAS is being included in the

compliance calculations under § 80.825

for the refinery that produced the

Toxics-FRGAS.

(ii) The verification shall be made part

of the product transfer documents for

the Toxics-FRGAS.

(e) Transfers of Toxics-FRGAS to nonUnited States markets. The foreign

refiner is responsible to ensure that all

gasoline classified as Toxics-FRGAS is

imported into the United States. A

foreign refiner may remove the ToxicsFRGAS classification, and the gasoline

need not be imported into the United

States, but only if:

(1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes:

(A) The volume of gasoline from the

refinery’s compliance calculations

under § 80.825; and

(B) In the case of Certified ToxicsFRGAS, the volume and toxics value of

the gasoline from the compliance

calculations under § 80.825.

(ii) The exclusions under paragraph

(e)(1)(i) of this section shall be on the

basis of the toxics value and volumes

determined under paragraph (f) of this

section; and

(2) The foreign refiner obtains

sufficient evidence in the form of

documentation that the gasoline was not

imported into the United States.

(f) Load port independent sampling,

testing and refinery identification. (1)

On each occasion Toxics-FRGAS is

loaded onto a vessel for transport to the

United States a foreign refiner shall

have an independent third party:

(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading

and determine the volume of any tank

bottoms;

(ii) Determine the volume of ToxicsFRGAS loaded onto the vessel

(exclusive of any tank bottoms present

before vessel loading);

(iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned

registration number of the foreign

refinery;

(iv) Determine the name and country

of registration of the vessel used to

transport the Toxics-FRGAS to the

United States; and

(v) Determine the date and time the

vessel departs the port serving the

foreign refinery.

(2) On each occasion Certified ToxicsFRGAS is loaded onto a vessel for

transport to the United States a foreign

refiner shall have an independent third

party:

(i) Collect a representative sample of

the Certified Toxics-FRGAS from each

vessel compartment subsequent to

loading on the vessel and prior to

departure of the vessel from the port

serving the foreign refinery;

(ii) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel

composite sample from the

compartment samples, and determine

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17269

the value for toxics using the

methodology specified in § 80.730 by:

(A) The third party analyzing the

sample; or

(B) The third party observing the

foreign refiner analyze the sample;

(iii) Review original documents that

reflect movement and storage of the

Certified Toxics-FRGAS from the

refinery to the load port, and from this

review determine:

(A) The refinery at which the ToxicsFRGAS was produced; and

(B) That the Toxics-FRGAS remained

segregated from:

(1) Non-Toxics-FRGAS and NonCertified Toxics-FRGAS; and

(2) Other Certified Toxics-FRGAS

produced at a different refinery.

(3) The independent third party shall

submit a report:

(i) To the foreign refiner containing

the information required under

paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section,

to accompany the product transfer

documents for the vessel; and

(ii) To the Administrator containing

the information required under

paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section,

within thirty days following the date of

the independent third party’s

inspection. This report shall include a

description of the method used to

determine the identity of the refinery at

which the gasoline was produced,

assurance that the gasoline remained

segregated as specified in paragraph

(n)(1) of this section, and a description

of the gasoline’s movement and storage

between production at the source

refinery and vessel loading.

(4) The independent third party shall:

(i) Be approved in advance by EPA,

based on a demonstration of ability to

perform the procedures required in this

paragraph (f);

(ii) Be independent under the criteria

specified in § 80.65(e)(2)(iii); and

(iii) Sign a commitment that contains

the provisions specified in paragraph (i)

of this section with regard to activities,

facilities and documents relevant to

compliance with the requirements of

this paragraph (f).

(g) Comparison of load port and port

of entry testing. (1)(i) Except as

described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this

section, any foreign refiner and any

United States importer of Certified

Toxics-FRGAS shall compare the results

from the load port testing under

paragraph (f) of this section, with the

port of entry testing as reported under

paragraph (o) of this section, for the

volume of gasoline and the toxics value.

(ii) Where a vessel transporting

Certified Toxics-FRGAS off loads this

gasoline at more than one United States

port of entry, and the conditions of

paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met

at the first United States port of entry,

the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of

this section do not apply at subsequent

ports of entry if the United States

importer obtains a certification from the

vessel owner, that meets the

requirements of paragraph (s) of this

section, that the vessel has not loaded

any gasoline or blendstock between the

first United States port of entry and the

subsequent port of entry.

(2)(i) The requirements of this

paragraph (g)(2) apply if:

(A) The temperature-corrected

volumes determined at the port of entry

and at the load port differ by more than

one percent; or

(B) The toxics value determined at the

port of entry is higher than the toxics

value determined at the load port, and

the amount of this difference is greater

than the reproducibility amount

specified for the port of entry test result

by the American Society of Testing and

Materials (ASTM).

(ii) The United States importer and

the foreign refiner shall treat the

gasoline as Non-Certified ToxicsFRGAS, and the foreign refiner shall

exclude the gasoline volume and

properties from its gasoline toxics

compliance calculations under § 80.825.

(h) Attest requirements. The following

additional procedures shall be carried

out by any foreign refiner of ToxicsFRGAS as part of the applicable attest

engagement for each foreign refinery

under § 80.1035:

(1) The inventory reconciliation

analysis under § 80.128(b) and the

tender analysis under § 80.128(c) shall

include Non-Toxics-FRGAS in addition

to the gasoline types listed in

§ 80.128(b) and (c).

(2) Obtain separate listings of all

tenders of Certified Toxics-FRGAS, and

of Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS. Agree

the total volume of tenders from the

listings to the gasoline inventory

reconciliation analysis in § 80.128(b),

and to the volumes determined by the

third party under paragraph (f)(1) of this

section.

(3) For each tender under paragraph

(h)(2) of this section where the gasoline

is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as

a finding the name and country of

registration of each vessel, and the

volumes of Toxics-FRGAS loaded onto

each vessel.

(4) Select a sample from the list of

vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of

this section used to transport Certified

Toxics-FRGAS, in accordance with the

guidelines in § 80.127, and for each

vessel selected perform the following:

(i) Obtain the report of the

independent third party, under

paragraph (f) of this section, and of the

United States importer under paragraph

(o) of this section.

(A) Agree the information in these

reports with regard to vessel

identification, gasoline volumes and test

results.

(B) Identify, and report as a finding,

each occasion the load port and port of

entry parameter and volume results

differ by more than the amounts

allowed in paragraph (g) of this section,

and determine whether the foreign

refiner adjusted its refinery calculations

as required in paragraph (g) of this

section.

(ii) Obtain the documents used by the

independent third party to determine

transportation and storage of the

Certified Toxics-FRGAS from the

refinery to the load port, under

paragraph (f) of this section. Obtain tank

activity records for any storage tank

where the Certified Toxics-FRGAS is

stored, and pipeline activity records for

any pipeline used to transport the

Certified Toxics-FRGAS, prior to being

loaded onto the vessel. Use these

records to determine whether the

Certified Toxics-FRGAS was produced

at the refinery that is the subject of the

attest engagement, and whether the

Certified Toxics-FRGAS was mixed with

any Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS, NonToxics-FRGAS, or any Certified ToxicsFRGAS produced at a different refinery.

(5) Select a sample from the list of

vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of

this section used to transport Certified

and Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS, in

accordance with the guidelines in

§ 80.127, and for each vessel selected

perform the following:

(i) Obtain a commercial document of

general circulation that lists vessel

arrivals and departures, and that

includes the port and date of departure

of the vessel, and the port of entry and

date of arrival of the vessel.

(ii) Agree the vessel’s departure and

arrival locations and dates from the

independent third party and United

States importer reports to the

information contained in the

commercial document.

(6) Obtain separate listings of all

tenders of Non-Toxics-FRGAS, and

perform the following:

(i) Agree the total volume of tenders

from the listings to the gasoline

inventory reconciliation analysis in

§ 80.128(b).

(ii) Obtain a separate listing of the

tenders under this paragraph (h)(6)

where the gasoline is loaded onto a

marine vessel. Select a sample from this

listing in accordance with the

guidelines in § 80.127, and obtain a

commercial document of general

17270 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

circulation that lists vessel arrivals and

departures, and that includes the port

and date of departure and the ports and

dates where the gasoline was off loaded

for the selected vessels. Determine and

report as a finding the country where

the gasoline was off loaded for each

vessel selected.

(7) In order to complete the

requirements of this paragraph (h) an

auditor shall:

(i) Be independent of the foreign

refiner;

(ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public

Accountant in the United States and a

citizen of the United States, or be

approved in advance by EPA based on

a demonstration of ability to perform the

procedures required in §§ 80.125

through 80.130 and this paragraph (h);

and

(iii) Sign a commitment that contains

the provisions specified in paragraph (i)

of this section with regard to activities

and documents relevant to compliance

with the requirements of §§ 80.125

through 80.130, § 80.1035 and this

paragraph (h).

(i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any

foreign refiner shall commit to and

comply with the provisions contained

in this paragraph (i) as a condition to

being assigned an individual refinery

toxics baseline.

(1) Any United States Environmental

Protection Agency inspector or auditor

will be given full, complete and

immediate access to conduct

inspections and audits of the foreign

refinery.

(i) Inspections and audits may be

either announced in advance by EPA, or

unannounced.

(ii) Access will be provided to any

location where:

(A) Gasoline is produced;

(B) Documents related to refinery

operations are kept;

(C) Gasoline or blendstock samples

are tested or stored; and

(D) Toxics-FRGAS is stored or

transported between the foreign refinery

and the United States, including storage

tanks, vessels and pipelines.

(iii) Inspections and audits may be by

EPA employees or contractors to EPA.

(iv) Any documents requested that are

related to matters covered by

inspections and audits will be provided

to an EPA inspector or auditor on

request.

(v) Inspections and audits by EPA

may include review and copying of any

documents related to:

(A) Refinery baseline establishment,

including the volume and toxics value,

and transfers of title or custody, of any

gasoline or blendstocks, whether

Toxics-FRGAS or Non-toxics-FRGAS,

produced at the foreign refinery during

the period January 1, 1998 through the

date of the refinery baseline petition or

through the date of the inspection or

audit if a baseline petition has not been

approved, and any work papers related

to refinery baseline establishment;

(B) The volume and toxics value of

Toxics-FRGAS;

(C) The proper classification of

gasoline as being Toxics-FRGAS or as

not being Toxics-FRGAS, or as Certified

Toxics-FRGAS or as Non-Certified

Toxics-FRGAS;

(D) Transfers of title or custody to

Toxics-FRGAS;

(E) Sampling and testing of ToxicsFRGAS;

(F) Work performed and reports

prepared by independent third parties

and by independent auditors under the

requirements of this section and

§ 80.1035 including work papers; and

(G) Reports prepared for submission

to EPA, and any work papers related to

such reports.

(vi) Inspections and audits by EPA

may include taking samples of gasoline

or blendstock, and interviewing

employees.

(vii) Any employee of the foreign

refiner will be made available for

interview by the EPA inspector or

auditor, on request, within a reasonable

time period.

(viii) English language translations of

any documents will be provided to an

EPA inspector or auditor, on request,

within 10 working days.

(ix) English language interpreters will

be provided to accompany EPA

inspectors and auditors, on request.

(2) An agent for service of process

located in the District of Columbia will

be named, and service on this agent

constitutes service on and personal and

subject matter jurisdiction in the United

States over the foreign refiner or any

employee of the foreign refiner for any

action by EPA or otherwise by the

United States related to the

requirements of this subpart J.

(3) A foreign refiner shall be subject

to civil liability for violations of this

section, sections 114, 202(l), 211, and

301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(l), 7545 and

7601(a)), and all other applicable laws

or regulations and shall be subject to the

provisions thereof. The Administrator

may assess a penalty against a foreign

refiner for any violation of this section

by a foreign refiner, in the manner set

forth in sections 205(c) of the CAA, 42

U.S.C. 7524(c) or commence a civil

action against a foreign refiner to assess

and recover a civil penalty in the

manner set forth in section 205(b) of the

CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7524(b). A FR shall be

subject to criminal liability for

violations of this section, section

113(c)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.

7413(c)(2), 18 U.S.C. 1001 and all other

applicable provisions and shall be

subject to the provisions thereof.

(4) United States substantive and

procedural laws shall apply to any civil

or criminal enforcement action against

the foreign refiner or any employee of

the foreign refiner related to the

provisions of this section.

(5) Submitting a petition for an

individual refinery toxics baseline,

producing and exporting gasoline under

an individual refinery toxics baseline,

and all other actions to comply with the

requirements of this subpart J relating to

the establishment and use of an

individual refinery toxics baseline

constitute actions or activities that

satisfy the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

1605(a)(2), but solely with respect to

actions instituted against the foreign

refiner, its agents and employees in any

court or other tribunal in the United

States for conduct that violates the

requirements applicable to the foreign

refiner under this subpart J, including

conduct that violates Title 18 U.S.C.

section 1001 and Clean Air Act section

113(c)(2).

(6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or

employees, will not seek to detain or to

impose civil or criminal remedies

against EPA inspectors or auditors,

whether EPA employees or EPA

contractors, for actions performed

within the scope of EPA employment

related to the provisions of this section.

(7) The commitment required by this

paragraph (i) shall be signed by the

owner or president of the foreign refiner

business.

(8) In any case where Toxics-FRGAS

produced at a foreign refinery is stored

or transported by another company

between the refinery and the vessel that

transports the Toxics-FRGAS to the

United States, the foreign refiner shall

obtain from each such other company a

commitment that meets the

requirements specified in paragraphs

(i)(1) through (7) of this section, and

these commitments shall be included in

the foreign refiner’s baseline petition.

(j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting

a petition for an individual foreign

refinery baseline under this section, or

by producing and exporting gasoline to

the United States under an individual

refinery toxics baseline under this

section, the foreign refiner, its agents

and employees, without exception,

become subject to the full operation of

the administrative and judicial

enforcement powers and provisions of

the United States without limitation

based on sovereign immunity, with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17271

respect to actions instituted against the

foreign refiner, its agents and employees

in any court or other tribunal in the

United States for conduct that violates

the requirements applicable to the

foreign refiner under this subpart J,

including conduct that violates Title 18

U.S.C. section 1001 and Clean Air Act

section 113(c)(2).

(k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner

shall meet the requirements of this

paragraph (k) as a condition to being

assigned an individual refinery toxics

baseline.

(1) The foreign refiner shall annually

post a bond of the amount calculated

using the following equation:

Bond = G × $ 0.01 ¥ BondCG

Where:

Bond = amount of the bond in U. S.

dollars.

G = the largest volume of gasoline

produced at the foreign refinery and

exported to the United States, in

gallons, during a single calendar

year among the five preceding

calendar years.

BondCG = amount of bond currently

posted by the refinery pursuant to

§ 80.94.

(2) Bonds shall be posted by:

(i) Paying the amount of the bond to

the Treasurer of the United States;

(ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper

amount from a third party surety agent

that is payable to satisfy United States

administrative or judicial judgments

against the foreign refiner, provided

EPA agrees in advance as to the third

party and the nature of the surety

agreement; or

(iii) An alternative commitment that

results in assets of an appropriate

liquidity and value being readily

available to the United States, provided

EPA agrees in advance as to the

alternative commitment.

(3) If the bond amount for a foreign

refinery increases, the foreign refiner

shall increase the bond to cover the

shortfall within 90 days of the date the

bond amount changes. If the bond

amount decreases, the foreign refiner

may reduce the amount of the bond

beginning 90 days after the date the

bond amount changes.

(4) Bonds posted under this paragraph

(k) shall:

(i) Be used to satisfy any judicial or

administrative judgment, order,

assessment or payment under a judicial

or administrative settlement agreement

that results from an administrative or

judicial enforcement action for conduct

in violation of this subpart J, including

where such conduct violates Title 18

U.S.C. section 1001 and Clean Air Act

section 113(c)(2);

(ii) Be provided by a corporate surety

that is listed in the United States

Department of Treasury Circular 570

‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of

Authority as Acceptable Sureties on

Federal Bonds’; and

(iii) Include a commitment that the

bond will remain in effect for at least

five (5) years following the end of latest

averaging period that the foreign refiner

produces gasoline pursuant to the

requirements of this subpart J.

(5) On any occasion a foreign refiner

bond is used to satisfy any judgment or

other obligation, the foreign refiner shall

increase the bond to cover the amount

used within 90 days of the date the

bond is used.

(6) The bond is used for payment of,

not in lieu of, any obligation arising

under any judgment, order, assessment

or settlement agreement. Nothing herein

is intended to waive any portion of any

obligation except what portion is

actually paid by use of funds from the

bond.

(l) [Reserved]

(m) English language reports. Any

report or other document submitted to

EPA by a foreign refiner shall be in

English language, or shall include an

English language translation.

(n) Prohibitions. (1) No person may

combine Certified Toxics-FRGAS with

any Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS or

Non-Toxics-FRGAS, and no person may

combine Certified Toxics-FRGAS with

any Certified Toxics-FRGAS produced

at a different refinery, until the importer

has met all the requirements of

paragraph (o) of this section, except as

provided in paragraph (e) of this

section.

(2) No foreign refiner or other person

may cause another person to commit an

action prohibited in paragraph (n)(1) of

this section, or that otherwise violates

the requirements of this section.

(o) United States importer

requirements. Any United States

importer shall meet the following

requirements:

(1) Each batch of imported gasoline

shall be classified by the importer as

being Toxics-FRGAS or as Non-ToxicsFRGAS, and each batch classified as

Toxics-FRGAS shall be further classified

as Certified Toxics-FRGAS or as NonCertified Toxics-FRGAS.

(2) Gasoline shall be classified as

Certified Toxics-FRGAS or as NonCertified Toxics-FRGAS according to

the designation by the foreign refiner if

this designation is supported by product

transfer documents prepared by the

foreign refiner as required in paragraph

(d) of this section, unless the gasoline is

classified as Non-Certified ToxicsFRGAS under paragraph (g) of this

section.

(3) For each gasoline batch classified

as Toxics-FRGAS, any United States

importer shall perform the following

procedures:

(i) In the case of both Certified and

Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS, have an

independent third party:

(A) Determine the volume of gasoline

in the vessel;

(B) Use the foreign refiner’s ToxicsFRGAS certification to determine the

name and EPA-assigned registration

number of the foreign refinery that

produced the Toxics-FRGAS;

(C) Determine the name and country

of registration of the vessel used to

transport the Toxics-FRGAS to the

United States; and

(D) Determine the date and time the

vessel arrives at the United States port

of entry.

(ii) In the case of Certified ToxicsFRGAS, have an independent third

party:

(A) Collect a representative sample

from each vessel compartment

subsequent to the vessel’s arrival at the

United States port of entry and prior to

off loading any gasoline from the vessel;

(B) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel

composite sample from the

compartment samples; and

(C) Determine the toxics value using

the methodologies specified in § 80.730,

by:

(1) The third party analyzing the

sample; or

(2) The third party observing the

importer analyze the sample.

(4) Any importer shall submit reports

within thirty days following the date

any vessel transporting Toxics-FRGAS

arrives at the United States port of entry:

(i) To the Administrator containing

the information determined under

paragraph (o)(3) of this section; and

(ii) To the foreign refiner containing

the information determined under

paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section.

(5) Any United States importer shall

meet the requirements specified in

§ 80.815 for any imported gasoline that

is not classified as Certified ToxicsFRGAS under paragraph (o)(2) of this

section.

(p) Truck Imports of Certified ToxicsFRGAS produced at a Refinery (1) Any

refiner whose Certified Toxics-FRGAS is

transported into the United States by

truck may petition EPA to use

alternative procedures to meet the

following requirements:

(i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5)

of this section;

(ii) Load port and port of entry

sampling and testing under paragraphs

(f) and (g) of this section;

17272 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this

section; and

(iv) Importer testing under paragraph

(o)(3) of this section.

(2) These alternative procedures shall

ensure Certified Toxics-FRGAS remains

segregated from Non-Certified ToxicsFRGAS and from Non-Toxics-FRGAS

until it is imported into the United

States. The petition will be evaluated

based on whether it adequately

addresses the following:

(i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline

shipments, if applicable, from the

refinery, that ensure segregation of

Certified Toxics-FRGAS from that

refinery from all other gasoline;

(ii) Contracts with any terminals and/

or pipelines that receive and/or

transport Certified Toxics-FRGAS, that

prohibit the commingling of Certified

Toxics-FRGAS with any of the

following:

(A) Other Certified Toxics-FRGAS

from other refineries.

(B) All Non-Certified Toxics-FRGAS.

(C) All Non-Toxics-FRGAS;

(iii) Procedures for obtaining and

reviewing truck loading records and

United States import documents for

Certified Toxics-FRGAS to ensure that

such gasoline is only loaded into trucks

making deliveries to the United States;

(iv) Attest procedures to be conducted

annually by an independent third party

that review loading records and import

documents based on volume

reconciliation, or other criteria, to

confirm that all Certified Toxics-FRGAS

remains segregated throughout the

distribution system and is only loaded

into trucks for import into the United

States.

(3) The petition required by this

section shall be submitted to EPA along

with the application for small refiner

status and individual refinery toxics

baseline and standards under § 80.240

and this section.

(q) Withdrawal or suspension of a

foreign refinery’s baseline. EPA may

withdraw or suspend a baseline that has

been assigned to a foreign refinery

where:

(1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any

requirement of this section;

(2) A foreign government fails to

allow EPA inspections as provided in

paragraph (i)(1) of this section;

(3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of,

or a right to claim, sovereign immunity

in an action to enforce the requirements

in this subpart J; or

(4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil

or criminal penalty that is not satisfied

using the foreign refiner bond specified

in paragraph (k) of this section.

(r) Early use of a foreign refinery

baseline. (1) A foreign refiner may begin

using an individual refinery baseline

before EPA has approved the baseline,

provided that:

(i) A baseline petition has been

submitted as required in paragraph (b)

of this section;

(ii) EPA has made a provisional

finding that the baseline petition is

complete;

(iii) The foreign refiner has made the

commitments required in paragraph (i)

of this section;

(iv) The persons who will meet the

independent third party and

independent attest requirements for the

foreign refinery have made the

commitments required in paragraphs

(f)(3)(iii) and (h)(7)(iii) of this section;

and

(v) The foreign refiner has met the

bond requirements of paragraph (k) of

this section.

(2) In any case where a foreign refiner

uses an individual refinery baseline

before final approval under paragraph

(r)(1) of this section, and the foreign

refinery baseline values that ultimately

are approved by EPA are more stringent

than the early baseline values used by

the foreign refiner, the foreign refiner

shall recalculate its compliance, ab

initio, using the baseline values

approved by EPA, and the foreign

refiner shall be liable for any resulting

violation of the gasoline toxics

requirements.

(s) Additional requirements for

petitions, reports and certificates. Any

petition for a refinery baseline under

§ 80.915, any alternative procedures

under paragraph (r) of this section, any

report or other submission required by

paragraph (c), (f)(2), or (i) of this section,

and any certification under paragraph

(d)(3) of this section shall be:

(1) Submitted in accordance with

procedures specified by the

Administrator, including use of any

forms that may be specified by the

Administrator.

(2) Be signed by the president or

owner of the foreign refiner company, or

by that person’s immediate designee,

and shall contain the following

declaration:

I hereby certify: (1) That I have actual

authority to sign on behalf of and to bind

[insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to

all statements contained herein; (2) that I am

aware that the information contained herein

is being certified, or submitted to the United

States Environmental Protection Agency,

under the requirements of 40 CFR Part 80,

subpart J, and that the information is material

for determining compliance under these

regulations; and (3) that I have read and

understand the information being certified or

submitted, and this information is true,

complete and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief after I have taken

reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the

accuracy thereof.

I affirm that I have read and understand the

provisions of 40 CFR Part 80, subpart J,

including 40 CFR 80.1030 [insert name of

foreign refiner]. Pursuant to Clean Air Act

section 113(c) and Title 18, United States

Code, section 1001, the penalty for furnishing

false, incomplete or misleading information

in this certification or submission is a fine of

up to $10,000, and/or imprisonment for up

to five years.

Attest Engagements

§ 80.1035 What are the attest engagement

requirements for gasoline toxics

compliance applicable to refiners and

importers?

In addition to the requirements for

attest engagements that apply to refiners

and importers under §§ 80.125 through

80.130, and § 80.1030, the attest

engagements for refiners and importers

applicable to this subpart J shall include

the following procedures and

requirements each year, which should

be applied separately to reformulated

gasoline (and RBOB, combined) and

conventional gasoline:

(a) Obtain the EPA toxics baseline

approval letter for the refinery to

determine the refinery’s applicable

baseline toxics value and baseline toxics

volume under § 80.915.

(b) Obtain a written representation

from the company representative stating

the toxics value(s) that the company

used as its baseline(s) and agree that

number to paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Obtain and read a copy of the

refinery’s or importer’s annual toxics

reports per §§ 1A80.75(e) and 80.105

filed with EPA for the year to determine

the compliance baseline and

incremental volume.

(d) Agree the yearly volume of

gasoline reported to EPA in the toxics

reports with the inventory

reconciliation analysis under § 80.128.

(e) Calculate the annual average toxics

value level for each type of gasoline

specified at § 80.815(b) and agree the

applicable values with the values

reported to EPA.

(f) Calculate the difference between

the yearly volume of gasoline reported

to EPA and the baseline volume, if

applicable, to determine the yearly

incremental volume and agree that

value with the value reported to EPA.

(g) Calculate the compliance baseline

per § 80.850, and agree that value with

the value reported to EPA.

§ 80.1040 [Reserved]

Additional Rulemaking

§ 80.1045 What additional rulemaking will

EPA conduct?

No later than July 1, 2003, the

Administrator shall propose any

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 17273

requirements to control hazardous air

pollutants from motor vehicles and

motor vehicle fuels that the

Administrator determines are

appropriate pursuant to section 202(l)(2)

of the Act. The Administrator will take

final action on such proposal no later

than July 1, 2004. During this

rulemaking, EPA also intends to

evaluate emissions and potential

strategies relating to hazardous air

pollutants from nonroad engines and

vehicles.

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS

FROM NEW AND IN–USE HIGHWAY

VEHICLES AND ENGINES

1. The authority citation for part 86 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7521(l) and

7521(m)–7671q.

[FR Doc. 01–37 Filed 3–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P