Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources, 15804-15963 [06-2315]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15804-15963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2315]



[[Page 15803]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 59, 80, 85 and 86



Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 15804]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 59, 80, 85 and 86

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0036; FRL-8041-2]
RIN 2060-AK70


Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today EPA is proposing controls on gasoline, passenger 
vehicles, and portable gasoline containers (gas cans) that would 
significantly reduce emissions of benzene and other hazardous air 
pollutants (``mobile source air toxics''). Benzene is a known human 
carcinogen, and mobile sources are responsible for the majority of 
benzene emissions. The other mobile source air toxics are known or 
suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects.
    We are proposing to limit the benzene content of gasoline to an 
annual average of 0.62% by volume, beginning in 2011. We are also 
proposing to limit exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons from passenger 
vehicles when they are operated at cold temperatures. This standard 
would be phased in from 2010 to 2015. For passenger vehicles we also 
propose evaporative emissions standards that are equivalent to those in 
California. Finally, we are proposing a hydrocarbon emissions standard 
for gas cans beginning in 2009, which would reduce evaporation and 
spillage of gasoline from these containers.
    These controls would significantly reduce emissions of benzene and 
other mobile source air toxics such as 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, 
acetaldehyde, acrolein, and naphthalene. This proposal would result in 
additional substantial benefits to public health and welfare by 
significantly reducing emissions of particulate matter from passenger 
vehicles.
    We project annual nationwide benzene reductions of 35,000 tons in 
2015, increasing to 65,000 tons by 2030. Total reductions in mobile 
source air toxics would be 147,000 tons in 2015 and over 350,000 tons 
in 2030. Passenger vehicles in 2030 would emit 45% less benzene. Gas 
cans meeting the new standards would emit almost 80% less benzene. 
Gasoline would have 37% less benzene overall. We estimate that these 
reductions would have an average cost of less than 1 cent per gallon of 
gasoline and less than $1 per vehicle. The average cost for gas cans 
would be less than $2 per can. The reduced evaporation from gas cans 
would result in significant fuel savings, which would more than offset 
the increased cost for the gas can.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2006. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions must be received by OMB on or before April 28, 2006.
    Hearing: We will hold a public hearing on April 12, 2006. The 
hearing will start at 10 a.m. local time and continue until everyone 
has had a chance to speak. If you want to testify at the hearing, 
notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
by April 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0036, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0036. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov 
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to section XI, Public 
Participation, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Hearing: The public hearing will be held at Sheraton Crystal City 
Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202, 
Telephone: (703) 486-1111. See section XI, Public Participation, for 
more information about public hearings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Lieske, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division 
(ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 
Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4584; fax number: (734) 
214-4816; email address: lieske.christopher@epa.gov, or Assessment and 
Standards Division

[[Page 15805]]

Hotline; telephone number: (734) 214-4636; e-mail address: 
asdinfo@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those that produce 
new motor vehicles, alter individual imported motor vehicles to address 
U.S. regulation, or convert motor vehicles to use alternative fuels. It 
would also affect you if you produce gasoline motor fuel or manufacture 
portable gasoline containers. Regulated categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   NAICS      SIC  codes
           Category              codes \a\       \b\             Examples of potentially affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................       336111         3711  Motor vehicle manufacturers.
Industry......................       335312         3621  Alternative fuel vehicle converters.
                                     424720         5172
                                     811198         7539
                                ...........         7549  ......................................................
Industry......................       811111         7538  Independent commercial importers.
                                     811112         7533  ......................................................
                                     811198         7549  ......................................................
Industry......................       324110         2911  Gasoline fuel refiners.
Industry......................       326199         3089  Portable fuel container manufacturers.
                                     332431         3411  ......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your activities are regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 59, 80, 85, and 86. 
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov 
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be confidential business information (CBI). For CBI 
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     Describe any assumptions that you used.
     Provide any technical information and/or data you used 
that support your views.
     If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Offer alternatives.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.
     To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 
docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of 
your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, 
and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

Outline of This Preamble

I. Introduction
    A. Summary
    B. What Background Information is Helpful to Understand this 
Proposal?
    1. What Are Air Toxics and Related Health Effects?
    2. What is the Statutory Authority for Today's Proposal?
    a. Clean Air Act Section 202(l)
    b. Clean Air Act Section 183(e)
    c. Energy Policy Act
    3. What Other Actions Has EPA Taken Under Clean Air Act Section 
202(l)?
    a. 2001 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule
    b. Technical Analysis Plan
II. Overview of Proposal
    A. Why Is EPA Making This Proposal?
    1. National Cancer Risk from Air Toxics
    2. Noncancer Health Effects
    3. Exposure Near Roads and From Attached Garages
    4. Ozone and Particulate Matter
    B. What Is EPA Proposing?
    1. Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards
    2. Gasoline Fuel Standards
    3. Portable Gasoline Container (Gas Can) Controls
III. What Are Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) and Their Health 
Effects?
    A. What Are MSATs?
    B. Compounds Emitted by Mobile Sources and Identified in IRIS
    C. Which Mobile Source Emissions Pose the Greatest Health Risk 
at Current Levels?
    1. National and Regional Risk Drivers in 1999 National-Scale Air 
Toxics Assessment
    2. 1999 NATA Risk Drivers with Significant Mobile Source 
Contribution
    D. What Are the Health Effects of Air Toxics?
    1. Overview of Potential Cancer and Noncancer Health Effects
    2. Health Effects of Key MSATs
    a. Benzene
    b. 1,3-Butadiene
    c. Formaldehyde
    d. Acetaldehyde
    e. Acrolein
    f. Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)
    g. Naphthalene
    h. Diesel Particulate Matter and Diesel Exhaust Organic Gases
    E. Gasoline PM
    F. Near-Roadway Health Effects
    G. How Would This Proposal Reduce Emissions of MSATs?
IV. What Are the Air Quality and Health Impacts of Air Toxics, and 
How do Mobile Sources Contribute?
    A. What Is the Health Risk to the U.S. Population from 
Inhalation Exposure to Ambient Sources of Air Toxics, and How Would 
It be Reduced by the Proposed Controls?

[[Page 15806]]

    B. What is the Distribution of Exposure and Risk?
    1. Distribution of National-Scale Estimates of Risk from Air 
Toxics
    2. Elevated Concentrations and Exposure in Mobile Source-
Impacted Areas
    a. Concentrations Near Major Roadways
    b. Exposures Near Major Roadways
    i. Vehicles
    ii. Homes and Schools
    iii. Pedestrians and Bicyclists
    c. Exposure and Concentrations in Homes with Attached Garages
    d. Occupational Exposure
    3. What Are the Size and Characteristics of Highly Exposed 
Populations?
    4. What Are the Implications for Distribution of Individual 
Risk?
    C. Ozone
    1. Background
    2. Health Effects of Ozone
    3. Current and Projected 8-hour Ozone Levels
    D. Particulate Matter
    1. Background
    2. Health Effects of PM
    3. Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels
    4. Current PM10 Levels
    E. Other Environmental Effects
    1. Visibility
    a. Background
    b. Current Visibility Impairment
    c. Future Visibility Impairment
    2. Plant Damage from Ozone
    3. Atmospheric Deposition
    4. Materials Damage and Soiling
V. What Are Mobile Source Emissions Over Time and How Would This 
Proposal Reduce Emissions, Exposure and Associated Health Effects?
    A. Mobile Source Contribution to Air Toxics Emissions
    B. VOC Emissions from Mobile Sources
    C. PM Emissions from Mobile Sources
    D. Description of Current Mobile Source Emissions Control 
Programs that Reduce MSATs
    1. Fuels Programs
    a. RFG
    b. Anti-dumping
    c. 2001 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT1)
    d. Gasoline Sulfur
    e. Gasoline Volatility
    f. Diesel Fuel
    g. Phase-Out of Lead in Gasoline
    2. Highway Vehicle and Engine Programs
    3. Nonroad Engine Programs
    4. Voluntary Programs
    E. Emission Reductions from Proposed Controls
    1. Proposed Vehicle Controls
    a. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
    b. Toxics
    c. PM2.5
    2. Proposed Fuel Benzene Controls
    3. Proposed Gas Can Standards
    a. VOC
    b. Toxics
    4. Total Emission Reductions from Proposed Controls
    a. Toxics
    b. VOC
    c. PM2.5
    F. How Would This Proposal Reduce Exposure to Mobile Source Air 
Toxics and Associated Health Effects?
    G. Additional Programs Under Development That Will Reduce MSATs
    1. On-Board Diagnostics for Heavy-Duty Vehicles Over 14,000 
Pounds
    2. Standards for Small SI Engines
    3. Standards for Locomotive and Marine Engines
VI. Proposed New Light-duty Vehicle Standards
    A. Why are We Proposing New Standards?
    1. The Clean Air Act and Air Quality
    2. Technology Opportunities for Light-Duty Vehicles
    3. Cold Temperature Effects on Emission Levels
    a. How Does Temperature Affect Emissions?
    b. What Are the Current Emissions Control Requirements?
    c. Opportunities for Additional Control
    B. What Cold Temperature Requirements Are We Proposing?
    1. NMHC Exhaust Emissions Standards
    2. Feasibility of the Proposed Standards
    a. Currently Available Emission Control Technologies
    b. Feasibility Considering Current Certification Levels, 
Deterioration and Compliance Margin
    c. Feasibility and Test Programs for Higher Weight Vehicles
    3. Standards Timing and Phase-in
    a. Phase-In Schedule
    b. Alternative Phase-In Schedules
    4. Certification Levels
    5. Credit Program
    a. How Credits Are Calculated
    b. Credits Earned Prior to Primary Phase-In Schedule
    c. How Credits Can Be Used
    d. Discounting and Unlimited Life
    e. Deficits Could Be Carried Forward
    f. Voluntary Heavy-Duty Vehicle Credit Program
    6. Additional Vehicle Cold Temperature Standard Provisions
    a. Applicability
    b. Useful Life
    c. High Altitude
    d. In-Use Standards for Vehicles Produced During Phase-in
    7. Monitoring and Enforcement
    C. What Evaporative Emissions Standards Are We Proposing?
    1. Current Controls and Feasibility of the Proposed Standards
    2. Evaporative Standards Timing
    3. Timing for Multi-Fueled Vehicles
    4. In-Use Evaporative Emission Standards
    5. Existing Differences Between California and Federal 
Evaporative Emission Test Procedures
    D. Opportunities for Additional Exhaust Control Under Normal 
Conditions
    E. Vehicle Provisions for Small Volume Manufacturers
    1. Lead Time Transition Provisions
    2. Hardship Provisions
    3. Special Provisions for Independent Commercial Importers 
(ICIs)
VII. Proposed Gasoline Benzene Control Program
    A. Overview of Today's Proposed Fuel Control Program
    B. Description of the Proposed Fuel Control Program
    C. Development of the Proposed Gasoline Benzene Standard
    1. Why Are We Focusing on Controlling Benzene Emissions?
    a. Other MSAT Emissions
    b. MSAT Emission Reductions Through Lowering Gasoline Volatility 
or Sulfur Content
    i. Gasoline Sulfur Content
    ii. Gasoline Vapor Pressure
    c. Toxics Performance Standard
    d. Diesel Fuel Changes
    2. Why Are We Proposing To Control Benzene Emissions By 
Controlling Gasoline Benzene Content?
    a. Benzene Content Standard
    b. Gasoline Aromatics Content Standard
    c. Benzene Emission Standard
    3. How Did We Select the Level of the Proposed Gasoline Benzene 
Content Standard?
    a. Current Gasoline Benzene Levels
    b. The Need for an Average Benzene Standard
    c. Potential Levels for the Average Benzene Standard
    d. Comparison of Other Benzene Regulatory Programs
    4. How Do We Address Variations in Refinery Benzene Levels?
    a. Overall Reduction in Benzene Level and Variation
    b. Consideration of an Upper Limit Standard
    i. Per-Gallon Cap Standard
    ii. Maximum Average Standard
    5. How Would the Proposed Program Meet or Exceed Related 
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements?
    D. Description of the Proposed Averaging, Banking, and Trading 
(ABT) Program
    1. Overview
    2. Standard Credit Generation (2011 and Beyond)
    3. Credit Use
    a. Credit Trading Area
    b. Credit Life
    4. Early Credit Generation (2007-2010)
    a. Establishing Early Credit Baselines
    b. Early Credit Reduction Criteria (Trigger Points)
    c. Calculating Early Credits
    5. Additional Credit Provisions
    a. Credit Trading
    b. Pre-Compliance Reporting Requirements
    6. Special ABT Provisions for Small Refiners
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions for Qualifying Refiners
    1. Hardship Provisions for Qualifying Small Refiners
    a. Qualifying Small Refiners
    i. Regulatory Flexibility for Small Refiners
    ii. Rationale for Small Refiner Provisions
    b. How Do We Propose to Define Small Refiners for the Purpose of 
the Hardship Provisions?
    c. What Options Would Be Available For Small Refiners?
    i. Delay in Standards
    ii. ABT Credit Generation Opportunities
    iii. Extended Credit Life
    iv. ABT Program Review
    d. How Would Refiners Apply for Small Refiner Status?

[[Page 15807]]

    e. The Effect of Financial and Other Transactions on Small 
Refiner Status and Small Refiner Relief Provisions
    2. General Hardship Provisions
    a. Temporary Waivers Based on Unforeseen Circumstances
    b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme Hardship Circumstances
    c. Early Compliance with the Proposed Benzene Standard
    F. Technological Feasibility of Gasoline Benzene Reduction
    1. Benzene Levels in Gasoline
    2. Technologies for Reducing Gasoline Benzene Levels
    a. Why is Benzene Found in Gasoline?
    b. Benzene Control Technologies Related to the Reformer
    i. Routing Around the Reformer
    ii. Routing to the Isomerization Unit
    iii. Benzene Saturation
    iv. Benzene Extraction
    c. Other Benzene Reduction Technologies
    d. Impacts on Octane and Strategies for Recovering Octane Loss
    e. Experience Using Benzene Control Technologies
    f. What Are the Potential Impacts of Benzene Control on Other 
Fuel Properties?
    3. Feasible Level of Benzene Control
    4. Lead time
    5. Issues
    a. Small Refiners
    b. Imported Gasoline
    G. How Does the Proposed Fuel Control Program Satisfy the 
Statutory Requirements?
    H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. How Would the Proposed Gasoline Benzene Standard Be 
Implemented?
    1. General provisions
    a. What Are the Implementation Dates for the Proposed Program?
    b. Which Regulated Parties Would Be Subject to the Proposed 
Benzene Standards?
    c. What Gasoline Would Be Subject to the Proposed Benzene 
Standards?
    d. How Would Compliance With the Benzene Standard Be Determined?
    2. Averaging, Banking and Trading Program
    a. Early Credit Generation
    b. How Would Refinery Benzene Baselines Be Determined?
    c. Credit Generation Beginning in 2011
    d. How Would Credits Be Used?
    3. Hardship and Small Refiner Provisions
    a. Hardship
    b. Small Refiners
    4. Administrative and Enforcement Related Provisions
    a. Sampling/Testing
    b. Recordkeeping/Reporting
    c. Attest Engagements, Violations, Penalties
    5. How Would Compliance With the Provisions of the Proposed 
Benzene Program Affect Compliance With Other Gasoline Toxics 
Programs?
VIII. Gas Cans
    A. Why Are We Proposing an Emissions Control Program for Gas 
Cans?
    1. VOC Emissions
    2. Technological Opportunities to Reduce Emissions from Gas Cans
    3. State Experiences Regulating Gas Cans
    B. What Emissions Standard is EPA Proposing, and Why?
    1. Description of Emissions Standard
    2. Determination of Best Available Control
    3. Emissions Performance vs. Design Standard
    4. Automatic Shut-Off
    5. Consideration of Retrofits of Existing Gas Cans
    6. Consideration of Diesel, Kerosene and Utility Containers
    C. Timing of Standard
    D. What Test Procedures Would Be Used?
    1. Diurnal Test
    2. Preconditioning to Ensure Durable In-Use Control
    a. Durability cycles
    b. Preconditioning Fuel Soak
    c. Spout Actuation
    E. What Certification and In-Use Compliance Provisions Is EPA 
Proposing?
    1. Certification
    2. Emissions Warranty and In-Use Compliance
    3. Labeling
    F. How Would State Programs Be Affected By EPA Standards?
    G. Provisions for Small Gas Can Manufacturers
    1. First Type of Hardship Provision
    2. Second Type of Hardship Provision
IX. What are the Estimated Impacts of the Proposal?
    A. Refinery Costs of Gasoline Benzene Reduction
    1. Tools and Methodology
    a. Linear Programming Cost Model
    b. Refiner-by-Refinery Cost Model
    c. Price of Chemical Grade Benzene
    d. Applying the Cost Model to Special Cases
    2. Summary of Costs
    a. Nationwide Costs of the Proposed Program
    b. Regional Distribution of Costs
    c. Cost Effects of Different Standards
    d. Effect on Cost Estimates of Higher Benzene Prices
    3. Economic Impacts of MSAT Control Through Gasoline Sulfur and 
RVP Control and a Total Toxics Standard
    B. What Are the Vehicle Cost Impacts?
    C. What Are The Gas Can Cost Impacts?
    D. Cost Per Ton of Emissions Reduced
    E. Benefits
    1. Unquantified Health and Environmental Benefits
    2. Quantified Human Health and Environmental Effects of the 
Proposed Cold Temperature Vehicle Standard
    3. Monetized Benefits
    4. What Are the Significant Limitations of the Benefit Analysis?
    5. How Do the Benefits Compare to the Costs of The Proposed 
Standards?
    F. Economic Impact Analysis
    1. What Is an Economic Impact Analysis?
    2. What Is the Economic Impact Model?
    3. What Economic Sectors Are Included in this Economic Impact 
Analysis?
    4. What Are the Key Features of the Economic Impact Model?
    5. What Are the Key Model Inputs?
    6. What Are the Results of the Economic Impact Modeling?
X. Alternative Program Options
    A. Fuels
    B. Vehicles
    C. Gas cans
XI. Public Participation
    A. How Do I Submit Comments?
    B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
    C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
    D. Comment Period
    E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et. seq
    1. Overview
    2. Background
    3. Summary of Regulated Small Entities
    a. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles
    b. Gasoline Refiners
    c. Portable Gasoline Container Manufacturers
    4. Potential Reporting, Record Keeping, and Compliance
    5. Relevant Federal Rules
    6. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach
    a. Significant Panel Findings
    b. Panel Process
    c. Small Business Flexibilities
    i. Highway Light-Duty Vehicles
    (a) Highway Light-Duty Vehicle Flexibilities
    (b) Highway Light-Duty Vehicle Hardships
    ii. Gasoline Refiners
    (a) Gasoline Refiner Flexibilities
    (b) Gasoline Refiner Hardships
    iii. Portable Gasoline Containers
    (a) Portable Gasoline Container Flexibilities
    (b) Portable Gasoline Container Hardships
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Introduction

A. Summary

    Mobile sources emit air toxics that can cause cancer and other 
serious health effects. Section III of this preamble and Chapter 1 of 
the

[[Page 15808]]

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule describe these compounds 
and their health effects. Mobile sources contribute significantly to 
the nationwide risk from breathing outdoor sources of air toxics. 
Mobile sources were responsible for about 44% of outdoor toxic 
emissions, almost 50% of the cancer risk, and 74% of the noncancer risk 
according to EPA's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) for 
1999. In addition, people who live or work near major roads or live in 
homes with attached garages are likely to have higher exposures and 
risk, which are not reflected in NATA. Sections II.A and IV of this 
preamble and Chapter 3 of the RIA provide more detail about NATA, as 
well as our analysis of exposures near roadways.
    According to NATA for 1999, there are a few mobile source air 
toxics that pose the greatest risk based on current information about 
ambient levels and exposure. These include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 
formaldehyde, acrolein, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter 
(POM). All of these compounds are hydrocarbons except POM. Benzene is 
the most significant contributor to cancer risk from all outdoor air 
toxics, according to NATA for 1999. NATA does not include a 
quantitative estimate of cancer risk for diesel exhaust, but it 
concludes that diesel exhaust (specifically, diesel particulate matter 
and diesel exhaust organic gases) is one of the pollutants that pose 
the greatest relative cancer risk. Although we expect significant 
reductions in mobile source air toxics in the future, cancer and 
noncancer health risks will remain a public health concern, and 
exposure to benzene will remain the largest contributor to this risk.
    As discussed in detail in Section V of this preamble and Chapter 2 
of the RIA, this proposal would significantly reduce emissions of the 
many air toxics that are hydrocarbons, including benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and naphthalene. The 
proposed fuel benzene standard and hydrocarbon standards for vehicles 
and gas cans would together reduce total emissions of mobile source air 
toxics by 350,000 tons in 2030, including 65,000 tons of benzene. 
Mobile sources were responsible for 68% of benzene emissions in 1999. 
As a result of this proposal, in 2030 passenger vehicles would emit 45% 
less benzene, gas cans would emit 78% less benzene, and the gasoline 
would have 37% less benzene overall.
    In addition, EPA has already taken significant steps to reduce 
diesel emissions from mobile sources, which will result in a 70% 
reduction between 1999 and 2020. We have adopted stringent standards 
for diesel trucks and buses, and nonroad diesel engines (engines used, 
for example, in construction, agricultural, and industrial 
applications). We also have additional programs underway to reduce 
diesel emissions, including voluntary programs and a proposal that is 
being developed to reduce emissions from diesel locomotives and marine 
engines.
    The proposed reductions in mobile source air toxics emissions would 
reduce exposure and predicted risk of cancer and noncancer health 
effects, including in environments where exposure and risk may be 
highest, such as near roads, in vehicles, and in homes with attached 
garages. In addition, the hydrocarbon reductions from the vehicle and 
gas can standards would reduce VOC emissions (which are a precursor to 
ozone and PM2.5) by over 1 million tons in 2030. The 
proposed vehicle standards would reduce direct PM2.5 
emissions by 20,000 tons in 2030 and would also reduce secondary 
formation of PM2.5. Although ozone and PM2.5 are 
considered criteria pollutants rather than ``air toxics,'' reductions 
in ozone and PM2.5 are important co-benefits of this 
proposal. More details on emissions, cancer risks, and adverse health 
and welfare effects associated with ozone and PM are found in sections 
II.A, IV and V of this preamble and Chapters 2 and 3 of the RIA.
    Section II.B of this preamble provides an overview of the 
regulatory program that EPA is proposing for passenger vehicles, 
gasoline, and gas cans. We are proposing standards to limit the exhaust 
hydrocarbons from passenger vehicles during cold temperature operation. 
We are also proposing evaporative hydrocarbon emissions standards for 
passenger vehicles. We are proposing to limit the average annual 
benzene content of gasoline. Finally, we are proposing hydrocarbon 
emissions standards for gas cans that would reduce evaporation, 
permeation, and spillage from these containers. Detailed discussion of 
each of these programs is in sections VI, VII, and VIII of the preamble 
and Chapters 5, 6, and 7 of the RIA.
    We estimate that the benefits of this proposal would be about $6 
billion in 2030, based on the direct PM2.5 reductions from 
the vehicle standards, plus unquantified benefits from reductions in 
mobile source air toxics and VOC. We estimate that the annual net 
social costs of this proposal would be about $200 million in 2030 
(expressed in 2003 dollars). These net social costs include the value 
of fuel savings from the proposed gas can standards, which would be 
worth $82 million in 2030.
    The proposed reductions would have an average cost of 0.13 cents 
per gallon of gasoline, less than $1 per vehicle, and less than $2 per 
gas can. The reduced evaporation from gas cans would result in fuel 
savings that would more than offset the increased cost for the gas can. 
In 2030, the long-term cost per ton of the proposed standards (in 
combination, and including fuel savings) would be $450 per ton of total 
mobile source air toxics reduced; $2,400 per ton of benzene reduced; 
and no cost for the hydrocarbon and PM reductions (because the vehicle 
standards would have no cost in 2020 and beyond). Section IX of the 
preamble and Chapters 8-13 of the RIA provide more details on the 
costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed standards. The 
impacts on small entities and the flexibilities we are proposing are 
discussed in section XII.C of this preamble and Chapter 14 of the RIA.

B. What Background Information is Helpful to Understand this Proposal?

1. What Are Air Toxics and Related Health Effects?
    Air toxics, which are also known in the Clean Air Act as 
``hazardous air pollutants,'' are those pollutants known or suspected 
to cause cancer or other serious health or environmental effects. For 
example, some of these pollutants are known to have negative effects on 
people's respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, immune, 
reproductive, or other organ systems, and they may also have 
developmental effects. They may pose particular hazards to more 
susceptible and sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, 
or people with pre-existing illnesses.
    Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are those toxics emitted by motor 
vehicles, nonroad engines (such as lawn and garden equipment, farming 
and construction equipment, aircraft, locomotives, and ships), and 
their fuels. Toxics are also emitted by stationary sources such as 
power plants, factories, oil refineries, dry cleaners, gas stations, 
and small manufacturers. They can also be produced by combustion of 
wood and other organic materials. There are also indoor sources of air 
toxics, such as solvent evaporation and outgassing from furniture and 
building materials.
    Some MSATs of particular concern include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 
formaldehyde, acrolein, naphthalene, and diesel particulate matter and 
diesel exhaust organic gases. Benzene and 1,3-butadiene are both known 
human

[[Page 15809]]

carcinogens. Section III of this preamble provides more detail on the 
health effects of each of these pollutants.
    MSATs are emitted as a result of various processes. Some MSATs are 
present in fuel or fuel additives and are emitted to the air when the 
fuel evaporates or passes through the engine. Some MSATs are formed 
through engine combustion processes. Some compounds, like formaldehyde 
and acetaldehyde, are also formed through a secondary process when 
other mobile source pollutants undergo chemical reactions in the 
atmosphere. Finally, some air toxics, such as metals, result from 
engine wear or from impurities in oil or fuel.
2. What is the Statutory Authority for Today's Proposal?
a. Clean Air Act Section 202(l)
    Section 202(l)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set 
standards to control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles, 
motor vehicle fuels, or both. These standards must 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 standards are to be set under Clean Air Act 
sections 202(a)(1) or 211(c)(1), and they are to apply, at a minimum, 
to benzene and formaldehyde emissions.
    Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to set standards 
for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines which EPA judges to 
cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. We are proposing a 
cold-temperature hydrocarbon emission standard for passenger vehicles 
under this authority.
    Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA (among 
other things) to control the manufacture of fuel if any emission 
product of such fuel causes or contributes to air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. We are 
proposing a benzene standard for gasoline under this authority.
    Clean Air Act section 202(l)(2) requires EPA to ``from time to time 
revise'' its regulations controlling hazardous air pollutants from 
motor vehicles and fuels. As described in more detail in section I.F. 
below, EPA has previously set standards under section 202(l), and we 
committed in that rule to engage in further rulemaking to implement 
section 202(l). This proposal fulfills that commitment.
b. Clean Air Act Section 183(e)
    Clean Air Act section 183(e)(3) requires EPA to list categories of 
consumer or commercial products that the Administrator determines, 
based on an EPA study of VOC emissions from such products, contribute 
at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions from such products in areas 
violating the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. EPA 
promulgated this list at 60 FR 15264 (March 23, 1995). EPA plans to 
publish a Federal Register notice announcing that EPA has added 
portable gasoline containers to the list of consumer products to be 
regulated. This action must be taken by EPA prior to issuing a final 
rule for gas cans. EPA is required to develop rules reflecting ``best 
available controls'' to reduce VOC emissions from the listed products. 
``Best available controls'' are defined in section 183(e)(1)(A) as 
follows:

    The term ``best available controls'' means the degree of 
emissions reduction that the Administrator determines, on the basis 
of technological and economic feasibility, health, environmental, 
and energy impacts, is achievable through the application of the 
most effective equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems, or 
techniques, including chemical reformulation, product or feedstock 
substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, consumption, 
storage, or disposal.''

    Section 183(e)(4) also allows these standards to be implemented by 
means of ``any system or systems of regulation as the Administrator may 
deem appropriate, including requirements for registration and labeling, 
self-monitoring and reporting * * * concerning the manufacture, 
processing, distribution, use, consumption, or disposal of the 
product.'' We are proposing a hydrocarbon standard for gas cans under 
the authority of section 183(e).
c. Energy Policy Act
    Section 1504(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires EPA to 
adjust the toxics emissions baselines for reformulated gasoline to 
reflect 2001-2002 fuel qualities. However, the Act provides that this 
action becomes unnecessary if EPA takes action which results in greater 
overall reductions of toxics emissions from vehicles in areas with 
reformulated gasoline. As described in section VII of this preamble, we 
believe today's proposed action would in fact result in greater 
reductions than would be achieved by adjusting the baselines under the 
Energy Policy Act. Accordingly, under the provisions of the Energy 
Policy Act, this proposed action would obviate the need for readjusting 
emissions baselines for reformulated gasoline.
3. What Other Actions Has EPA Taken Under Clean Air Act Section 202(l)?
a. 2001 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule
    EPA published a final rule under Clean Air Act section 202(l) on 
March 29, 2001, entitled, ``Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air 
Pollutants from Mobile Sources'' (66 FR 17230). This rule established 
toxics emissions performance standards for gasoline refiners. These 
standards were designed to ensure that the over compliance to the 
standard seen in the in-use fuels produced in the years of 1998-2000 
would continue in the future.
    EPA adopted this anti-backsliding requirement as a near-term 
control that could be implemented and take effect within a year or two. 
We did not adopt long-term controls, those controls that require a 
longer lead time to implement, because we lacked information to address 
the costs and benefits of potential fuel controls in the context of the 
fuel sulfur controls that we had finalized in February 2000. However, 
the March 2001 rule did commit to additional rulemaking that would 
evaluate the need for and feasibility of additional controls.\1\ 
Today's proposal fulfills that commitment, and represents the second 
step of the two-step approach originally envisioned in the 2001 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 380 (D.C. Cir. 2003), 
which upholds this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2001 rule did not set additional air toxics controls for motor 
vehicles, because the technology-forcing Tier 2 light-duty vehicle 
standards and 2007 heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards had just 
been promulgated. We found that those standards represented the 
greatest degree of toxics control achievable at that time under section 
202(l).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 66 FR 17241-17245 (March 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Technical Analysis Plan
    The 2001 rulemaking also included a Technical Analysis Plan that 
described toxics-related research and activities that would inform our 
future rulemaking to evaluate the need for and appropriateness of 
additional mobile source air toxic controls. Specifically, we 
identified four critical areas where there were data gaps requiring 
long-term efforts:
     Developing better air toxics emission factors for nonroad 
sources;
     Improving estimation of air toxics exposures in 
microenvironments;

[[Page 15810]]

     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.
    EPA and other outside researchers have conducted significant 
research in these areas since 2001. The findings of this research are 
described in more detail in other sections of this preamble and in the 
regulatory impact analysis for this proposal. Following are some 
highlights of our activities.
    Nonroad emissions testing. EPA has tested emissions of nonroad 
diesel engines for a comprehensive suite of hydrocarbons and inorganic 
compounds. These emissions tests employed steady-state as well as 
transient test cycles, using typical nonroad diesel fuel and low-sulfur 
nonroad diesel fuel. In addition, EPA tested small gasoline-powered 
engines such as lawnmowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws and string 
trimmers.
    Improved estimation of exposures in microenvironments and 
consideration of the range of public exposures. EPA and other 
researchers have conducted a substantial amount of research and 
analysis in these areas, which is discussed in section IV of this 
preamble and in the regulatory impact analysis. This research has 
involved monitoring as well as the development and application of 
enhanced modeling tools. For example, personal exposure monitoring and 
ambient monitoring has been conducted at homes and schools near 
roadways; in vehicles; in homes with attached garages; and in 
occupational settings involving both diesel and gasoline nonroad 
equipment. We have also applied dispersion modeling techniques with 
greater spatial refinement to estimate gradients of toxic pollutants 
near roadways. A variety of improvements to our emissions, dispersion, 
and exposure modeling tools are improving our ability to consider the 
range of exposure people experience. These include the MOBILE6 
emissions model, improved spatial and temporal allocation of emissions, 
development of the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, and 
updates to the HAPEM exposure model. Many of these improvements were 
applied in EPA's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1999 and 
other analyses EPA performed to support this proposal. In fact, EPA 
developed a modification of the HAPEM exposure model to account for 
higher pollutant concentrations near major roads.
    Research in these areas is continuing both inside and outside EPA, 
including work under the auspices of the Health Effects Institute and 
the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center.
    Costs and effectiveness of vehicle, fuel, and nonroad controls for 
air toxics. EPA's analysis of the costs and effectiveness of vehicle 
and fuel controls is described in section IX of this preamble and in 
the regulatory impact analysis. In addition, as described in section V, 
EPA is currently developing rules that will examine controls of small 
gasoline engines and diesel locomotive and marine engines.

II. Overview of Proposal

A. Why Is EPA Making This Proposal?

    People experience elevated risk of cancer and other noncancer 
health effects from exposure to air toxics. Mobile sources are 
responsible for a significant portion of this risk. For example, 
benzene is the most significant contributor to cancer risk from all 
outdoor air toxics,\3\ and most of the nation's benzene emissions come 
from mobile sources. These risks vary depending on where people live 
and work and the kinds of activities in which they engage. People who 
live or work near major roads, or people that spend a large amount of 
time in vehicles, are likely to have higher exposures and higher risks. 
Although we expect significant reductions in mobile source air toxics 
in the future, predicted cancer and noncancer health risks will remain 
a public health concern. Benzene will remain the largest contributor to 
this risk. In addition, some mobile source air toxics contribute to the 
formation of ozone and PM2.5, which contribute to serious 
public health problems, which are discussed further in section II.A.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Based on quantitative estimates of risk, which do not 
include diesel particular matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections II.A.1-3 discuss the risks posed by outdoor toxics now and 
in the future, based on national-scale estimates such as EPA's 
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). EPA's NATA for 1999 
provides some perspective on the average risk of cancer and noncancer 
health effects resulting from breathing air toxics from outdoor 
sources, and the contribution of mobile sources to these 
risks.4 5 This assessment did not include indoor sources of 
air toxics. Also, it estimates average concentrations within a census 
tract, and therefore does not reflect elevated concentrations and 
exposures near roadways within a census tract. Nevertheless, its 
findings are useful in providing a perspective on the magnitude of 
risks posed by outdoor sources of air toxics generally, and in 
identifying what pollutants and sources are important contributors to 
these health risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata 1999.
    \5\ NATA does not include a quantitative estimate of cancer risk 
for diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. EPA 
has concluded that while diesel exhaust is likely to be a human 
carcinogen, available data are not sufficient to develop a 
confidential estimate of cancer unit risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also performed a national-scale assessment for future years, 
using the same modeling tools and approach as the 1999 NATA. Finally, 
we also performed national-scale exposure modeling that accounts for 
the higher toxics concentrations near roads. This latter modeling 
provides a perspective on the mobile source contribution to risk from 
air toxics that is not reflected in our other national-scale 
assessments.
1. National Cancer Risk from Air Toxics
    According to NATA, the average national cancer risk in 1999 from 
all outdoor sources of air toxics was 42 in a million. That is, 42 out 
of one million people would be expected to contract cancer from a 
lifetime of breathing air toxics at 1999 levels. Mobile sources were 
responsible for 44% of outdoor toxic emissions and almost 50% of the 
cancer risk. Considering only the subset of compounds emitted by mobile 
sources (see Table IV.C-2), the national average cancer risk in 1999, 
including the stationary source contribution to these pollutants, was 
23 in a million.
    Benzene is the largest contributor to cancer risk of all 133 
pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 1999 NATA. The national 
average cancer risk from benzene alone was 11 in a million. Over 120 
million people in 1999 were exposed to a risk level above 10 in a 
million due to chronic inhalation exposure to benzene. Mobile sources 
were responsible for 68% of benzene emissions in 1999.
    Although air toxics emissions are projected to decline in the 
future as a result of standards EPA has previously adopted, cancer risk 
will continue to be a public health concern. The predicted national 
average cancer risk from MSATs in 2030 will be 18 in a million, 
according to EPA analysis (described in more detail in section IV of 
this preamble and Chapter 3 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis). In 
fact, in 2030 there will be more people exposed to the highest levels 
of risk. The number of Americans above the 10 in a million cancer risk 
level from exposure to MSATs is projected to increase from 214 million 
in 1999 to 240 million in 2030. Mobile sources will continue to be a 
significant contributor to risk in the future, accounting for 22% of 
total air

[[Page 15811]]

toxic emissions in 2020, and 44% of benzene emissions.
2. Noncancer Health Effects
    According to the NATA for 1999, nearly the entire U.S. population 
was exposed to an average level of air toxics that has the potential 
for adverse respiratory health effects (noncancer).\6\ This will 
continue to be the case in 2030, even though toxics levels will be 
lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ That is, the respiratory hazard index exceeded 1. See 
section III.D of this preamble for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mobile sources were responsible for 74% of the noncancer 
(respiratory) risk from outdoor air toxics in 1999. The majority of 
this risk was from acrolein, and formaldehyde also contributed to the 
risk of respiratory health effects. Mobile sources will continue to be 
responsible for the majority of noncancer risk from outdoor air toxics 
in 2030.
    Although not included in NATA's estimates of noncancer risk, PM 
from gasoline and diesel mobile sources contribute significantly to the 
health effects associated with ambient PM, for which EPA has 
established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. There is extensive 
human data showing a wide spectrum of adverse health effects associated 
with exposure to ambient PM.
3. Exposure Near Roads and From Attached Garages
    The national-scale risks described above do not account for higher 
exposures experienced by people who live near major roadways, or people 
who live in homes with attached garages. A substantial number of 
studies show elevated concentrations of multiple MSATs in close 
proximity to major roads. We also conducted an exposure modeling study 
for three geographically distinct states (Colorado, New York, and 
Georgia) and found that when the elevated concentrations near roadways 
are accounted for, the distribution of benzene exposure is broader, 
with a larger fraction of the population exposed to higher 
concentrations. The largest effect on personal exposure occurs for the 
population living near major roads. A U.S. Census survey of housing 
found that in 2003 12.6% of U.S. housing units were within 300 feet of 
a major transportation source.\7\ The potential population exposed to 
elevated concentrations near major roadways is therefore large. In 
addition, our analysis indicates that benzene exposure experienced by 
people living in homes with attached garages may be twice the national 
average benzene exposure estimated by NATA for 1999. More details on 
exposure near roads and from attached garages can be found in section 
IV of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ United States Census Bureau. (2004) American Housing Survey 
web page. [Online at https://www.cenus.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/
ahs03/ahs03.html] Table IA-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Ozone and Particulate Matter
    Many MSATs are part of a larger category of mobile source emissions 
known as volatile organic compounds (VOC), which contribute to the 
formation of ozone and particulate matter (PM). In addition, some MSATs 
are emitted directly as PM rather than being formed through secondary 
processes. Thus, MSATs contribute to adverse health effects both as 
individual pollutants, and as precursors to ozone and PM. Mobile 
sources contribute significantly to national emissions of VOC and PM. 
In addition, gas cans are a source of both VOC and benzene emissions.
    Both ozone and PM contribute to serious public health problems, 
including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions 
and emergency room visits, school absences, work loss days, and 
restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased 
respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and structures, altered 
respiratory defense mechanisms, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung 
function.
    In addition, ozone and PM cause significant harm to public welfare. 
Specifically, ozone causes damage to vegetation, which leads to crop 
and forestry economic losses, as well as harm to national parks, 
wilderness areas, and other natural systems. PM contributes to the 
substantial impairment of visibility in many parts of the U.S., 
including national parks and wilderness areas. The deposition of 
airborne particles can also reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings 
and culturally important articles through soiling, and can contribute 
directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants) to structural damage 
by means of corrosion or erosion.
    Finally, atmospheric deposition and runoff of polycyclic organic 
matter (POM), metals, and other mobile-source-related compounds 
contribute to the contamination of water bodies such as the Great Lakes 
and coastal waters (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay).

B. What Is EPA Proposing?

1. Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards
    As described in more detail in section VI, we are proposing new 
standards for both exhaust and evaporative emissions from passenger 
vehicles. The new exhaust emissions standards would significantly 
reduce non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions from passenger vehicles 
at cold temperatures. These hydrocarbons include many mobile source air 
toxics (including benzene), as well as VOC.
    Current vehicle emission standards require that the certification 
testing of NMHC is performed at 75 [deg]F. Recent research and analysis 
indicates that these standards are not resulting in robust control of 
NMHC at lower temperatures. We believe that cold temperature NMHC 
control can be substantially improved using the same technological 
approaches that are generally already being used in the Tier 2 vehicle 
fleet to meet the stringent standards at 75 [deg]F. These cold-
temperature NMHC controls would also result in lower direct PM 
emissions at cold temperatures.
    Accordingly, we are proposing that light-duty vehicles, light-duty 
trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles would be subject to a new 
non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust emissions standard at 20 [deg]F. 
Vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
would be subject to a sales-weighted fleet average NMHC level of 0.3 
grams/mile. Vehicles between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds GVWR and medium-
duty passenger vehicles would be subject to a sales-weighted fleet 
average NMHC level of 0.5 grams/mile. For lighter vehicles, the 
standard would phase in between 2010 and 2013. For heavier vehicles, 
the new standards would phase in between 2012 and 2015. We are also 
proposing a credit program and other provisions designed to provide 
flexibility to manufacturers, especially during the phase-in periods. 
These provisions are designed to allow the earliest possible phase-in 
of standards and help minimize costs and ease the transition to new 
standards.
    We are also proposing a set of nominally more stringent evaporative 
emission standards for all light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
medium-duty passenger vehicles. The proposed standards are equivalent 
to California's Low Emission Vehicle II (LEV II) standards, and they 
reflect the evaporative emissions levels that are already being 
achieved nationwide. The standards we are proposing today would codify 
the approach that most

[[Page 15812]]

manufacturers are already taking for 50-state evaporative systems, and 
the standards would thus prevent backsliding in the future. We are 
proposing to implement the evaporative emission standards in 2009 for 
lighter vehicles and in 2010 for the heavier vehicles.
    Section VI provides details on the proposed exhaust and evaporative 
standards and their implementation, and our rationale for proposing 
them.
2. Gasoline Fuel Standards
    As described in more detail in section VII, we are proposing to 
limit the benzene content of all gasoline, both reformulated and 
conventional. We propose that beginning January 1, 2011, refiners would 
meet an average gasoline benzene content standard of 0.62% by volume on 
all their gasoline. We are not proposing a standard for California, 
however, because it is already covered by a similar state program.
    This proposed fuel standard would result in air toxics emissions 
reductions that are greater than required under all existing gasoline 
toxics programs. As a result, EPA is proposing that upon full 
implementation in 2011, the regulatory provisions for the benzene 
control program would become the single regulatory mechanism used to 
implement the RFG and Anti-dumping annual average toxics requirements. 
The current RFG and Anti-dumping annual average provisions thus would 
be replaced by the proposed benzene control program. The MSAT2 benzene 
control program would also replace the MSAT1 requirements. In addition, 
the program would satisfy certain fuel MSAT conditions of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 and obviate the need to revise toxics baselines for 
reformulated gasoline otherwise required by the Energy Policy Act. In 
all of these ways, we would significantly consolidate and simplify the 
existing national fuel-related MSAT regulatory program.
    We also propose that refiners could generate benzene credits and 
use or transfer them as a part of a nationwide averaging, banking, and 
trading (ABT) program. From 2007-2010 refiners could generate benzene 
credits by taking early steps to reduce gasoline benzene levels. 
Beginning in 2011 and continuing indefinitely, refiners could generate 
credits by producing gasoline with benzene levels below the 0.62% 
average standard. Refiners could apply the credits towards company 
compliance, ``bank'' the credits for later use, or transfer (``trade'') 
them to other refiners nationwide (outside of California) under the 
proposed program. Under this program, refiners could use credits to 
achieve compliance with the benzene content standard.
    This proposed ABT program would allow us to set a more stringent 
benzene standard than would otherwise be possible, and it would allow 
implementation to occur earlier. Under this proposed benzene content 
standard and ABT program, gasoline in all areas of the country would 
have lower benzene levels than they have today. Overall benzene levels 
would be 37% lower. This would reduce benzene emissions and exposure 
nationwide.
    Finally, we propose hardship provisions. Refiners approved as 
``small refiners'' would be eligible for certain temporary relief 
provisions. In addition, any refiner facing extreme unforeseen 
circumstances or extreme hardship circumstances could apply for similar 
temporary relief.
    Section VII of this preamble provides a detailed explanation and 
rationale for the proposed fuel program and its implementation. It also 
discusses and seeks comment on a variety of alternatives that we 
considered.
3. Portable Gasoline Container (Gas Can) Controls
    Portable gasoline containers, or gas cans, are consumer products 
used to refuel a wide variety of gasoline-powered equipment, including 
lawn and garden equipment, recreational equipment, and passenger 
vehicles that have run out of gas. As described in section VIII, we are 
proposing standards that would reduce hydrocarbon emissions from 
evaporation, permeation, and spillage. These standards would 
significantly reduce benzene and other toxics, as well as VOC more 
generally. VOC is an ozone precursor.
    We propose a performance-based standard of 0.3 grams per gallon per 
day of hydrocarbons, based on the emissions from the can over a diurnal 
test cycle. The standard would apply to gas cans manufactured on or 
after January 1, 2009. We also propose test procedures and a 
certification and compliance program, in order to ensure that gas cans 
would meet the emission standard over a range of in-use conditions. The 
proposed standards would result in the use of best available control 
technologies, such as durable permeation barriers, automatically 
closing spouts, and cans that are well-sealed.
    California implemented an emissions control program for gas cans in 
2001, and since then, several other states have adopted the program. 
Last year, California adopted a revised program, which will take effect 
July 1, 2007. The revised California program is very similar to the 
program we are proposing. Although a few aspects of the program we are 
proposing are different, we believe manufacturers would be able to meet 
both EPA and California requirements with the same gas can designs.

III. What Are Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) and Their Health 
Effects?

A. What Are MSATs?

    Section 202(l) refers to ``hazardous air pollutants from motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle fuels.'' We use the term ``mobile source air 
toxics (MSATs)'' to refer to compounds that are emitted by mobil