[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57827-57834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27933]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 80, 85 and 86
[AMS-FRL-6463-7]
RIN 2060-AI23
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed Tier 2
Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control
Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Provision of Supplemental Information and Request for Comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on May
13, 1999, proposing a major program designed to significantly reduce
the emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks, including
pickup trucks, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles (the ``Tier 2
program''). The proposed program combines requirements for cleaner
vehicles and requirements for lower levels of sulfur in gasoline. A
supplemental notice was published on June 30, 1999, clarifying the May
13, 1999, proposal in light of a May 14, 1999, ruling by a panel of the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia regarding the recently
promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone
and PM. Our supplemental notice also provided additional modeling
information not included in the May 13, 1999, proposal regarding 1-hour
ozone levels for areas where the 1-hour ozone standard currently
applies.
In light of the uncertain status of the 8-hour ozone standard
resulting from the Court of Appeals' ruling, EPA recently issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 20, 1999, proposing to rescind
our earlier findings that the 1-hour ozone standard is no longer
applicable in certain areas that have attained the standard. Today's
document explains how the October 20, 1999, reinstatement proposal
relates to the May 13 proposal on vehicle and gasoline standards.
Today's document also provides additional 1-hour ozone modeling and
monitoring information for areas that would be affected by the proposed
action.
DATES: Comments: We must receive your comments on this document by
December 1, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form or by
E-mail. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if
possible) on the information in this document to Public Docket No. A-
97-10 at the following address: US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. If possible, we also encourage you to send an electronic copy of
your comments (in ASCII format) to the docket by e-mail to A-and-R-
Docket@epa.gov or on a 3.5 inch diskette accompanying your paper copy.
If you wish, you may send your comments by E-mail to the docket at the
address listed above without the submission of a paper copy, but a
paper copy will ensure the clarity of your comments.
Please also send a separate paper copy to the contact person listed
below. If you send comments by E-mail alone, we ask that you send a
copy of the E-mail message that contains the comments to the contact
person listed below.
EPA's Air Docket is open from 8 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 at (202) 260-4400. We may
charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40
CFR Part 2.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Connell, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor MI
48105; Telephone (734) 214-4349, FAX (734) 214-4816, E-mail
connell.carol@epa.gov.
For information on ozone modeling for Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas,
contact Mick Cote, U.S. EPA, Fountain Place 12th Floor Suite 1200, 1445
Ross
[[Page 57828]]
Avenue, Dallas TX 75202-2733; Telephone (214) 665-7219, E-mail
cote.mick@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction and Review of Events Related To This Rulemaking
A. Tier 2 Proposal
On May 13, 1999, EPA published in the Federal Register our proposal
to reduce emissions from light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty
trucks (LDTs). 64 FR 26004. The proposal would also significantly
reduce sulfur content in gasoline. The proposed program would phase in
beginning in 2004. The program is projected to result in reductions of
approximately 800,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) per year
by 2007 and 1,200,000 tons by 2010. It would result in reductions of
about 70 percent in emissions of NOX from LDVs and LDTs
nationwide by 2020, compared to emissions in that year without the
proposed program. In addition, the proposed program would reduce the
contribution of vehicles to other serious health and environmental
problems, including particulate matter, visibility problems, toxic air
pollutants, acid rain, and nitrogen loading of estuaries.
We proposed the standards for LDVs and LDTs pursuant to our
authority under section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). In
particular, section 202(i) of the Act provides specific procedures that
we must follow to determine whether Tier 2 standards for LDVs and
certain LDTs 1 are appropriate beginning in the 2004 model
year. Specifically, we are required to first issue a study regarding
``whether or not further reductions in emissions from light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks should be required'' (the ``Tier 2
study''). This study ``shall examine the need for further reductions in
emissions in order to attain or maintain the national ambient air
quality standards.'' It is also to consider (1) The availability of
technology to meet more stringent vehicle emission standards, taking
cost, lead time, safety, and energy impacts into consideration, and,
(2) The need for, and cost effectiveness of, such standards, including
consideration of alternative methods of attaining or maintaining the
national ambient air quality standards. We must then submit the study
as a Report to Congress. We submitted our Report to Congress on July
31, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LDTs with a loaded vehicle weight less than or equal to
3750 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Report to Congress, we are required to determine by
rulemaking whether (1) There is a need for further reductions in
emissions in order to attain or maintain the national air quality
standards (NAAQS), taking into consideration the waiver provisions of
section 209(b); (2) The technology for more stringent emission
standards from LDVs and LDTs with a loaded vehicle weight less than or
equal to 3750 pounds will be available; and (3) Such standards are
needed and cost-effective, taking into account alternatives. If we make
affirmative determinations, then we are to promulgate new, more
stringent motor vehicle standards (``Tier 2 standards''). We proposed
affirmative responses to the three questions above and proposed new
standards. We also proposed standards for larger light-duty trucks (up
to 8500 pounds GVWR) under the general authority of Section 202(a)(1)
and under Section 202(a)(3) of the Act, which requires that standards
applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons, NOX, CO and PM from
heavy-duty vehicles 2 reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction available for the model year to which such standards
apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Vehicle classifications are discussed in the May 13, 1999
proposal on page 26031. LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings
above 6000 pounds are considered heavy-duty vehicles under the Act.
See section 202(b)(3). For regulatory purposes, we refer to these
LDTs as ``heavy light-duty trucks,'' made up of LDT3s and LDT4s. For
reference, LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings below 6000
pounds are referred to as ``light light-duty trucks,'' made up of
LDT1s and LDT2s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed our gasoline sulfur controls pursuant to our authority
under Section 211(c)(1) of the CAA. Under Section 211(c)(1), we may
adopt a fuel control if at least one of the following two criteria is
met: (1) The emission products of the fuel cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare, or (2) The emission products of the fuel will significantly
impair emissions control systems in general use or which would be in
general use in a reasonable time were the fuel control to be adopted.
We proposed to control sulfur levels in gasoline based on both of
these criteria. Under the first criterion, we believe that existing
sulfur content in gasoline used in Tier 1 and LEV technology vehicles
contributes to ozone pollution, air toxics, and PM at levels which can
be reasonably expected to endanger public health or welfare. Under the
second criterion, we believe that in the absence of gasoline sulfur
control, sulfur in fuel that would be used in Tier 2 technology
vehicles would significantly impair the emissions control systems
expected to be used in such vehicles.
B. New Ozone and PM NAAQS
EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone and PM in 1997. 62 FR 38652
(July 18, 1997); 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). We replaced the 1-hour
0.12 parts per million (ppm) ozone standard with an 8-hour standard at
a level of 0.08 ppm. We also promulgated a regulation providing that
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would continue to apply until we determined that
an area had attained the 1-hour standard. This provision was premised
upon the existence of the 8-hour standard and the implementation scheme
developed for that standard. On June 5, 1998, July 22, 1998, and June
9, 1999, we issued final rules for many areas finding that the 1-hour
standard no longer applied in these areas because they had attained the
1-hour standard. In proposing the Tier 2 standards on May 13, 1999, we
proposed our determination on the need for additional emission
reductions under section 202(i) after considering monitoring data and
air quality model predictions related to the new NAAQS for ozone (the
``8-hour ozone NAAQS''), the pre-existing ozone NAAQS (the ``1-hour
ozone NAAQS''), the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS, the revised
PM10 NAAQS, and the new PM2.5 NAAQS.
C. Court Panel Opinion on the NAAQS, Our Supplemental Notice Regarding
Its Effect on the Tier 2/Sulfur Rule, and Our Proposal To Rescind
Previous Findings on Applicability of the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
On May 14, 1999, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit found, by a 2-1 vote, that sections 108
and 109 of the Clean Air Act, as interpreted by EPA, represent
unconstitutional delegations of Congressional power. American Trucking
Ass'ns, Inc., et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 97-1440,
1441 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 1999). The Court remanded the record to EPA.
The June 30, 1999 supplemental notice contained a summary of the
Court's opinion. On June 28, 1999 we filed a petition for rehearing and
a petition for rehearing en banc seeking review of the panel's
decision.
In the May 13, 1999, NPRM and related documents we provided a
significant amount of information and analysis regarding our proposed
determinations that further emission reductions were needed to attain
and maintain the NAAQS, that the technology for more stringent emission
standards will be available, and that such standards are needed and
cost
[[Page 57829]]
effective, taking into account the alternatives. In the June 30, 1999,
supplemental notice, we explained that, regardless of the eventual
outcome of the Court case, the proposed Tier 2 Rule is justified as a
necessary and important measure for reducing air pollutants and
protecting public health. We stated that the proposed regulations
continue to conform to the statutory requirements of the Act for the 1-
hour ozone standard and the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS. The
June 30, 1999, supplemental notice explained that the statutory
requirements for the proposal remain satisfied, for each of the
elements of the proposed rule that are covered by different statutory
requirements (the ``Tier 2'' standards for LDVs and LDTs weighing 3750
lbs. or less, the standards for vehicles above this weight, and the
gasoline sulfur limits). In particular, the supplemental notice
summarized information on 1-hour ozone and PM air quality that had been
presented in the May 13, 1999 notice. The supplemental notice also
presented and discussed additional information on our ozone and PM air
quality modeling analyses, focusing on the 1-hour ozone and the pre-
existing PM10 NAAQS.
The additional information on 1-hour ozone presented in the
supplemental notice included a table (numbered as Table 2 in the
supplemental notice) of metropolitan areas for which ozone modeling has
indicated a need for additional emission reductions for 1-hour ozone
attainment. This table showed the results of the ``exceedance method''
3 for comparing ozone model predictions to the 1-hour
standard. It listed 17 metropolitan areas which remained subject to the
1-hour standard as of June 30, 1999, and which based on ozone modeling
we predicted would have 1-hour ozone levels in 2007 above the level of
the 1-hour standard, even after implementation of the Regional Ozone
Transport Rule (ROTR), the National Low Emission Vehicle Program, the
2004 highway diesel engine standards, the Phase II nonroad diesel
engine standards, and other federal and SIP emission control measures
required under the CAA.4 We stated in the supplemental
notice our belief that these results indicate that there are many
geographically dispersed areas which need further ozone precursor
emission reductions to meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The 1990 population
of these 17 metropolitan areas exceeded 70 million. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The exceedance method is described in the June 30, 1999,
supplemental notice and associated documents in the docket for this
rulemaking. It is the method we have used in developing the ROTR, to
assess prospects for future 1-hour ozone problems in specific areas
based on regional ozone modeling. The ROTR was published on October
21, 1998 (63 FR 56292).
\4\ The deadline for submission of state implementation plans
under the ROTR was recently stayed by a panel of the Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pending further review. EPA believes
that the ROTR is fully consistent with the Clean Air Act and should
be upheld. However, it should be noted that in the absence of the
reductions mandated in the ROTR, the emission reductions from the
Tier 2 program would be even more necessary for compliance with the
NAAQS.
\5\ One of the 17 areas discussed in the June 30, 1999,
supplemental notice was the Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). Much of this area
is within the South Coast Air Basin ozone nonattainment area. The
supplemental notice explained that we consider the emission
reduction needs of California's worst ozone nonattainment area to be
relevant to our determination on the air quality need for emission
reductions, even though the standards we proposed would only apply
to vehicles and gasoline sold outside California. California has
designed and implemented a state vehicle and fuel control program
with vehicle standards and gasoline sulfur limits similar to those
we proposed, and therefore the proposed Tier 2/gasoline sulfur
program would likely not apply in California. However, in our
proposal we noted in qualitative terms the importance of the Tier 2
and sulfur control reductions to California's efforts to reach
attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard particularly in the South
Coast Air Basin. Ozone levels in California would be reduced through
reductions in emissions from vehicles sold outside California that
subsequently enter California temporarily or permanently. According
to California, about 7 to 10 percent of all car and light truck
travel in California takes place in vehicles originally sold outside
of California. Our vehicle standards will result in these vehicles
being built with more effective emission controls. In addition, our
gasoline sulfur standard will help ensure that cars which operate
for a time outside of California and then within California will
have fully functioning catalysts. With current gasoline sulfur
levels, California vehicles which visit other states and non-
California vehicles which visit or migrate to California would
suffer catalyst poisoning that would persist even when operating on
California's own low sulfur fuel. In fact, the state of California
has recently filed an update to its State Implementation Plan for
the South Coast Air Basin that expressly claims that the Tier 2
program will lead to four tons per day of reduced NOX.
The four tons per day NOX reductions cited represents
only a small fraction of the emission reductions needed in the South
Coast to attain the NAAQS. Because of the information from
California that these additional emission reductions from our
proposed rule are needed for attainment in the South Coast Air Basin
of California, the Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino metro area
was included in our list of areas with predicted exceedances in the
absence of our proposed Tier 2/Sulfur standards, even though we have
not modeled this area as we have the other areas listed in the
table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 20, 1999, EPA issued a proposal to rescind our previous
findings that the 1-hour standard is no longer applicable in certain
areas that had attained the 1-hour standard. This proposal is in
response to the Court's ruling concerning the 8-hour ozone standard,
since the existence of the 8-hour standard was one of the key factors
underlying our finding that the 1-hour standard no longer applied in
such areas. We further proposed to reinstate the former designations
and classifications for such areas when the final notice is effective.
The October 20, 1999 proposal contains a detailed list of the areas
that would be affected, and a discussion of the effects of restoring
the applicability of the 1-hour standard. The comment period for this
proposal ends on December 1, 1999. We plan to take final action on the
reinstatement prior to the final action on the Tier 2/Sulfur standards.
EPA believes that the information in the May 13 and June 30, 1999,
documents, including the information in today's notice on areas already
addressed in the June 30 notice, fully support the standards and
determinations proposed in the May 13th NPRM. This applies whether one
considers the information in the May 13, 1999, notice and the June 30,
1999, notice separately or taken together. The purpose of today's
document is to provide additional information focusing on those areas
where we recently proposed to rescind our previous findings on the
applicability of the 1-hour ozone standard. The information provided in
this document on these areas lends additional support to the
information and analyses previously provided by EPA in the two prior
documents, for any area where EPA finalizes such proposed
reinstatement. For such areas, it will be appropriate and necessary for
us to consider the prospects for attainment and maintenance with the 1-
hour standard when we make our final finding under section 202(i)
regarding the need for further reductions in emissions in order to
attain or maintain the NAAQS. While the determinations and standards
proposed by EPA in May of 1999 would be appropriate even without this
additional information, it provides even further evidence that the
proposal is appropriate.
The additional information presented today consists of (1)
Additional information on areas already addressed in the June 30, 1999
supplemental notice, and (2) Ozone model predictions for areas that
were not covered by that document. The 1-hour ozone modeling
information in the June 30, 1999, supplemental notice was restricted to
only those areas in which the standard still applied. The ozone
modeling that was summarized in the table in fact resulted in
predictions of exceedances in 2007 in other areas as well, as presented
in the next section of this document. Today's notice does not present
any additional information regarding attainment or maintenance of the
PM NAAQS.
[[Page 57830]]
II. Supplemental Information
A. Update of Information Presented in the June 30, 1999, Supplemental
Notice
We have several items of information which update and further
explain the ozone situation in the metropolitan areas that were listed
in the June 30, 1999, supplemental notice.
First, the population figure given in the supplemental notice for
the Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area was in
error. The correct figure for the 1990 population of this area is
14,531,529. Also, the Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
should have been listed separately from the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.
These are in the same nonattainment area, but the Dover MSA is a
separate metropolitan area. The two metropolitan areas each meet the
criteria for inclusion in our list.
Also, we need to clarify the ozone model predictions and give
additional information for three of the areas listed in the June 30,
1999 supplemental notice. In that document, we stated that for all the
listed metropolitan areas our regional ozone model has predicted an
exceedance of the 1-hour standard (with the exception of the Los
Angeles area which was not within our regional ozone modeling domain).
There was an error in reporting the modeling results for certain
metropolitan areas. In fact, for the four episodes modeled, no 2007
exceedances were observed in the Baton Rouge, Beaumont-Port Arthur, or
Milwaukee-Racine metropolitan areas. However, we still consider it
appropriate to include two of these areas in the set of areas which
support our proposed determination that additional emission reductions
are needed to attain and maintain the 1-hour ozone standard, for
reasons given below.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On July 2, 1999, we approved
Louisiana's demonstration that Baton Rouge will attain the 1-hour
standard by its November 15, 1999 deadline. 64 FR 35930-35941. Our
regional modeling, presented in the May 13 and June 30, 1999, notices,
in fact does not indicate any exceedances in 2007. We have no specific
indication that Baton Rouge will be exceeding the 1-hour standard by
2004, the first year of the proposed Tier 2/Sulfur rule emission
reductions. Therefore, we are removing Baton Rouge from the list of
areas which we consider to support a determination that additional
emission reductions are needed in order to attain and maintain the 1-
hour ozone standard.
Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas. Beaumont-Port Arthur is a
moderate ozone nonattainment area which failed to attain by its
November 15, 1996 deadline. Presently, the state of Texas is seeking
our approval for a demonstration that Beaumont-Port Arthur is impacted
by ozone transport from the Houston area, in order to support a request
that we extend its attainment deadline to 2007 which would be the same
as the deadline for Houston. We proposed action on this request on
April 16, 1999 (64 FR 18864) and extended the comment period on June 3,
1999 (64 FR 29822). While our own regional ozone modeling performed for
the development of the ROTR did not show any 2007 exceedances in
Beaumont-Port Arthur, we believe that the ozone episodes we used in our
regional modeling are not the most conducive to ozone formation in this
particular area. The 2007 attainment analysis prepared and submitted by
the state is based on two different episodes that are associated with
high measured ozone levels in Beaumont-Port Arthur. We presently
consider this analysis by Texas to indicate that additional emission
reductions beyond already adopted programs are needed in order to
provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in Beaumont-Port
Arthur. Therefore, we are retaining Beaumont-Port Arthur on our list of
areas with exceedances in the absence of the Tier 2/Sulfur emission
reductions. Information on the modeling submitted by Texas may be
examined by contacting Mick Cote in our Regional Office in Dallas,
Texas and mentioning File No. TX-81-1-7350. Contact information for Mr.
Cote is given in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at
the beginning of this notice.
Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin. Our regional ozone modeling
did not indicate any 1-hour exceedance in any county within the
boundaries of the Milwaukee-Racine CMSA itself. However, our modeling
predicted days with 1-hour ozone levels above 0.124 ppm in locations
within a larger Lake Michigan area modeling domain. Due to imprecision
in the modeling of local wind fields over and around Lake Michigan, it
is quite possible that the predicted ozone concentrations in these
other locations are also representative of actual future concentrations
in Milwaukee-Racine itself. Moreover, we consider that emissions in
both Chicago and Milwaukee contribute to such violations. This does not
affect our discussion of Chicago in the June 30, 1999, supplemental
notice. We believe that both areas should be considered to need
additional reductions in emissions to reach attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard in the domain affected by emissions from both. We
therefore are retaining Milwaukee-Racine on our list of areas with
exceedances in 2007 in the absence of the Tier 2/Sulfur emission
reductions.
Table 1 below is the same as the list of areas with predicted 1-
hour exceedances given in the supplemental notice, except for the
addition of Dover, DE, deletion of Baton Rouge and the correction of
the population figure for Los Angeles.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Areas in Table 1 are grouped and identified by Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) where they exist, or by
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) where no CMSA applies. In some
cases, we are grouping by MSA and CMSA groups counties or parts of
counties differently than we and the states group them for purposes
of nonattainment area boundaries, classifications, attainment
deadlines, or SIP approval or disapproval actions. This is for
simplicity of presentation in this document only.
Table 1
[Metropolitan areas projected to experience exceedances of the 1-hour
standard in 2007 or 2010, as applicable, with ROTR controls but without
Tier 2/Sulfur Controls. Does not include areas for which the 1-Hour
Ozone NAAQs does not presently apply.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan area 1990 population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA MSA..................................... 2,959,500
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSAa....................... 361,218
Birmingham, AL MSA.................................. 839,942
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA................. 8,239,820
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN CMSAb................. 1,817,569
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSAa......................... 4,037,282
Dover, DE MSA....................................... 110,993
[[Page 57831]]
Hartford, CT MSA.................................... 1,157,585
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSAa................ 3,731,029
Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino CA CMSAa b..... 14,531,529
Louisville, KY-IN MSA............................... 949,012
Milwaukee-Racine, WI CMSA........................... 1,607,183
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT- 19,549,649
PA CMSA............................................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,893,019
CMSA...............................................
Springfield, MA MSA................................. 587,884
St. Louis, MO-IL MSA................................ 2,492,348
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSAc............. 6,726,395
-------------------
Total Population................................ 75,593,947
-------------------
Number of Areas..................................... 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a = These areas are not subject to the ROTR and were modeled
accordingly.
b = The attainment date considered for Los Angeles-Riverside-San
Bernardino is 2010. For other listed areas, 2007 is the date
considered in the local ozone modeling that is the basis of this
table. However, some of these areas have required attainment dates
prior to 2007.
c = Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD are distinct nonattainment areas
within one CMSA. They each meet the criteria for inclusion in this
table.
Based on this list and the information presented in the first and
supplemental notices regarding attainment of the pre-existing 1-hour
ozone standard and the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS, we reiterate
our proposed determination that there is a need for further reductions
in emissions in order to attain or maintain the NAAQS, even when
consideration is limited to the one-hour ozone and the pre-existing
PM10 NAAQS. We believe the further information presented in
the remainder of this document regarding other areas supports this
proposed determination, but that the proposal is appropriate even
without the additional information presented on areas subject to our
proposed rescission of determinations regarding the applicability of
the 1-hour ozone standard.
EPA has received comments on the air quality modeling aspects of
the May 13, 1999, proposed rulemaking notice and the June 30, 1999,
supplemental notice. All of these comments will be more fully
considered and addressed in formulating and explaining the basis for
our final action.
As discussed at length in the proposed rule, emissions from LDVs
and LDTs will represent a large percentage of all emissions of ozone
precursors once the ROTR is implemented. We believe that reductions
from LDVs and LDTs in particular will be a needed and cost-effective
alternative to achieve the necessary significant additional reductions
in precursor emissions needed for the areas discussed above to attain
or maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
B. Additional Ozone Modeling Results for Areas That Would Be Affected
by the Proposed Rescission
As stated above, we have proposed to rescind our findings that made
the 1-hour standard inapplicable in many areas, and thereby restore its
applicability in these areas. In light of our proposal, we are
presenting in this document similar ozone modeling information as was
presented in the June 30, 1999 supplemental notice for areas subject to
the proposed reinstatement. This modeling information shows that if we
finalize our proposed rescissions of previous findings, thus restoring
the 1-hour standard's applicability nationwide, the air quality basis
for the proposed vehicle and fuel standards will be even stronger
because there are many additional areas which appear unable to attain
or maintain the 1-hour standard without additional emission reductions.
In the ozone modeling used to develop the Regional Ozone Transport
Rule (ROTR), EPA calculated hourly ozone levels for the year 2007 in
all or parts of 37 eastern states. The ROTR modeling considered the
effects of growth and emission control measures. One of the
combinations of emission control measures analyzed consisted of the
ROTR, the National Low Emission Vehicle Program, the 2004 highway
diesel engine standards, the Phase II nonroad diesel engine standards,
and other federal and SIP emission control measures required under the
CAA. We consider these controls to be the baseline for the required
finding regarding the need for additional emission reductions to attain
and maintain the NAAQS.7 We performed ozone modeling for
this baseline for each of the OTAG episodes in July 1988, 1991, 1993,
and 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Comments have been received recommending that we investigate
whether states have adopted additional local controls not reflected
in the ROTR modeling. We will consider and respond to this comment
in the final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the ozone predictions from the modeling just described, EPA
extracted the predicted daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations for
2007 for a large number of counties in which ozone is or has been a
concern. This set of counties includes (a) Those counties that are or
ever were designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, (b) Any
additional counties which had an ozone monitor(s) in operation during
the 1995-98 period with enough data to calculate a design value, and
(c) Any other counties in the same MSA or CMSA as counties included
under the first two criteria. Using the county-specific predicted 2007
daily maximum values, we used the ``exceedance method'' to identify
those metropolitan areas where ozone levels are predicted to exceed the
0.12 ppm 1-hour standard in 2007. We then divided these areas into two
groups, based on whether recent air quality monitoring has also shown
violations. The first group consists of areas with both predicted
exceedances in 2007 and recent monitoring data indicating a design
value higher than the 1-hour standard. The second group consists of
areas with predicted exceedances in 2007 but no
[[Page 57832]]
recent monitored violations. Tables 2 and 3 below list these
groups.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A predicted ozone level of 0.125 was considered to be an
exceedance of the 1-hour NAAQS. Counties in Tables 2 and 3 are
grouped and identified by Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (CMSAs) where they exist, or by Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) where no CMSA applies. Within a CMSA or MSA, the county of a
predicted exceedance in 2007 was not required to match the county
which has experienced a recent monitored violation, in order to
qualify an area for listing in the first group. In some cases,
grouping by MSA and CMSA groups counties or parts of counties
differently than we and the states group them for purposes of
nonattainment area boundaries, classifications, attainment
deadlines, or SIP approval or disapproval actions. This is for
simplicity of presentation in this document only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Areas with recent ozone violations--Of the proposed
rescission areas that are predicted by regional ozone modeling to have
1-hour exceedances in 2007, monitoring data from 14 areas indicates a
violation of the 1-hour standard in either or both of the 1995-97
period or the 1996-98 period (the two most recent periods for which
monitoring data have been fully checked for accuracy and validity).
These areas also all have one or more predicted exceedances of the 1-
hour standard (in the ROTR modeling or in local modeling).9
Table 2 lists these 14 proposed rescission areas; the 17 areas already
listed in Table 1 are repeated in Table 2 to give a complete list of
all areas with both predicted 2007 exceedances and recent design values
in excess of the 1-hour standard. The combination of these two criteria
is consistent with the criteria we used in developing the ROTR, for the
purpose of identifying adverse impacts on 1-hour ozone attainment in
receptor states due to interstate transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Of the areas that would have the 1-hour standard restored by
our proposed rescission action, one area had a design value above
the standard in both 1995-97 and 1996-98. Six areas had monitored
design values which exceeded the 1-hour standard in 1995-97 but not
in 1996-98, and six areas had the reverse. We placed areas on Table
2 or Table 3 based on the period that gave the higher design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on their recent monitored design values, all 31 areas clearly
need further emission reductions from current emission levels in order
to attain the 1-hour standard. Some of the necessary emission
reductions will come from already adopted or mandated measures.
However, based on the ozone model predictions, in combination with the
recent monitored violations, we believe that additional emission
reductions, as would be provided by the Tier 2/Sulfur standards, will
be needed for attainment of the standard in 2007 (2010 for Los
Angeles). It should be noted that some of these areas have attainment
dates prior to 2007. For the areas with an earlier attainment date, we
expect total emissions will be higher in that earlier year than
estimated for 2007 in this modeling. If we had performed regional ozone
modeling for these higher emissions in earlier years, we would likely
be predicting even higher ozone levels and more frequent and widespread
exceedances.
We believe that the prospect of unresolved nonattainment problems
in the additional 14 areas that appear in Table 2 provides further
support for a finding that additional emission reductions are needed
for attainment and maintenance, assuming that we re-apply the 1-hour
standard at a minimum to the additional 14 areas. The total 1990
population of the 31 areas in Table 2 is over 90 million, compared to
the population of about 75 million in the areas in Table 1.
Correspondingly, these areas represent an even larger share of the
vehicle and fuel market. Also, the broader geographic spread of these
areas further supports the appropriateness of a national vehicle and
fuel strategy.
Table 2
[Metropolitan areas with recent design values above the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS and also projected to experience exceedances of the 1-hour
standard in 2007 (2010 for Los Angeles) with ROTR controls but without
Tier 2/Sulfur controls.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan area 1990 population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA MSA..................................... 2,959,500
Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA MSA b....................... 134,954
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA a...................... 361,218
Birmingham, AL MSA.................................. 839,942
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA b....... 5,455,403
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA b........... 1,162,140
Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA b............................ 424,347
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN CMSA.................. 1,817,569
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA................. 8,239,820
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA a........................ 4,037,282
Dover, DE MSA....................................... 110,993
Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI MSA b............. 937,891
Hartford, CT MSA.................................... 1,157,585
Houma, LA MSA b..................................... 182,842
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA a............... 3,731,029
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA b.................. 312,529
Indianapolis, IN MSA b.............................. 1,380,491
Knoxville, TN MSA b................................. 585,960
Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino CA CMSA a...... 14,531,529
Louisville, KY-IN MSA............................... 949,012
Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA b............................. 1,007,356
Milwaukee-Racine, WI CMSA........................... 1,607,183
Nashville, TN MSA b................................. 985,026
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT- 19,549,649
PA CMSA............................................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,893,019
CMSA...............................................
Portland, ME MSA b.................................. 221,095
Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA MSA b.......... 1,134,350
Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA b....................... 865,640
Springfield, MA MSA MSA............................. 587,884
St. Louis, MO-IL MSA................................ 2,492,348
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA c............ 6,726,395
-------------------
[[Page 57833]]
Total Population................................ 90,383,971
-------------------
Number of Areas..................................... 31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a=These areas are not subject to the ROTR and were modeled accordingly.
b=EPA has proposed to re-apply the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
c=Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD are distinct nonattainment areas
within one CMSA. They each meet the criteria for inclusion in this
table.
Table 3--Areas without recent ozone violations--Areas that have not
recently experienced an ozone violation may nevertheless need further
emission reductions in order to maintain their compliance with the 1-
hour standard. In order to identify a set of areas that may need
additional reductions to maintain the 1-hour standard, we have listed
in Table 3 the areas for which our regional ozone modeling predicts at
least one ozone exceedance day for 2007 but which had design values
below the 1-hour NAAQS in both 1995-97 and 1996-1998. The proposal of
October 20, 1999 proposed to restore the applicability of the 1-hour
standard to these areas. Table 3 also indicates the closest that each
area came to having a monitored design value above the standard in the
1995-98 period, by grouping the areas into bands of 95-100 percent of
the NAAQS, 90-94 percent, etc. Preliminary 1999 data indicate that if
the 1997-99 period is considered, some of these areas may have 1-hour
design values above the NAAQS. Details on the monitored design values
and 2007 exceedance predictions from the regional ozone modeling are
given in a memo to Air Docket A-97-10, titled ``Recent Design Values
for Counties Predicted by Regional Ozone Modeling to Have 1-Hour Ozone
Exceedances in 2007 Without Tier 2/Sulfur Control.''
Table 3.
[Metropolitan areas with recent design values below the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, but projected to experience exceedances of the 1-hour standard in
2007 with ROTR controls but without Tier 2/Sulfur controls.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan area 1990 population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Design Value Between 95 and 100 Percent of NAAQS a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA............................ 415,220
Cleveland-Akron, OH CMSA............................ 2,859,644
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC MSA......... 1,050,304
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA............. 830,539
Montgomery, AL MSA.................................. 292,517
New Orleans, LA MSA b............................... 1,285,262
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA.................. 858,485
Reading, PA MSA..................................... 336,523
Tulsa, OK MSA b..................................... 708,954
-------------------
9 Areas Population Subtotal..................... 8,637,448
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Design Value Between 90 and 94 Percent of NAAQS a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA MSA.................. 595,081
Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS MSA b................ 312,368
Columbia, SC MSA.................................... 453,932
Columbus, OH MSA.................................... 1,345,450
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA.................... 5,187,171
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA MSA................. 587,986
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA MSA........... 436,047
Mobile, AL MSA...................................... 476,923
Orlando, FL MSA b................................... 1,224,844
Pensacola, FL MSA b................................. 344,406
-------------------
10 Areas Population Subtotal.................... 10,964,208
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Design Value Below 85 and 89 Percent of NAAQS a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston, WV MSA.................................. 250,545
Columbus, GA-AL MSA................................. 260,862
Fayetteville, NC MSA................................ 274,713
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC MSA.................... 292,405
Lafayette, LA MSA b................................. 345,053
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA...... 1,444,710
York, PA MSA........................................ 339,574
-------------------
7 Areas Population Subtotal.................... 3,207,862
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57834]]
Recent Design Value Below 85 Percent of NAAQS a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson, MS MSA b................................... 395,396
-------------------
1 Area Population Subtotal...................... 395,396
-------------------
Total Population............................ 23,204,914
-------------------
Number of Areas..................................... 27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a = Each area is assigned to one of these groups based on the higher of
its 1995-97 or 1996-98 design value.
b = These areas are not subject to the ROTR and were modeled
accordingly.
EPA believes that the ozone model's predictions of exceedances in
the areas listed in Table 3 are information that is relevant to the
determination we will make regarding the need for further emission
reductions to attain or maintain the NAAQS, provided that the 1-hour
standard is restored for these areas. Therefore we are presenting this
information for public comment. In the development of the ROTR, we did
not rely on presently clean areas such as these as receptor areas for
determining whether emissions in upwind states will contribute to
nonattainment in downwind states. However, at the time, the 1-hour
standard did not apply to such areas so there was a legal as well as an
air quality basis for not considering these areas. We invite comment on
whether and how we should consider the areas listed in Table 3 for
purposes of our section 202(i) determination on the need for additional
emission reductions.
EPA has been updating its regional ozone modeling estimates and
methods, in part in response to comments on our NPRM and the first
supplemental notice. We are currently in the process of updating the
docket to include documents that describe this additional ozone
modeling. We intend to consider this modeling in taking final action on
our May 13 proposal. Anyone who is interested in this updated modeling
should review the docket for further information.
III. Public Comment
We seek comments on all aspects of this Supplemental Notice,
including the continuing need for Tier 2 emission standards for
vehicles and reducing sulfur in gasoline to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. Please see the Addresses section in this document for how and
where to send any comments you may have on the supplemental information
provided in today's document.
Dated: October 20, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-27933 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
