[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70348-70364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31711]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CT057-7216: FRL-6502-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut;
One-Hour Attainment Demonstration; Connecticut Portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the ground-level
one-hour ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island severe ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Commissioner of
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) on
September 16, 1998. EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve the
Connecticut's commitment to submit rate-of-progress (ROP) target
calculations for ROP after 1999 and the adopted measures to achieve
post-1999 ROP by December 2000. EPA is also proposing, in the
alternative, to disapprove this demonstration if Connecticut does not
submit an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget and additional
control measures to make up for the projected need for additional
controls to ensure attainment of the one-hour ozone standard by
November 2007.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be sent
to: David B. Conroy at the EPA Region I (New England) Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 (New
England), One Congress St., 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts.
Telephone (617) 918-1664 an at the Bureau of Air Management, Department
of Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street,
Hartford, CT 06106. Please telephone in advance before visiting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Burkhart (617) 918-1664.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides background
information on attainment demonstration SIPs for the one-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and an analysis of the
one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP submitted by the CT DEP for
the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe ozone nonattainment
area. This document address the following questions:
What is the Basis for the Attainment Demonstration SIP?
What are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
What is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs?
What Does EPA Expect to Happen with Respect to the Attainment
Demonstrations for the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island Severe One-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area?
What are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
How Does the Connecticut Submittal Satisfy the Frame Work?
I. Background
A. What Is the Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP?
1. CAA Requirements
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for certain widespread
pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. CAA sections 108 and
109. In 1979, EPA promulgated the one-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm)
ground-level ozone standard. 44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). Ground-level
ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in
the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX and
VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
An area exceeds the one-hour ozone standard each time an ambient
air quality monitor records a one-hour average ozone concentration
above 0.124 ppm. An area is violating the standard if, over a
consecutive three-year period, more than three exceedances are expected
to occur at any one monitor. The CAA, as amended in 1990, required EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the one-hour
ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the
three-year period from 1987-1989. CAA section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694
(Nov. 6, 1991). The CAA further classified these areas, based on the
area's design value, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme.
CAA section181 (a). Marginal areas were suffering the least significant
air pollution problems while the areas classified as severe and extreme
had the most significant air pollution problems.
The control requirements and dates by which attainment needs to be
achieved vary with the area's classification. Marginal areas are
subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the
earliest attainment date. Severe and extreme areas are subject to more
stringent planning requirements but are provided more time to attain
the standard. Serious areas are required to attain the one-hour
standard by November 15, 1999 and severe areas are required to attain
by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007. The New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area is classified as severe and its
attainment date is November 15, 2007.
Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and severe
areas were required to submit by November 15, 1994 demonstrations of
how they would attain the one-hour standard and how they would achieve
reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each three-year period
until the attainment year (rate-of-progress or ROP). (In some cases,
NOX emission reductions can be substituted for the required
VOC emission reductions.) Today, in this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP submitted by
Connecticut for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area. EPA is also proposing action on the Connecticut's
commitment to submit ROP target calculations for rate-of-progress after
1999 and the adopted measures to achieve post-1999 ROP by December
2000. EPA will take action on the Connecticut's 9% ROP plan for
reductions from 1996-1999 in a separate rulemaking action. (The 9% ROP
plan was submitted to EPA on December 31, 1997, with minor revisions on
January 7, 1998.) In addition, elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA
is today proposing to take action on nine other serious or severe one-
hour ozone attainment demonstration and, in some
[[Page 70349]]
cases ROP SIPs. The additional nine areas are Greater Connecticut (CT),
Springfield (Western Massachusetts) (MA), Baltimore (MD), Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (DC-MD-
VA), Atlanta (GA), Milwaukee-Racine (WI), Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL-
IN), and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (TX).
In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling
analysis component showing how the area will achieve the standard by
its attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those
reductions. Another component of the attainment demonstration SIP is a
motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes.
Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring that States
consider the effects of emissions associated with new or improved
federally-funded roadways on attainment of the standard. As described
in section 176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations necessarily include
the estimates of motor vehicle emissions that are consistent with
attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of
determining whether transportation plans and projects conform to the
attainment SIP.
2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
Notwithstanding significant efforts by the States, in 1995 EPA
recognized that many States in the eastern half of the United States
could not meet the November 1994 time frame for submitting an
attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of NOX and
VOCs in upwind States (and the ozone formed by these emissions)
affected these nonattainment areas and the full impact of this effect
had not yet been determined. This phenomenon is called ozone transport.
On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's
Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by States but
noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment demonstration
SIP submittals.1 Recognizing the problems created by ozone
transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative
process among the States in the eastern half of the country to evaluate
and address transport of ozone and its precursors. This memorandum led
to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)
2 and provided for the States to submit the attainment
demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to
complete its evaluation of ozone transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued
March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web
site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
\2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States
(ECOS) Members, dated April 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations
regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport
of ozone and the precursor NOX is significant and should be
reduced regionally to enable States in the eastern half of the country
to attain the ozone NAAQS.
In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29,
1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for
States to submit the following elements of their attainment
demonstration SIPs for serious and severe nonattainment areas: (1)
Evidence that the applicable control measures in subpart 2 of part D of
title I of the CAA were adopted and implemented or were on an
expeditious course to being adopted and implemented; (2) a list of
measures needed to meet the remaining ROP emissions reduction
requirement and to reach attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a
commitment to adopt and submit target calculations for post-1999 ROP
and the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP plans through
the attainment year by the end of 2000 3; (4) a commitment
to implement the SIP control programs in a timely manner and to meet
ROP emissions reductions and attainment; and (5) evidence of a public
hearing on the State submittal.4 This submission is
sometimes referred to as the Phase 2 submission. Motor vehicle
emissions budgets can be established based on a commitment to adopt the
measures needed for attainment and identification of the measures
needed. Thus, State submissions due in April 1998 under the Wilson
policy should have included a motor vehicle emissions budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In general, a commitment for severe areas to adopt by
December 2000 the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP
plans through the attainment year applies to any additional measures
necessary for attainment that were not otherwise required to be
submitted earlier. (For example, this memorandum was not intended to
allow States to delay submission of measures required under the CAA,
such as inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or reasonable
available control technology (RACT) regulations, required at an
earlier time.) Thus, this commitment applies to any control measures
or emission reductions on which the State relied for purposes of the
modeled attainment demonstration. To the extent that Connecticut has
relied on a commitment to submit these measures by December 2000,
EPA is proposing a conditional approval of the area's attainment
demonstration. Some severe areas submitted the actual adopted
control measures and are not relying on a commitment.
\4\ Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and
Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS,'' issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this
memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg/t1pgm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building upon the OTAG recommendations and technical analyses, in
November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing the ozone transport
problem. In its proposal, the EPA found that current SIPs in 22 States
and the District of Columbia (23 jurisdictions) were insufficient to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the one-hour standard because
they did not regulate NOX emissions that significantly
contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318 (Nov. 7, 1997). The EPA
finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions
to revise their SIPs to require NOX emissions reductions
within the State to a level consistent with a NOX emissions
budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). This
final rule is commonly referred to as the NOX SIP Call.
3. Time Frame for Taking Action on Attainment Demonstration SIPs for 10
Serious and Severe Areas
The States generally submitted the SIPs between April and October
of 1998; some States are still submitting additional revisions as
described below. Under the CAA, EPA is required to approve or
disapprove a State's submission no later than 18 months following
submission. (The statute provides up to 6 months for a completeness
determination and an additional 12 months for approval or disapproval.)
The EPA believes that it is important to keep the process moving
forward in evaluating these plans and, as appropriate, approving them.
Thus, in today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to take action on
the 10 serious and severe one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs
(located in 13 States and the District of Columbia) and intends to take
final action on these submissions over the next 6-12 months. The reader
is referred to individual dates in this document for specific
information on actions leading to EPA's final rulemaking on these
plans.
[[Page 70350]]
4. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
Depending on the circumstances unique to each of the 10 area SIP
submissions on which EPA is proposing action today, EPA is proposing
one or more of these types of approval or disapproval in the
alternative. In addition, these proposals may identify additional
action that will be necessary from the State.
The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve
or conditionally approve a State's plan submission. CAA section 110(k).
The EPA must fully approve the submission if it meets the attainment
demonstration requirement of the CAA. If the submission is deficient in
some way, EPA may disapprove the submission. In the alternative, if
portions of the submission are approvable, EPA may partially approve
and partially disapprove, or may conditionally approve based on a
commitment to correct the deficiency by a date certain, which can be no
later than one year from the date of EPA's final conditional approval.
The EPA may partially approve a submission if separable parts of
the submission, standing alone, are consistent with the CAA. For
example, if a State submits a modeled attainment demonstration,
including control measures, but the modeling does not demonstrate
attainment, EPA could approve the control measures and disapprove the
modeling for failing to demonstrate attainment.
The EPA may issue a conditional approval based on a State's
commitment to expeditiously correct a deficiency by a date certain that
can be no later than one year following EPA's conditional approval.
Such commitments do not need to be independently enforceable because,
if the State does not fulfill its commitment, the conditional approval
is converted to a disapproval. For example, if a State commits to
submit additional control measures and fails to submit them or EPA
determines the State's submission of the control measures is
incomplete, the EPA will notify the State by letter that the
conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval. If the State
submits control measures that EPA determines are complete or that are
deemed complete, EPA will determine through rulemaking whether the
State's attainment demonstration is fully approvable or whether the
conditional approval of the attainment demonstration should be
converted to a disapproval.
Finally, EPA has recognized that in some limited circumstances, it
may be appropriate to issue a full approval for a submission that
consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. Unlike the commitment
for conditional approval, such an enforceable commitment can be
enforced in court by EPA or citizens. In addition, this type of
commitment may extend beyond one year following EPA's approval action.
Thus, EPA may accept such an enforceable commitment where it is
infeasible for the State to accomplish the necessary action in the
short term.
B. What Are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
The EPA provides that States may rely on a modeled attainment
demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate
attainment.5 In order to have a complete modeling
demonstration submission, States should have submitted the required
modeling analysis and identified any additional evidence that EPA
should consider in evaluating whether the area will attain the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The EPA issued guidance on the air quality modeling that is
used to demonstrate attainment with the one-hour ozone NAAQS. See
U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban
Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). A copy may be found on
EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name:
``UAMREG''). See also U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled
Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-
007, (June 1996). A copy may be found on EPA's web site at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Modeling Requirements
For purposes of demonstrating attainment, the CAA requires serious
and severe areas to use photochemical grid modeling or an analytical
method EPA determines to be as effective. The photochemical grid model
is set up using meteorological conditions conducive to the formation of
ozone. Emissions for a base year are used to evaluate the model's
ability to reproduce actual monitored air quality values and to predict
air quality changes in the attainment year due to the emission changes
which include growth up to and controls implemented by the attainment
year. A modeling domain is chosen that encompasses the nonattainment
area. Attainment is demonstrated when all predicted concentrations
inside the modeling domain are at or below the NAAQS or at an
acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain
conditions by EPA's guidance. When the predicted concentrations are
above the NAAQS, an optional weight of evidence determination which
incorporates, but is not limited to, other analyses such as air quality
and emissions trends, may be used to address uncertainty inherent in
the application of photochemical grid models.
The EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis
that are essential to obtain credible results. First, the State must
develop and implement a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol
describes the methods and procedures to be used in conducting the
modeling analyses and provides for policy oversight and technical
review by individuals responsible for developing or assessing the
attainment demonstration (State and local agencies, EPA Regional
offices, the regulated community, and public interest groups). Second,
for purposes of developing the information to put into the model, the
State must select air pollution days, i.e., days in the past with bad
air quality, that are representative of the ozone pollution problem for
the nonattainment area. Third, the State needs to identify the
appropriate dimensions of the area to be modeled, i.e., the domain
size. The domain should be larger than the designated nonattainment
area to reduce uncertainty in the boundary conditions and should
include large upwind sources just outside the nonattainment area. In
general, the domain is considered the local area where control measures
are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment. Fourth, the
State needs to determine the grid resolution. The horizontal and
vertical resolutions in the model affect the dispersion and transport
of emission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical
layers and horizontal grids) may dilute concentrations and may not
properly consider impacts of complex terrain, complex meteorology, and
land/water interfaces. Fifth, the State needs to generate
meteorological data that describe atmospheric conditions and emissions
inputs. Finally, the State needs to verify that the model is properly
simulating the chemistry and atmospheric conditions through diagnostic
analyses and model performance tests. Once these steps are
satisfactorily completed, the model is ready to be used to generate air
quality estimates to support an attainment demonstration.
The modeled attainment test compares model predicted one-hour daily
maximum concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the
level of the NAAQS. A predicted concentration above 0.124 ppm ozone
indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the
attainment
[[Page 70351]]
year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that the area is
expected to attain the standard. This type of test is often referred to
as an exceedance test. The EPA's guidance recommends that States use
either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the one-hour
ozone NAAQS: a deterministic test or a statistical test.
The deterministic test requires the State to compare predicted one-
hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day
6 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the
predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The initial, ``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded
from this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of
the one-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a three-year
period, the area has an average of one or fewer exceedances per year,
the area is not violating the standard. Thus, if the State models a
very extreme day, the statistical test provides that a prediction above
0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment
of the standard. (The form of the one-hour standard allows for up to
three readings above the standard over a three-year period before an
area is considered to be in violation.)
The acceptable upper limit above 0.124 ppm is determined by
examining the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet the
one-hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four
highest one-hour average concentrations over a three-year period are
0.136 ppm, 0.130 ppm, 0.128 ppm and 0.122 ppm is attaining the
standard. To identify an acceptable upper limit, the statistical
likelihood of observing ozone air quality exceedances of the standard
of various concentrations is equated to the severity of the modeled
day. The upper limit generally represents the maximum ozone
concentration observed at a location on a single day and it would be
the only reading above the standard that would be expected to occur no
more than an average of once a year over a three-year period.
Therefore, if the maximum ozone concentration predicted by the model is
below the acceptable upper limit, in this case 0.136 ppm, then EPA
might conclude that the modeled attainment test is passed. Generally,
exceedances well above 0.124 ppm are very unusual at monitoring sites
meeting the NAAQS. Thus, these upper limits are rarely substantially
higher than the attainment level of 0.124 ppm.
2. Additional Analyses Where Modeling Fails To Show Attainment
When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment,
additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area
will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are
inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and its results. For
example, there are uncertainties in some of the modeling inputs, such
as the meteorological and emissions data bases for individual days and
in the methodology used to assess the severity of an exceedance at
individual sites. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, and
provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess whether
attainment of the NAAQS is likely. The process by which this is done is
called a weight of evidence (WOE) determination.
Under a WOE determination, the State can rely on and EPA will
consider factors such as other modeled attainment tests, e.g., a
rollback analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the
predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted
changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends;
estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the
responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and,
whether there are additional control measures that are or will be
approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis.
This list is not an exclusive list of factors that may be considered
and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's guidance
contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test must be to
passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is
sufficiently compelling to suggest attainment. However, the further a
modeled attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling the
WOE needs to be.
The EPA's 1996 modeling guidance also recognizes a need to perform
a mid-course review as a means for addressing uncertainty in the
modeling results. Because of the uncertainty in long term projections,
EPA believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on WOE needs
to contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring, emissions, and
modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements to emission
control measures are needed. The mid-course review is discussed in
Section C.6.
C. What Is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs?
In addition to the modeling analysis and WOE support demonstrating
attainment, the EPA has identified the following key elements which
must be present in order for EPA to approve or conditionally approve
the one-hour attainment demonstration SIPs. These elements are listed
below and then described in detail.
--CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled attainment
demonstration SIP. This includes adopted and submitted rules for all
previously required CAA mandated measures for the specific area
classification. This also includes measures that may not be required
for the area classification but that the State relied on in the SIP
submission for attainment and ROP plans that EPA is proposing to take
on today.
--NOX reductions affecting boundary conditions.
--Motor vehicle emissions budget. A motor vehicle emissions budget
which can be determined by EPA to be adequate for conformity purposes.
--Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits where needed to demonstrate
attainment. Inclusion of reductions expected from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe
and low sulfur-in-fuel standards in the attainment demonstration and
the motor vehicle emissions budget.
--In certain areas, additional measures to further reduce emissions to
support the attainment test. Additional measures, may be measures
adopted regionally such as in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), or
locally (intrastate) in individual States.
--Mid-course review. An enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course
review and evaluation based on air quality and emission trends. The
mid-course review would show whether the adopted control measures are
sufficient to reach attainment by the area's attainment date, or that
additional control measures are necessary.
1. CAA Measures and Measures Relied On in the Modeled Attainment
Demonstration SIP
The States should have adopted the control measures already
required under the CAA for the area classification. Since these 10
serious and severe areas need to achieve substantial reductions from
their 1990 emissions levels in order to attain, EPA anticipates that
these areas need all of the measures required under the CAA to attain
the one-hour ozone NAAQS.
[[Page 70352]]
In addition, a State may have included control measures in its
attainment strategy that are in addition to measures required in the
CAA. (For serious areas, these should have already been identified and
adopted, whereas severe areas have until December 2000 to submit
measures necessary to achieve ROP through the attainment year and to
attain.) For purposes of fully approving the State's SIP, the State
will need to adopt and submit all VOC and NOX controls
within the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of
the modeled attainment demonstration.
The information in Table 1 is a summary of the CAA requirements
that need to be met for each severe nonattainment area for the one-hour
ozone NAAQS. These requirements are specified in section 182 of the
CAA. Information on more measures that States may have adopted or
relied on in their current SIP submissions is not shown in the table.
EPA will need to take final action approving all measures relied on for
attainment, including the required ROP control measures and target
calculations, before EPA can issue a final full approval of the
attainment demonstration as meeting CAA section 182(d).
Table 1.--CAA Requirements for Severe Areas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--NSR for VOC and NOX,\1\ including an offset ratio of 1.3:1 and a major
VOC and NOX source cutoff of 25 tons per year (tpy).
--Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX1.\1\
--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.
--15% volatile organic compound (VOC) plans.
--Emissions inventory.
--Emission statements.
--Periodic inventories.
--Clean fuels program or substitute.
--Enhanced monitoring Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
(PAMS).
--Stage II vapor recovery.
--Reformulated gasoline.
--Requirement for fees for major sources for failure to attain.
--9 percent ROP plan through attainment year.
--Attainment demonstration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless the area has in effect a NOX waiver under section 182(f). The
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
area is not such a area.
2. NOX Reductions Consistent With the Modeling Demonstration
The EPA completed final rulemaking on the NOX SIP call
on October 27, 1998, which required States to address transport of
NOX and ozone to other States. To address transport, the
NOX SIP call established emissions budgets for
NOX that 23 jurisdictions were required to show they would
meet through enforceable SIP measures adopted and submitted by
September 30, 1999. The NOX SIP call is intended to reduce
emissions in upwind States that significantly contribute to
nonattainment problems. The EPA did not identify specific sources that
the States must regulate nor did EPA limit the States' choices
regarding where to achieve the emission reductions. Subsequently, a
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued an order staying the portion of the NOX SIP
call rule requiring States to submit rules by September 30, 1999.
The NOX SIP call rule establishes budgets for the States
in which 9 of the nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing action
today are located. The 9 areas are: Greater Connecticut, Springfield
MA, New York-North New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore MD,
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington,
D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta GA, Milwaukee-Racine WI, and Chicago-Gary-Lake
County (IL-IN).
Emission reductions that will be achieved through EPA's
NOX SIP call will reduce the levels of ozone and ozone
precursors entering nonattainment areas at their boundaries. For
purposes of developing attainment demonstrations, States define local
modeling domains that include both the nonattainment area and nearby
surrounding areas. The ozone levels at the boundary of the local
modeling domain are reflected in modeled attainment demonstrations and
are referred to as boundary conditions. With the exception of Houston,
the one-hour attainment demonstrations on which EPA is proposing action
have relied, in part, on the NOX SIP Call reductions for
purposes of determining the boundary conditions of the modeling domain.
Emission reductions assumed in the attainment demonstrations are
modeled to occur both within the State and in upwind States; thus,
intrastate reductions as well as reductions in other States impact the
boundary conditions. Although the court has indefinitely stayed the SIP
submission deadline, the NOX SIP Call rule remains in
effect. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow States to
continue to assume the reductions from the NOX SIP call in
areas outside the local one-hour modeling domains. If States assume
control levels and emission reductions other than those of the
NOX SIP call within their State but outside of the modeling
domain, States must also adopt control measures to achieve those
reductions in order to have an approvable plan.
Accordingly, States in which the nonattainment areas are located
will not be required to adopt measures outside the modeling domain to
achieve the NOX SIP call budgets prior to the time that all
States are required to comply with the NOX SIP call. If the
reductions from the NOX SIP call do not occur as planned,
States will need to revise their SIPs to add additional local measures
or obtain interstate reductions, or both, in order to provide
sufficient reductions needed for attainment.
As provided in section 1 above, any controls assumed by the State
inside the local modeling domain 7 for purposes of the
modeled attainment demonstration must be adopted and submitted as part
of the State's one-hour attainment demonstration SIP. It is only for
reductions occurring outside the local modeling domain that States may
assume implementation of NOX SIP call measures and the
resulting boundary conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For the purposes of this document, ``local modeling domain''
is typically an urban scale domain with horizontal dimensions less
than about 300 km on a side, horizontal grid resolution less than or
equal to 5 x 5 km or finer. The domain is large enough to ensure
that emissions occurring at 8 am in the domain's center are still
within the domain at 8 pm the same day. If recirculation of the
nonattainment area's previous day's emissions is believed to
contribute to an observed problem, the domain is large enough to
characterize this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
The EPA believes that attainment demonstration SIPs must
necessarily estimate the motor vehicle emissions that will be produced
in the attainment year and demonstrate that this emissions level, when
considered with emissions from all other sources, is consistent with
attainment. The estimate of motor vehicle emissions is used to
determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the
SIP, as described by CAA section 176(c)(2)(A). For transportation
conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle emissions is known
as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The EPA believes that
appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budgets are a
necessary part of an attainment demonstration SIP. A SIP cannot
effectively demonstrate attainment unless it identifies the level of
motor vehicle emissions that can be produced while still demonstrating
attainment.
The EPA has determined that except for the Western MA (Springfield)
[[Page 70353]]
attainment demonstration SIP, the motor vehicle emission budgets for
all areas in today's proposals are inadequate or missing from the
attainment demonstration. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the
attainment demonstration SIPs for those nine areas if the States do not
submit motor vehicle emissions budgets that EPA can find adequate by
May 31, 2000.8 In order for EPA to complete the adequacy
process by the end of May, States should submit a budget no later than
December 31, 1999.9 If an area does not have a motor vehicle
emissions budget that EPA can determine adequate for conformity
purposes by May 31, 2000, EPA plans to take final action at that time
disapproving in full or in part the area's attainment demonstration.
The emissions budget should reflect all the motor vehicle control
measures contained in the attainment demonstration, i.e., measures
already adopted for the nonattainment area as well as those yet to be
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For severe areas, EPA will determine the adequacy of the
emissions budgets associated with the post-1999 ROP plans once the
States submit the target calculations, which are due no later than
December 2000.
\9\ A final budget is preferred; but, if the State public
hearing process is not yet complete, then the draft budget for
public hearing may be submitted. The adequacy process generally
takes at least 90 days. Therefore, in order for EPA to complete the
adequacy process no later than the end of May, EPA must have by
February 15, 2000, the final budget or a draft that is substantially
similar to what the final budget will be. The State must submit the
final budget by April 15, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits
On May 13, 1999, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing a major, comprehensive program designed to
significantly reduce emissions from passenger cars and light trucks
(including sport-utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks) and to
reduce sulfur in gasoline. Under the proposed program, automakers would
produce vehicles designed to have very low emissions when operated on
low-sulfur gasoline, and oil refiners would provide that cleaner
gasoline nationwide. The EPA subsequently issued two supplemental
notices. 64 FR 35112 (June 30, 1999); 64 FR 57827 (October 27, 1999).
These notices provide one-hour ozone modeling and monitoring
information that support EPA's belief that the Tier 2/Sulfur program is
necessary to help areas attain the one-hour NAAQS. Under the proposed
rule, NOX and VOC emission reductions (as well as other
reductions not directly relevant for attainment of the one-hour ozone
standard) would occur beginning in the 2004 ozone season although
incentives for early compliance by vehicle manufacturers and refiners
will likely result in some reductions prior to 2004. Nationwide, the
Tier 2/Sulfur program is projected to result in reductions of
approximately 800,000 tons of NOX per year by 2007 and
1,200,000 tons by 2010.
In the October 27, 1999 supplemental notice, EPA reported in Table
1 that EPA's regional ozone modeling indicated that 17 metropolitan
areas for which the one-hour standard applies need the Tier 2/Sulfur
program reductions to help attain the one-hour ozone standard. The New
York-North New Jersey-Long Island area, whose attainment demonstration
EPA is proposing to approve today, is included on that list.
The EPA issued a memorandum that provides estimates of the
emissions reductions associated with the Tier
2/Sulfur program proposal.10 The memorandum provides the
tonnage benefits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program in 2007 on a county-by-
county basis for all counties within the 10 serious and severe
nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing to take action today and
the 2005 tonnage benefits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program for each county
for three areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and
Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking'' from Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile
Sources to the Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI, issued November
8, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also issued a memorandum which explains the connection
between the Tier 2/Sulfur program, motor vehicle emissions budgets for
conformity determinations, and timing for SIP revisions to account for
the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefit.11 This memorandum
explains that conformity analyses in serious and severe ozone
nonattainment areas can begin including Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits
once EPA's Tier 2 rule is promulgated, provided that the attainment
demonstration SIPs and associated motor vehicle emissions budgets
include the Tier 2 benefits. For areas that require all or some portion
of the Tier 2 benefits to demonstrate attainment but have not yet
included the benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budgets, EPA's
adequacy finding will include a condition that conformity
determinations may not take credit for Tier 2 until the SIP budgets are
revised to reflect Tier 2 benefits. See EPA's memorandum for more
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations'', from Merrylin Zaw-
Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-
VI, issued November 3, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found
on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the New York-North New Jersey-Long Island, Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
nonattainment areas, the EPA is proposing to determine that additional
emission reduction beyond those provided by the SIP submission are
necessary for attainment. With the exception of Atlanta nonattainment
area, a portion of that reduction will be achieved by EPA's Tier 2/
Sulfur program, which EPA expects to finalize shortly. States that need
to rely in whole or in part on the Tier 2 benefits to help demonstrate
attainment will need to adjust the demonstration for their SIP
submission, emission inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets to
include the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions in order for EPA to
approve the SIP submittal. The submittal requirement including the
analysis to make that submission is described in the two memoranda
cited. States may use the tonnage benefits and guidance in these
memoranda to make these adjustments to the SIP submission and motor
vehicle emission budgets. The EPA encourages States to submit these SIP
revisions by December 31, 1999 to allow EPA to include them in the
motor vehicle emissions budget adequacy determinations which need to be
completed by May 31, 2000. Alternatively, these revisions should be
submitted by July 2000 for serious nonattainment areas, as EPA
anticipates completing rulemaking on these SIPs in the fall of 2000.
For severe nonattainment areas, these revisions should be submitted by
December 31, 2000.
A number of areas for which the EPA is not proposing to determine
that additional emission reduction beyond those provided by the SIP
submission are necessary for attainment will be taking a partial credit
for Tier 2 when they use credit from national low emissions vehicles
(NLEV) in their attainment demonstration. These nonattainment areas are
the Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan
Washington, D.C. areas. By regulation, the NLEV standards do not extend
beyond the 2003 model year unless EPA promulgates Tier 2 vehicle
standards at least as stringent as the NLEV standards. See 40 CFR
86.1701-99(c). Thus, the emission reductions relied upon from 2004 and
later model year NLEV vehicles will actually be due to the promulgation
of the Tier 2
[[Page 70354]]
standards, either through the extension of the NLEV program or a
portion of the reduction from vehicles meeting the Tier 2 standards.
Like all the other SIPs that rely on Tier 2 reductions in order to
demonstrate attainment, the attainment demonstrations for the
Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan Washington,
D.C. areas must be revised to estimate the effects of Tier 2 according
to our policy before EPA can take final action approving such
attainment demonstrations. Until the SIPs are revised to include full
Tier 2 credit, EPA can determine by May 31, 2000 that a motor vehicle
emissions budget is adequate if the budget would be otherwise adequate.
No conditions need be placed on such adequacy determinations since the
budgets in such SIPs already include reductions equivalent to the
amount of emission reductions the areas will be relying on from Tier 2
by virtue of the NLEV reductions included in the budgets.
a. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget and the
Attainment Demonstration When EPA Issues the MOBILE6 Model. Within one
year of when EPA issues the MOBILE6 model for estimating mobile source
emissions which takes into account the emissions benefit of EPA's Tier
2/Sulfur program, States will need to revise their motor vehicle
emissions budgets in their attainment demonstration SIPs if the Tier 2/
Sulfur program is necessary for attainment. In addition, the budgets
will need to be revised using MOBILE6 in those areas that do not need
the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment but decide to include its
benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budget anyway. The EPA will
work with States on a case-by-case basis if the new emission estimates
raise issues about the sufficiency of the attainment demonstration.
States described in the paragraph above will need to submit an
enforceable commitment in the near term to revise their motor vehicle
emissions budget within one year after EPA's release of MOBILE6. This
commitment should be submitted to EPA along with the other commitments
discussed elsewhere in this notice, or alternatively, as part of the
SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission inventories and
budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits needed in order
for EPA to approve the SIP submittal.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment
that has been subject to public hearing. If the State has submitted
a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that
provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment,
the State should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999,
amending the commitment to include the revision of the budget after
the release of MOBILE6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions
The EPA is proposing to find that the attainment demonstrations for
New York-North New Jersey-Long Island; Baltimore; Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria and Atlanta, even
considering the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions and the WOE, will not
achieve attainment without the application of additional emission
control measures to achieve additional emission reductions. Thus, for
each of these areas, EPA has identified specific tons per day emissions
of NOX and/or VOC that must be reduced through additional
control measures in order to demonstrate attainment and to enable EPA
to approve the demonstration. The need for additional emission
reductions is generally based on a lack of sufficient compelling
evidence that the demonstration shows attainment at the current level
of adopted or planned emission controls. This is discussed in detail
below for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island area. The method
used by EPA to calculate the amount of additional reductions is
described in a technical support document located in the record for
this proposed rule. Briefly, the method makes use of the relationship
between ozone and its precursors (VOC and NOX) to identify
additional reductions that, at a minimum, would bring the model
predicted future ozone concentration to a level at or below the
standard. The relationship is derived by comparing changes in either
(1) the model predicted ozone to changes in modeled emissions or (2) in
observed air quality to changes in actual emissions.
The EPA is not requesting that States perform new photochemical
grid modeling to assess the full air quality impact of the additional
measures that would be adopted. Rather, as described above, one of the
factors that EPA can consider as part of the WOE analysis of the
attainment demonstration is whether there will be additional emission
reductions anticipated that were not modeled. Therefore, EPA will
consider the reductions from these additional measures as part of the
WOE analysis if the State adopts the measures or, as appropriate,
submits an enforceable commitment to adopt the measures.
As an initial matter, for areas that need additional measures, the
State must submit a commitment to adopt additional control measures to
meet, the level of reductions that EPA has identified as necessary for
attainment. For purposes of conformity, if the State submitted a
commitment, which has been subject to public hearing, to adopt the
control measures necessary for attainment and ROP through the area's
attainment date in conformance with the December 1997 Wilson policy,
the State will not need an additional commitment at this time. However,
the state will need to amend its commitment by letter to provide two
things concerning the additional measures.
First, the State will need to identify a list of potential control
measures (from which a list of measures could be selected) that, when
implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional
emission reductions to meet the level of reduction that EPA has
identified as necessary for attainment. States need not commit to adopt
any specific measures on their list at this time, but if they do not do
so, they must identify sufficient additional emission reductions to
attain the standard with the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget.
These measures may not involve additional limits on highway
construction beyond those that could be imposed under the submitted
motor vehicle emissions budget. (See memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations'', from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, to
Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI 13). States may, of
course, select control measures that do impose limits on highway
construction, but if they do so, they must revise the budget to reflect
the effects of specific, identified measures that were either committed
to in the SIP or were actually adopted. Otherwise, EPA could not
conclude that the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget would be
providing for attainment, and EPA could not find it adequate for
conformity purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations'', from Merrylin Zaw-
Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-
VI, issued November 3, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found
on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the letter should provide that the State will recalculate
and submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the
effects, if any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted
when those measures are submitted as SIP revisions should any of the
measures pertain to motor vehicles.
[[Page 70355]]
For purposes of approving the SIP, the State will need an
enforceable commitment that identifies the date by which the additional
measures will be submitted, identifies the percentage reductions needed
of VOC and NOX, and provides that the State will recalculate
and submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the
effects, if any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted
when these measures are submitted as SIP revisions should any of the
measures pertain to motor vehicles. To the extent the State's current
commitment does not include one of the above items or to the extent
that a State plans to revise one of the above items in an existing
commitment, the State will need a new public hearing.
For areas within the OTR, EPA believes it is appropriate to provide
a State that is relying on a regional solution to a Congressionally-
recognized regional air pollution problem with more time to adopt and
submit measures for additional reductions to EPA than for a State that
will rely on intrastate measures to achieve the reductions. Therefore,
the EPA believes that States in the OTR must be allowed sufficient time
for the OTR to analyze the appropriate measures as well as time for the
State to adopt the measures. For these States, EPA believes it is
appropriate for them to commit to work through the OTR to develop a
regional strategy regarding the measures necessary to meet the
additional reductions identified by EPA for these areas. However, as a
backstop, the State will need to commit to adopt intrastate measures
sufficient to achieve the additional reductions if the regional
measures are not identified by the OTR and adopted by the relevant
States.
For purposes of conformity, if the State submitted a commitment
consistent with the December 1997 Wilson policy and which has been
subject to public hearing, the State may amend its current commitment
by letter to provide these assurances. However, before EPA can take
final rulemaking action to approve the attainment demonstration, the
State will need to meet the public hearing requirements for the
commitment and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision. The EPA will have to
propose and take final action on this SIP revision before EPA can fully
approve the State's attainment demonstration. The State will have to
submit the necessary measures themselves (and a revised motor vehicle
emissions budget that includes the effects, if any, of the measure or
measures that are ultimately adopted should any of the measures pertain
to motor vehicles) as a SIP revision no later than October 31, 2001.
a. Guidance on Additional Control Measures. Much progress has been
made over the past 25 years to reduce VOC emissions and over the past 9
years to reduce NOX emissions. Many large sources have been
controlled to some extent through RACT rules or other emission
standards or limitations, such as maximum achievable control technology
(MACT), new source performance standards (NSPS) and the emission
control requirements for NSR--lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER)
and best achievable control technology (BACT). However, there may be
controls available for sources that have not yet been regulated as well
as additional means for achieving reductions from sources that have
already been regulated. The EPA has prepared a report to assist States
in identifying additional measures. This report is called ``Serious and
Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on Emissions, Control
Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available Control Measures''. The
purpose of this report is to provide information to State and local
agencies to assist them in identifying additional control measures that
can be adopted into their SIPs to support the attainment demonstrations
for the serious and severe nonattainment areas under consideration.
This report has been added to the record for this proposal.
In summary, the report provides information in four areas. First,
the report contains detailed information on emissions for ozone
precursor emissions of NOX and VOCs. This inventory data
gives an indication of where the major emissions are coming from in a
particular geographic area and may indicate where it will be profitable
to look for further reductions. Second, the report contains information
on control measures for emission sources of NOX and VOC
(including stationary, area and mobile source measures) for which
controls may not have been adopted by many jurisdictions. This would
include many measures listed among the control measures EPA considered
when developing the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for promulgation
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Third, the report includes information on
standards EPA has issued for the NSPS and MACT programs as well as
information on alternative control techniques (ACT) documents. This may
be useful to States who may already specify emission limits on existing
source categories to which NSPS and MACT for new sources apply, but the
current RACT level of control for these existing sources may not match
the level specified in the NSPS or MACT standards for new sources or
sources which emit hazardous air pollutants. Finally, the report
includes information on the control measures not already covered
elsewhere that States have adopted, or have proposed to adopt at the
date of the report, into their SIPs. Comparison of information on
measures already adopted into others' SIPs may help inform States about
reductions that may be available from their sources whose emissions are
currently not regulated.
Another source of information is the BACT and LAER determinations
that States have made for individual new sources. Information on BACT/
LAER determinations is available through EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse (RBLC) which may be accessed on EPA's web site on the
internet at the following address: www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/.
The ACT documents for VOC and NOX are valuable because
EPA has not issued control technique guidelines (CTGs) that specify the
level of RACT for several categories of sources. For some of these
source categories, EPA has prepared ACT documents which describe
various control technologies and associated costs for reducing
emissions. While States were required to adopt RACT for major sources
within these source categories, the ACT documents may identify an
additional level of control for regulated sources or may provide
control options for non-major sources within these source categories.
States are free to evaluate the various options given and use the
results to assist in formulating their own regulations.
The EPA report lists the various sources EPA used to develop the
lists of additional measures. These sources include an EPA draft
control measure data base, State and Territorial Air Pollution
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Official's (STAPPA/ALAPCO's) books ``Controlling Nitrogen Oxides under
the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options'', and ``Meeting the 15-Percent
Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of
Options,'' California's ozone SIP for the South Coast and various ACT
documents.
There is one control approach which bears special mention because
it is broader in application than any one specific control measure.
That is the approach of ``cap and trade.'' In this approach, a cap is
placed on emissions, and existing sources are given emission
allotments. Under a declining cap, emissions would be decreased each
year. Sources may over-control and sell
[[Page 70356]]
part of their allotments to other sources which under-control. Overall,
the percentage decrease in emissions is maintained, but the reductions
are made where they are most economical. A cap and trade program has
been in operation in the South Coast Air Quality Management District in
California since about 1992.
The State of Illinois has adopted a declining cap and trade
program. The Illinois program will set a cap on future emissions of
major sources in the Chicago area that in most cases is 12 percent
lower than baseline emissions. Illinois will issue a number of emission
allotments corresponding to the cap level and will require each source
to have VOC emissions at or below the level for which it holds emission
allotments. Trading of emission allotments will be allowed, so that
sources that reduce VOC emissions more than 12 percent may sell
emission allotments, and sources that reduce VOC emission less than 12
percent must buy emission allotments. The proposed reductions are
planned to begin in the next ozone season, May 2000.
In addition, EPA's draft economic incentives program guidance (EIP)
was proposed in September 1999. This encourages cost-effective and
innovative approaches to achieving air pollution goals through
emissions trading. Such an approach has been demonstrated to be
successful and cost-effective in reducing air pollution in EPA's acid
rain emissions trading program. These and other similar programs should
allow cost-effective implementation of additional control measures.
Finally, a reduction in VOC and NOX emissions can be
achieved through a wide range of control measures. These measures range
from technology based actions such as retrofitting diesel trucks and
buses, and controlling ground service equipment at airports to activity
based controls such as increased use of transit by utilizing existing
Federal tax incentives, market and pricing based programs, and ozone
action days. States can also achieve emission reductions by
implementing programs involving cleaner burning fuels. The State of
Texas is also considering a rule to change the times during the day in
which construction can occur to reduce ozone precursor emissions during
periods when ozone formation is occurring. There are a wide range of
new and innovative programs beyond the few examples listed here. These
measures, if taken together, can provide significant emission
reductions for attainment purposes. In addition, a variety of mobile
source measures could be considered as part of the commitment to meet
the need for additional emission reduction measures.
6. Mid-Course Review
A mid-course review (MCR) is a reassessment of modeling analyses
and more recent monitored data to determine if a prescribed control
strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air quality
improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard for
ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the statutory
dates.
The EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical
element of the WOE analysis for the attainment demonstration on which
EPA is proposing to take action today. In order to approve the
attainment demonstration SIP for the Connecticut portion of the New
York city area (NYC area), EPA believes that the State must have an
enforceable commitment to perform a MCR as described here.14
The Connecticut DEP submitted an enforceable commitment with its
attainment demonstration on September 16, 1998. The commitment made was
to submit a MCR in the 2001/2002 time frame and an additional MCR in
2005. EPA is suggesting that Connecticut revise its commitment to
provide for the MCR immediately following the 2003 ozone season.
Connecticut should also revise its commitment to agree to work with EPA
in a public consultative process to develop a methodology for
performing the MCR and developing the criteria by which adequate
progress would be judged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment
that has been subject to public hearing. If the State has submitted
a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that
provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment,
the State should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999,
amending the commitment to include the MCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For severe areas, the States must have an enforceable commitment to
perform the MCR preferably following the 2003 ozone season, and to
submit the results to EPA by the end of the review year (e.g., by
December 31, 2003). EPA believes that an analysis in 2003 would be most
robust since some or all of the regional NOX emission
reductions should be achieved by that date. EPA would then review the
results and determine whether any States need to adopt and submit
additional control measures for purposes of attainment. The EPA is not
requesting that States commit now to adopt new control measures as a
result of this process. It would be impracticable for the States to
make a commitment that is specific enough to be considered enforceable.
Moreover, the MCR could indicate that upwind States may need to adopt
some or all of the additional controls needed to ensure an area attains
the standard. Therefore, if EPA determines additional control measures
are needed for attainment, EPA would determine whether additional
emission reductions as necessary from States in which the nonattainment
area is located or upwind States, or both. The EPA would require the
affected State or States to adopt and submit the new measures within a
period specified at the time. The EPA anticipates that these findings
would be made as calls for SIP revisions under section 110(k)(5) and,
therefore, the period for submission of the measures would be no longer
than 18 months after the EPA finding. A draft guidance document
regarding the MCR process is located in the docket for this proposal
and may also be found on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram.
D. What Does EPA Expect to Happen With Respect to the Attainment
Demonstration for the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area?
Table 2 shows a summary of information on what EPA expects from the
states in which the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island area is
located to allow EPA to approve the one-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIPs.
[[Page 70357]]
Table 2.--Summary Schedule of Future State Actions Related to Attainment Demonstration for the Portion of the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Severe Nonattainment Area in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Req'd no later than Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/31/99......................................................... State submits the following to EPA:
--motor vehicle emissions budget.\1\
--Commitments \2\ to do the following:
--Submit by 10/31/01, measures for
additional emission reductions as required
in the attainment demonstration test
developed through the regional process. (The
State must also submit a backstop commitment
to adopt and submit by 10/31/01 intrastate
measures for the emission reductions in the
event the OTR process does not recommend
measures that produce emission reductions.)
--Submit revised SIP and motor vehicle
emissions budget by 10/31/01, if additional
measures (due 10/31/01) affect the motor
vehicle emissions inventory.
--Revise SIP and motor vehicle emissions
budget 1 year after MOBILE6 issued.\3\
--Perform a mid-course review.--A list of
potential control measures identified that
could provide additional emission reductions
needed to attain the standard.\4\
4/15/00.......................................................... State submits in final any submissions made
in draft by 12/31/99.
Before EPA final rulemaking...................................... State submits enforceable commitments for any
above-mentioned commitments that may not yet
have been subjected to public hearing.
12/31/00......................................................... --State submits adopted modeled measures
relied on in attainment demonstration and
relied on for ROP through the attainment
year.
--State revises and submits SIP and motor
vehicle emissions budget to account for Tier
2 reductions as needed.\5\
10/31/01......................................................... --OTR States submit additional measures
developed through the regional process.
--State revises SIP and motor vehicle
emissions budget, if the additional measures
are for motor vehicle category.
Within 1 yr after release of MOBILE6 model....................... State submits revised SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget based on MOBILE6.
12/31/03......................................................... State submits to EPA results of mid-course
review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final budget preferable; however, if public process is not yet complete, then a ``draft'' budget (the one
undergoing public process) may be submitted at this time with a final budget by 4/15/00. However, if a final
budget is significantly different from the draft submitted earlier, the final budget must be submitted by 2/15/
00 to accommodate the 90 day processing period prior to the 5/31/00 date by which EPA must find the motor
vehicle emissions budget adequate. Note that the budget can reflect estimated Tier 2 emission reductions--see
memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur
Rulemaking.''
\2\ As provided in the preamble text, the State may clarify by letter an existing commitment, which has been
subject to public hearing, to submit the control measures needed for attainment. If the State has not yet
submitted such a commitment, the State should adopt a commitment after public hearing. If the public hearing
process is not yet complete, then draft commitments may be submitted at this time. The final commitment should
be submitted no later than 4/15/00.
\3\ The revision for MOBILE6 is only required for SIPs that include the effects of Tier 2. The commitment to
revise the SIP after MOBILE6 may be submitted at the same time that the state submits the budget that includes
the effects of Tier 2 (no later than 7/1/00).
\4\ The State is not required to commit to adopt any specific measures. However, if the State does not do so,
the list cannot include any measures that place limits on highway construction.
\5\ If the state submits such a revision, it must be accompanied by a commitment to revise the SIP and motor
vehicle emissions budget 1 year after MOBILE6 is issued (if the commitment has not already been submitted).
E. What Are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
This proposal has cited several policy and guidance memoranda. The
EPA has also developed several technical documents related to the
rulemaking action in this proposal. Some of the documents have been
referenced above. The documents and their location on EPA's web site
are listed below; these documents will also be placed in the docket for
this proposal action.
Recent Documents
1. ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through
Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality
Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram (file name: ``ADDWOE1H'').
2. ``Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on
Emissions, Control Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available
Control Measures.'' Draft Report. November 3, 1999. Ozone Policy and
Strategies Group. U.S. EPA, RTP, NC.
3. Memorandum from Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air Division Directors,
Regions I-VI, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour
Attainment Demonstrations.'' November 3, 1999. Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
4. Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air
Division Directors, Regions I-VI, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking,'' November 8, 1999. Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
5. Draft Memorandum, ``Analyses To Support Mid-course Review Of
SIP's To Meet The 1-hr NAAQS For Ozone.'' From John Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram (file name: ``DR6MCR'').
6. Memorandum, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
Previous Documents
1. U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the
Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMREG'').
2. U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to
Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, (June
1996). Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
3. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.
Nichols,
[[Page 70358]]
issued March 2, 1995. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
t1pgm.html.
4. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind
Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
5. December 29, 1997 Memorandum from Richard Wilson, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation ``Guidance for
Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS.''
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
II. How Does the Connecticut Submittal Satisfy the Frame Work?
This section provides a review of Connecticut's submittal and an
analysis of how this submittal satisfies the frame work discussed in
section I of this notice.
A. What Was Submitted by Connecticut?
As mentioned previously the CAA requires nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or worse for the one-hour ozone standard to
prepare air quality modeling, using a photochemical grid model. This
modeling is required to show that collective control strategies will
reduce ozone to concentrations below the air quality standard by the
area's attainment date. Connecticut submitted its modeling in several
submittals. A January 4, 1995 submittal gave EPA the then up-to-date
status of the state's modeling effort, including the completed elements
of the one-hour modeling. The Phase I submittal, required for those
states participating in the OTAG effort, was submitted on November 21,
1997. The Phase II submittal, which along with the previous submittals
constitutes the attainment demonstration, was submitted on September
16, 1998.
The New York-New Jersey-Long Island severe ozone nonattainment
area, which includes the southwest corner of Connecticut and is
classified as severe-17, must attain the one-hour ozone standard by
November 15, 2007. The Connecticut portion includes all of Fairfield
County, CT except Shelton City, plus the towns of Bridgewater and New
Milford, which are both in Litchfield County (40 CFR 81.307). The rest
of Connecticut, including Shelton City is officially titled the Greater
Connecticut serious area. The Greater Connecticut serious area's
attainment demonstration is a separate SIP action, and is discussed
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The New York-New Jersey-Long Island
severe ozone nonattainment area contains the states of Connecticut, New
Jersey and New York. All three states are required to submit an
attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP). Since New
York and New Jersey are part of EPA Region II, EPA Region II is
responsible for their SIP submittal, and those submission are addressed
elsewhere in this Federal Register.
The Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island severe nonattainment area was modeled by the New York Department
of Environmental Conservation, with input from environmental agency
staff of both the States of Connecticut and New Jersey and by staff
from EPA Regions I and II. This arrangement was agreed to in 1990 by
all the participating parties, with concurrence from EPA Regions I and
II. The modeling also includes the modeling for the Greater Connecticut
nonattainment area.
B. How Was the Model Selected?
EPA recommended that states use the Urban Airshed Model (UAM)
version IV as the ozone model of choice for the grid-point modeling
required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the one-hour attainment
demonstrations. Other models are allowed if the states show that they
are scientifically valid and they preform (i.e., are just as reliable)
as well as, or better than, UAM IV. The NYC domain chose to use UAM IV.
Details on the model and its selection can be found in the submittal
from the State of Connecticut. Many different sensitivity runs and
model performance runs were performed using the UAM IV model, also
different boundary conditions were tried. These runs are available in
the submittal from Connecticut.
C. What Did the Photochemical Grid Modeling Show?
The UAM IV modeling analysis is contained in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the CT DEP. A mostly similar
analysis was also submitted by New Jersey (NJDEP) and New York State
(NYSDEC) since, as explained above, their SIPs include portions of the
modeling domain. The domain covers both the New York Northern New
Jersey-Long Island severe area, and the Greater Connecticut area.
Information on how the UAM modeling meets EPA guidance is summarized
here and detailed in the State's submittals.
EPA's Guideline on the use of photochemical grid models recommends
that areas model three or more episodes including the types of weather
conditions most conducive to ozone formation. The final photochemical
grid modeling submitted by Connecticut focused on the UAM-IV modeling
for several episodes from 1988 and 1991. All episodes represent
significant ozone exceedances, under various meteorological conditions.
The episodes have some of the worst case meteorology (i.e., the highest
potential for ozone formation) of the episodes in the past forty years.
It follows that if an extreme episode, like the ones chosen, pass the
modeled attainment test, then less extreme days would pass as well.
The UAM IV was run using the CALMET meteorological processor, with
State actual emission inventories for the base years (1988 or 1991 as
appropriate) and with projected emissions representing grown and
controlled emissions for the attainment year. The projected emissions
used were the Case-E scenario developed for EPA-OTC modeling
simulations and included the effects of projected growth, the CAA
required measures, low emission vehicle (LEV) assumptions for the motor
vehicle section, and NOX reductions equivalent to the
regional NOX SIP call adopted by EPA.
The UAM IV model shows that domain wide there is a 91% decrease in
the number of grid cells that exceed the one-hour standard from the
base year to 2007. A 100% decrease would be necessary to pass the
deterministic model test. The predicted peaks for 2007 remain above the
one-hour standard with peak concentrations of 171 ppb in 2007. This
does not pass the deterministic test. Since the UAM-IV model, as run
for this analysis, does not show attainment in 2007 additional weight
of evidence analyses were performed. These additional analyses are
discussed below.
D. How Well Did the Model Perform?
The UAM-IV model predicts ozone within the quality limits set by
EPA guidance on most days. Qualitatively, the model predicts the peak
ozone in the observed locations downwind of New York City. The model
shows a slight bias toward over predicting ozone.
As prescribed by EPA Guidance, the UAM-IV modeling predicts ozone
concentrations for the year 2007 using the meteorology of the episodes
from 1988 and 1991 combined with the emissions that are projected to
occur by 2007. The 2007 emissions include emission increases due to
population and economic growth and decreases due to the control
strategies that will be in place by then (including an estimate for the
EPA NOX SIP Call).
E. What Other Type of Analyses Were Performed By Connecticut?
In the past, EPA guidance for use of the UAM model required that
all
[[Page 70359]]
modeling days show attainment of the ozone standard at all grid cells.
This is called the deterministic method. The attainment demonstration
guidance allows the user to adjust for days that have an extremely high
ability to form ozone because of its meteorology. Adjustments are
allowed since the one-hour ozone standard allows each location to have
one day per year, on average, over the one-hour ozone standard.
The attainment demonstration guidance allows use of additional
corroborative analyses to support the attainment demonstration when the
modeled attainment test is not passed. These other analyses can be used
as part of the weight of evidence to attainment. The weight of evidence
used to supplement the modeled attainment test in the Connecticut
portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island area attainment
demonstration, and how they can help predict that the area will attain
the standard, are described here. In addition, one of the factors that
EPA can consider as part of the weight-of-evidence analysis is whether
there will be additional emission reductions anticipated that are not
modeled.
This notice discusses several analyses. Those analyses are the
local Photochemical Grid Modeling (discussed above), Air Quality Trends
Analyses, the Design Value Rollback analysis, and an additional
analysis done pursuant to EPA memorandum entitled ``Guidance for
Improving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of Additional
Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.''
F. What Do Air Quality Trends Show?
Linear extrapolation of present air quality trends predicts that
the peak ozone values will be less than 125 ppb and the number of
exceedances of the air quality standard will be less than one per year
about the year 2005. Since a number of emission control programs, such
as the NOX SIP Call, and Tier 2 car standards are still to
be implemented and others, like the OTC NOX agreement and
vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, are still being
implemented (i.e. not achieving full emissions reduction benefit),
emissions of ozone precursors will continue to decrease from now
through 2007. Connecticut's attainment demonstration states that
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard is possible based on an
extrapolation of the air quality data.
The attainment demonstration also includes research showing that
ozone decreases occur at all of the monitors in the New York City
airshed. Even when the trends are adjusted for year-to-year changes in
how conducive the weather is for ozone formation (i.e. meteorologically
adjusted trends), every air quality monitor except one shows decreased
ozone. This supports the conclusion that the improvements in air
quality during recent years are due to reductions in emissions rather
than meteorology.
G. What Does the Regional Design Value Rollback Analysis Show?
One of the analyses in the weight of evidence is the design value
rollback analysis. Design value rollback uses the design value from
recent air quality data as its starting point. The amount of ozone
reduction predicted by the model from the starting point to the
attainment year is calculated and the design value from recent air
quality data is reduced by that amount.
For the Connecticut analysis, EPA supplied calculations of the
percentage reduction in ozone at the grid cells near the monitoring
sites. The calculations were from the UAM-V modeling that EPA has been
doing for the NOX SIP Call. EPA ran the UAM-V for the entire
eastern United States for various episodes in 1991, 1993 and 1995 with
both 1995 and 2007 OTAG emission inventories. The 2007 run included
emissions adjusted for growth and reductions from the CAA-required
controls plus the NOX SIP Call, and the National LEV (NLEV)
program.
The percentage difference between the base and the future case was
calculated for the days when the modeling predicted the highest
concentrations near each monitoring site. The ozone reductions on those
days were averaged for each monitoring site. This percent difference
was divided by 100 to produce a ``rollback factor.'' The observed ozone
design value was multiplied by the rollback factor to obtain the
concentration of ozone predicted for the monitoring site for the year
2007. The ozone design value was the fourth highest concentration at
each site over the three-year period from 1996 to 1998. The highest
predicted design value for 2007 from all the monitoring sites is 122
ppb, less than the 125 ppb one-hour ozone standard. This is how the
design value rollback method predicts that the area may attain the
ozone standard by 2007. The three years of data used by Connecticut in
its submittal to calculate the observed design value were the latest
available data at the time: 1996 to 1998. When EPA used the method in
the NOX SIP Call, it used the design value from 1994 to
1996, centered on 1995 when the model begins its reductions in
emissions and ozone. The period used by in the analysis submitted by CT
DEP does not overlap 1995. It should also be noted that preliminary
ozone data from the summer of 1999 for this area shows that ozone
levels have risen, most likely due to weather conditions, and that the
three year design value has also risen. So the regional design value
rollback method, when applied to the most recent air quality data does
not show attainment in 2007. Further analyses are thus necessary, such
as those discussed below.
The design value rollback technique is a way of using existing air
quality and the model in a relative sense to predict how the air
quality will improve. Existing air quality is a readily measured
quantity. Models may be more accurate at calculating the amount of
improvement in air quality as opposed to predicting an absolute
concentration. Therefore, this method counteracts some of UAM-IV's
biases toward underestimating the extent of ozone reduction. The design
value rollback method provides another gauge of whether an area will
attain the air quality standard, using a method which does not rely
solely on the absolute predictions made by the models.
In summary, the design value rollback method was applied to the New
York City airshed, where it used the most recent data to predict that
all of the air quality stations will have better air quality than the
one-hour air quality standard when the present ozone concentrations are
reduced by the percentage ozone reduction that the UAM-V model predicts
from the baseline to the attainment year. More recent air quality data
call this analysis into question.
H. Does the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island Severe Nonattainment Area Need Additional Local Measures?
EPA does not believe the attainment analysis for New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island area proves attainment by the year 2007. EPA
conducted a further analysis to further determine how much additional
reduction is needed in order for EPA to approve or conditionally
approve a revised and re-submitted attainment demonstration for this
area. The EPA suggests that Connecticut include these calculations as
part of the WOE analysis accompanying the adjusted attainment
demonstration and revised motor vehicle emissions budget for this area.
EPA calculated the emission reductions needed to make up the
difference between the future year modeled ozone values and the ozone
standard. The details of this calculation
[[Page 70360]]
are contained in the TSD for this notice. The analysis shows an ozone
shortfall of 5 ppb for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
severe nonattainment. From this 5 ppb shortfall value, additional local
emission reduction targets can be developed. When the appropriate
method is applied to this area, it is predicted that an additional 3.8%
VOC and 0.3% NOX reduction from base year 1990 inventories
is necessary to approve or conditionally approve a revised and re-
submitted attainment demonstration for this area. These additional
reductions are over and above the Clean Air Act measures required for
this area and the measures already relied on in the demonstration of
attainment. Since Tier 2/Sulfur is included in the EPA analysis the
percent reduction figures are also over and above Tier 2/Sulfur
reductions as well. The three states within the nonattainment area will
have to work together to achieve these reductions. A notice of public
hearing was signed by Arthur Rocque, Jr, Commissioner, Connecticut DEP
on November 24, 1999 requesting public comment on proposed changes to
the attainment demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe nonattainment area.. To
achieve the additional reductions necessary for attainment, Connecticut
has proposed to: (1) Revise the transportation conformity budget to
include the effects of EPA's recently proposed Tier 2 motor vehicle
emissions control program and associated fuel sulfur control program,
(2) commit to adopt additional NOX emission limits
applicable to municipal waste combustors, and (3) commit to work with
other jurisdictions of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) and to submit,
by October 31, 2001, additional necessary regional control measures in
conjunction with other jurisdictions of the OTR to offset the emissions
reduction shortfall in order attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007.
I. Does Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island Severe Nonattainment Area Need a Mid-Course Review Correction?
EPA guidance requires a mid-course review correction for the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
severe nonattainment area to access assess whether the assumptions used
in the attainment demonstration are still true in the future. This mid-
course review should take place after the 2003 ozone season. The
Connecticut DEP submitted an enforceable commitment with its attainment
demonstration on September 16, 1998, to submit a MCR in the 2001/2002
time frame, and an additional MCR in 2005. In order for EPA to accept
that commitment of an MCR, Connecticut will have to agree to perform
the MCR immediately following the 2003 ozone season and to submit the
results to EPA by December 31, 2003. Connecticut should agree to work
with EPA in a public consultative process to develop a methodology for
performing the MCR and developing the criteria by which adequate
progress would be judged. Once Connecticut modifies their commitment on
the MCR to include these issues, then EPA can move forward to approve
the attainment demonstration.
J. What Are EPA's Recommendations With Regard to the Modeling Portion
of the Attainment Demonstration?
The modeling for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island severe nonattainment area uses analyses that
follow the EPA guidelines for predicting future air quality. These
analyses, on balance, do not show that air quality will meet the one-
hour ozone air quality standard by the requested attainment date of
2007. Additional analyses performed by EPA using the most up-to-date
EPA guidance allows for attainment if the state commits to incorporate
the Tier 2/Sulfur program into its attainment demonstration and commits
to adopt measures which achieve an additional 3.8% VOC and a 0.3%
NOX emission reduction. As stated previously, Connecticut
has recently proposed revisions to its attainment demonstration to
address these requirements.
K. What Measures Did Connecticut Rely on in Their Attainment
Demonstration?
Table 3 shows the measures Connecticut relied on in the attainment
demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the New York Northern New
Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area. The measures along with their
approval status is shown.
Table 3.--Control Measures in the One-Hour Ozone Attainment Plans for the Connecticut Severe Ozone Nonattainment
Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in local
Name of control measure Type of measure modeling Approval status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-board Refueling Vapor Recovery.. Federal rule.......... Yes................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 86.
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Federal rule.......... Yes................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 86.
program.
Federal Non-road Gasoline Engines.. Federal rule.......... Yes................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 90.
Federal Non-road Heavy Duty diesel Federal rule.......... Yes................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 89.
engines.
AIM Surface Coatings............... Federal rule.......... Yes................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 59
subpart D.
Consumer & commercial products..... Federal rule.......... Yes................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 59
subpart C.
Enhanced Inspection & Maintenance.. CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... Conditionally SIP approved
(64 FR 12005; 3/10/99).\1\
NOX RACT........................... CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... SIP approved (62 FR 52016;
10/6/97).
VOC RACT pursuant to sections CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... SIP approved (56 FR 52205;
182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2)(B) of 10/18/91 and 64 FR 12019;
Clean Air Act. 3/10/99).
VOC RACT pursuant to sections CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... Conditionally SIP approved
182(b)(2)(A) and (C) of Clean Air (64 FR 12019; 3/10/99)--
Act. SIP approval pending for
SIP submitted in response
to condition.\2\
Stage II Vapor Recovery............ CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... SIP approved (58 FR 65930;
12/17/93).
Stage I Vapor Recovery............. CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... SIP approved (56 FR 52205;
10/18/91).
[[Page 70361]]
Reformulated Gasoline.............. CAA required program Yes................... Promulgated statewide under
in NYC and Hartford 40 CFR section 80.70. Also
areas. Opt-in to approved for opt-in
federal program for portion of state as part
remainder of state. of 15% plan (64 FR 12015;
3/10/99).
National Low Emission Vehicle State opt-in.......... Yes................... Federal program promulgated
(NLEV). at 40 CFR 86 subpart R.
State opt-in SIP approval
proposed 8/16/99, 64 FR
44450.\3\
Clean Fuel Fleets.................. CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... RFG and I/M reductions
substituted--SIP approval
pending.\4\
New Source Review.................. CAA SIP Requirement... No.................... SIP approval pending.\5\
Base Year Emissions Inventory...... CAA SIP Requirement... N/A \6\............... SIP approved (62 FR 55336;
10/24/97).
15% VOC Reduction Plan............. CAA SIP Requirement... Yes \7\............... SIP approved (64 FR 12015;
3/10/99).
Enhanced Rule Effectiveness........ State measure......... Yes \7\............... SIP approved (64 FR 12015;
3/10/99).
9% rate of progress plans.......... CAA SIP Requirement... Yes for the strategies SIP approval pending for
relied on for the the first phase from 1996-
first phase from 1996- 1999.\8\ For the ROP plans
1999 \7\. post 1999, CT provided an
enforceable commitment to
submit the plans and adopt
all necessary rules
demonstrating ROP through
2007 by December 2000.\9\
Emissions Statements............... CAA SIP Requirement... N/A \6\............... SIP approved (60 FR 2524; 1/
10/95).
Enhanced Monitoring (PAMS)......... CAA Requirement....... N/A \6\............... SIP approved (62 FR 55336;
10/24/97).
OTC NOX MOU Phase II............... State initiative...... Yes................... SIP approved (64 FR 52233;
9/28/99).
EPA NOX SIP call................... EPA requirement....... Yes................... SIP approval pending.\10\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fact that CT's enhanced I/M rule is conditionally approved does not affect the emission reductions that
Connecticut can rely on for attainment purposes since the achievement of those emission reductions in no way
depends upon the fulfillment of the conditions outlined in that final rule. Rather, the conditions relate to
certain procedural requirements only.
\2\ With respect to the various VOC and Non-CTG rules, Connecticut submitted a revised non-CTG RACT rule on
September 2, 1999. In order to meet the requirements of sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (C), CT revised the section
22a-174-32 to remove the exemption for the remaining Appendix E categories, as well as expanding the
applicability to sources in industrial categories in CT for which EPA has published final CTGs since the date
of enactment (e.g., aerospace, shipbuilding, and wood furniture coating). EPA deemed the SIP submittal
complete on September 10, 1999. EPA will take final action on the revised section 22a-174-32 prior to
finalizing action on the one-hour ozone attainment plan.
\3\ EPA intends to publish final rules for the NLEV opt-in SIP before or at the same time as we publish final
rules on the attainment demonstration.
\4\ Since RFG and I/M emission reductions already approved into the SIP, the Clean Fuel Fleet program will not
have to be finally approved in order to approve the attainment demonstration.
\5\ CT submitted its New Source Review (NSR) for VOC and NOX as a SIP revision on May 23, 1994. The state is not
relying on emission reductions from this NSR SIP, and therefore it will not have to be finally approved in
order to approve the attainment demonstration.
\6\ Does not produce emission reductions.
\7\ The measures used to demonstrate rate of progress were modeled.
\8\ The nine percent plan rate-of-progress (ROP) plan SIP for reductions from 1996 through 1999 was submitted to
EPA on December 31, 1997, with minor revisions on January 7, 1998. This plan is currently under review by EPA.
A notice of proposed rulemaking will be published soon. EPA intends to publish final rules for the nine
percent ROP before or at the same time as it publishes final rules on the attainment demonstration.
\9\ In today's notice, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Connecticut's attainment demonstration for the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe ozone nonattainment area, including the enforceable commitment
for the Post-99 ROP submission.
\10\ On September 30, 1999, CT DEP submitted a SIP revision in response to the EPA's regulation entitled,
``Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment
Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,'' otherwise known as the ``NOX SIP Call.''
The SIP submittal included a NOX budget and allowance trading regulation, section 22a-174-22b. Although not a
CAA required measure, section 22a-174-22b requires significant NOX reductions from 2003 onward which will
strengthen the SIP. EPA will take final action on section 22a-174-22b prior to finalizing action on the one-
hour ozone attainment plan. This also fulfills Connecticut's commitment under the OTC MOU Phase III program.
L. Motor Vehicle Emission Budget
The CT DEP submitted 2007 conformity budgets for the Connecticut
portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe ozone
nonattainment area on February 10, 1999. These budgets were developed
from the mobile source inventories developed by EPA for the
NOX SIP call. In its February 10, 1999 letter, CT DEP
concluded that it is reasonable to extract 2007 transportation
conformity budgets from the NOX SIP call since Connecticut's
ozone attainment demonstrations rely on EPA modeling results developed
using emission inventories equivalent to those used by EPA to develop
the NOX SIP call. In a November 19, 1999 letter from Susan
Studlien, EPA Region I to Carmine DiBattista, CT DEP, EPA found that
the 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted for the Connecticut
area are inadequate for conformity purposes. The budgets were
determined to be inadequate because in some instances they do not
accurately reflect the mobile source control strategies Connecticut is
implementing and, when compared to more recent mobile source emission
estimates prepared by the state for conformity, appear to be
substantial higher in the attainment year than the
[[Page 70362]]
most current projections. The letter, which is available in the docket
for this action, further outlines the rationale behind this
determination.
In November 24, 1999 notice of public hearing discussed previously,
Connecticut DEP has included proposed 2007 conformity budgets for the
Connecticut portion of the New York Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area. These budgets incorporate the benefits of the Tier
2/Sulfur program for the Connecticut portion of the New York Northern
New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area. The EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the attainment demonstration SIP should
Connecticut corrects the deficiencies that cause the motor vehicle
emissions budget to be inadequate and, alternatively, to disapprove it
if Connecticut does not correct the deficiencies.
Because Connecticut may shortly be submitting revised
demonstrations with revised motor vehicle emission budgets, EPA is
providing a 60 day comment period on this proposed rule. If Connecticut
submits a revised attainment demonstration, EPA will place the
revisions in the docket for this rulemaking and will post a notice on
EPA's website at www.epa.gov/oms/traq. By posting notice on the
website, EPA will also initiate the adequacy process.
M. Tier 2/Sulphur Program Benefits
As result of EPA's review of the State's SIP submittal, EPA
believes that the ozone modeling submitted by the State for the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe nonattainment area on which
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve and disapprove-in-the-
alternative today will need the emission reductions from EPA's Tier 2/
Sulfur to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA believes that
the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe nonattainment area
will require additional emission reductions identified by EPA, beyond
those from EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, to attain the one-hour ozone
NAAQS.
For the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe
nonattainment area, EPA is proposing to determine that the submitted
control strategy does not provide for attainment by the attainment
deadline. The emission reductions of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, which
are not reflected in the submitted SIP, will assist in attainment and
the effects of these standards must be included in the motor vehicle
emissions budget.
To assist the State in the preparation of a new submission which
could be approved or conditionally approved, EPA has prepared an
estimate of the air quality benefits of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program. In
our calculation, EPA assumed that all of the Tier 2/Sulfur emissions
reductions will contribute to the ability of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island severe nonattainment area to demonstrate attainment.
The EPA has further calculated how much additional emission reduction
is needed for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe
nonattainment area in order for EPA to approve or conditionally approve
a revised and re-submitted attainment demonstration for this area. The
EPA suggests that the State include these calculations as part of the
WOE analysis accompanying the adjusted attainment demonstration and
revised motor vehicle emissions budget for this area. Today EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve a new attainment demonstration if it
meets this description.
However, Connecticut can use some of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program
credit for other purposes. Thus, the State could take credit for all or
some of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program credit for its attainment
demonstration.
If the amount of Tier 2/Sulfur program credit that Connecticut is
assuming in its adjusted attainment plan is less than the amount that
EPA assumed would be available for attainment, i.e., the State is
applying some or all of the Tier 2/Sulfur program credit for other
purposes, the State will have to calculate the remaining amount of
additional emission reductions needed and commit to adopt measures to
achieve them. If the State assumes all the Tier 2/Sulfur program credit
will go toward attainment, then the State will be able to rely on EPA's
estimate of the additional emission reductions needed.
N. What Are the Consequences of State Failure?
This section explains the CAA consequences of State failure to meet
the time frames and terms described generally in this notice. The CAA
provides for the imposition of sanctions and the promulgation of a
federal implementation plan if States fail to submit a required plan,
submit a plan that is determined to be incomplete or if EPA disapproves
a plan. (We using the phrase ``failure to submit'' to cover both the
situation where a State makes no submission and the situation where the
State makes a submission that we find is incomplete in accordance with
section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.) For purposes of
sanctions, there are no sanctions clocks in place based on a failure to
submit. Thus, the description of the timing of sanctions, below, is
linked to a potential disapproval of the State's submission.
1. What Are the CAA's Provisions for Sanctions?
If EPA disapproves a required SIP, such as the attainment
demonstration SIPs, section 179(a) provides for the imposition of two
sanctions. The first sanction would apply 18 months after EPA
disapproves the SIP if the State fails to make the required submittal
which EPA proposes to fully or conditionally approve within that time.
Under EPA's sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction
would be 2:1 offsets for sources subject to the new source review
requirements under section 173 of the CAA. If the State has still
failed to submit a SIP for which EPA proposes full or conditional
approval 6 months after the first sanction is imposed, the second
sanction will apply. The second sanction is a limitation on the receipt
of Federal highway funds. EPA also has authority under section 110(m)
to a broader area, but is not proposing to take such action today.
2. What Are the CAA's FIP Provisions if a State Fails To Submit a Plan?
In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds that a State failed to
submit the required SIP revision or disapproves the required SIP
revision EPA must promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date
of the finding if the deficiency has not been corrected. The attainment
demonstration SIPs on which EPA is taking action today were originally
due in November 1994. However, through a series of policy memoranda,
EPA recognized that States had not submitted attainment demonstrations
and were constrained to do so until ozone transport had been further
analyzed. As provided in the Background, above, EPA provided for States
to submit the attainment demonstration SIPs in two phases. In June
1996, EPA made findings that ten States and the District of Columbia
had failed to submit the phase I SIPs for nine nonattainment areas. 61
FR 36292 (July 10, 1996). In addition on May 19, 1997, EPA made a
similar finding for Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia area. 62 FR
27201.
In July 1998, several environmental groups filed a notice of
citizen suit, alleging that EPA had outstanding sanctions and FIP
obligations for the serious and severe nonattainment areas on which EPA
is proposing action today. These groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia on November 8, 1999.
[[Page 70363]]
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the ground-level one-hour
ozone attainment demonstration State implementation plan (SIP or
demonstration) for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island severe nonattainment Area submitted by Connecticut
on September 16, 1998. EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve
the Connecticut's commitment to submit ROP target calculations for ROP
after 1999 and the adopted measures to achieve post-1999 ROP by
December 2000. EPA is also proposing, in the alternative, to approve in
part and disapprove in part this demonstration if the State does not
submit an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget consistent with
attainment, and a commitment to the additional measures required for
attainment of the standard. Lastly, EPA intends to publish final rules
for Nine Percent ROP, NLEV and the NOX SIP call for
Connecticut either before or at the same time as publication of final
approval of the attainment demonstration.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These issues will be considered
before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in
the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the
EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this action.
A more detailed description of the state submittal and EPA's
evaluation are included in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared
in support of this rulemaking action. A copy of the TSD is available
upon request from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this action.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is
``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health
and safety risks.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is
unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements
that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a State rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
[[Page 70364]]
the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of
the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of
a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the
economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co.
v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
If the approval is converted to a disapproval under section 110(k),
based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it will not affect
any existing State requirements applicable to small entities. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect State-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new requirements. Therefore, I certify that such a
disapproval action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it would not remove
existing requirements nor would it substitute a new Federal
requirement.
The EPA's alternative proposed disapproval of the State request
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act would not affect
any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-
existing Federal requirements would remain in place after this
disapproval. Federal disapproval of the State submittal would not
affect State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the
submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I
certify that the proposed disapproval would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed approval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to the proposed disapproval
because the proposed disapproval of the SIP submittal would not, in and
of itself, constitute a Federal mandate because it would not impose an
enforceable duty on any entity. In addition, the Act does not permit
EPA to consider types of analyses described in section 202 in
determining whether a SIP submittal meets the CAA. Finally, section 203
does not apply to the proposed disapproval because it would affect only
the State of Connecticut, which is not a small government.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with
NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 30, 1999.
Mindy S. Lubber,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 99-31711 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
