[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70460-70478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31718]
[[Page 70460]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[DC039-2019, VA090-5036, MD073-3045; FRL-6502-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia; One-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. Ozone Nonattainment
Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) consisting of the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the
Metropolitan Washington D.C. serious nonattainment area (the Washington
area) submitted by the District of Columbia's Department of Health on
April 24, 1998, and October 27, 1998, by the Maryland Department of the
Environment on April 29, 1998 and August 17, 1998, and by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality on April 29, 1998, and August 18,
1998; we are also proposing to approve a request to extend the area's
attainment date from November 15, 1999 to November 15, 2005, because
the Washington area is affected by transported pollution from upwind
areas. We are also proposing, in the alternative, to disapprove these
demonstrations if Maryland, Virginia and the District do not submit an
adequate motor vehicle emissions budget consistent with attainment,
adopted rules needed to ensure that nonattainment area 2005 emissions
levels are less than the modeled 1999 control strategy levels and in
the case of the District of Columbia adopt and submit rules for the
NOX reductions consistent with the modeling demonstration
and a national low emissions vehicle program. For purposes of an
adequate motor vehicle emissions budget, Maryland, Virginia and the
District each will need to reaffirm that its previously submitted
enforceable commitment to adopt the measures needed for attainment
would apply to the additional measures to reduce emissions to
demonstrate that nonattainment area 2005 emissions levels are less than
the modeled 1999 control strategy levels. Each reaffirmation must also
include a commitment to the performance of a mid-course review and to
revisions to the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget after MOBILE6
(the most recent model for estimating mobile source emissions) is
released. The Washington area is comprised of the entire District of
Columbia (the District), a portion of Maryland (namely, Calvert,
Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Counties), and a
portion of Virginia (namely, Alexandria, Arlington County, Fairfax,
Fairfax County, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince William
County, and Stafford County).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 14,
2000.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief,
Ozone & Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; District of
Columbia Department of Public Health, Air Quality Division, 51 N
Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002; Maryland Department of the
Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224; and the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, at
the EPA Region III address above, or by e-mail at
cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides background
information on attainment demonstration SIPs for the 1-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and an analysis of the 1-
hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs submitted by the District of
Columbia's Department of Health (DoH) on April 24, 1998, and October
27, 1998, by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on April
29, 1998 and August 17, 1998, and by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on April 29, 1998, and August 18, 1998
for the Washington area. This document addresses 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 Attainment
Demonstrations for the Serious 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas?
What are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
How Do the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's Submittals
Satisfy the Frame Work?
I. Background
A. What Is the Basis for the 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 1-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 1-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air
quality monitor records a 1-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 1-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
section 181(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 1-hour standard
by November 15, 1999 and severe areas are required to attain by
November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007. The Washington area is
classified as serious and its attainment date is November 15, 1999.
[[Page 70461]]
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 1-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
District of Columbia's Department of Health (DoH), the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) and the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) for the Washington area. EPA will take
action on the District's, Maryland's and Virginia's ROP plans for the
Washington area in separate rulemaking actions. In addition, elsewhere
in this Federal Register, EPA is today proposing to take action on
attainment demonstration and, in some cases, ROP SIPs for nine other
serious or severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The additional nine
areas are Greater Connecticut (CT), Springfield (Western Massachusetts)
(MA), New York-North New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore (MD),
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), 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
1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the CAA, the District of Columbia has the same
attainment planning authorities and responsibilities as any other of
the fifty States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
VOC 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.2 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)
3 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 .
\3\ 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; (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1-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. Attainment Date Delays Due to Transport
On July 16, 1998, EPA's then Acting Assistant Administrator,
Richard Wilson, issued a guidance memorandum intended to provide
further relief to areas affected by ozone transport.5 The
memorandum recognized that many moderate and serious areas are affected
by transported pollution from either an upwind area in the same State
with a higher classification and later attainment date,
[[Page 70462]]
and/or from an upwind area in another State that is significantly
contributing to the downwind area's nonattainment problem. The policy
recognized that some downwind areas may be unable to meet their own
attainment dates, despite doing all that was required in their local
area, because an upwind area may not have adopted and implemented all
of the controls that would benefit the downwind area through control of
transported ozone before the downwind area's attainment date. Thus, the
policy provided that upon a successful demonstration that an upwind
area has interfered with attainment and that the downwind area is
adopting all measures required for its local area 6 for
attainment but for this interference, EPA may grant an extension of the
downwind area's attainment date.7 Once an area receives an
extension of its attainment date based on transport, the area would no
longer be subject to reclassification to a higher classification and
subject to additional requirements for failure to attain by its
original attainment date provided it was doing all that was necessary
locally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind
Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. This memorandum is
applicable to both moderate and serious ozone nonattainment areas. A
copy of this policy may be found on EPA's web site at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
\6\ Local area measures would include all of the measures within
the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of the
modeled attainment demonstration.
\7\ The policy provides that the area must meet four criteria to
receive an attainment date extension. In summary, the area must: (1)
Be identified as a downwind area affected by transport from either
an upwind area in the same State with a later attainment date or an
upwind area in another State that significantly contributes to
downwind nonattainment; (2) submit an approvable attainment
demonstration with any necessary, adopted local measures and with an
attainment date that reflects when the upwind reductions will occur;
(3) adopt all local measures required under the area's current
classification and any additional measures necessary to demonstrate
attainment; and (4) provide that it will implement all adopted
measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date
by which the upwind reductions needed for attainment will be
achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A request from the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia
and the District of Columbia for such an extension of the attainment
date for the Washington nonattainment area and EPA's proposed response
is discussed in this action.
4. 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 1-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.
5. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
Depending upon 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 on the part of the State.
The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve
or conditionally approve a State's plan submission. CAA Sec. 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.
CAA Sec. 110(k).
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 upon a modeled attainment
demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate
attainment.8 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The EPA issued guidance on the air quality modeling that is
used to demonstrate attainment with the 1-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
[[Page 70463]]
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 1-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 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
1-hour ozone NAAQS: a deterministic test or a statistical test.
The deterministic test requires the State to compare predicted 1-
hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day
9 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the
predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 1-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 1-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 1-
hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four highest
1-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-
[[Page 70464]]
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 1-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 on which EPA is proposing to
take action on today.
NOX Reductions Consistent With the Modeling Demonstration
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 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
In addition, the States may have included more 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 serious nonattainment area for the 1-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 this 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(c)(2).
Table 1.--CAA Requirements for Serious Areas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--NSR for VOC and NOX \1\, including an offset ratio of 1.2:1 and a
major VOC and NOX source cutoff of 50 tons per year (tpy).
--Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX \1\.
--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.
--15% volatile organic compound (VOC) plans.
--Emissions inventory.
--Emission statements.
--Attainment demonstration
--9 percent ROP plan through 1999.
--Clean fuels program or a substitute.
--Enhanced Monitoring--Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
(PAMS).
--Stage II vapor recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless the area has in effect a NOX waiver under section 182(f). The
Washington area is not such an 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 1-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
[[Page 70465]]
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 1-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 10 for purposes of the
modeled attainment demonstration must be adopted and submitted as part
of the State's 1-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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)
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, in the
alternative, 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, 2000.11 In order for
EPA to complete the adequacy process by the end of May, States should
submit a budget no later than December 31, 1999.12 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
\12\ 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 two supplemental notices provide 1-hour ozone modeling and
monitoring information that support EPA's belief that the Tier 2/Sulfur
program is necessary to help areas attain the 1-hour NAAQS. Under the
proposed rule, NOX and VOC emission reductions (as well as
other reductions not directly relevant for attainment of the 1-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 1-hour standard applies need the Tier 2/Sulfur
program reductions to help attain the 1-hour ozone standard. The
Washington 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.13 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.14 This memorandum
explains that conformity analyses in serious and severe ozone
nonattainment areas can begin
[[Page 70466]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Atlanta, New York-North New Jersey-Long Island, Baltimore,
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, and Houston 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 the 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 if 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 standards, either through the extension of the NLEV
program or a portion of the reduction from vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards.
If the motor vehicle emissions budget reflects Tier 2/sulfur
reductions, then 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
if 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 motor
vehicle emissions budgets include the effects of the Tier 2/Sulfur
program. 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 if the budgets include the effects of the Tier 2/Sulfur program
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 document, 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.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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, and Atlanta, even considering the Tier II/
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.
For the Washington area, EPA has not determined that emission
reductions are needed. However, in order for EPA to approve the
attainment demonstration for the Washington area, Maryland, the
District of Columbia and Virginia will need to demonstrate that
emissions in 2005 will not exceed the projected emissions for 1999. To
do so, the Washington area may need to adopt additional measures to
offset any growth.
For purposes of conformity, if the states 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 states will
need to amend its commitment by letter to provide two things concerning
the additional measures.
[[Page 70467]]
First, the State will need to identify a list of potential control
measures (from which a set of measures could be selected) that when
implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional
emission reductions to meet the level of reductions 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 16.) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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.
For a serious area, such as the Washington area, the State will
need to submit adopted rules to achieve the additional reductions, as
well as rules for measures relied on in their demonstration but not yet
adopted, to EPA as a SIP revision to their attainment demonstration no
later than July 1, 2000 in order to allow EPA to promulgate its
approval of the revision by November 2000.
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
addition, EPA has posted a copy of the report on its web site at
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1main.html.
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.
Thatis 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 part of their allotments to
other sources which under-control. Overall, the percentage decrease in
emissions is maintained, but the reductions are made
[[Page 70468]]
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 by 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 Washington area, EPA believes that
the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District
must submit an enforceable commitment to perform a MCR as described
here.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the commitment, the State should commit 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.
For serious areas requesting an attainment date extension to 2005,
the States and the District must have an enforceable commitment to
perform the MCR following the 2003 ozone season and to submit the
results to EPA by the end of the review year (e.g., 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. In Summary, What Does EPA Expect to Happen With Respect to
Attainment Demonstrations for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. 1-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area?
The following table shows a summary of information on what EPA
expects from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to allow
EPA to approve the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs.
Table 2.--Summary Schedule of Future Actions Related to Attainment Demonstration for the Washington Serious
Nonattainment Area in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Req'd no later than Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/31/99......................................................... States submit the following to EPA:
--motor vehicle emissions budget.\1\
--Commitments \2\ or reaffirmation of a
previous commitment to do the following:
--Submit in July 2000 measures for
additional emission reductions if required
in 2005.\3\
--Submit revised SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget by July 2000 if additional
measures (due by July 2000) affect the motor
vehicle emissions inventory.
--Submit revised SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget 1 year after MOBILE6
issued.\4\
--Perform a mid-course review.
[[Page 70469]]
--A list of potential control measures that
could provide additional emission reductions
if needed in 2005.\5\
4/15/00.......................................................... States submit in final any submissions made
in draft by 12/31/99.
Before EPA final rulemaking...................................... States submit enforceable commitments for any
above-mentioned commitments that may not yet
have been subjected to public hearing.
7/1/00........................................................... --States submit final rules for additional
measures for emission reductions as required
in the attainment demonstration test.
--State revises & submits SIP & motor
vehicle emissions budget if the additional
measures are for motor vehicle emissions
category.
--States revise & submit SIP & motor
vehicle emissions budget to account for Tier
2 reductions as needed.\6\
Within 1 yr after release of MOBILE6 model....................... States submit revised SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget based on MOBILE6.
12/31/03......................................................... States submit 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\ Only if additional rules (except Tier 2) beyond current control strategy are needed in 2005.
\4\ 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).
\5\ 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.
\6\ 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/.
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, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
One-Hour Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of
Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI. 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, ``1-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Mid-Course Review
Guidance.'' From John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.
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, 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. EPA's Review and Analysis of the District's, Maryland's and
Virginia's Submittals
This section provides a review of Maryland's, Virginia's and the
District's submittals and an analysis of how these submittals satisfy
the frame work discussed in Section I. of this document.
A. Analysis of the Local Modeling and Weight-of-Evidence
The following is a summary of our analysis of the local modeling. A
more detailed description of the District's and the state submittals
and EPA's evaluation are included in a Technical Support Document (TSD)
prepared in
[[Page 70470]]
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 document.
1. Analysis of the Modeling for the Local Modeling Domain
The CAA requires that serious areas and above perform photochemical
grid modeling to help determine the emission reductions of VOC and
(NOX) necessary to achieve the attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard. Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia
fulfilled this requirement through the VADEQ's application of the Urban
Airshed Model, Version 4 (UAM-IV) for the Washington area and through
the use of the modeling results from the OTAG application of the Urban
Airshed Model, Version 5 (UAM-V).
The ozone attainment demonstration for the Washington area contains
local scale modeling that, other than the number of episodes modeled,
fulfills EPA recommended modeling procedures. Maryland, Virginia and
the District modeled two episodes rather than the three recommended by
EPA. EPA modeling guidance requires that a total of three episodes be
modeled from at least two meteorological regimes. Given the severe
nature of the episodes modeled, even if one more episode was modeled,
the two episodes that were modeled (July 15-16, 1991 & July 18-20,
1991), due to their severity, would most likely be the controlling
episodes in the determination of the emission reductions needed in the
Washington area for attainment. The two episodes that were modeled also
represent the most frequently occurring meteorological conditions
conducive to high ozone in the Washington area. It should be pointed
out, however, that three episodes were analyzed in the design value
rollback analysis performed using the modeling results from EPA's
NOX SIP Call Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPR) (63 FR 25901, May 11, 1998).
When the 1999 emission inventory with the control strategy is
modeled, peak ozone concentration is reduced by approximately 22 ppb
from the modeled peak concentrations in the 1988 and 1991 base cases.
When the average modeled ozone reduction is applied to the peak
measured concentration for July 16 (137 ppb) and July 19 (132 ppb), the
resulting concentrations are 115 ppb and 110 ppb, respectively. This
indicates attainment for these days. However, when the modeled ozone
reduction is applied to the peak monitored level on July 20 (178 ppb),
the resulting concentration is 156 ppb. Because the ozone forming
potential rank is very high for July 20, 1991 (13th most severe day out
of approximately the last 50 years with an average reoccurrence of once
every 4-5 years) this type of day is not likely to occur often enough
to be a major causative factor for nonattainment, especially since the
emission controls modeled in this attainment demonstration should
eliminate ozone exceedances for all but the most meteorologically
severe days.
The local modeling for the Washington area over-predicts ozone
concentrations. The local 1991 base case modeling predicts peak
concentrations in the Washington area of 167-198 ppb while ozone
monitors in the same area during the same time period show peak
concentrations ranging from 132 ppb to 178 ppb. This indicates that the
model is over-predicting the actual ozone concentrations by an average
of 19%. When model over-prediction (approximately 19%) is accounted for
in both of the July 1991 episodes, the local scale modeled peak
concentrations become 120 ppb for July 16th, 111 ppb for July 19th and
142 ppb for July 20th. The adjusted peak concentration for two out of
the three primary episode days indicates attainment. The adjusted
concentration for July 20th does not indicate attainment at 142 ppb.
However, a concentration of 142 ppb on July 20, 1991 is only 5 ppb
greater than the concentration that would be consistent with attainment
(137 ppb) according to EPA's alternative attainment test
guidance.18 Furthermore, when the area's design value in the
base modeling period (1991) is adjusted for the air quality improvement
predicted in the attainment year by the local-scale modeling according
to the screening test described in EPA's guidance entitled ``Draft
Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment
Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'', the result is a 1999
projected design value of 119 ppb. These local-scale modeling results
are close enough to attainment to warrant the consideration of weight-
of-evidence arguments that support the demonstration of attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, (June 1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Weight of Evidence (WOE) Analyses
A WOE determination is a diverse set of technical analyses
performed to assess the confidence one has in the modeled results and
to help assess the adequacy of a proposed strategy when the outcome of
local scale modeling is close to attainment.
The District, Maryland and Virginia provided WOE arguments in the
attainment demonstration to further corroborate that it is likely their
attainment demonstrations contained sufficient local measures for the
Washington area to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the statutory
date of 1999 but for transport.
The States and the District used EPA-developed design value
adjustment factors based on regional scale modeling performed for the
NOX SIP Call SNPR. These adjustment factors were used to
adjust the 1996 area design values. The analysis showed all area
adjusted design values below the level needed for attainment (124 ppb).
To provide additional information, the EPA's design value adjustment
factors were applied to the 1997 and 1998 area design values, again
resulting in all area design values below 124 ppb.
Because the local modeling for the Washington area showed some peak
concentrations above levels deemed consistent with attainment, we
conducted an analysis to determine what additional local emission
reductions, if any, would be needed to support ozone attainment in the
Washington area. Our analysis determined that the Washington area would
not need any additional emission reductions beyond those contained the
area attainment demonstration to ensure attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
3. Attainment Delay Due to Transport
Boundary condition sensitivity modeling was performed for the
Washington area using OTAG Base 1C and Run I boundary conditions. OTAG
Base 1C boundary conditions reflect the boundary conditions that will
result from the implementation of all Clean Air Act mandated controls.
OTAG Run I boundary conditions closely approximate the boundary
conditions that will result from CAA measures and the additional
emission reductions anticipated from the NOX SIP Call. The
Washington area model runs with OTAG Base 1C boundary conditions were
compared to the runs with OTAG Run I boundary conditions. The model run
with OTAG Run I boundary conditions show a 5 to 10 ppb reduction in
peak ozone concentrations in areas with modeled peak concentrations
above 124 ppb.
A 5 to 10 ppb increase in ozone concentrations would increase
projected design values based upon local modeling over 124 ppb and
would increase future predicted exceedances well beyond the range
consistent with attainment. The District's, Maryland's and Virginia's
submittals for the
[[Page 70471]]
Washington area only demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard by including in their analysis the reduction of ozone and
ozone precursor transport that will result from regional NOX
controls.
The local modeling for the Washington area showed that emission
levels in Baltimore affect peak ozone concentrations in the Washington
area during two of three most severe episode days modeled . The
Baltimore area has an attainment date of 2005.
B. Analysis of Submittal Against EPA's Frame Work for Proposing Action
on the Attainment Demonstration SIPs
1. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Current SIP Submission
Tables 3 through 6 contain a summary of the CAA required ozone SIP
elements and of any additional measures included in the attainment
demonstration. Table 3 is a listing of the measures or CAA requirements
that are common to all three Washington area jurisdictions. Tables 4, 5
and 6 provide a summary of additional control measures that are not
common to all three jurisdictions. These Tables indicate if a control
measure was part of the modeling demonstration and a summary of the
approval or promulgation status.
Table 3.--Common Control Measures in the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Plans for the Washington 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................... SIP approved--Virginia &
the District. SIP approval
pending--Maryland
NOX RACT........................... CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... SIP approval pending--
Maryland, Virginia, & the
District.
VOC RACT to 50 tpy................. CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... SIP approved--Virginia. SIP
approval pending--Maryland
& the District.
Stage II Vapor Recovery............ CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... SIP approved--Maryland &
Virginia. SIP approval
pending--the District.
Stage I Vapor Recovery............. CAA SIP Requirement... Yes................... SIP approved--Maryland &
Virginia. SIP approval
pending--the District.
Reformulated Gasoline.............. State Opt-in to Yes................... State opt-ins approved
federal program. under 40 CFR 80 subpart D.
Clean Fuel Fleets (CFF) or CAA SIP Requirement... No.................... NLEV SIP submitted as a CFF
substitute. substitute--Maryland &
Virginia. CFF SIP approval
pending--the District.
National Low Emission Vehicle State opt-in.......... No.................... Federal program promulgated
(NLEV). at 40 CFR 86 subpart R.
State opt-in SIP approval
pending--Maryland &
Virginia; the District
will submit by 2/15/2000.
New Source Review.................. CAA SIP Requirement... N/A................... SIP approved--Virginia &
the District. SIP approval
pending--Maryland.
Base Year Emissions Inventory...... CAA SIP Requirement... N/A \1\............... SIP approved--Maryland,
Virginia & the District.
15% VOC Reduction Plan............. CAA SIP Requirement... Yes \2\............... SIP approved--the District.
SIP approval pending--
Maryland & Virginia.
9% rate of progress plan........... CAA SIP Requirement... Yes \2\............... SIP approval pending--
Maryland, Virginia & the
District.
Emissions Statements............... CAA SIP Requirement... N/A................... SIP approved--Maryland,
Virginia & the District.
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring CAA Requirement....... N/A................... SIP approved--Maryland,
System (PAMS). Virginia & the District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not produce emission reductions.
\2\ The measures used to demonstrate rate of progress were modeled.
Table 4.--Maryland Control Measures in the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for the Washington Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in local
Name of control measure Type of measure modeling Approval status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autobody refinishing............... State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approved.
Extend State VOC Point Source State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approval pending.
Regulations to 25 tons/year
sources.
Surface Cleaning/Degreasing........ State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approved.
Municipal Landfills................ State Rule............ Yes................... State plan approved.
Open Burning Ban................... State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approved.
TCMs............................... State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approval pending.
Graphic Arts....................... State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approved.
[[Page 70472]]
Beyond RACT reductions from large State initiative...... Yes................... OTC NOX MOU Phase II--SIP
point sources of NOX. approval pending.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Virginia Control Measures in the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for the Washington Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in local
Name of control measure Type of measure modeling Approval status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extend State VOC Point Source State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approval pending.
Regulations to 25 tons/year
sources.
Surface Cleaning/Degreasing........ State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approval pending.
Municipal Landfills................ Federal Plan.......... Yes................... Federal plan promulgated at
40 CFR Part 62.
Open Burning Ban................... State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approved.
TCMs............................... State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approval pending.
Graphic Arts....................... State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approved.
Autobody refinishing............... Federal rule.......... Yes................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 59
subpart B.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--District of Columbia Control Measures in the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for the Washington
Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in local
Name of control measure Type of measure modeling Approval status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Control Measure or SIP Type of Measure....... Included in Local Adoption and Approval
Element. Modeling. Status.
Surface Cleaning/Degreasing........ State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approval pending.
Graphic Arts....................... State Rule............ Yes................... SIP approval pending.
Autobody refinishing............... Federal rule.......... Yes................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 59
subpart B.
Beyond RACT Reductions at large State initiative...... Yes................... State rule not submitted.
point source of NOX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MDE, VADEQ and DoH have submitted all CAA mandated measures.
Many, but not all, of these measures have been approved to date. EPA is
proposing approval of the attainment demonstrations for the Washington
area contingent upon SIP approval of all CAA required measures and
other attainment measures before final approval is issued for the
attainment demonstration.
The District has not submitted an adopted rule for the 1.8 TPD of
NOX reduction from major stationary sources of
NOX reduction beyond RACT which was relied upon in the
modeling demonstration. However, Maryland and Virginia have submitted
SIP revisions for an opt-in to the NLEV program which was not included
in the local modeling. Maryland and Virginia have quantified that this
measure will provide 1.8 TPD of NOX (plus 1.9 TPD of VOC)
reductions in the Washington area by 1999. Therefore, the three
Washington area States have provided adopted rules for all the
reductions modeled in the attainment demonstration. EPA believes it is
reasonable to propose to approve the attainment demonstrations and
attainment date extension requests for the Washington area provided
that the States adopt and submit sufficient measures to demonstrate
that 2005 emissions considering growth will be less than or equal to
the 1999 control strategy levels. Commitments to these measures and
submission of adopted rules will have to conform to the schedule
discussed in section I.D and Table 2 above.
The Virginia attainment demonstration included a commitment to 23.0
TPD of NOX reductions beyond RACT and beyond that contained
in the local modeling. The schedule for this measure provided in
Commonwealth's attainment demonstration SIP is past, and thus, EPA can
not propose approval of this commitment as part of this action.
However, because this measure was not included in the local modeling,
under the framework for approval discussed in section I.C above, EPA
believes that the lack of an adopted rule for this measure does not
preclude proposing approval of the Virginia and other States'
attainment demonstrations for the Washington area.
EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstrations and
attainment date extension requests for the Washington area provided
that: Virginia can demonstrate that a rule for NOX
reductions beyond RACT is not required to demonstrate that 2005
emissions will be less than or equal to the 1999 control strategy
levels (a demonstration that the rule is not required must accompany an
adequate conformity budget which is discussed in section II.B3. below),
or, Virginia must submit a revised commitment and adopted rule by July
2000 in accordance to the schedules discussed in section I. and Table 2
above.
2. NOX Reductions Consistent with the Modeling Demonstration
Inside the Baltimore-Washington modeling domain, the States modeled
only the measures indicated in Tables 3 through 6 above. The only
NOX measures beyond CAA requirements was additional level of
control beyond RACT at large stationary sources of NOX in
the District's and Maryland's portion of the Washington area. The
status of all
[[Page 70473]]
measures was discussed in the preceding section of this document.
3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
The EPA has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the
attainment demonstrations for the Washington area submitted by the MDE,
the DoH, and the VADEQ are inadequate for conformity purposes.
On October 26, 1999, Judith M. Katz, Director, Air Protection
Division, EPA, Region III, sent a letter to Ms. Ann Marie DeBiase,
Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland
Department of the Environment; Mr. Donald Wambsgans, Program Manager,
District of Columbia Department of Health, Air Quality Division and Mr.
John Daniel, Director, Air Program Coordination, Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality indicating that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets in their attainment demonstrations were not adequate for
conformity purposes.
The motor vehicle emission budgets in the demonstrations for the
Washington area were not found adequate because they did not meet all
the adequacy requirements in the conformity rule. See 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). EPA made this determination for the following reasons:
the budget was inconsistently identified; the budget was based upon
outdated enhanced I/M control parameters; and there is no budget for
the requested extension year of 2005. The following paragraphs provide
a summary of each of these findings, of the corrective action required
and of EPA's proposed action.
Inconsistent identification: The motor vehicle emissions budget are
not clearly identified and precisely quantified as required by 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iii). One portion of the attainment demonstration SIP
submission shows the area's 1999 budget in total tons per day is: 196.8
tons per day for VOC and 123.5 tons per day for NOX. However
in another portion of the attainment demonstration SIP, the motor
vehicle emissions budget is identified as 199.2 tons per day for VOC
and 123.3 tons per day for NOX.
Outdated enhanced I/M program parameters: The current motor vehicle
emissions budget is inadequate because the budget was set assuming
parameters inconsistent with the current enhanced I/M programs and thus
is not consistent with the control measures in the submitted SIP
revisions as required by 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
No budget for 2005: The motor vehicle emissions budget when
considered together with all other emissions sources are not consistent
with applicable requirements for attainment by 2005 as required by 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). EPA is proposing in today's action that the
attainment demonstrations for the Washington area contains sufficient
local reductions to achieve attainment by 1999 and to extend the
attainment date to 2005 due to transport. However, the attainment
demonstrations for the Washington area do not contain an adequate motor
vehicle emissions budget for 2005.
Before EPA can fully approve the attainment demonstration and
attainment date extension to 2005, Maryland, Virginia and the District
must submit SIP revisions to amend the attainment demonstrations for
the Washington area that contain adequate motor vehicle emissions
budget for 2005. In addition, EPA is proposing, in the alternative, to
disapprove the attainment demonstration SIPs for those nine areas if
Maryland, Virginia and the District do not submit motor vehicle
emissions budget for the Washington area that EPA can find adequate by
May 31, 2000.
As discussed in section I.C.3 above, a motor vehicle emissions
budget is the estimate of motor vehicle emissions in the attainment
year that when considered with emissions from all other sources is
consistent with attainment. The attainment demonstrations for the
Washington area contain levels of modeled emissions that EPA concludes
demonstrate attainment once transport from upwind areas is addressed.
The basis for this conclusion will not be altered if the Washington
area States can demonstrate that the level of nonattainment area
emissions in 2005 is equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy
levels contained in the attainment demonstrations considering growth.
Thus, Maryland, Virginia and the District can demonstrate that revised
motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2005 in an amendment to their
attainment demonstrations for the Washington area are adequate by
showing that overall emissions including the revised motor vehicle
emissions budget when considered with emissions from all other sources
are less than the 1999 control strategy levels.
Emissions generating activities generally grow over time. However,
emissions levels from mobile source categories may actually decrease
between 1999 and 2005 due to the effects of replacement of vehicles
with older engines with new vehicles and due to the new control
programs listed in Tables 7 and 8 below. Tables 7 and 8 list measures
that will not and will, respectively, affect the motor vehicle
emissions budget. Table 7 includes measures that were not part of the
attainment demonstrations because the implementation dates are after
1999 and will contribute to attainment in 2005. Table 8 lists the
measures that will contribute to attainment in 2005 and that will
affect the budget and indicates if each measure was included in the
1999 motor vehicle emissions budget or in the local scale modeling.
(Several of these measures could not be included in the 1999 budget
because the implementation dates are after 1999.) EPA has interpreted
the general adequacy criteria with respect to the 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstrations to require the motor vehicle emissions
budgets to include the effects of all motor vehicle controls, including
federal measures and the mobile source control measures assumed in the
NOx SIP Call, that will be in place in the attainment year, or in the
case of a serious area requesting an attainment date extension, in
place during the requested extension year.19 Therefore, the
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets presumptively must include all
currently promulgated federal measures and state SIP measures and opt-
ins shown in Table 8 with the exception of Clean Fuel Fleets (CFF). See
section II.B.4 below for discussion concerning the incorporation of the
proposed Tier 2 standards into the motor vehicle emissions budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia and Maryland each have submitted an NLEV SIP revision as a
substitute for CFF. For the Maryland and Virginia components of the
motor vehicle emissions budget NLEV must be used as in lieu of CFF. The
District has submitted an adopted CFF SIP, but in a December 16, 1998
letter, requested the use of NLEV as a substitute for CFF. EPA has not
acted on the December 16, 1998 request because EPA has not received an
NLEV SIP from the District. The motor vehicle emissions budget must
include NLEV in the District's component of the revised motor vehicle
emissions budget, but need not include CFF if the District submits an
adopted NLEV SIP revision with the revised motor vehicle emissions
budget in accordance with the schedule specified in sections I.C. and
I.D; otherwise, the District must include CFF as well as NLEV in the
District's component of the revised motor vehicle emissions budget.
Because CFF is a required SIP element for serious areas, the District
must
[[Page 70474]]
provide a SIP revision consisting of an adopted NLEV program in order
to replace a required SIP element.
Table 7.--Additional Nonroad Mobile Source Control Measures Contributing to Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
in the Washington Nonattainment Area in 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in local Adoption and approval
Name of control measure Type of measure modeling status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Engine Standards............ Federal............... No.................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 91.
Railroad Engine Standards.......... Federal............... No.................... Promulgated at 40 CFR 92.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.--On-Road Mobile Source Control Measures Contributing to Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the
Washington Nonattainment Area in 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In local modeling In the 1999 motor vehicle
Control measure Implementation year demonstration? emissions budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP)
Tier 1......................... 1994.................. Tier 1 FMVCP only..... Tier 1 FMVCP only.
Tier 2......................... 2004..................
High enhanced I/M (CAA Mandate).... 1997.................. Yes................... Yes.
Reformulated Gasoline (State Opt-
in)
Phase I........................ 1995.................. Phase I only.......... Phase I only.
Phase II....................... 2000..................
Clean Fuel Fleets (CAA Mandate).... 1998.................. No.................... No.
National Low Emissions Vehicles 1999.................. No.................... No.
(NLEV).
Federal Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicle 2004.................. No.................... No.
(HDV) 2 gm std.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If additional emission reductions beyond those in the attainment
demonstration or those listed in Tables 7 and 8 are required in 2005
then Maryland, Virginia and the District will need to submit a
commitment for the purposes of determining the motor vehicle emissions
budget adequate and rules for these measures. Any such adopted measures
must provide for implementation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than the date by which the upwind reductions needed for
attainment will be achieved.
Commitment to measures needed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Maryland, Virginia and the District each has previously committed to
adopting additional control measures as necessary to attain the one-
hour ozone NAAQS as discussed. The District, Maryland, Virginia made
these commitments as part of SIP revisions that were submitted on
November 3, 1997, December 24, 1997 and December 19, 1997,
respectively. EPA believes for the purposes of determining the motor
vehicle emissions budget adequate that Maryland, Virginia and the
District each already has a commitment to adopt any needed additional
measures, but we need reaffirmation by letter from DoH, MDE and VADEQ
that the intent of the existing commitment meets all the conditions as
stated in section I.C., above. EPA needs to receive this reaffirmation
letter by December 31, 1999. If Maryland, Virginia or the District does
not reaffirm by December 31, 1999, that its existing commitment to
adopt additional measures as necessary to reach attainment is
consistent within the framework of this action, then EPA will be unable
to determine the area has an adequate conformity budget. Final adopted
rules for these additional control measures must be submitted by July
1, 2000 in order to allow EPA to promulgate its approval of the
revision by November 2000.
Motor vehicle emissions budget and EPA's proposed action: The EPA
is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration SIP revisions for
the Washington area if the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia
and the District of Columbia correct the deficiencies that cause the
motor vehicle emissions budget to be inadequate. In the alternative,
EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration if by May
31, 2000, EPA has not made a determination that the attainment
demonstration SIP revisions for the Washington area contains an
adequate motor vehicle emissions budget. Because many States 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 the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia and
the District of Columbia submit a revised attainment demonstration with
a corrected motor vehicle emissions budget for 2005, EPA will place the
revisions in the docket for this rulemaking action 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.
4. Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits
EPA concludes that based on the modeling and WOE that the
Washington area would not need any additional emission reductions
beyond those contained the area attainment demonstration to ensure
attainment of the ozone NAAQS by 1999, but for transport. EPA also
concludes that the attainment demonstrations for the Washington area
collectively have sufficient local measures to have demonstrated
attainment by 1999, but that the area could not attain due to transport
from other areas.
However, as discussed in section II.B.3 above, Maryland, Virginia
and the District must amend the attainment demonstrations to include an
adequate conformity budget for 2005.
Like other areas that rely, in part or in full, on Tier 2
reductions in order to demonstrate attainment, the Washington area
attainment demonstration may have to be revised by July 1, 2000, to
estimate the effects of Tier 2 according to our policy. It must be
revised if some or all of the Tier 2 reductions are used to demonstrate
that nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are equal to or less than the
1999 control strategy levels contained in the attainment
[[Page 70475]]
demonstrations or are used to set the motor vehicle emissions budget.
However, the Washington area may use some of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur
program credit for other purposes. The States and the District must
calculate the amount of the Tier 2/Sulfur credit that the Washington
area needs to show the overall 2005 emissions levels are less than the
1999 control strategy levels. If they choose to use less Tier 2/Sulfur
credit than indicated by this calculation, then these States and the
District will have to adopt additional measures to ensure the necessary
reductions are achieved. The States and the District would need to
submit adopted rules for this amount of additional emission reduction
by no later than July 1, 2000, in order to allow EPA to promulgate its
approval of the revision by November 2000.
Revisions to the motor vehicle emissions budget and the attainment
demonstration when EPA issues the MOBILE6 model. Maryland, Virginia and
the District each has previously committed to adopting additional
control measures as necessary to attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS as
discussed in the preceding section II.C.3 of this document. EPA
believes for the purposes of determining the motor vehicle emissions
budget adequate that Maryland, Virginia and the District each already
has a commitment to adopt any needed additional measures, but we need
reaffirmation from DoH, MDE and VADEQ that the intent of the existing
commitment meets all the conditions as stated in section I.C of this
action including revising the mobile vehicle emissions budget when EPA
issues the MOBILE6 model. EPA needs to receive this reaffirmation by
December 31, 1999 as discussed in section I.C. above. If Maryland,
Virginia or the District does not reaffirm by December 31, 1999, that
its existing commitment to adopt additional measures as necessary to
reach attainment is consistent within the framework of this action,
then EPA will be unable to determine the area has an adequate
conformity budget. 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 July 1, 2000).
5. Additional Measures To Further Reduce Emissions To Support the
Attainment Test
EPA has concluded that the attainment demonstrations for the
Washington area collectively have sufficient local measures to have
demonstrated attainment by 1999 but did not attain due to transport
from other areas. The area may need measures beyond those in the plan
in order to show that 2005 emissions are less the 1999 control strategy
level as discussed in section II.B.3 above. EPA believes that for the
purposes of additional measures and determining the motor vehicle
emissions budget adequate, Maryland, Virginia and the District have
each already submitted a commitment to adopt any needed additional
measures. However, we need reaffirmation from DoH, MDE and VADEQ that
the intent of their existing commitments meet all of the requirements
discussed in section I.C.5 of this document. If Maryland, Virginia or
the District does not reaffirm by December 31, 1999, that its existing
commitment to adopt additional measures is consistent within the
framework of this action, then EPA will be unable to determine that the
area has an adequate conformity budget.
6. Mid-Course Review
In accordance with the provisions of section I.C.6., above, EPA
must receive an enforceable commitment or a reaffirmation of a previous
enforceable commitment to include a mid-course review from each of the
three Washington area States before their attainment demonstrations can
be approved.
As discussed in section II.C.3 of this document, EPA believes for
the purposes of the MCR and determining the motor vehicle emissions
budget adequate that Maryland, Virginia and the District each already
has a commitment to adopt any needed additional measures to attain the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, but we need reaffirmation from DoH, MDE and VADEQ
that the intent of the existing commitment meets all the conditions as
stated in section I.C of this action including amending the commitment
to include the MCR. If Maryland, Virginia or the District does not
reaffirm by December 31, 1999, that its existing commitment is
consistent within the framework of this action, then EPA will be unable
to determine the area has an adequate conformity budget.
7. Attainment Date Delays Due to Transport
The Washington area has been identified as a downwind area affected
by transport from upwind areas in other States that significantly
contribute to nonattainment in the Washington area and, in the case of
Maryland's portion of the Washington area, from upwind area, Baltimore,
in the same State with a later attainment date of 2005.
Maryland, Virginia and the District have adopted all local measures
required under the area's current classification.
The Washington area attainment demonstration and attainment date
extension request will be approvable once:
(1) Maryland, Virginia and the District adopt and submit adequate
conformity budgets for 2005 as discussed in section II.C.3 and II.C.4
above; and
(2) Maryland, Virginia and the District submit and EPA approves
adopted additional local measures needed, if any, to demonstrate that
emissions in 2005 will not exceed the projected emissions for 1999
(these measures must be implemented as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than the date by which the upwind reductions needed for
attainment will be achieved); and
(3) Maryland, Virginia and the District adopt and submit the
enforceable commitments or reaffirmation of an existing enforceable
commitment in accordance with the schedules in Table 2 of section I.D
of this document.
III. 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 submitted by the State. (We are 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.
A. 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
[[Page 70476]]
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.
B. 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 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.
IV. Proposed Action
A. The District of Columbia
1. Proposed Approval
EPA is proposing to approve the District of Columbia's attainment
demonstration SIP revision for the Washington area which was submitted
on April 24, 1998 and supplemented on October 27, 1998, and to approve
a request for an attainment date extension from November 15, 1999 to
November 15, 2005, for the Washington area, if the following actions
occur in accordance with the schedules in section I.D, Table 2:
(1) The District adopts and submits an adequate motor vehicle
emissions budget.
(2) The District submits a list of control measures that, when
implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional
emission reductions to ensure nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are
equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels contained in the
attainment demonstrations considering growth as discussed in II.B.3.
The District need not commit to adopt any specific measures on its list
at this time, but if it does not do so, it must identify sufficient
additional emission reductions to ensure nonattainment area emissions
in 2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels 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.
(3) The District adopts and submits a rule(s) for the
NOX reductions consistent with the modeling demonstration;
NLEV; and additional emission reductions needed, if any, to ensure
nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are equal to or less than the 1999
control strategy levels.
(4) The District adopts and submits an enforceable commitment, or
reaffirmation of existing enforceable commitment to do the following:
(a) Submit measures by July 1, 2000 for additional emission
reductions, if any, as required to ensure nonattainment area emissions
in 2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels as
discussed in section II.B.3.
(b) Submit a revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget by July
1, 2000 if additional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions
inventory.
(c) Submit revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget 1 year
after MOBILE6 issued.
(d) Perform a mid-course review.
2. Proposed Disapproval-in-the-Alternative
EPA is also proposing, in the alternative, to disapprove this SIP
revision, if any of the actions listed in IV.A.1, above, do not occur
in accordance with the schedules in section I.D, Table 2.
B. State of Maryland
1. Proposed Approval
EPA is proposing to approve the State of Maryland's attainment
demonstration SIP revision for the Washington area which was submitted
on April 29, 1998 and supplemented on August 17, 1998, and to approve a
request for an attainment date extension from November 15, 1999 to
November 15, 2005, for the Washington area, if the following actions
occur in accordance with the schedules in section I.D, Table 2:
(1) Maryland adopts and submits an adequate motor vehicle emissions
budget.
(2) Maryland submits a list of control measures that, when
implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional
emission reductions to ensure nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are
equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels contained in the
attainment demonstrations considering growth as discussed in II.B.3.
The State need not commit to adopt any specific measures on its list at
this time, but if it does not do so, it must identify sufficient
additional emission reductions ensure nonattainment area emissions in
2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels 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.
(3) Maryland adopts and submits a rule(s) for additional emission
reductions needed, if any, to ensure nonattainment area emissions in
2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels.
(4) Maryland adopts and submits an enforceable commitment, or
reaffirmation of existing enforceable commitment to do the following:
(a) Submit measures by July 1, 2000 for additional emission
reductions, if any, as required to ensure nonattainment area emissions
in 2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels as
discussed in section II.B.3.
(b) Submit a revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget by July
1, 2000 if additional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions
inventory.
(c) Submit revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget 1 year
after MOBILE6 issued.
(d) Perform a mid-course review.
2. Proposed Disapproval-in-the-Alternative
EPA is also proposing, in the alternative, to disapprove this SIP
revision, if any of the actions listed in IV.B.1, above, do not occur
in accordance with the schedules in section I.D, Table 2.
[[Page 70477]]
C. Commonwealth of Virginia
1. Proposed Approval
EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's
attainment demonstration SIP revision for the Washington area which was
submitted on April 29, 1998 and supplemented on August 18, 1998, and to
approve a request for an attainment date extension for the Washington
area from November 15, 1999 to November 15, 2005, if the following
actions occur in accordance with the schedules in section I.D, Table 2:
(1) Virginia adopts and submits an adequate motor vehicle emissions
budget.
(2) Virginia submits a list of control measures that, when
implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional
emission reductions to ensure nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are
equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels contained in the
attainment demonstrations considering growth as discussed in II.B.3.
The Commonwealth need not commit to adopt any specific measures on its
list at this time, but if it does not do so, it must identify
sufficient additional emission reductions to ensure nonattainment area
emissions in 2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy
levels 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.
(3) Virginia adopts and submits a rule(s) for additional emission
reductions needed, if any, to ensure nonattainment area emissions in
2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels.
(4) Virginia adopts and submits an enforceable commitment, or
reaffirmation of existing enforceable commitment to do the following:
(a) Submit measures by July 1, 2000 for additional emission
reductions, if any, as required to ensure nonattainment area emissions
in 2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels as
discussed in section II.B.3.
(b) Submit a revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget by July
1, 2000 if additional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions
inventory.
(c) Submit revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget 1 year
after MOBILE6 issued.
(d) Perform a mid-course review.
2. Proposed Disapproval-in-the-Alternative
EPA is also proposing, in the alternative, to disapprove this SIP
revision, if any of the actions listed in IV.C.1, above, do not occur
in accordance with the schedules in section I.D, Table 2.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document and any other relevant issues regarding the attainment
demonstration for the Washington area. These comments will be
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA Regional Office listed in the Addresses this
document. 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 document.
V. 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
[[Page 70478]]
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 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).
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 does not affect
State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the submittal would
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 the 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 Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia or the District of
Columbia each of 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 on the One-Hour Ozone attainment demonstration SIP
revisions submitted by Maryland, Virginia and the District 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.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 99-31718 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
