[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35112-35119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16683]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 80, 85 and 86
[AMS-FRL-6369-5]
RIN 2060-A123
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed Tier 2
Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control
Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Clarification of Proposed Rule, Provision of Supplemental
Information and Request for Comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on May
13, 1999, proposing a major program designed to significantly reduce
the emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks, including
pickup trucks, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles (the ``Tier 2
program''). This program would provide for cleaner air by significantly
reducing vehicle emissions that contribute to increased ambient levels
of ozone and particulate matter (PM), as well as other types of
pollution. The proposed program combines requirements for cleaner
vehicles and requirements for lower levels of sulfur in gasoline. On
May 14, 1999, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit ruled, among other things, that the recently-
promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone
and PM represented unconstitutional delegations of authority, and
remanded the record to EPA for further consideration. This document
clarifies that the decision of the panel does not change EPA's proposed
requirements for a Tier 2 program and does not impact EPA's proposed
determination that the Tier 2 program is a necessary and appropriate
regulatory program that would provide cleaner air and greater public
health protection. This document also provides additional ozone
modeling information that was not included in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. EPA welcomes comment on this document.
DATES: Comments: We must receive your comments on the May 13, 1999 NPRM
and on this document by August 2, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form or by
E-mail. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if
possible) to Public Docket No. A-97-10 at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M-1500,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. If possible, we also
encourage you to send an electronic copy of your comments (in ASCII
format) to the docket by e-mail to A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov or on a 3.5
inch diskette accompanying your paper copy. If you wish, you may send
your comments by E-mail to the docket at the address listed above
without the submission of a paper copy, but a paper copy will ensure
the clarity of your comments.
Please also send a separate paper copy to the contact person listed
below. If you send comments by E-mail alone, we ask that you send a
copy of the E-mail message that contains the comments to the contact
person listed below.
EPA's Air Docket is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air
Docket by telephone at (202) 260-7548 and by facsimile at (202) 260-
4400. We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as
provided in 40 CFR Part 2.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Connell, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone (734) 214-4349, FAX (734) 214-4816, E-mail
connell.carol@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Tier 2 Proposal
On May 13, 1999, EPA published in the Federal Register its proposal
to reduce emissions from light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty
trucks (LDTs). 64 FR 26004. The proposal would also significantly
reduce sulfur content in gasoline. The proposed program would phase in
beginning in 2004. The program is projected to result in reductions of
approximately 800,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) per year
by 2007 and 1,200,000 tons by 2010. It would eventually result in
reductions of about 70 percent in emissions of NOX from LDVs
and LDTs nationwide by 2020. In addition, the proposed program would
reduce the contribution of vehicles to other serious health and
environmental problems, including particulate matter, visibility
problems, toxic air pollutants, acid rain, and nitrogen loading of
estuaries.
EPA proposed the standards for LDVs and LDTs pursuant to its
authority under section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). In
particular, section 202(i) of the Act provides specific procedures that
EPA must follow to determine whether Tier 2 standards for
[[Page 35113]]
LDVs and certain LDTs 1 are appropriate beginning in the
2004 model year. Specifically, we are required to first issue a study
regarding ``whether or not further reductions in emissions from light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks should be required'' (the ``Tier 2
study''). This study ``shall examine the need for further reductions in
emissions in order to attain or maintain the national ambient air
quality standards.'' It is also to consider (1) The availability of
technology to meet more stringent standards, taking cost, lead time,
safety, and energy impacts into consideration, and, (2) the need for,
and cost effectiveness of, such standards, including consideration of
alternative methods of attaining or maintaining the national ambient
air quality standards. EPA must then submit the study as a Report to
Congress. EPA submitted its Report to Congress on July 31, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LDTs with a loaded vehicle weight less than or equal to 3750
pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Report to Congress, EPA is required to determine by
rulemaking whether: (1) There is a need for further emission
reductions; (2) the technology for more stringent emission standards
from the affected classes will be available; and (3) such standards are
needed and cost-effective, taking into account alternatives. If EPA
makes affirmative determinations, then the Agency is to promulgate new,
more stringent motor vehicle standards (``Tier 2 standards''). EPA
proposed affirmative responses to the three questions above and
proposed new standards. EPA also proposed standards for larger light-
duty trucks (up to 8500 pounds GVWR) under the general authority of
Section 202(a)(1) and under Section 202(a)(3) of the Act, which
requires that standards applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons,
NOX, CO and PM from heavy-duty vehicles 2 reflect
the greatest degree of emission reduction available for the model year
to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to
cost, energy, and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings above 6000
pounds are considered heavy-duty vehicles under the Act. See section
202(b)(3). For regulatory purposes, we refer to these LDTs as
``heavy light-duty trucks,'' made up of LDT3s and LDT4s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposed its gasoline sulfur controls pursuant to our authority
under section 211(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Under section 211(c)(1),
EPA may adopt a fuel control if at least one of the following two
criteria is met: (1) The emission products of the fuel cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare, or (2) the emission products of the
fuel will significantly impair emissions control systems in general use
or which would be in general use in a reasonable time were the fuel
control to be adopted.
We proposed to control sulfur levels in gasoline based on both of
these criteria. Under the first criterion, we believe that existing
sulfur content in gasoline used in Tier 1 and LEV technology vehicles
contributes to ozone pollution, air toxics, and PM at levels which can
be reasonably expected to endanger public health or welfare. Under the
second criterion, we believe that in the absence of gasoline sulfur
control, sulfur in fuel that would be used in Tier 2 technology
vehicles would significantly impair the emissions control systems
expected to be used in such vehicles.
EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone and PM10 in 1997. 62
FR 38652 (July 18, 1997); 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). In proposing the
Tier 2 standards, EPA proposed its determination of air quality need
after considering data related to both the new NAAQS for ozone (the
``8-hour ozone NAAQS'') and the pre-existing ozone NAAQS (the ``1-hour
ozone NAAQS'') as well as both the new PM10 NAAQS and the
pre-existing PM10 NAAQS. Based on the data EPA believes the
need for Tier 2 and sulfur control is strongly justified for both the
new and pre-existing ozone and PM NAAQS.
B. Court Opinion
On May 14, 1999, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit found, by a 2-1 vote, that sections 108
and 109 of the Clean Air Act, as interpreted by EPA, represent
unconstitutional delegations of Congressional power. American Trucking
Ass'ns, Inc., et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 97-1440,
1441 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 1999). The Court remanded the record to EPA.
One judge dissented, finding that the majority's opinion ``ignores the
last half-century of Supreme Court nondelegation jurisprudence.'' Id.,
slip op. at 31.
The Court also ruled on other general issues and on issues specific
to each NAAQS. The Court upheld EPA's rules on some of these claims,
but ruled against the Agency on others. Regarding the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the Court found that the statute permits EPA to promulgate a
revised ozone NAAQS and to designate the attainment status of areas.
However, the Court curtailed EPA's ability to require states to comply
with the revised ozone NAAQS. Further the Court directed the Agency to
determine whether tropospheric ozone has a beneficent effect, and if
so, assess ozone's net adverse health effect. The Court also ruled that
EPA's use of PM10 (rather than, for example,
PM10-2.5 3) as an indicator of coarse particulate
matter was arbitrary, in light of the separate NAAQS for
PM2.5, and vacated the new PM10 standard. The
Court invited briefing on the appropriate remedy for the
PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the status of the previous
PM10 standard in light of the Court's ruling. In general,
the Court did not find fault with the scientific basis for EPA's
determinations regarding adverse health effects from ozone or PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Court described PM10-2.5 as the measure of particulate
matter with diameter between 2.5 and 10 micrometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and the Department of Justice are currently evaluating the
options concerning review of the panel's decision.
II. Effect of the Panel Decision on the Tier 2 Rule
EPA has received several questions regarding whether the decision
of the panel has any effect on the Tier 2 proposal. As discussed below,
EPA believes that, regardless of the eventual outcome of the Court
case, the proposed Tier 2 Rule is justified as a necessary and
important measure for reducing air pollutants and protecting public
health. The proposed regulations continue to conform to the statutory
requirements of the Act for the 1-hour ozone standard and the pre-
existing PM10 NAAQS.
A. Vehicle Standards
1. Proposed Determinations Under Section 202(i)
Under section 202(i), EPA must promulgate new standards for LDVs
and LDTs weighing 3750 lbs. or less if EPA determines that: (1) There
is a need for further reductions in emissions in order to attain or
maintain the national ambient air quality standards; (2) the technology
for more stringent emission standards from the affected classes is
available; and (3) such standards are needed and cost-effective, taking
into account alternative methods of attaining or maintaining the
national ambient air quality standards. EPA proposed this finding in
the May 13, 1999 NPRM. EPA continues to view its proposed finding
appropriate under the CAA after consideration of the D.C. Circuit
decision.
a. Air Quality Need
EPA continues to believe that there is a need for further
reductions in emissions to attain or maintain the ozone and
PM10 NAAQS. The NPRM discussed this need criterion in
relation
[[Page 35114]]
to both the 8-hour and the 1-hour ozone standards and in relation to
both the revised PM10 and the pre-existing PM10
standards. It is clear from the proposal that further reductions are
needed to ensure achievement of the 1-hour ozone and pre-existing
PM10 NAAQS. As described in the preamble, 72 million people
outside of California lived in 36 metropolitan areas and 2 counties
designated nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as of August 10,
1998, while 13 million people outside of California lived in 68
counties designated nonattainment under the pre-existing
PM10 NAAQS. 64 of the counties, with a population of about 8
million people, are not included in current ozone nonattainment areas.
Therefore, approximately 80 million people live in areas currently
designated nonattainment under one or both of the NAAQS.
Though EPA projects that ozone control programs will reduce the
number of these areas in the future, it is clear that, absent Tier 2
controls, nonattainment problems under the 1-hour ozone standard will
continue well into the future. In the proposal, EPA projected future
ozone levels by applying a ``rollback method'' to selected areas in the
region analyzed by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group
(OTAG).4 We used this method to estimate 2007 design values
for both the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone standards. The 1-hour results
indicated that eight metropolitan areas and two rural counties with a
combined population of approximately 39 million are projected to have
design values in excess of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 2007, after
presuming implementation of controls from the Regional Ozone Transport
Rule (ROTR).5 As indicated in Table 1, these areas would be
scattered throughout the OTAG region, including areas in Texas,
Louisiana, Indiana and throughout the northeast, indicating that
nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard would remain a substantial
and widespread concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OTAG evaluated a region that included all or part of the
easternmost 37 states.
\5\ The design value is the calculated ozone level, based on
ozone measurements in the area, that is compared to the NAAQS to
determine compliance with the standard.
Table 1.--Metropolitan Areas/Rural Counties With Design Values Projected
To Exceed the 1-Hour Standard in 2007 Using Rollback Method With ROTR
Controls but Without Tier 2/Sulfur Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Value
Name (ppb) Pop'n.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iberville County LA..................... 132 31,049
La Porte County IN...................... 131 107,066
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA............ 129 361,218
Hartford, CT MSA........................ 125 1,157,585
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA..... 175 3,731,029
Longview-Marshall, TX MSA............... 129 193,801
Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA a................. 125 1,007,306
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 136 19,549,649
Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA....................
CMSA:
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 126 5,893,019
City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA.............
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA.. 126 6,726,395
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population........................ .............. 38,758,117
Number of metro areas................... .............. 8
Metro pop............................... .............. 38,620,002
Number of counties...................... .............. 2
County pop.............................. .............. 138,115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a 1-hour ozone NAAQS no longer applies in a portion of the MSA.
The OTAG analysis region did not include California, and therefore
EPA does not have comparable projections of future air quality in that
state. It is important to note that California has under its authority
designed and implemented a vehicle and fuel control program, and
therefore EPA did not propose to apply the proposed Tier 2/gasoline
sulfur program in California. However, in its proposal EPA noted in
qualitative terms the importance of the Tier 2 and sulfur control
reductions to California's efforts to reach attainment with the 1-hour
ozone standard. Nine areas in California currently designated as
nonattainment, and two counties currently designated as being in
attainment, with a population of approximately 30 million, have current
design values above the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. It appears that some
California areas with an attainment deadline of 1999 will not meet that
date, and therefore will require additional emission reductions to
attain. Attainment of the 1-hour standard in the remaining areas by
their various later attainment dates remains the goal of California and
EPA, but will be challenging to accomplish. Though this regulation does
not directly regulate California vehicles, ozone levels in California
are reduced through reductions in emissions from vehicles sold outside
California that subsequently enter California temporarily or
permanently. According to California, about 7 to 10 percent of all car
and light truck travel in California takes place in vehicles originally
sold outside of California. In fact, the state of California has
recently filed an update to its State Implementation Plan for the South
Coast Air Basin that expressly claims that the Tier 2 program will lead
to four tons of reduced NOX emissions per day in the South
Coast area in 2010.6 Furthermore, low gasoline sulfur levels
would prevent poisoning of the catalysts of California vehicles that
travel outside California and later return to the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ California Air Resources Board, Executive Order G-99-037,
May 20, 1999, Attachment A, p. 6-7, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1-hour ozone design values for 2007 presented in Table 1 above
were based on an analysis approach called the ``rollback method'' that
combines modeling results for future years with recent measured ozone
levels to project future ozone levels. The general concept in this
method is to first determine the design value from the monitoring data
for a three-year base period, then
[[Page 35115]]
estimate the percentage reduction between the base year and a future
year (the year 2007 is used in Table 1) using the regional ozone
modeling system. Finally, the percentage reduction is applied to the
ambient design value to project the design value for the future year. A
more detailed discussion of this approach appears in the draft RIA.
The rollback approach was applied to both the 1-hour or 8-hour
ozone predictions in the Tier 2/gasoline sulfur proposal. EPA has more
commonly used the ``exceedence method,'' which estimates future ozone
levels from the modeling results more directly. The exceedence approach
is more consistent than the rollback method with EPA's guidance to
states regarding technical methods used to demonstrate attainment with
the existing 1-hour ozone standard. In this method, the predicted ozone
concentrations in 2007 are compared to the ozone standard of interest
to characterize whether the area is likely to experience an exceedence
of the ozone standard in the future. A more complete description of
this guidance can be found in ``Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to
Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS'', U.S. EPA (1996), EPA-454/
B-95-007, (June 1996).
In light of the recent Court decision, EPA is providing a more
thorough presentation of the available ozone modeling data on the need
for additional emission reductions to meet the 1-hour ozone standard,
to provide additional information for public comment.
In the ROTR, EPA used the exceedence method to determine whether
designated 1-hour nonattainment areas would be likely to experience
exceedences in 2007, considering the effects of growth and emission
control measures. EPA used an exceedence approach to estimate the
impacts of controls on 1-hour ozone concentrations because this
approach is more consistent with the 1-hour standard than a rollback
approach. The form of the 1-hour standard considers the number of
exceedences at a monitoring site over a three-year period. Year-to-year
variations in meteorological conditions can result in considerable
variation in the number of exceedences at a given location across
successive three-year periods. Using the exceedence approach based on
modeling for specific ozone episodes provides for a consistent set of
meteorological conditions over which to evaluate the effects of control
strategies on 1-hour exceedences. In moving to an 8-hour standard, EPA
changed the form of the standard from an exceedence based approach to
an average concentration based approach. Specifically, 8-hour design
values are calculated as the 3-year average of the 4th highest 8-hour
value in each year at a monitoring site. As a result of this multi-year
averaging, the effects of variations in year-to-year meteorological
conditions are reduced and thus, 8-hour design values are likely to be
more stable over time than 1-hour exceedences. The rollback method,
which is based on the average ozone reductions calculated from model
predictions, is consistent with the form and temporal stability of 8-
hour design values.
Consistent with our guidance on 1-hour attainment demonstrations
and with our reliance on the exceedence approach in the ROTR, EPA has
now analyzed the air quality modeling results using the exceedence
method. The results of this analysis are presented as supplemental
information that bears on our proposed finding regarding the need for
additional reductions in ozone precursor emissions to help areas attain
the NAAQS.
Table 2 shows results of the exceedence method for the 1-hour
standard. It lists 17 current nonattainment areas that are projected to
experience exceedences of the 1-hour standard in 2007, even after
implementation of the ROTR, the National Low Emission Vehicle Program,
the 2004 highway diesel engine standards, the Phase II nonroad diesel
engine standards, and other federal emission control
measures.7 These results indicate that there are more, and
more geographically dispersed, metropolitan areas which need further
ozone precursor emission reductions to meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
than was indicated by the rollback method as reported in Table 1. The
population of these 17 areas exceeds 70 million. Details of this
analysis are given in a memo to Air Docket A-97-10, titled ``Exceedence
Method Analysis of Photochemical Modeling in Support of Tier 2/
Sulfur.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The deadline for submission of state implementation plans
under the ROTR was recently stayed by a panel of the Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pending further review. EPA believes
that the ROTR is fully consistent with the Clean Air Act and should
be upheld. However, it should be noted that in the absence of the
controls mandated in the ROTR, the emission reductions from the Tier
2 program would be even more necessary for compliance with the
NAAQS.
Table 2.--Metropolitan Areas Projected To Experience Exceedences of the
1-Hour Standard in 2007 or 2010, as Applicable, With ROTR Controls but
Without Tier 2/Sulfur Controls
[Does not include areas for which the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS no longer
applies.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990
Metropolitan area population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA MSA......................................... 2,959,500
Baton Rouge, LA MSAa.................................... 528,261
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSAa........................... 361,218
Birmingham, AL MSA...................................... 839,942
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA..................... 8,239,820
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN CMSAb..................... 1,817,569
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSAa............................. 4,037,282
Hartford, CT MSA........................................ 1,157,585
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSAa.................... 3,731,029
Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino CA CMSAa, c........ 13,000,000
Louisville, KY-IN MSA................................... 949,012
Milwaukee-Racine, WI CMSA............................... 1,607,183
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA 19,549,649
CMSA...................................................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA. 5,893,019
Springfield, MA MSA..................................... 587,884
St. Louis, MO-IL MSA.................................... 2,492,348
[[Page 35116]]
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA.................. 6,726,395
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population........................................ 74,479,686
Number of Areas......................................... 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a = These areas are not subject to the ROTR and were modeled
accordingly.
b = 1-hour ozone NAAQS proposed to no longer apply.
c = The attainment date considered for Los Angeles-Riverside-San
Bernardino is 2010. For other listed areas, the date considered is
2007. For the former area, the possibility of 2010 exceedences without
Tier 2/Sulfur controls is inferred from the inclusion of these
reductions in the most recently submitted SIP update. For other areas,
the prediction is based on the exceedence method applied to regional
ozone modeling results.
Our preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed Tier 2/Sulfur
program would reduce the number and severity of ozone exceedences in
areas currently designated nonattainment under the existing 1-hour
ozone standard. We expect to conduct further analysis of the impact of
the Tier 2/sulfur program on exceedences of the current 1-hour ozone
standard as part of our analysis for the final rule.
EPA invites comment on the appropriateness of using the exceedence
and/or rollback method in this rulemaking for purposes of analyzing
future compliance with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
As discussed at length in the proposed rule, emissions from LDVs
and LDTs will represent a large percentage of emissions of ozone
precursors once the ROTR is implemented. To the extent that significant
additional reductions in precursors are needed for the areas discussed
above to attain or maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA believes that
reductions from LDVs and LDTs in particular will be necessary.
The NOX and sulfur dioxide emissions from LDVs and LDTs
also contribute to elevated particulate matter levels as these
emissions are transformed by physical and chemical processes in the
atmosphere. The resulting particulate matter contributes to current and
projected nonattainment with the pre-existing PM10 standard.
In the NPRM, EPA presented its projection that 33 counties outside of
California, with a population of approximately eleven million, and
twelve counties in California, with a population of about seven
million, would not be in attainment with the pre-existing
PM10 standard in 2010, absent further emission reductions
8. These projections were made during the rulemaking that
established the revised PM10 standard. The following
additional information is presented regarding current and projected
attainment of the pre-existing PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The predictions of 2010 nonattainment under the pre-existing
PM10 NAAQS were made on the basis of individual counties,
not metropolitan areas. The methods used to project PM
concentrations in 2010 from 1990 emissions and ambient concentration
data introduce several sources of uncertainty. Uncertainties exist
regarding emission inventory estimates from human and natural
sources, monitoring data, and the models used to account for
physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one of the 45 counties which EPA projected to be in
nonattainment with the pre-existing PM10 standard in 2010
are not part of metropolitan areas. In these 21 rural counties,
PM10 levels are likely to be dominated by natural events
(volcanoes, wind-blown dust, or wildfires) or by single large
industrial sources of PM10. As such, the PM and PM precursor
reductions from the Tier2/Sulfur proposal are less likely to materially
affect their attainment and maintenance of the standard, although EPA
invites comment on this issue.
Table 3 lists the 24 urban counties projected to be in
nonattainment in 2010. For two areas (Lubbock Co. and Spokane Co.)
there is specific indication that natural events are responsible for
the high PM10 levels. Also, while Philadelphia was projected
to be in nonattainment in this analysis, additional emission reductions
have since occurred there through a source shutdown, which may result
in PM10 attainment in 2010. The remaining 21 urban counties
contain about 15 million people. The reductions in PM and PM precursors
resulting from the Tier 2/Sulfur rule would help to reach and maintain
the NAAQS in such areas. Of these 21 counties and 15 million people, 17
counties and 9 million people are not included in the projected ozone
exceedence areas listed in Table 2 above.
Table 3.--Counties, in Metropolitan Areas Only, Projected Not To Attain
the Pre-Existing PM10 Standard in 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
Name (1990)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernalillo Co NM........................................ 480,577
Kern Co CA.............................................. 369,608
Scott Co IA............................................. 150,973
Lane Co OR.............................................. 282,912
Fresno Co CA............................................ 667,000
Haris Co TX a........................................... 2,818,199
Clark Co NV............................................. 741,368
Riverside Co CA a....................................... 1,170,413
San Bernardino Co CA a.................................. 1,418,380
Lubbock Co TX b......................................... 222,636
Ouachita Par LA......................................... 142,938
Davidson Co TN.......................................... 510,784
[[Page 35117]]
New Haven Co CT a....................................... 804,219
Cass Co NE.............................................. 21,318
Philadelphia Co PA a, c................................. 1,585,577
Maricopa Co AZ.......................................... 2,122,101
Utah Co UT.............................................. 263,590
Pennington Co SD........................................ 81,343
Washoe Co NV............................................ 254,667
Yolo Co CA.............................................. 141,000
San Diego Co CA......................................... 2,498,016
Santa Cruz Co CA........................................ 229,734
Spokane Co WA d......................................... 361,333
Hancock Co WV........................................... 35,233
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population........................................ 17,373,919
Number of Areas......................................... 24
Population of 21 Areas Without Specific Indication of 15,204,373
Natural Events or Additional Emission Reduction........
Population of 17 Areas Without Specific Indication of 8,993,162
Natural Events or Additional Emission Reduction, and
Not Listed in Table 2..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Counties in areas also projected to exceed the 1-hour ozone standard
(listed in Table 2 above).
b PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in Lubbock Co. TX are considered to
be due to fugitive dust from agricultural land. The area is
implementing USDA guidelines on control of fugitive dust.
c Monitored PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in Philadelphia Co. PA
are considered to have been due to a lead smelting operation which has
ceased operation.
d The state of Washington has submitted a Natural Events Action Plan for
Spokane Co.
Based on the above, EPA reiterates its proposed finding that there
is a need for further reductions in emissions in order to attain or
maintain the NAAQS, even when consideration is limited to the one-hour
ozone and the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS. A total of
approximately 83 million people living in 17 metropolitan areas and 17
individual metropolitan counties projected to not be in attainment of
either or both of these standards would be helped by Tier 2/Sulfur
controls. We invite comment on all the information presented in this
section of this notice.
b. Technological Feasibility and Cost-Effectiveness
EPA's NPRM proposed a determination that technology would be
available for meeting emission standards more stringent than current
levels. Indeed, the NPRM proposed a finding that the standards are
fully feasible for LDVs and LDTs. The Court's decision does not concern
this issue and therefore does not affect EPA's rationale.
The Court decision also does not change EPA's proposed
determination regarding the need for and relative cost-effectiveness of
the Tier 2 standards. The Tier 2 program, costing between $1213 and
$2134 per ton of NOX and HC reduced, compares favorably to
other possible control programs that might be used to meet the ozone
NAAQS. The Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur proposal made a summary comparison
was made to the over 50 technologies identified in the ozone NAAQS
revision rulemaking as alternative means for reducing NOX
and VOC emissions to meet the 1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS. 64 FR 26004,
26074. The average cost effectiveness of these technologies varied from
hundreds of dollars per ton to tens of thousands of dollars per ton. If
all of the technologies identified for the ozone NAAQS analysis costing
less than $10,000/ton were implemented nationwide, they would produce
NOX emission reductions of about 2.9 million tons per year,
compared to the 2.8 million tons per year for Tier 2 once the program
is fully implemented. As summarized in the Tier 2/sulfur NPRM, we found
that these additional local emission control measures only brought 2 of
the 19 projected 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas into attainment.
While not mentioned in the Tier 2/sulfur NPRM, this same analysis
showed that these additional local emission control measures only
brought 1 of the 9 projected 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas into
attainment. Thus, there appears to be a strong need for the Tier 2 and
sulfur standards, in order for local areas to achieve, not only the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, but also the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, as
discussed in the NPRM, the cost-effectiveness of the Tier 2 program is
within the range of the cost-effectiveness of other mobile source
control programs that have already been promulgated. Given the
continuing need for further emission reductions to comply with the 1-
hour NAAQS discussed above, we believe that the Tier 2/gasoline sulfur
control proposal is a cost effective approach for attaining and
maintaining the NAAQS.
The magnitude of emission reductions that can be achieved by this
program would be difficult to achieve from any other source category.
Given the percentage of emissions of ozone precursors that come from
LDVs and LDTs and the possible alternative control programs areas may
use to meet the ozone standard, it would be difficult to attain and
maintain the ozone NAAQS (1-hour or 8-hour) in a cost-effective manner
without substantial reductions from LDVs and LDTs.
Moreover, the monetized benefit estimates used for the benefit cost
analysis of the Tier 2/gasoline sulfur proposal are not affected by the
Court action. 64 FR 26078-79 (May 13, 1999). The estimates of benefits
are based on (a) Our estimates of the emission reductions that the rule
would produce, (b) our projections of the air quality changes that
would result from these emission reductions, (c) the changes in various
health and welfare endpoints caused by the air quality changes, and (d)
the value of reductions in those health and welfare endpoints. None of
these pieces of the benefits analysis are dependent upon the specific
level of the NAAQS. Emission reductions and related air quality changes
are determined by the requirements of the rule itself. The changes in
health and welfare effects are determined solely
[[Page 35118]]
from the underlying scientific studies relating effects and endpoint
changes. Similarly, the valuation of changes in these end points is
derived directly from the scientific literature. None of these factors
depends on the specific NAAQS level.
2. Section 202(a)
EPA's proposed vehicle standards for LDTs above 3750 pounds are
governed by the general provisions of section 202(a)(1) and (2) and
provisions of section 202(a)(3).9 Under section 202(a)(1),
EPA shall promulgate ``standards applicable to the emission of air
pollutant from any class * * * of new motor vehicles . . ., which in
his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' Under
section 202(a)(2), such standards must provide appropriate lead time,
``giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within
such period.'' Section 202(a)(3), applicable to heavy-duty vehicles,
requires EPA standards to ``reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which
such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy,
and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The proposed evaporative standards are governed by section
202(a) and 202(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court's decision does not address these provisions, and does
not change EPA's belief that the proposed Tier 2 standards are lawful
and appropriate under these criteria. As noted above and in the
proposal, the standards in this proposed rule would reduce emissions
that cause or contribute to ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, acid
rain, and other air pollution. We believe that the information provided
in the NPRM, as well as the information that EPA relied on in setting
the NAAQS for ozone and PM, will support a conclusion that these kinds
of air pollution can be reasonably anticipated to endanger the public
health or welfare.
Based on this and the information presented in the NPRM on the
technological feasibility and cost of emissions controls to reduce
vehicle emissions, EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate to
propose these emissions standards to reduce vehicle emissions of VOCs,
NOX and PM, given that they cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. Specifically with respect to ozone and PM, this is the case
even if one only considers reductions needed to achieve or maintain
ambient air quality at the levels of the pre-existing NAAQS. Moreover,
the Court's opinion does not address EPA's determination that the 1-
hour ozone standard fails to protect health with an adequate margin of
safety,10 and further reductions are needed. Further, the
discussion above shows that, in the absence of the Tier 2 program,
healthful air quality is not achieved even if we look only at the pre-
existing NAAQS. Moreover, as discussed above, the Court's opinion does
not change EPA's belief that the standards proposed are technologically
feasible in the time permitted, giving appropriate consideration to
cost. We seek public comment on all aspects of this supplemental
notice, including the continuing need for the proposed vehicle emission
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The one-hour standard for ozone was set 20 years ago, in
1979, based on the science available at that time. 44 FR 8202
(1979). EPA next reviewed the ozone NAAQS in 1993, in compliance
with a court-ordered schedule, and concluded that revision was not
appropriate at that time. 58 FR 13008 (1993). EPA recognized that
its 1993 decision was based on out-of-date criteria that did not
include a large emerging database suggesting the one-hour standard
might need revision. Id. at 13013, 13018. In light of the court-
ordered deadline EPA determined to complete the review and proceed
``as rapidly as possible'' with the next review to assess the new
science. Id. at 13008, 13015-13016. Even during the course of the
1993 review, EPA's science advisors, the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC), concluded that the one-hour standard
provided ``little, if any, margin of safety.'' 61 FR 65716, 65727
(1996). In addition, several members of the CASAC panel recommended
that consideration should be given to a lower 1-hour level of 0.10
ppm to offer some protection against effects for which there was
preliminary information at that time of associations with 8-hour
exposures to ozone. Id. The criteria supporting the 1997 revision of
the ozone NAAQS confirmed that the one-hour standard was inadequate
to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. For
example, the criteria document stated that there is ``strong
evidence that ambient exposures to ozone can cause significant
exacerbations of pre-existing respiratory disease in the general
public at concentrations below 0.12 ppm.'' U.S. EPA (1996), Air
Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants, EPA/
600/P-93/004abcF, p. 7-171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Gasoline Sulfur Restrictions
Under section 211(c)(1), EPA may adopt a fuel control where one or
more of the following conditions apply: (1) the emission products of
the fuel cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or (2) the emission
products of the fuel will significantly impair emissions control
systems in general use or which would be in general use were the fuel
control to be adopted. The Court's decision does not address these
provisions and does not change our view that the proposed gasoline
sulfur standards are lawful and appropriate under this criterion.
Under the first criterion, we believe that emissions products
related to sulfur in gasoline used in Tier 1 and LEV technology
vehicles contribute to ozone pollution, air toxics, and PM. The
information provided in the NPRM and in this notice, as well as the
information that EPA relied on in setting the NAAQS for ozone and PM,
support the conclusion that emissions from Tier 1 and LEV technology
vehicles contributes to these kinds of air pollution, and that these
kinds of air pollution can be reasonably anticipated to endanger the
public health or welfare. The information provided in the NPRM
indicates that when Tier 1 and LEV technology vehicles are operated on
higher-sulfur fuel, emissions which give rise to ozone, air toxics, and
PM pollution increase substantially. The sulfur levels proposed in the
NPRM would result in substantial reductions in these emissions (as
discussed more fully below) and the resulting ozone, air toxics, PM,
and other air quality problems.
Based on this and the information presented in the NPRM on the
technological feasibility and cost of controls to reduce gasoline
sulfur, EPA believes that it is appropriate to propose the gasoline
sulfur standards to reduce vehicle emissions of VOCs, NOX
and PM, given that they cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA
believes that reductions in gasoline sulfur would provide substantial
reductions in these emissions, and would achieve significant reductions
soon after implementation, because reducing sulfur in gasoline would
immediately reduce emissions from the existing vehicle fleet.
Specifically with respect to ozone and PM, this is the case even if one
only considers reductions needed to achieve or maintain ambient air
quality at the levels of the pre-existing NAAQS. Moreover, the Court's
opinion does not question EPA's determination that the 1-hour ozone
standard has little or no margin of safety, and further reductions are
needed. As required by Section 211(c)(2)(A) prior to regulation under
the public health or welfare criterion of Section 211(c)(1), EPA
considered all relevant medical and scientific evidence available
relating to the emissions impact of sulfur in gasoline, including its
impact on emissions of ozone precursors, PM, and air toxics. EPA also
considered whether vehicle standards under Section 202 would be
technologically and economically feasible. For the reasons
[[Page 35119]]
discussed above, the Court's opinion does not change our analysis under
section 211(c)(2)(A).
Moreover, the Court's decision is not relevant to the second
criterion of section 211(c)(1). Under this criterion, EPA is proposing
the sulfur standards based on our belief that sulfur in the gasoline
that will be used in Tier 2 technology vehicles will significantly
impair the emissions control systems expected to be used in such
vehicles. The Court's decision does not affect this proposal, as EPA's
position on the sulfur sensitivity of Tier 2 emissions control
technology is based on a technical analysis of the capability of
vehicle emission control technology.
As required by section 211(c)(2)(B) prior to regulation under this
criterion of section 211(c)(1), EPA also considered the available
scientific and economic data, including an analysis of costs and
benefits of emissions control systems that are or will be in general
use and require low sulfur fuel, and those that are or will be in
general use and do not require low sulfur fuel. As described in
Appendix D of the Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA believes that there
are no emissions control systems for gasoline vehicles meeting the
proposed Tier 2 standards that would not require low sulfur fuel, and
therefore believes that the benefits that would be achieved through
implementation of the proposed Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur programs
cannot be achieved through the use of emission control technology that
is not sulfur-sensitive. The efficiency of catalytic converters used in
gasoline-powered vehicles is very sensitive to the level of sulfur in
gasoline. As discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis supporting the
rule, NOX emissions increase by about 15% in Tier 1 vehicles
as gasoline sulfur levels rise from 40 to 330 ppm. LEV technologies are
even more sensitive to sulfur, with NOX increases of 40-130%
measured in testing programs. NLEV vehicles are now being sold in the
northeastern United States and will be sold in the remainder of the
United States by 2001. A substantial portion of the NOX
emission reduction benefits from the gasoline sulfur program would
arise immediately as a result of the reductions of emissions in the
current fleet in these early years. As described in section II.A.1.b.
above, the Court's decision does not affect EPA's analysis of the costs
and benefits of the Tier 2 program or the gasoline sulfur program.
Moreover, the Court's decision is not relevant to EPA's analysis of
whether vehicle emissions control technology that is not sulfur-
sensitive will be in general use.
EPA's proposal also proposes that the sulfur standards are feasible
in the lead time provided. The Court's decision does not concern this
issue and therefore does not disturb EPA's rationale.
III. Public Comment
We seek comments on all aspects of this Supplemental document,
including the continuing need for Tier 2 emission standards for
vehicles and reducing sulfur in gasoline to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. In addition, we have just completed four public hearings around
the country on the Tier 2 proposal and continue to welcome written
public comments on the Tier 2/Gasoline sulfur proposal until the
closing date of August 2, 1999. Please see the ADDRESSES section in
this document for how and where to send any comments on the Tier 2
Proposal, as well as any comments you may have on the supplemental
information provided in today's document.
Dated: June 23, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-16683 Filed 6-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P