99-16683. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements  

  • [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
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
06/30/1999
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Clarification of Proposed Rule, Provision of Supplemental Information and Request for Comment.
Document Number:
99-16683
Dates:
Comments: We must receive your comments on the May 13, 1999 NPRM and on this document by August 2, 1999.
Pages:
35112-35119 (8 pages)
Docket Numbers:
AMS-FRL-6369-5
RINs:
2060-A123
PDF File:
99-16683.pdf
CFR: (3)
40 CFR 80
40 CFR 85
40 CFR 86