Technology Transfer Network / NAAQS
Ozone Implementation
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Connecticut;
One-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration; Greater Connecticut
Ozone Nonattainment Area
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.Federal Register Document
Related Material
- Other Related Documents
[Federal Register: December 16, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 241)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70332-70348]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16de99-23]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CT056-7215-FRL-6501-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut;
One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration; Greater Connecticut Ozone
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the ground-level one-hour
ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area submitted by the
Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(CT DEP) on September 16, 1998. We are also proposing, in the
alternative, to disapprove this demonstration if Connecticut does not
submit an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget consistent with
attainment. EPA is also proposing approval of an attainment date
extension until November 15, 2007 for the Greater Connecticut
nonattainment area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be sent
to: David B. Conroy at the EPA Region I (New England) Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 (New
England), One Congress St., 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts.
Telephone (617) 918-1664, an at the Bureau of Air Management,
Department of Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm
Street, Hartford, CT 06106. Please telephone in advance before
visiting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Burkhart (617) 918-1664.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides background
information on attainment demonstration SIPs for the one-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and an analysis of the
one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP submitted by the CT DEP for
the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area. This document addresses the
following questions:
What is the Basis for the Attainment Demonstration SIP?
What are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
What is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs?
What Does EPA Expect to Happen with Respect to Attainment
Demonstrations for the Greater Connecticut One-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area?
What are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
How Does the Connecticut Submittal Satisfy the Frame Work?
I. Background
A. What Is the Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP?
1. CAA Requirements
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for certain widespread
pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. CAA sections 108 and
109. In 1979, EPA promulgated the one-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm)
ground-level ozone standard. 44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). Ground-level
ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in
the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX and
VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
An area exceeds the one-hour ozone standard each time an ambient
air quality monitor records a one-hour average ozone concentration
above 0.124 ppm. An area is violating the standard if, over a
consecutive three-year period, more than three exceedances are expected
to occur at any one monitor. The CAA, as amended in 1990, required EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the one-hour
ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the
three-year period from 1987-1989. CAA section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694
(Nov. 6, 1991). The CAA further classified these areas, based on the
area's design value, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme.
CAA section 181(a). Marginal areas were suffering the least significant
air pollution problems while the areas classified as severe and extreme
had the most significant air pollution problems.
The control requirements and dates by which attainment needs to be
achieved vary with the area's classification. Marginal areas are
subject to the fewest mandated control
[[Page 70333]]
requirements and have the earliest attainment date. Severe and extreme
areas are subject to more stringent planning requirements but are
provided more time to attain the standard. Serious areas are required
to attain the one-hour standard by November 15, 1999 and severe areas
are required to attain by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007. The
Greater Connecticut area is classified as serious and its attainment
date is November 15, 1999.
Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and severe
areas were required to submit by November 15, 1994 demonstrations of
how they would attain the one-hour standard and how they would achieve
reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each three-year period
until the attainment year (rate-of-progress or ROP). (In some cases,
NOX emission reduction can be substituted for the required
VOC emission reductions.) Today, in this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP submitted by the
CT DEP for Greater Connecticut nonattainment area. EPA will take action
on the Connecticut's 9% ROP plan for reductions from 1996-1999 in a
separate rulemaking action. (The 9% ROP plan was submitted to EPA on
December 31, 1997, with minor revisions on January 7, 1998.) In
addition, elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is today proposing to
take action on nine other serious or severe one-hour ozone attainment
demonstration and, in some cases ROP SIPs. The additional nine areas
are, Springfield (Western Massachusetts), New York-North New Jersey-
Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore (MD), Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton
(PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta (GA),
Milwaukee-Racine (WI), Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL-IN), and Houston-
Galveston-Brazoria (TX).
In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling
analysis component showing how the area will achieve the standard by
its attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those
reductions. Another component of the attainment demonstration SIP is a
motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes.
Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring that States
consider the effects of emissions associated with new or improved
federally-funded roadways on attainment of the standard. As described
in section 176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations necessarily include
the estimates of motor vehicle emissions that are consistent with
attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of
determining whether transportation plans and projects conform to the
attainment SIP.
2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
Notwithstanding significant efforts by the States, in 1995 EPA
recognized that many States in the eastern half of the United States
could not meet the November 1994 time frame for submitting an
attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of NOX and
VOCs in upwind States (and the ozone formed by these emissions)
affected these nonattainment areas and the full impact of this effect
had not yet been determined. This phenomenon is called ozone transport.
On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's
Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by States but
noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment demonstration
SIP submittals.1 Recognizing the problems created by ozone
transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative
process among the States in the eastern half of the country to evaluate
and address transport of ozone and its precursors. This memorandum led
to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)
2& and provided for the States to submit the attainment
demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to
complete its evaluation of ozone transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum, "Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued
March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web
site.
\2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States
(ECOS) Members, dated April 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations
regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport
of ozone and the precursor NOX is significant and should be
reduced regionally to enable States in the eastern half of the country
to attain the ozone NAAQS.
In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29,
1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for
States to submit the following elements of their attainment
demonstration SIPs for serious and severe areas: (1) evidence that the
applicable control measures in subpart 2 of part D of title I of the
CAA were adopted and implemented or were on an expeditious course to
being adopted and implemented; (2) a list of measures needed to meet
the remaining ROP emissions reduction requirement and to reach
attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a commitment to adopt and submit
target calculations for post-1999 ROP and the control measures
necessary for attainment and ROP plans through the attainment year by
the end of 2000; (4) a commitment to implement the SIP control programs
in a timely manner and to meet ROP emissions reductions and attainment;
and (5) evidence of a public hearing on the State
submittal.3 This submission is sometimes referred to as the
Phase 2 submission. Motor vehicle emissions budgets can be established
based on a commitment to adopt the measures needed for attainment and
identification of the measures needed. Thus, State submissions due in
April 1998 under the Wilson policy should have included a motor vehicle
emissions budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Memorandum, """Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and
Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS,'' issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this
memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg/t1pgm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building upon the OTAG recommendations and technical analyses, in
November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing the ozone transport
problem. In its proposal, the EPA found that current SIPs in 22 States
and the District of Columbia (23 jurisdictions) were insufficient to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the one-hour standard because
they did not regulate NOX emissions that significantly
contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318 (Nov. 7, 1997). The EPA
finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions
to revise their SIPs to require NOX emissions reductions
within the State to a level consistent with a NOX emissions
budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). This
final rule is commonly referred to as the NOX SIP Call.
3. Attainment Date Delays Due to Transport
On July 16, 1998, EPA's then Acting Assistant Administrator,
Richard Wilson, issued a guidance memorandum intended to provide
further relief to areas affected by ozone transport.4 The
memorandum
[[Page 70334]]
recognized that many moderate and serious areas are affected by
transported pollution from either an upwind area in the same State with
a higher classification and later attainment date, and/or from an
upwind area in another State that is significantly contributing to the
downwind area's nonattainment problem. The policy recognized that some
downwind areas may be unable to meet their own attainment dates,
despite doing all that was required in their local area, because an
upwind area may not have adopted and implemented all of the controls
that would benefit the downwind area through control of transported
ozone before the downwind area's attainment date. Thus, the policy
provided that upon a successful demonstration that an upwind area has
interfered with attainment and that the downwind area is adopting all
measures required for its local area 5 for attainment but
for this interference, EPA may grant an extension of the downwind
area's attainment date.6 Once an area receives an extension
of its attainment date based on transport, the area would no longer be
subject to reclassification to a higher classification and subject to
additional requirements for failure to attain by its original
attainment date provided it was doing all that was necessary locally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind
Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. This memorandum is
applicable to both moderate and serious ozone nonattainment areas. A
copy of this policy may be found on EPA's web site.
\5\ Local area measures would include all of the measures within
the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of the
modeled attainment demonstration.
\6\ The policy provides that the area must meet four criteria to
receive an attainment date extension. In summary, the area must: (1)
be identified as a downwind area affected by transport from either
an upwind area in the same State with a later attainment date or an
upwind area in another State that significantly contributes to
downwind nonattainment; (2) submit an approvable attainment
demonstration with any necessary, adopted local measures and with an
attainment date that reflects when the upwind reductions will occur;
(3) adopt all local measures required under the area's current
classification and any additional measures necessary to demonstrate
attainment; and (4) provide that it will implement all adopted
measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date
by which the upwind reductions needed for attainment will be
achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A request from the CT DEP for such an extension of the attainment
date for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area and EPA's proposed
response is discussed in this action.
4. Time Frame for Taking Action on Attainment Demonstration SIPs for 10
Serious and Severe Areas
The States generally submitted the SIPs between April and October
of 1998; some States are still submitting additional revisions as
described below. Under the CAA, EPA is required to approve or
disapprove a State's submission no later than 18 months following
submission. (The statute provides up to 6 months for a completeness
determination and an additional 12 months for approval or disapproval.)
The EPA believes that it is important to keep the process moving
forward in evaluating these plans and, as appropriate, approving them.
Thus, in today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to take action on
the 10 serious and severe one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs
(located in 13 States and the District of Columbia) and intends to take
final action on these submissions over the next 6-12 months. The reader
is referred to individual dates in this document for specific
information on actions leading to EPA's final rulemaking on these
plans.
5. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
Depending on the circumstances unique to each of the 10 area SIP
submissions on which EPA is proposing action today, EPA is proposing
one or more of these types of approval or disapproval in the
alternative. In addition, these proposals may identify additional
action that will be necessary from the State.
The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve
or conditionally approve a State's plan submission. CAA section 110(k).
The EPA must fully approve the submission if it meets the attainment
demonstration requirement of the CAA. If the submission is deficient in
some way, EPA may disapprove the submission. In the alternative, if
portions of the submission are approvable, EPA may partially approve
and partially disapprove, or may conditionally approve based on a
commitment to correct the deficiency by a date certain, which can be no
later than one year from the date of EPA's final conditional approval.
The EPA may partially approve a submission if separable parts of
the submission, standing alone, are consistent with the CAA. For
example, if a State submits a modeled attainment demonstration,
including control measures, but the modeling does not demonstrate
attainment, EPA could approve the control measures and disapprove the
modeling for failing to demonstrate attainment.
The EPA may issue a conditional approval based on a State's
commitment to expeditiously correct a deficiency by a date certain that
can be no later than one year following EPA's conditional approval.
Such commitments do not need to be independently enforceable because,
if the State does not fulfill its commitment, the conditional approval
is converted to a disapproval. For example, if a State commits to
submit additional control measures and fails to submit them or EPA
determines the State's submission of the control measures is
incomplete, the EPA will notify the State by letter that the
conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval. If the State
submits control measures that EPA determines are complete or that are
deemed complete, EPA will determine through rulemaking whether the
State's attainment demonstration is fully approvable or whether the
conditional approval of the attainment demonstration should be
converted to a disapproval.
Finally, EPA has recognized that in some limited circumstances, it
may be appropriate to issue a full approval for a submission that
consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. Unlike the commitment
for conditional approval, such an enforceable commitment can be
enforced in court by EPA or citizens. In addition, this type of
commitment may extend beyond one year following EPA's approval action.
Thus, EPA may accept such an enforceable commitment where it is
infeasible for the State to accomplish the necessary action in the
short term.
B. What are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
The EPA provides that States may rely on a modeled attainment
demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate
attainment.7 In order to have a complete modeling
demonstration submission, States should have submitted the required
modeling analysis and identified any additional evidence that EPA
should consider in evaluating whether the area will attain the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The EPA issued guidance on the air quality modeling that is
used to demonstrate attainment with the one-hour ozone NAAQS. See
U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban
Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). A copy may be found on
EPA's web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name:
``UAMREG''). See also U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled
Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-
007, (June 1996). A copy may be found on EPA's web site at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Modeling Requirements
For purposes of demonstrating attainment, the CAA requires serious
and severe areas to use photochemical grid modeling or an analytical
method EPA determines to be as effective. The
[[Page 70335]]
photochemical grid model is set up using meteorological conditions
conducive to the formation of ozone. Emissions for a base year are used
to evaluate the model's ability to reproduce actual monitored air
quality values and to predict air quality changes in the attainment
year due to the emission changes which include growth up to and
controls implemented by the attainment year. A modeling domain is
chosen that encompasses the nonattainment area. Attainment is
demonstrated when all predicted concentrations inside the modeling
domain are at or below the NAAQS or at an acceptable upper limit above
the NAAQS permitted under certain conditions by EPA's guidance. When
the predicted concentrations are above the NAAQS, an optional weight of
evidence determination which incorporates, but is not limited to, other
analyses such as air quality and emissions trends, may be used to
address uncertainty inherent in the application of photochemical grid
models.
The EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis
that are essential to obtain credible results. First, the State must
develop and implement a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol
describes the methods and procedures to be used in conducting the
modeling analyses and provides for policy oversight and technical
review by individuals responsible for developing or assessing the
attainment demonstration (State and local agencies, EPA Regional
offices, the regulated community, and public interest groups). Second,
for purposes of developing the information to put into the model, the
State must select air pollution days, i.e., days in the past with bad
air quality, that are representative of the ozone pollution problem for
the nonattainment area. Third, the State needs to identify the
appropriate dimensions of the area to be modeled, i.e., the domain
size. The domain should be larger than the designated nonattainment
area to reduce uncertainty in the boundary conditions and should
include large upwind sources just outside the nonattainment area. In
general, the domain is considered the local area where control measures
are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment. Fourth, the
State needs to determine the grid resolution. The horizontal and
vertical resolutions in the model affect the dispersion and transport
of emission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical
layers and horizontal grids) may dilute concentrations and may not
properly consider impacts of complex terrain, complex meteorology, and
land/water interfaces. Fifth, the State needs to generate
meteorological data that describe atmospheric conditions and emissions
inputs. Finally, the State needs to verify that the model is properly
simulating the chemistry and atmospheric conditions through diagnostic
analyses and model performance tests. Once these steps are
satisfactorily completed, the model is ready to be used to generate air
quality estimates to support an attainment demonstration.
The modeled attainment test compares model predicted one-hour daily
maximum concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the
level of the NAAQS. A predicted concentration above 0.124 ppm ozone
indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the
attainment year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that
the area is expected to attain the standard. This type of test is often
referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's guidance recommends that
States use either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the
one-hour ozone NAAQS: a deterministic test or a statistical test.
The deterministic test requires the State to compare predicted one-
hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day
8 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the
predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The initial, ``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded
from this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of
the one-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a three-year
period, the area has an average of one or fewer exceedances per year,
the area is not violating the standard. Thus, if the State models a
very extreme day, the statistical test provides that a prediction above
0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment
of the standard. (The form of the one-hour standard allows for up to
three readings above the standard over a three-year period before an
area is considered to be in violation.)
The acceptable upper limit above 0.124 ppm is determined by
examining the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet the
one-hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four
highest one-hour average concentrations over a three-year period are
0.136 ppm, 0.130 ppm, 0.128 ppm and 0.122 ppm is attaining the
standard. To identify an acceptable upper limit, the statistical
likelihood of observing ozone air quality exceedances of the standard
of various concentrations is equated to the severity of the modeled
day. The upper limit generally represents the maximum ozone
concentration observed at a location on a single day and it would be
the only reading above the standard that would be expected to occur no
more than an average of once a year over a three-year period.
Therefore, if the maximum ozone concentration predicted by the model is
below the acceptable upper limit, in this case 0.136 ppm, then EPA
might conclude that the modeled attainment test is passed. Generally,
exceedances well above 0.124 ppm are very unusual at monitoring sites
meeting the NAAQS. Thus, these upper limits are rarely substantially
higher than the attainment level of 0.124 ppm.
2. Additional Analyses Where Modeling Fails To Show Attainment
When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment,
additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area
will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are
inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and its results. For
example, there are uncertainties in some of the modeling inputs, such
as the meteorological and emissions data bases for individual days and
in the methodology used to assess the severity of an exceedance at
individual sites. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, and
provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess whether
attainment of the NAAQS is likely. The process by which this is done is
called a weight of evidence (WOE) determination.
Under a WOE determination, the State can rely on and EPA will
consider factors such as other modeled attainment tests, e.g., a
rollback analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the
predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted
changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends;
estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the
responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and,
whether there are additional control measures that are or will be
approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis.
This list is not an exclusive list of factors that may be considered
and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's guidance
contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test must be to
passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is
sufficiently compelling to suggest attainment.
[[Page 70336]]
However, the further a modeled attainment test is from being passed,
the more compelling the WOE needs to be.
The EPA's 1996 modeling guidance also recognizes a need to perform
a mid-course review as a means for addressing uncertainty in the
modeling results. Because of the uncertainty in long term projections,
EPA believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on WOE needs
to contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring, emissions, and
modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements to emission
control measures are needed. The mid-course review is discussed in
Section C.6.
C. What Is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs?
In addition to the modeling analysis and WOE support demonstrating
attainment, the EPA has identified the following key elements which
must be present in order for EPA to approve or conditionally approve
the one-hour attainment demonstration SIPs. These elements are listed
below and then described in detail.
--CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled attainment
demonstration SIP. This includes adopted and submitted rules for all
previously required CAA mandated measures for the specific area
classification. This also includes measures that may not be required
for the area classification but that the State relied on in the SIP
submission for attainment and ROP plans on which EPA is proposing to
take action on today.
--NX reductions affecting boundary conditions.
--Motor vehicle emissions budget. A motor vehicle emissions budget
which can be determined by EPA to be adequate for conformity purposes.
--Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits where needed to demonstrate
attainment. Inclusion of reductions expected from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe
and low sulfur-in-fuel standards in the attainment demonstration and
the motor vehicle emissions budget.
--In certain areas, additional measures to further reduce emissions to
support the attainment test. Additional measures, may be measures
adopted regionally such as in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), or
locally (intrastate) in individual States.
--Mid-course review. An enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course
review and evaluation based on air quality and emission trends. The
mid-course review would show whether the adopted control measures are
sufficient to reach attainment by the area's attainment date, or that
additional control measures are necessary.
1. CAA Measures and Measures Relied On in the Modeled Attainment
Demonstration SIP
The States should have adopted the control measures already
required under the CAA for the area classification. Since these 10
serious and severe areas need to achieve substantial reductions from
their 1990 emissions levels in order to attain, EPA anticipates that
these areas need all of the measures required under the CAA to attain
the one-hour ozone NAAQS.
In addition, a state may have included more control measures in its
attainment strategy that are in addition to measures required in the
CAA. (For serious areas, these should have already been identified and
adopted, whereas severe areas have until December 2000 to submit
measures necessary to achieve ROP through the attainment year and to
attain.) For purposes of fully approving the State's SIP, the State
will need to adopt and submit all VOC and NOX controls
within the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of
the modeled attainment demonstration
The information in Table 1 is a summary of the CAA requirements
that need to be met for each serious area for the one-hour ozone NAAQS.
These requirements are specified in section 182 of the CAA. Information
on more measures that States may have adopted or relied on in their
current SIP submissions is not shown in the table. EPA will need to
take final action approving all measures relied on for attainment,
including the required ROP control measures and target calculations,
before EPA can issue a final full approval of the attainment
demonstration as meeting CAA section 182(c)(2).
Table 1.--CAA Requirements for Serious Areas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--NSR for VOC and NOX, including an offset ratio of 1.2:1 and a major
VOC and NOX source cutoff of 50 tons per year (tpy).
--Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX.1
--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.
--15% volatile organic compound (VOC) plans.
--Emissions inventory.
--Emission statements.
--Periodic inventories.
--Attainment demonstration.
--9 percent ROP plan through 1999.
--Clean fuels program or substitute.
--Enhanced monitoring Photochemical Assessment Monitoring stations
(PAMS).
--Stage II vapor recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless the area has in effect a NOX waiver under section 182(f). The
Greater Connecticut area is not such an area.
2. NOX Reductions Consistent With the Modeling Demonstration
The EPA completed final rulemaking on the NOX SIP call
on October 27, 1998, which required States to address transport of
NOX and ozone to other States. To address transport, the
NOX SIP call established emissions budgets for
NOX that 23 jurisdictions were required to show they would
meet through enforceable SIP measures adopted and submitted by
September 30, 1999. The NOX SIP call is intended to reduce
emissions in upwind States that significantly contribute to
nonattainment problems. The EPA did not identify specific sources that
the States must regulate nor did EPA limit the States' choices
regarding where to achieve the emission reductions. Subsequently, a
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued an order staying the portion of the NOX SIP
call rule requiring States to submit rules by September 30, 1999.
The NOX SIP call rule establishes budgets for the States
in which 9 of the nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing action
today are located. The 9 areas are: Greater Connecticut, Springfield
MA, New York-North New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore MD,
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington,
D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta GA, Milwaukee-Racine WI, and Chicago-Gary-Lake
County (IL-IN).
Emission reductions that will be achieved through EPA's
NOX SIP call will reduce the levels of ozone and ozone
precursors entering nonattainment areas at their boundaries. For
purposes of developing attainment demonstrations, States define local
modeling domains that include both the nonattainment area and nearby
surrounding areas. The ozone levels at the boundary of the local
modeling domain are reflected in modeled attainment demonstrations and
are referred to as boundary conditions. With the exception of Houston,
the one-hour attainment demonstrations on which EPA is proposing action
have relied, in part, on the NOX SIP Call reductions for
purposes of determining the boundary
[[Page 70337]]
conditions of the modeling domain. Emission reductions assumed in the
attainment demonstrations are modeled to occur both within the State
and in upwind States; thus, intrastate reductions as well as reductions
in other States impact the boundary conditions. Although the court has
indefinitely stayed the SIP submission deadline, the NOX SIP
Call rule remains in effect. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate
to allow States to continue to assume the reductions from the
NOX SIP call in areas outside the local one-hour modeling
domains. If States assume control levels and emission reductions other
than those of the NOX SIP call within their State but
outside of the modeling domain, States must also adopt control measures
to achieve those reductions in order to have an approvable plan.
Accordingly, States in which the nonattainment areas are located
will not be required to adopt measures outside the modeling domain to
achieve the NOX SIP call budgets prior to the time that all
States are required to comply with the NOX SIP call. If the
reductions from the NOX SIP call do not occur as planned,
States will need to revise their SIPs to add additional local measures
or obtain interstate reductions, or both, in order to provide
sufficient reductions needed for attainment.
As provided in section 1 above, any controls assumed by the State
inside the local modeling domain 9 for purposes of the
modeled attainment demonstration must be adopted and submitted as part
of the State's one-hour attainment demonstration SIP. It is only for
reductions occurring outside the local modeling domain that States may
assume implementation of NO&X SIP call measures and the
resulting boundary conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For the purposes of this document, ``local modeling domain''
is typically an urban scale domain with horizontal dimensions less
than about 300 km on a side, horizontal grid resolution less than or
equal to 5 x 5 km or finer. The domain is large enough to ensure
that emissions occurring at 8 am in the domain's center are still
within the domain at 8 pm the same day. If recirculation of the
nonattainment area's previous day's emissions is believed to
contribute to an observed problem, the domain is large enough to
characterize this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
The EPA believes that attainment demonstration SIPs must
necessarily estimate the motor vehicle emissions that will be produced
in the attainment year and demonstrate that this emissions level, when
considered with emissions from all other sources, is consistent with
attainment. The estimate of motor vehicle emissions is used to
determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the
SIP, as described by CAA section 176(c)(2)(A). For transportation
conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle emissions is known
as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The EPA believes that
appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budgets are a
necessary part of an attainment demonstration SIP. A SIP cannot
effectively demonstrate attainment unless it identifies the level of
motor vehicle emissions that can be produced while still demonstrating
attainment.
The EPA has determined that except for the Western MA (Springfield)
attainment demonstration SIP, the motor vehicle emission budgets for
all areas in today's proposals are inadequate or missing from the
attainment demonstration. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the
attainment demonstration SIPs for those nine areas if the States do not
submit motor vehicle emissions budgets that EPA can find adequate by
May 31, 2000. In order for EPA to complete the adequacy process by the
end of May, States should submit a budget no later than December 31,
1999.10 If an area does not have a motor vehicle emissions
budget that EPA can determine adequate for conformity purposes by May
31, 2000, EPA plans to take final action at that time disapproving in
full or in part the area's attainment demonstration. The emissions
budget should reflect all the motor vehicle control measures contained
in the attainment demonstration, i.e., measures already adopted for the
nonattainment area as well as those yet to be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A final budget is preferred; but, if the State public
hearing process is not yet complete, then the draft budget for
public hearing may be submitted. The adequacy process generally
takes at least 90 days. Therefore, in order for EPA to complete the
adequacy process no later than the end of May, EPA must have by
February 15, 2000, the final budget or a draft that is substantially
similar to what the final budget will be. The State must submit the
final budget by April 15, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits
On May 13, 1999, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing a major, comprehensive program designed to
significantly reduce emissions from passenger cars and light trucks
(including sport-utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks) and to
reduce sulfur in gasoline. Under the proposed program, automakers would
produce vehicles designed to have very low emissions when operated on
low-sulfur gasoline, and oil refiners would provide that cleaner
gasoline nationwide. The EPA subsequently issued two supplemental
notices. 64 FR 35112 (June 30, 1999); 64 FR 57827 (October 27, 1999).
These notices provide one-hour ozone modeling and monitoring
information that support EPA's belief that the Tier 2/Sulfur program is
necessary to help areas attain the one-hour NAAQS. Under the proposed
rule, NOX and VOC emission reductions (as well as other
reductions not directly relevant for attainment of the one-hour ozone
standard) would occur beginning in the 2004 ozone season although
incentives for early compliance by vehicle manufacturers and refiners
will likely result in some reductions prior to 2004. Nationwide, the
Tier 2/Sulfur program is projected to result in reductions of
approximately 800,000 tons of NOX per year by 2007 and
1,200,000 tons by 2010.
In the October 27, 1999 supplemental notice, EPA reported in Table
1 that EPA's regional ozone modeling indicated that 17 metropolitan
areas for which the one-hour standard applies need the Tier 2/Sulfur
program reductions to help attain the one-hour ozone standard. The
Greater Connecticut area whose attainment demonstration EPA is
proposing action on today is included on that list.
The EPA issued a memorandum that provides estimates of the
emissions reductions associated with the Tier 2/Sulfur program
proposal.11 The memorandum provides the tonnage benefits for
the Tier 2/Sulfur program in 2007 on a county-by-county basis for all
counties within the 10 serious and severe nonattainment areas for which
EPA is proposing to take action today and the 2005 tonnage benefits for
the Tier 2/Sulfur program for each county for three areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and
Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking'' from Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile
Sources to the Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI, issued November
8, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at
https://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also issued a memorandum which explains the connection
between the Tier 2/Sulfur program, motor vehicle emissions budgets for
conformity determinations, and timing for SIP revisions to account for
the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefit.12 This memorandum
explains that conformity analyses in serious and severe ozone
nonattainment areas can begin
[[Page 70338]]
including Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits once EPA's Tier 2 rule is
promulgated, provided that the attainment demonstration SIPs and
associated motor vehicle emissions budgets include the Tier 2 benefits.
For areas that require all or some portion of the Tier 2 benefits to
demonstrate attainment but have not yet included the benefits in the
motor vehicle emissions budgets, EPA's adequacy finding will include a
condition that conformity determinations may not take credit for Tier 2
until the SIP budgets are revised to reflect Tier 2 benefits. See EPA's
memorandum for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle emissions Budgets
in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations'', from Merrylin Zaw-
Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-
VI, issued November 3, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found
on EPA's web site at https://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the New York-North New Jersey-Long Island, Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton, Baltimore, Houston-Galveston-Brazoria and Atlanta
nonattainment areas, the EPA is proposing to determine that additional
emission reduction beyond those provided by the SIP submission are
necessary for attainment. With the exception of the Atlanta
nonattainment area, a portion of that reduction will be achieved by
EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, which EPA expects to finalize shortly.
States that need to rely in whole or in part on the Tier 2 benefits to
help demonstrate attainment will need to adjust the demonstration for
their SIP submission, emission inventories and motor vehicle emissions
budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions in order for
EPA to approve the SIP submittal. The submittal requirement including
the analysis to make that submission is described in the two memoranda
cited. States may use the tonnage benefits and guidance in these
memoranda to make these adjustments to the SIP submission and motor
vehicle emission budgets. The EPA encourages States to submit these SIP
revisions by December 31, 1999 to allow EPA to include them in the
motor vehicle emissions budget adequacy determinations which need to be
completed by May 31, 2000. Alternatively, these revisions should be
submitted by July 2000 for serious nonattainment areas, as EPA
anticipates completing rulemaking on these SIPs in the fall of 2000.
For severe nonattainment areas, these revisions should be submitted by
December 31, 2000.
A number of areas for which the EPA is not proposing to determine
that additional emission reduction beyond those provided by the SIP
submission are necessary for attainment will be taking a partial credit
for Tier 2 when they use credit from national low emissions vehicles
(NLEV) in their attainment demonstration. These nonattainment areas are
the Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan
Washington, D.C. areas. By regulation, the NLEV standards do not extend
beyond the 2003 model year unless EPA promulgates Tier 2 vehicle
standards at least as stringent as the NLEV standards. See 40 CFR
86.1701-99(c). Thus, the emission reductions relied upon from 2004 and
later model year NLEV vehicles will actually be due to the promulgation
of the Tier 2 standards, either through the extension of the NLEV
program or a portion of the reduction from vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards.
Like all the other SIPs that rely on Tier 2 reductions in order to
demonstrate attainment, the attainment demonstrations for the
Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan Washington,
D.C. areas must be revised to estimate the effects of Tier 2 according
to our policy before EPA can take final action approving such
attainment demonstrations. Until the SIPs are revised to include full
Tier 2 credit, EPA can determine by May 31, 2000 that a motor vehicle
emissions budget is adequate if the budget would be otherwise adequate.
No conditions need be placed on such adequacy determinations since the
budgets in such SIPs already include reductions equivalent to the
amount of emission reductions the areas will be relying on from Tier 2
by virtue of the NLEV reductions included in the budgets.
a. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget and the
Attainment Demonstration When EPA Issues the MOBILE6 Model. Within one
year of when EPA issues the MOBILE6 model for estimating mobile source
emissions which takes into account the emissions benefit of EPA's Tier
2/Sulfur program, States will need to revise their motor vehicle
emissions budgets in their attainment demonstration SIPs if the Tier 2/
Sulfur program is necessary for attainment. In addition, the budgets
will need to be revised using MOBILE6 in those areas that do not need
the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment but decide to include its
benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budget anyway. The EPA will
work with States on a case-by-case basis if the new emission estimates
raise issues about the sufficiency of the attainment demonstration.
States described in the paragraph above will need to submit an
enforceable commitment in the near term to revise their motor vehicle
emissions budget within one year after EPA's release of MOBILE6. This
commitment should be submitted to EPA along with the other commitments
discussed elsewhere in this notice, or alternatively, as part of the
SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission inventories and
budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits needed in order
for EPA to approve the SIP submittal.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment
that has been subject to public hearing. If the State has submitted
a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that
provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment,
the State should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999,
amending the commitment to include the revision of the budget after
the release of MOBILE6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Additional Measures To Further Reduce Emissions
The EPA is proposing to find that the attainment demonstrations for
New York-North New Jersey-Long Island; Baltimore; Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton; Atlanta and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria even
considering the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions and the WOE, will not
achieve attainment without the application of additional emission
control measures to achieve additional emission reductions. Thus, for
each of these areas, EPA has identified specific tons per day emissions
of NOX and/or VOC that must be reduced through additional
control measures in order to demonstrate attainment and to enable EPA
to approve the demonstration. The need for additional emission
reductions is generally based on a lack of sufficient compelling
evidence that the demonstration shows attainment at the current level
of adopted or planned emission controls. As discussed below the Greater
Connecticut area does contain compelling evidence that attainment will
be attained by its proposed attainment date of November 2007, and that
the area does not need the additional reductions outlined in this
section. The details for the Greater Connecticut area are discussed
below.
6. Mid-Course Review
A mid-course review (MCR) is a reassessment of modeling analyses
and more recent monitored data to determine if a prescribed control
strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air quality
improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard for
ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the statutory
dates.
The EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical
element of the WOE analysis for the attainment demonstration on which
EPA is proposing to take action today. In order to approve the
attainment demonstration SIP for the Greater Connecticut area, EPA
believes that the
[[Page 70339]]
State must have an enforceable commitment to perform a MCR as described
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment
that has been subject to public hearing. If the State has submitted
a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that
provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment,
the State should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999,
amending the commitment to include the MCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut DEP submitted an enforceable commitment with its
attainment demonstration on September 16, 1998, to submit a MCR in the
2001/2002 time frame and an additional MCR in 2005. To make it easier
for EPA to accept that commitment of an MCR, Connecticut should revise
its commitment to agree to perform the MCR immediately following the
2003 ozone season and to submit the results to EPA by December 31,
2003. Connecticut should also revise its commitment to agree to work
with EPA in a public consultative process to develop a methodology for
performing the MCR and developing the criteria by which adequate
progress would be judged.
EPA believes that an analysis in 2003 would be most robust since
some or all of the regional NOX emission reductions should
be achieved by that date. EPA would then review the results and
determine whether any States need to adopt and submit additional
control measures for purposes of attainment. The EPA is not requesting
that States commit now to adopt new control measures as a result of
this process. It would be impracticable for the States to make a
commitment that is specific enough to be considered enforceable.
Moreover, the MCR could indicate that upwind States may need to adopt
some or all of the additional controls needed to ensure an area attains
the standard. Therefore, if EPA determines additional control measures
are needed for attainment, EPA would determine whether additional
emission reductions as necessary from States in which the nonattainment
area is located or upwind States, or both. The EPA would require the
affected State or States to adopt and submit the new measures within a
period specified at the time. The EPA anticipates that these findings
would be made as calls for SIP revisions under section 110(k)(5) and,
therefore, the period for submission of the measures would be no longer
than 18 months after the EPA finding. A draft guidance document
regarding the MCR process is located in the docket for this proposal
and may also be found on EPA's web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram.
D. What Does EPA Expect To Happen With Respect to Attainment
Demonstrations for the Greater Connecticut One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area?
Table 2 shows a summary of information on what EPA expects from
States such as Connecticut to allow EPA to approve the one-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIPs.
Table 2.--Summary Schedule of Future Actions Related to the Attainment Demonstration for the Greater Connecticut
Serious Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required no later than: Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/31/99......................................................... State submits the following to EPA:
--Motor vehicle emissions budget.\1\
--Commitments to do the following:
--Submit revised SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget one year after MOBILE6
issued.\2\
--Perform a mid-course review.
4/15/00.......................................................... State submits in final any submissions made
in draft by 12/31/99.
Before EPA final rulemaking...................................... State submits enforceable commitments for any
above mentioned commitments that may not yet
have been subjected to public hearing.
7/1/00........................................................... --State revises and submits SIP and motor
vehicle emissions budget to account for Tier
2 reductions as needed.\3\
Within one year after release of MOBILE6 model................... State submits revised SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget based on MOBILE6.
12/31/03......................................................... State submits mid-course review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final budget preferable; however, if public process is not yet complete, then a ``draft'' budget (the one
undergoing public process) may be submitted at this time with a final budget by 4/15/00. However, if a final
budget is significantly different from the draft submitted earlier, the final budget must be submitted by 2/15/
00 to accommodate the 90 day processing period prior to the 5/31/00 date by which EPA must find the motor
vehicle emissions budget adequate. Note that the budget can reflect estimated Tier 2 emission reductions--see
memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur
Rulemaking.''
\2\ The revision for MOBILE6 is only required for SIPs that include the effects of Tier 2. The commitment to
revise the SIP after MOBILE6 may be submitted at the same time that the state submits the budget that includes
the effects of Tier 2 (no later than 7/1/00).
\3\ If the state submits such a revision, it must be accompanied by a commitment to revise the SIP and motor
vehicle emissions budget 1 year after MOBILE6 is issued (if the commitment has not already been submitted).
E. What Are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
This proposal has cited several policy and guidance memoranda. The
EPA has also developed several technical documents related to the
rulemaking action in this proposal. Some of the documents have been
referenced above. The documents and their location on EPA's web site
are listed below; these documents will also be placed in the docket for
this proposal action.
Recent Documents
1. ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through
Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality
Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``ADDWOE1H'').
2. ``Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on
Emissions, Control Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available
Control Measures.'' Draft Report. November 3, 1999. Ozone Policy and
Strategies Group. U.S. EPA, RTP, NC.
3. Memorandum from Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air Division Directors,
Regions I-VI, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour
Attainment Demonstrations.'' November 3, 1999. Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/oms/ transp/traqconf.htm
4. Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air
Division Directors, Regions I-VI,
[[Page 70340]]
``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur/Sulfur
Rulemaking.'' November 8, 1999. Web site: https://www.epa.gov/oms/
transp/traqconf.htm
5. Draft Memorandum, "Analyses To Support Mid-course Review Of
SIP's To Meet The 1-hr NAAQS For Ozone." From John Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram (file name: "DR6MCR").
6. Memorandum, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999.
Previous Documents
1. U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban
Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMREG'').
2. U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to
Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, (June
1996). Web site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
3. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.
Nichols, issued March 2, 1995.
4. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind
Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998.
5. December 29, 1997 Memorandum from Richard Wilson, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation ``Guidance for
Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS.''
II. How Does the Connecticut Submittal Satisfy the Frame Work?
This section provides a review of Connecticut's submittal and an
analysis of how this submittal satisfies the frame work discussed in
Section I. of this notice.
A. What Was Submitted by Connecticut?
As mentioned previously, the CAA requires nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or worse for the one-hour ozone standard to
prepare air quality modeling, using a photochemical grid model. This
modeling is required to show that collective control strategies will
reduce ozone to concentrations below the air quality standard by the
area's attainment date. Connecticut submitted its modeling in several
submittals. A January 4, 1995 submittal gave EPA the then up-to-date
status of the state's modeling effort, including the completed elements
of the one-hour modeling. The Phase I submittal, required for those
states participating in the OTAG effort, was submitted on November 21,
1997. The Phase II submittal, which along with the previous submittals
constitutes the attainment demonstration, was submitted on September
16, 1998.
The Greater Connecticut area is classified as a serious ozone
nonattainment area. The Greater Connecticut area includes the entire
State of Connecticut except for the southwest corner of Connecticut,
near New York City. The Greater Connecticut area was required to attain
the one-hour ozone standard by November 15, 1999. This area includes
all of the following counties: Hartford, Middlesex, New Haven, New
London, Tolland, and Windham. It also includes Shelton City in
Fairfield County, and all cities and towns in Litchfield County except
Bridgewater and New Milford (40 CFR 81.307). The rest of Connecticut,
officially titled the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Area,
will be referred to in this notice as the Connecticut portion of the
New York City area. The Connecticut portion of the New York City area's
attainment demonstration is a separate SIP action, and is discussed
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The rest of the New York City
area's attainment demonstration is also a separate SIP action, and is
discussed elsewhere in this Federal Register.
The Greater Connecticut area was modeled by the New York Department
of Environmental Conservation, with input from environmental agency
staff of both the States of Connecticut and New Jersey and by staff
from EPA Regions I and II. This arrangement was agreed to in 1990 by
all the participating parties, with concurrence from EPA Regions I and
II. The modeling also includes the modeling for the New York City area.
B. How Was the Model Selected?
EPA recommended that states use the Urban Airshed Model (UAM)
version IV as the ozone model of choice for the grid-point modeling
required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the one-hour attainment
demonstrations. Other models are allowed if the states show that they
are scientifically valid and they perform (i.e. are just as reliable)
as well as, or better than, UAM IV. The NYC domain chose to use UAM IV.
Details on the model and its selection can be found in the submittal
from the State of Connecticut. Many different sensitivity runs and
model performance runs were performed using the UAM IV model, also
different boundary conditions were tried. The results of these runs are
available in the submittal from Connecticut.
C. What Did the Photochemical Grid Modeling Show?
The UAM modeling analysis is contained in the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the CT DEP. A similar analysis was also
submitted by New Jersey (NJDEP) and New York State (NYSDEC) since, as
explained above, the modeling performed was conducted both for the
Greater Connecticut area and the New York City area.
The domain covers both the New York Northern-New Jersey-Long Island
severe area, and the Greater Connecticut serious area. Information on
how the UAM modeling meets EPA guidance is summarized here and detailed
in the State's submittals.
EPA's Guideline on the use of photochemical grid models recommends
that areas model three or more episodes including the types of weather
conditions most conducive to ozone formation. The final photochemical
grid modeling submitted by Connecticut focused on the UAM-IV modeling
for several episodes from 1988 and 1991. All episodes represent
significant ozone exceedances, under various meteorological conditions.
The episodes have some of the worst case meteorology (i.e., the highest
potential for ozone formation) of the episodes in the past forty years.
It follows that if an extreme episode, like the ones chosen, pass the
modeled attainment test, then less extreme days would pass as well.
The UAM IV was run using the CALMET meteorological processor, with
State actual emission inventories for the base years (1988 or 1991 as
appropriate) and with projected emissions representing grown and
controlled emissions for the attainment year. The projected emissions
used were the Case-E scenario developed for EPA-OTC modeling
simulations and included the effects of projected growth, the CAA
required measures, low emission vehicle (LEV) assumptions for the motor
vehicle section, and NOX reductions equivalent to the
regional NOX SIP call adopted by EPA.
The UAM IV model shows that domain wide there is a 91% decrease in
the number of grid cells that exceed the one-hour standard from the
base year to 2007. A 100% decrease would be
[[Page 70341]]
necessary to pass the deterministic model test. For the model
predictions in the Greater Connecticut area and areas downwind, the UAM
model predicts levels below the acceptable upper limit on all but two
of the days. The predicted peaks in the Greater Connecticut
nonattainment portion of the modeling domain for 2007 remain above the
one-hour standard with peak concentrations of 152 ppb in 2007. This too
does not pass the deterministic test. Since the UAM-IV model, as run
for this analysis, does not show attainment in 2007 additional weight
of evidence analyses were performed. These additional analyses are
discussed below.
D. How Well Did the Model Perform?
The UAM-IV model predicts ozone within the quality limits set by
EPA guidance on most days. Qualitatively, the model predicts the peak
ozone in the observed locations downwind of New York City. The model
shows a slight bias toward over predicting ozone.
As prescribed by EPA Guidance, the UAM-IV modeling predicts ozone
concentrations for the year 2007 using the meteorology of the episodes
from 1988 and 1991 combined with the emissions that are projected for
the year 2007. The 2007 emissions include emission increases due to
population and economic growth and decreases due to the control
strategies that will be in place by then (including an estimate of the
EPA NOX SIP Call).
E. What Other Type of Analyses Were Performed By Connecticut?
In the past, EPA guidance for use of the UAM model required that
all modeling days show attainment of the ozone standard at all grid
cells. This is called the deterministic method. The attainment
demonstration guidance allows the user to adjust for days that have an
extremely high ability to form ozone because of its meteorology.
Adjustments are allowed since the one-hour ozone standard allows each
location to have one day per year, on average, over the one-hour ozone
standard.
The attainment demonstration guidance allows use of additional
corroborative analyses to support the attainment demonstration when the
modeled attainment test is not passed. These other analyses can be used
as part of the weight of evidence to attainment. The weight of evidence
used to supplement the modeled attainment test in the Greater
Connecticut area attainment demonstration, and how they can help
predict that the area will attain the standard, are described here. In
addition, one of the factors that EPA can consider as part of the
weight-of-evidence analysis is whether there will be additional
emission reductions anticipated that are not modeled.
Greater Connecticut is classified as serious, and is required under
the CAA to attain the ozone standard by 1999. This is not possible,
based on the preliminary measured air quality from the summer of 1999.
EPA policy allows for an attainment date extension based on transport,
and Connecticut has asked for an extension for the Greater Connecticut
area to November 15, 2007, the attainment date for the upwind New York
City area. The attainment date extension is discussed here, and EPA's
action on the request is discussed below. The State submittal for
Greater Connecticut gives evidence of significant transport into the
Greater Connecticut area from the south and west. The state performed
several model runs and other analyses which show that the Greater
Connecticut area is effected by significant transport. These analyses
as well as the request for an attainment date extension are discussed
below.
Connecticut submitted additional information from other methods
that can predict future concentrations of ozone. Air quality trends
data show that attainment of the standard by 2007 for the Greater
Connecticut area is feasible and this is confirmed by use of recent air
quality data combined with ozone reductions predicted by photochemical
grid modeling (i.e. the Design Value analysis method). In short, and as
shown later, these weight of evidence analyses lead EPA to conclude
that the Greater Connecticut area is likely to attain the ozone
standard by 2007, as a result of additional control measures to be
implemented by the States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut in
conjunction with upwind reductions accomplished by CAA requirements for
upwind states and reductions from EPA's NOX SIP call which
requires further NOX reductions from 23 jurisdictions in the
Eastern United States.
This notice discusses several analyses, which when combined lead
EPA to conclude that the Greater Connecticut area will achieve
attainment by 2007. Those analyses are the local Photochemical Grid
Modeling (discussed above), Air Quality Trends Analyses, the Design
Value Rollback analysis, and an additional analysis done pursuant to
EPA memorandum entitled ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence
Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not
Modeled.''
F. What Do Air Quality Trends Show?
Linear extrapolation of present air quality trends predicts that
the peak ozone values will be less than 125 ppb and the number of
exceedances of the air quality standard will be less than one per year
about the year 2005. Since a number of emission control programs, such
as the NOX SIP Call, and Tier 2 car standards are still to
be implemented and others, like the OTC NOX agreement and
vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, are still being
implemented (i.e., not achieving full emissions reduction benefit),
emissions of ozone precursors will continue to decrease from now
through 2007. Connecticut's attainment demonstration states that
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard is possible based on an
extrapolation of the air quality data.
The attainment demonstration also includes research showing that
ozone decreases occur at all of the monitors in the New York City
airshed. Even when the trends are adjusted for year-to-year changes in
how favorable the weather is for ozone formation (i.e. meteorologically
adjusted trends), every air quality monitor except one shows decreased
ozone. This supports the conclusion that the improvements in air
quality during recent years are due to reductions in emissions rather
than meteorology.
G. What Does The Regional Design Value Rollback Analysis Show?
One of the analyses in the weight of evidence is the design value
rollback analysis. Design value rollback uses the design value from
recent air quality data as its starting point. The amount of ozone
reduction predicted by the model from the starting point to the
attainment year is calculated and the design value from recent air
quality data is reduced by that amount.
For the Connecticut analysis, EPA supplied calculations of the
percentage reduction in ozone at the grid cells near the monitoring
sites. The calculations were from the UAM-V modeling that EPA has been
doing for the NOX SIP Call. EPA ran the UAM-V for the entire
eastern United States for various episodes in 1991, 1993 and 1995 with
both 1995 and 2007 OTAG emission inventories. The 2007 run included
emissions adjusted for growth and reductions from the CAA-required
controls plus the NOX SIP Call, and the National LEV (NLEV)
program.
The percentage difference between the base and the future case was
calculated for the days when the modeling predicted the highest
concentrations near each monitoring
[[Page 70342]]
site. The ozone reductions on those days were averaged for each
monitoring site. This percent difference was divided by 100 to produce
a ``rollback factor.'' The observed ozone design value was multiplied
by the rollback factor to obtain the concentration of ozone predicted
for the monitoring site for the year 2007. The ozone design value was
the fourth highest concentration at each site over the three-year
period from 1996 to 1998. The highest predicted design value for 2007
from all the monitoring sites is 122 ppb, less than the 125 ppb one-
hour ozone standard. This is how the design value rollback method
predicts that the area may attain the ozone standard by 2007. The three
years of data used by Connecticut in its submittal to calculate the
observed design value were the latest available data at the time: 1996
to 1998. When EPA used the method in the NOX SIP Call, it
used the design value from 1994 to 1996, centered on 1995 when the
model begins its reductions in emissions and ozone. The period used by
in the analysis submitted by CT DEP does not overlap 1995. It should
also be noted that preliminary ozone data from the summer of 1999 for
this area shows that ozone levels have risen, most likely due to
weather conditions, and that the three year design value has also
risen. So the regional design value rollback method, when applied to
the most recent air quality data does not show attainment in 2007.
Further analyses are thus necessary, such as those discussed below.
The design value rollback technique is a way of using existing air
quality and the model in a relative sense to predict how the air
quality will improve. Existing air quality is a readily measured
quantity. Models may be more accurate at calculating the amount of
improvement in air quality as opposed to predicting an absolute
concentration. Therefore, this method counteracts some of UAM-IV's
biases toward underestimating the extent of ozone reduction. The design
value rollback method provides another gauge of whether an area will
attain the air quality standard, using a method which does not rely
solely on the absolute predictions made by the models.
In summary, the design value rollback method was applied to the New
York City airshed, where it used the most recent data to predict that
all of the air quality stations will have better air quality than the
one-hour air quality standard when the present ozone concentrations are
reduced by the percentage ozone reduction that the UAM-V model predicts
from the baseline to the attainment year. More recent air quality data
call this analysis into question.
H. Does Greater Connecticut Area Need Additional Local Measures?
Realizing that the attainment analysis for Greater Connecticut
yields uncertain results regarding whether the area will attain by the
year 2007, EPA conducted a further analysis of the attainment
demonstration submitted by Connecticut. For this analysis, EPA looked
at the base year modeling performed using UAM-IV as well as the future
year modeling for 2007. The EPA analysis concentrated only on the
Greater Connecticut area. Base year model maximums and future year
model maximums were derived from the attainment demonstration
submittal. Using the statistical test described above, the future year
maximums for each episode day were compared to their acceptable upper
limits. For the model predictions in the Greater Connecticut area and
areas downwind, the UAM model predicts levels below the acceptable
upper limit on all but two of the days. EPA's analysis also looked at
the projected ozone benefits from the Tier 2/Sulfur program in 2007.
The Tier 2/Sulfur program will show improvements in the modeled peaks.
Since the attainment test is not passed in this additional
analysis, EPA analyzed whether additional local measures are necessary
to achieve attainment. In order to do this, EPA did an analysis
pursuant to EPA memorandum entitled ``Guidance for Improving Weight of
Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not
Modeled.'' The method used pursuant to this guidance makes use of the
relationship between ozone and its precursors (VOC and NOX)
to identify additional reductions that, at a minimum, would bring the
model predicted future ozone concentration to a level at or below the
standard. The relationship is derived by comparing changes in either
(1) the model predicted ozone to changes in modeled emissions or (2) in
observed air quality to changes in actual emissions. The results for
the Greater Connecticut area show that the UAM-IV modeling performed
for Connecticut estimates the future design value with the benefits of
the Tier 2/Sulfur program incorporated to be 116 ppb, which is below
the 124 ppb one-hour standard. Therefore, additional emission controls
beyond the benefits of the Tier 2/Sulfur program are not expected to be
needed for the Greater Connecticut area to demonstrate attainment.
Weighing all of the evidence, as provided in EPA's Guidance, EPA
believes the Attainment Demonstration for the Greater Connecticut
demonstrates attainment by 2007 and should thus be approved.
I. Does Greater Connecticut Need A Mid-Course Review?
Since Greater Connecticut has requested and EPA is proposing to
approve an attainment date extension to November 2007, and since the
attainment date extension and attainment demonstration approval are
based on a weight-of-evidence analysis, and not a purely deterministic
test, EPA guidance provides for a mid-course review to access if the
assumptions used in 1999 are still true in the future. This mid-course
review should take place after the 2003 ozone season. The Connecticut
DEP submitted an enforceable commitment with its attainment
demonstration on September 16, 1998, to submit a MCR in the 2001/2002
time frame, and an additional MCR in 2005. In order for EPA to accept
that commitment of an MCR, Connecticut will have to agree to perform
the MCR immediately following the 2003 ozone season and to submit the
results to EPA by December 31, 2003. Connecticut should also work with
EPA in a public consultative process to develop a methodology for
performing the MCR and developing the criteria by which adequate
progress would be judged. Once Connecticut modifies their commitment on
the MCR to include these issues, then EPA can move forward to approve
the attainment demonstration.
J. What Are EPA's Recommendations With Regard to the Modeling Portion
of the Attainment demonstration?
The modeling for Greater Connecticut uses analyses that follow the
EPA guidelines for predicting future air quality. These analyses, on
balance, show that air quality will meet the one-hour ozone air quality
standard by the requested attainment date of 2007. EPA guidance allows
for this weight of evidence analysis when other modeling methods give
results that contradict the traditional deterministic photochemical
grid modeling analysis. The weight-of-evidence in conjunction with
additional analyses performed by EPA using the most up-to-date EPA
guidance confirm that the trend analysis is correct in determining that
the continued decreases in emissions, locally and from distant sources,
will result in attainment by 2007.
Connecticut, along with New York and New Jersey, has committed to
perform a mid-course review, as recommended by EPA. The states are
[[Page 70343]]
expected to follow EPA guidance in conducting this mid-course review.
Because the modeling portion of the submittal demonstrates
attainment consistent with EPA's guidance, it should be approved by
EPA. As a result of decreases in emissions currently in place and
additional reductions expected to continue, the Greater Connecticut
area should attain the one-hour ozone standard by 2007.
K. What Is EPA Policy With Regard To An Attainment Date Extension?
On July 16, 1998, a guidance memorandum entitled ``Extension of
Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' was signed by Richard
D. Wilson, then Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
That memorandum included EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act
regarding the possibility of extending attainment dates for ozone
nonattainment areas that have been classified as moderate or serious
for the 1-hour standard and which are downwind of areas that have
interfered with their ability to demonstrate attainment by dates
prescribed in the Act. That memorandum stated that EPA will consider
extending the attainment date for an area that:
(1) has been identified as a downwind area affected by transport
from either an upwind area in the same State with a later attainment
date or an upwind area in another State that significantly contributes
to downwind nonattainment;
(2) has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration with any
necessary, adopted local measures and with an attainment date that
shows that it will attain the one-hour standard no later than the date
that the reductions are expected from upwind areas under the final
NO&X SIP call and/or the statutory attainment date for upwind
nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the boundary conditions reflecting
those upwind reductions;
(3) has adopted all applicable local measures required under the
area's current classification and any additional measures necessary to
demonstrate attainment, assuming the reductions occur as required in
the upwind areas;
(4) has provided that it will implement all adopted measures as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by which the
upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved.
L. Does the Greater Connecticut Area Qualify For An Attainment Date
Extension?
As discussed above, Connecticut requested an attainment date
extension to November 15, 2007. This is consistent with EPA guidance
for attainment date extensions. The first test for an attainment date
extension is that you are effected by transport, and but for this
transport, you would achieve attainment of the standard by your CAA
attainment date.
The CT DEP submitted evidence of significant transport into the
Greater Connecticut area. First, it must be stated that, the maximum
observed ozone in Northern New Jersey, New York and Connecticut are
currently in the Greater Connecticut area. Greater Connecticut is
classified as serious, and is required under the CAA to attain the
ozone standard 8 years before the New York City area, which has an
attainment date of 2007. The Greater Connecticut area is required by
the CAA to attain by 1999. This is not possible based on the
preliminary measured air quality from the summer of 1999. EPA policy
allows for an attainment date extension based on transport, and as
mentioned above Connecticut has asked for an extension of the Greater
Connecticut area to November 15, 2007, the same attainment date for the
upwind New York City area. The State submittal for Greater Connecticut
gives evidence of significant transport into Greater Connecticut from
the south and west, where the NYC nonattainment area is located. The
state performed an ``informal UAM-IV sensitivity analysis investigating
the effects within the * * * modeling domain of excluding anthropogenic
emissions strictly in Connecticut. The sensitivity run was conducted
for the July 6, 1988 event using 1988 data files supplied by the
NYSDEC, 1988 ROM boundary conditions, and no anthropogenic emissions
within Connecticut.''
Modeled ozone concentrations for this zero-out model run (looking
only at levels above the standard) are relatively similar to the ``base
case'' or full anthropogenic run, suggesting that even if one could
shut down all anthropogenic emission within the Greater Connecticut
area it would still violate the ozone standard as of its 1999
attainment date, and furthermore, there would be little improvement to
observed ozone levels. This type of analysis shows that Greater
Connecticut is affected by significant transport.
Another way to look for evidence of significant transport is to
look for differences in the number of grid-cell hours (gch) between
``zero-out'' runs and the base case runs. The following is taken from
the Connecticut submittal: ``The improvement (decrease) in the number
of grid-cell hours (gch) above 120 ppb, was also determined for the
Connecticut zero-out run. In the base case, there were 6032 gch above
120 ppb in the entire modeling domain, of which 3214 gch occurred in
Connecticut. In the zero-out run, there were 5321 gch above 120 ppb in
the domain, an improvement of 711 gch.'' An improvement of 711 gch out
of 3214 gch is only a 22% improvement. This shows that significant
emission reductions are needed from upwind areas to reach attainment of
the one-hour ozone NAAQS in Greater Connecticut.
Connecticut was also able to use the modeling done by Massachusetts
and New Hampshire to bolster its demonstration that it is significantly
effected by transport. The model used by these states is CALGRID. The
model was run for the July 8, 1988 episode, an episode with very high
ozone levels in all of New England, including Connecticut. In the
CALGRID run, anthropogenic emissions were eliminated (set to zero) in
Connecticut and the model run. These ``zero-out'' results were compared
to the same model run assuming 1999 Clean Air Act emissions throughout
the domain. Connecticut reached several conclusions using these
results. Taken from the attainment demonstration submittal they are as
follows:
1. ``Eliminating Connecticut's man-made emissions has very little
effect on both the magnitude and the geographical extent of maximum
ozone concentrations within Connecticut by its 1999 attainment date.
Widespread areas of modeled nonattainment remain in the State. Modeled
exceedances in Connecticut for this event are largely due to
overwhelming transport from upwind areas.''
2. ``Zeroing out Connecticut emissions for this event does not have
much effect on the magnitude or geographic area of modeled exceedances
downwind in western and central Massachusetts.''
3. ``Zeroing out Connecticut's man-made emissions results in an
area of modeled ozone increases (disbenefits) of 1 to 10 ppb in north-
central Connecticut and Central Massachusetts.''
The second test is that an area has submitted an approvable
attainment demonstration with any necessary, adopted local measures and
with an attainment date that shows that it will attain the one-hour
standard no later than the date that the reductions are expected from
upwind areas under the final NOX SIP call and/or the
statutory
[[Page 70344]]
attainment date for upwind nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the
boundary conditions reflecting those upwind reductions. Since the CT
DEP submitted an attainment demonstration for the Greater Connecticut
area and this notice is proposing approval of that plan without
additional measures, this test is passed.
The third test that Greater Connecticut had to meet is to show that
it met all the CAA requirements for a serious nonattainment area. The
Greater Connecticut area is classified as serious and is required to
submit certain measures. Table 3 contains a summary of the CAA required
ozone SIP elements and of any additional measures included in the
attainment demonstration. This Table indicates if a control measure was
part of the modeling demonstration and a summary of the approval or
promulgation status.
Table 3.--Control Measures in the One-Hour Ozone Attainment Plans for the Greater Connecticut Serious Ozone
Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of control measure Type of measure Included in local modeling Approval status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-board Refueling Vapor federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40
Recovery. CFR 86.
Federal Motor Vehicle Control federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40
program. CFR 86.
Federal Non-road Gasoline federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40
Engines. CFR 90.
Federal Non-road Heavy Duty federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40
diesel engines. CFR 89.
AIM Surface Coatings........... federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40
CFR 59 subpart
D.
Consumer & commercial products. federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40
CFR 59 subpart
C.
Enhanced Inspection & CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... Conditionally SIP
Maintenance. approved (64 FR
12005; 3/10/
99).1
NOX RACT....................... CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... SIP approved (62
FR 52016; 10/6/
97).
VOC RACT pursuant to sections CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... SIP approved (56
182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2)(B) FR 52205; 10/18/
of Clean Air Act. 91 and 64 FR
12019; 3/10/99).
VOC RACT pursuant to sections CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... Conditionally SIP
182(b)(2)(A) and (C) of Clean approved (64 FR
Air Act. 12019; 3/10/99)--
SIP approval
pending for SIP
submitted in
response to
condition.2
Stage II Vapor Recovery........ CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... SIP approved (58
FR 65930; 12/17/
93).
Stage I Vapor Recovery......... CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... SIP approved (56
FR 52205; 10/18/
91).
Reformulated Gasoline.......... CAA required program in NYC Yes.......................... Promulgated
and Hartford areas. Opt-in statewide under
to federal program for 40 CFR section
remainder of state. 80.70. Also
approved for opt-
in portion of
state as part of
15% plan (64 FR
12015; 3/10/99).
National Low Emission Vehicle State opt-in................. Yes.......................... Federal program
(NLEV). promulgated at
40 CFR 86
subpart R. State
opt-in SIP
approval
proposed 8/16/
99, 64 FR
44450.3
Clean Fuel Fleets.............. CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... RFG and I/M
reductions
substitute--SIP
approval
pending.4
New Source Review.............. CAA SIP Requirement.......... No........................... SIP approval
pending.5
Base Year Emissions Inventory.. CAA SIP Requirement.......... N/A 6........................ SIP approved (62
FR 55336; 10/24/
97).
15% VOC Reduction Plan......... CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes 7........................ SIP approved (64
FR 12015; 3/10/
99).
Enhanced Rule Effectiveness.... State measure................ Yes 7........................ SIP approved (64
FR 12015; 3/10/
99).
9% rate of progress plan....... CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes 7........................ SIP approval
pending.8
Emissions Statements........... CAA SIP Requirement.......... N/A 6........................ SIP approved (60
FR 2524; 1/10/
95).
Enhanced Monitoring (PAMS)..... CAA Requirement.............. N/A 6........................ SIP approved (62
FR 55336; 10/24/
97).
OTC NOX MOU Phase II........... State initiative............. Yes.......................... SIP approved (64
FR 52233; 9/28/
99).
EPA NOX SIP call............... EPA requirement.............. Yes.......................... SIP approval
pending.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fact that CT's enhanced I/M rule is conditionally approved does not affect the emission reductions that
Connecticut can rely on for attainment purposes since the achievement of those emission reductions in no way
depends upon the fulfillment of the conditions outlined in that final rule. Rather, the conditions relate to
certain procedural requirements only.
\2\ With respect to the various VOC and Non-CTG rules, Connecticut submitted a revised non-CTG RACT rule on
September 2, 1999. In order to meet the requirements of sections 182(b)(2) (A) and (C), CT revised section 22a-
174-32 to remove the exemption for the remaining Appendix E categories, as well as expanding the applicability
to sources in industrial categories in CT for which EPA has published final CTGs since the date of enactment
(e.g., aerospace, shipbuilding, and wood furniture coating). Appendix E categories are those listed in App. E
to EPA's General Preamble 57 FR 18077 (April 28, 1992). EPA deemed the SIP submittal complete on September 10,
1999. EPA will take final action on the revised section 22a-174-32 prior to finalizing action on the one-hour
ozone attainment plan.
\3\ EPA intends to publish final rules for the NLEV opt-in SIP before or at the same time as we publish final
rules on the attainment demonstration.
\4\ Since the clean fuels fleet program would simply substitute for RFG and I/M emission reductions already
approved into the SIP, the Clean Fuel Fleet program will not have to be finally approved in order to approve
the attainment demonstration.
\5\ CT submitted its New Source Review (NSR) program for VOC and NOX as a SIP revision on May 23, 1994. The
state is not relying on emission reductions from this NSR SIP, and therefore it will not have to be finally
approved in order to approve the attainment demonstration.
\6\ Does not produce emission reductions.
\7\ The measures used to demonstrate rate of progress were modeled.
\8\ The nine percent plan rate-of-progress (ROP) plan SIP was submitted to EPA on December 31, 1997, with minor
revisions on January 7, 1998. This plan is currently under review by EPA. A notice of proposed rulemaking will
be published soon. EPA intends to publish final rules for the nine percent ROP plan before or at the same time
as we publish final rules on the attainment demonstration.
[[Page 70345]]
\9\ On September 30, 1999, CT submitted a SIP revision in response to EPA's regulation entitled, ``Finding of
Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for
Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,'' otherwise known as the "NOX SIP Call." The SIP submittal
included a NOX budget and allowance trading regulation, section 22a-174-22b. Although not a CAA required
measure, section 22a-174-22b requires significant NOX reductions from 2003 onward which will strengthen the
SIP. EPA will take final action on section 22a-174-22b prior to finalizing action on the one-hour ozone
attainment plan. This also fulfills Connecticut's commitment under the OTC MOU Phase III program.
Finally, the state has provided that it will implement all adopted
measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by
which the upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved. All
of the above measures will be implemented before 2007.
In summary since Connecticut has met all the CAA requirements, or
will before final approval of the attainment date extension is granted,
and since the ozone modeling for the Greater Connecticut area meets the
other requirements for an attainment date extension, EPA proposes to
approve the attainment date extension for Greater Connecticut to
November 15, 2007.
M. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
The CT DEP submitted 2007 conformity budgets associated with their
attainment demonstration for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area
on February 10, 1999. These budgets were developed from the mobile
source inventories developed by EPA for the NOX SIP call. In
its February 10, 1999 letter, CT DEP concluded that it is reasonable to
extract 2007 transportation conformity budgets from the NOX
SIP call since Connecticut's ozone attainment demonstrations rely on
EPA modeling results developed using emission inventories equivalent to
those used by EPA to develop the NOX SIP call. In a November
19, 1999 letter from Susan Studlien, EPA Region I to Carmine
DiBattista, CT DEP, EPA found that the 2007 motor vehicle emissions
budgets submitted for the Greater Connecticut area are inadequate for
conformity purposes. The budgets were determined to be inadequate
because in some instances they do not accurately reflect the mobile
source control strategies Connecticut is implementing and, when
compared to more recent mobile source emission estimates prepared by
the state for conformity, appear to be substantially higher in the
attainment year than the most current projections. The letter, which is
available in the docket for this action, further outlines the rationale
behind this determination.
A notice of public hearing was signed by Arthur Rocque, Jr,
Commissioner, Connecticut DEP on November 24, 1999 requesting public
comment on proposed changes to the attainment demonstration for the
Greater Connecticut serious nonattainment area. In that notice of
public hearing, Connecticut DEP has included proposed 2007 conformity
budgets for the Greater Connecticut area. These budgets incorporate the
benefits of the Tier 2/Sulfur program for the Greater Connecticut area.
The EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration SIP should
Connecticut correct the deficiencies that cause the motor vehicle
emissions budget to be inadequate and, alternatively, to disapprove it
if Connecticut does not correct the deficiencies.
Because many States may shortly be submitting revised
demonstrations with revised motor vehicle emission budgets, EPA is
providing a 60 day comment period on this proposed rule. If Connecticut
submits a revised attainment demonstration, EPA will place the
revisions in the docket for this rulemaking and will post a notice on
EPA's website at www.epa.gov/oms/traq. By posting notice on the
website, EPA will also initiate the adequacy process.
N. Tier 2/Sulfur Program benefits
As a result of EPA's review of the State's SIP submittal, EPA
believes that the ozone modeling submitted by the State for the Greater
Connecticut area, for which EPA is proposing to approve or disapprove-
in-the-alternative, needs to incorporate EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program
benefits to improve the State's weight-of-evidence analysis. This is
the result of a detailed review of the attainment demonstration. With
Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions incorporated, the conclusion that
attainment can be reached in this area by 2007 can be supported. This
is consistent with the conclusions originally reached in the CT DEP
attainment demonstration submittal which did not initially include Tier
2/Sulfur program reductions but specifically noted that there are
uncertainties in the design value approach used to support the
conclusion that attainment can be reached in the Greater Connecticut
nonattainment area by November 15, 2007. The uncertainties noted in the
attainment demonstration submittal were: (1) Uncertainty in year-to-
year meteorological fluctuations; (2) uncertainty in projections of
emissions and economic growth; and (3) uncertainties inherent in the
modeling system chosen. Additionally, the attainment demonstration
noted the need for EPA to pursue other supplemental emission reductions
strategies beyond the measures identified in the OTAG recommendations.
One action specifically noted was more stringent standards for new on-
road vehicles under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act.
On May 13, 1999, EPA proposed such standards designed to
significantly reduce the emissions from new passenger cars and light
trucks, including pickup trucks, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles
(the ``Tier 2 program''). The proposed program combines requirements
for cleaner vehicles and requirements for lower levels of sulfur in
gasoline. Tier 2 emission reductions will lower ozone in the Greater
Connecticut area and support the conclusion that the future design
value for the nonattainment area will be below 125 parts per billion
and that the area will achieve attainment by the attainment date
requested (i.e., November 15, 2007). EPA, therefore, will require
Connecticut to incorporate the Tier 2/Sulfur requirements into the
attainment demonstration in order to fully approve the attainment
demonstration. As stated previously, a notice of public hearing was
signed on November 24, 1999 requesting public comment on proposed
changes to the attainment demonstration for the Greater Connecticut
serious nonattainment area. In that notice of public hearing,
Connecticut DEP has included proposed 2007 conformity budgets for the
Greater Connecticut area which incorporate the benefits of the Tier 2/
Sulfur program for the Greater Connecticut area.
O. What are the consequences of State failure?
This section explains the CAA consequences of State failure to meet
the time frames and terms described generally in this notice. The CAA
provides for the imposition of sanctions and the promulgation of a
federal implementation plan if States fail to submit a required plan,
submit a plan that is determined to be incomplete or if EPA disapproves
a plan. (We are using the phrase ``failure to submit'' to cover both
the situation where a State makes no submission and the situation where
the State makes a submission that
[[Page 70346]]
we find is incomplete in accordance with section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.) For purposes of sanctions, there are no
sanctions clocks in place based on a failure to submit. Thus, the
description of the timing of sanctions, below, is linked to a potential
disapproval of the State's submission.
1. What are the CAA's provisions for sanctions?
If EPA disapproves a required SIP, such as the attainment
demonstration SIPs, section 179(a) provides for the imposition of two
sanctions. The first sanction would apply 18 months after EPA
disapproves the SIP if the State fails to make the required submittal
which EPA proposes to fully or conditionally approve within that time.
Under EPA's sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction
would be 2:1 offsets for sources subject to the new source review
requirements under section 173 of the CAA. If the State has still
failed to submit a SIP for which EPA proposes full or conditional
approval 6 months after the first sanction is imposed, the second
sanction will apply. The second sanction is a limitation on the receipt
of Federal highway funds. EPA also has authority under section 110(m)
to a broader area, but is not proposing to take such action today.
2. What are the CAA's FIP provisions if a State fails to submit a plan?
In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds that a State failed to
submit the required SIP revision or disapproves the required SIP
revision EPA must promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date
of the finding if the deficiency has not been corrected. The attainment
demonstration SIPs on which EPA is taking action today were originally
due in November 1994. However, through a series of policy memoranda,
EPA recognized that States had not submitted attainment demonstrations
and were constrained to do so until ozone transport had been further
analyzed. As provided in the Background, above, EPA provided for States
to submit the attainment demonstration SIPs in two phases. In June
1996, EPA made findings that ten States and the District of Columbia
had failed to submit the phase I SIPs for nine nonattainment areas. 61
FR 36292 (July 10, 1996). In addition on May 19, 1997, EPA made a
similar finding for Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia area. 62 FR
27201.
In July 1998, several environmental groups filed a notice of
citizen suit, alleging that EPA had outstanding sanctions and FIP
obligations for the serious and severe nonattainment areas on which EPA
is proposing action today. These groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia on November 8, 1999.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the ground-level one-hour ozone
attainment demonstration State implementation plan for the Greater
Connecticut nonattainment area submitted by Connecticut on September
16, 1998. This submission includes analyses which taken together and
supplemented to include the effects of the Tier 2/Sulfur program leads
EPA to conclude that the Greater Connecticut area is likely to attain
the ozone standard by 2007. This is a result of additional control
measures to be implemented by the States of New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut in conjunction with upwind reductions accomplished by CAA
requirements for upwind states and reductions from EPA's NOX
SIP call which requires further NOX reductions from 23
jurisdictions in the Eastern United States. EPA is also proposing to
approve an attainment date extension for this area to November 15,
2007, submitted at the same time. EPA is also proposing, in the
alternative, to approve in part and disapprove in part this
demonstration if the State does not submit: take final action an
adequate motor vehicle emissions budget consistent with attainment.
Lastly, EPA intends to publish final rules for Nine Percent ROP, NLEV
and the NOX SIP call for Connecticut either before or at the
same time as publication of final approval of the attainment
demonstration.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These issues will be considered
before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in
the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the
EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this action. A
more detailed description of the state submittal and EPA's evaluation
are included in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support
of this rulemaking action. A copy of the TSD is available upon request
from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
action.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is
"economically significant," as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health
and safety risks.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is
unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities." Today's rule does not
[[Page 70347]]
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements
that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a State rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
If the approval is converted to a disapproval under section 110(k),
based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it will not affect
any existing State requirements applicable to small entities. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect State-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new requirements. Therefore, I certify that such a
disapproval action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it would not remove
existing requirements nor would it substitute a new Federal
requirement.
The EPA's alternative proposed disapproval of the State request
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act would not affect
any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-
existing Federal requirements would remain in place after this
disapproval. Federal disapproval of the State submittal would not
affect State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the
submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I
certify that the proposed disapproval would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed approval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to the proposed disapproval
because the proposed disapproval of the SIP submittal would not, in and
of itself, constitute a Federal mandate because it would not impose an
enforceable duty on any entity. In addition, the Act does not permit
EPA to consider types of analyses described in section 202 in
determining whether a SIP submittal meets the CAA. Finally, section 203
does not apply to the proposed disapproval because it would affect only
the State of Connecticut, which is not a small government.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with
NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
[[Page 70348]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 30, 1999.
Mindy S. Lubber,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 99-31710 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P