Technology Transfer Network / NAAQS
Ozone Implementation
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New York;
1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
State Implementation Plan and
2007 Transportation Conformity Budgets
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 70364-70380]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16de99-25]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Region 2 Docket No. NY38-204, FRL-6502-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; 1-
Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan and 2007
Transportation Conformity Budgets
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve New York's 1-hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area or in the alternative to
disapprove it, depending on whether New York submits the adopted
NOX SIP Call, the revised transportation conformity budgets
and necessary enforceable commitments.
First, EPA is proposing to approve New York's Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP provided New York submits: the adopted NOX
SIP Call program as a SIP revision; an enforceable commitment to adopt
sufficient measures to address the required level of emission
reductions identified by EPA; revised transportation conformity budgets
which reflect the additional emission reductions identified by EPA for
attainment; revised transportation conformity budgets to include the
Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits, if these benefits have not already been
incorporated; an enforceable commitment to revise the Attainment
Demonstration SIP, including recalculation of the transportation
conformity budgets (if any of the additional emission reductions
pertain to motor vehicle measures) to reflect the adopted additional
measures needed for attainment; an enforceable commitment to revise the
Attainment Demonstration, including transportation conformity budgets,
when MOBILE6 (the most recent model for estimating mobile source
emissions) is released; and, an enforceable commitment to perform a mid
course review and submit the results to EPA by December 31, 2003.
With respect to the NOX SIP Call, the proposed approval
is predicated upon the expectation that New York will submit the
NOX SIP Call program prior to EPA taking final action on
today's proposal.
EPA also is proposing to disapprove-in-the-alternative New York's
Ozone
[[Page 70365]]
Attainment Demonstration SIP if New York does not provide one or more
of the identified elements by the required dates.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Raymond Werner,
Acting Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866.
Copies of the New York submittals and EPA's Technical Support
Document are available at the following addresses for inspection during
normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs
Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division
of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,(212) 637-3381.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides background information
on Attainment Demonstration SIPs for the 1-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) and an analysis of the 1-hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstration SIP submittal for the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area.
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
A. What is the Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration
SIP?
1. CAA Requirements
2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment
Demonstration SIP
3. Time Frame for Taking Action on Attainment Demonstration SIPs
for 10 Serious and Severe Areas
4. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
B. What are the Components of a Modeled Attainment
Demonstration?
1. Modeling Requirements
2. Additional Analyses Where Modeling Fails to Show Attainment
C. What is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs?
1. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Modeled Attainment
Demonstration SIP
2. NOX Reductions Affecting Boundary Conditions
3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
4. Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits
Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget and the
Attainment Demonstration When EPA Issues the MOBILE6 Model
5. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions
Guidance on Additional Control Measures
6. Mid-Course Review
D. In Summary, What Does EPA Expect to Happen with Respect to
Attainment Demonstrations for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area?
E. What are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
II. EPA's Review and Technical Information
A. What Was Included in New York's Submittal?
B. What Modeling Did the States Do to Show Attainment of the 1-
hour Ozone Standard?
C. How Did the States Do Photochemical Grid Modeling?
D. What Were the Results of Photochemical Grid Modeling?
E. What Were the Results of the States' Design Value Rollback
Analysis?
F. What Were the Results of Air Quality Trends Analyses?
G. What Are the Uncertainties in These Analyses?
H. What Are the Results of EPA's Evaluation?
I. What Is Needed to Demonstrate Attainment?
J. How is the Tier 2/Sulfur Program Needed?
K. What Is the Status of New York's Transportation Conformity
Budgets?
1. Conformity Budgets for Milestone Years 2002 and 2005
2. Conformity Budgets for Attainment Year 2007
L. What Future Actions Are Needed from New York for an
Approvable Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP?
1. NOX SIP Call Submittal
2. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Modeled Attainment
Demonstration SIP
3. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions
4. Attainment Demonstration--Conformity Budget--Tier 2/Sulfur
Program Benefit
5. Mid Course Review
M. What Are the Consequences of State Failure?
1. What are the CAA's Provisions for Sanctions?
2. What are the CAA's FIP Provisions If a State Fails to Submit
a Plan?
N. What are EPA's Conclusions?
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
B. Executive Order 13045
C. Executive Order 13084
D. Executive Order 13132
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background Information
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 1-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm)
ground-level ozone standard. 44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). Ground-level
ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in
the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX and
VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air
quality monitor records a 1-hour average ozone concentration above
0.124 ppm. An area is violating the standard if, over a consecutive
three-year period, more than three exceedances are expected to occur at
any one monitor. The CAA, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate
as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard,
generally based on air quality monitoring data from the three-year
period from 1987-1989. CAA section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6,
1991). The CAA further classified these areas, based on the area's
design value, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme. CAA
section 181(a). Marginal areas were suffering the least significant air
pollution problems while the areas classified as severe and extreme had
the most significant air pollution problems.
The control requirements and dates by which attainment needs to be
achieved vary with the area's classification. Marginal areas are
subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the
earliest attainment date. Severe and extreme areas are subject to more
stringent planning requirements but are provided more time to attain
the standard. Serious areas are required to attain the 1-hour standard
by November 15, 1999 and severe areas are required to attain by
November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007. The New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area is classified as severe and its
attainment date is November 15, 2007. This area includes most of
northern New Jersey, southeastern New York, and southwest Connecticut.
The New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-
[[Page 70366]]
Long Island Area is composed of New York City and the counties of
Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland and the towns of Blooming
Grove, Chester, Highlands, Monroe, Tuxedo, Warwick and Woodbury in
Orange County (40 CFR 81.333). This nonattainment area will be referred
to as the New York Metro Area. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA
is today proposing to take action on the New Jersey and Connecticut
portions of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment
area.
Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and severe
areas were required to submit by November 15, 1994 demonstrations of
how they would attain the 1-hour standard and how they would achieve
reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each three-year period
until the attainment year (rate-of-progress or ROP). In some cases,
NOX emission reductions can be substituted for the required
VOC emission reductions. Today, in this proposed rule, EPA is proposing
action on the Attainment Demonstration SIP submitted by New York for
the New York Metro Area. EPA will take action on New York's post 1999
ROP plan in a separate rulemaking action. In addition, elsewhere in
this Federal Register, EPA is today proposing to take action on nine
other serious or severe 1-hour ozone Attainment Demonstration and, in
some cases, ROP SIPs. The additional nine areas are Greater Connecticut
(CT), Springfield (Western Massachusetts) (MA), Baltimore (MD),
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington,
D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta (GA), Milwaukee-Racine (WI), Chicago-Gary-Lake
County (IL-IN), and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (TX).
In general, an Attainment Demonstration SIP includes a modeling
analysis component showing how the area will achieve the standard by
its attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those
reductions. Another component of the Attainment Demonstration SIP is a
motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes.
Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring that states
consider the effects of emissions associated with new or improved
federally-funded roadways on attainment of the standard. As described
in section 176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations necessarily include
the estimates of motor vehicle emissions that are consistent with
attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of
determining whether transportation plans and projects conform to the
attainment SIP.
2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
Notwithstanding significant efforts by the states, in 1995 EPA
recognized that many states in the eastern half of the United States
could not meet the November 1994 time frame for submitting an
Attainment Demonstration SIP because emissions of NOX and
VOCs in upwind states (and the ozone formed by these emissions)
affected these nonattainment areas and the full impact of this effect
had not yet been determined. This phenomenon is called ozone transport.
On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's
Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by states but
noting the remaining difficulties in making Attainment Demonstration
SIP submittals.1 Recognizing the problems created by ozone
transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative
process among the states in the eastern half of the country to evaluate
and address transport of ozone and its precursors. This memorandum led
to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)
2 and provided for the states to submit the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs in two phases 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 nonattainment areas: (1)
Evidence that the applicable control measures in subpart 2 of part D of
title I of the CAA were adopted and implemented or were on an
expeditious course to being adopted and implemented; (2) a list of
measures needed to meet the remaining ROP emissions reduction
requirement and to reach attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a
commitment to adopt and submit target calculations for post-1999 ROP
and the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP plans through
the attainment year by the end of 2000; (4) a commitment to implement
the SIP control programs in a timely manner and to meet ROP emissions
reductions and attainment; and (5) evidence of a public hearing on the
state submittal.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 1-hour ozone standard
because they did not regulate NOX emissions that
significantly contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318 (Nov. 7,
1997). The EPA finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23
jurisdictions to revise their SIPs to require NOX emissions
reductions within the state to a level consistent with a NOX
emissions budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27,
1998). This final rule is commonly referred to as the NOX
SIP Call.
3. Time Frame for Taking Action on Attainment Demonstration SIPs for 10
Serious and Severe Areas
The states generally submitted the SIPs between April and October
of 1998; some states are still submitting additional revisions as
described below. Under the CAA, EPA is required to approve or
disapprove a state's submission no later than 18 months following
submission. (The statute provides up to 6 months for a completeness
determination and an additional 12 months for approval or disapproval.)
The EPA believes that it is
[[Page 70367]]
important to keep the process moving forward in evaluating these plans
and, as appropriate, approving them. Thus, in today's Federal Register,
EPA is proposing to take action on the 10 serious and severe 1-hour
ozone Attainment Demonstration SIPs (located in 13 states and the
District of Columbia) and intends to take final action on these
submissions over the next 6-12 months. The reader is referred to
individual dates in this document for specific information on actions
leading to EPA's final rulemaking on these plans.
4. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
Depending on the circumstances unique to each of the 10 area SIP
submissions on which EPA is proposing action today, EPA is proposing
one or more of these types of approval or disapproval in the
alternative. In addition, these proposals may identify additional
action that will be necessary from the state.
The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve
or conditionally approve a state's plan submission. CAA section 110(k).
The EPA must fully approve the submission if it meets the attainment
demonstration requirement of the CAA. If the submission is deficient in
some way, EPA may disapprove the submission. In the alternative, if
portions of the submission are approvable, EPA may partially approve
and partially disapprove, or may conditionally approve based on a
commitment to correct the deficiency by a date certain, which can be no
later than one year from the date of EPA's final conditional approval.
The EPA may partially approve a submission if separable parts of
the submission, standing alone, are consistent with the CAA. For
example, if a state submits a modeled attainment demonstration,
including control measures, but the modeling does not demonstrate
attainment, EPA could approve the control measures and disapprove the
modeling for failing to demonstrate attainment.
The EPA may issue a conditional approval based on a state's
commitment to expeditiously correct a deficiency by a date certain that
can be no later than one year following EPA's conditional approval.
Such commitments do not need to be independently enforceable because,
if the state does not fulfill its commitment, the conditional approval
is converted to a disapproval. For example, if a state commits to
submit additional control measures and fails to submit them or EPA
determines the state's submission of the control measures is
incomplete, the EPA will notify the state by letter that the
conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval. If the state
submits control measures that EPA determines are complete or that are
deemed complete, EPA will determine through rulemaking whether the
state's Attainment Demonstration SIP is fully approvable or whether the
conditional approval of the Attainment Demonstration SIP 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.4 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The EPA issued guidance on the air quality modeling that is
used to demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See U.S.
EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban
Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). A copy may be found on
EPA's web site at 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 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
[[Page 70368]]
atmospheric conditions through diagnostic analyses and model
performance tests. Once these steps are satisfactorily completed, the
model is ready to be used to generate air quality estimates to support
an attainment demonstration.
The modeled attainment test compares model-predicted 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the
level of the NAAQS. A predicted concentration above 0.124 ppm ozone
indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the
attainment year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that
the area is expected to attain the standard. This type of test is often
referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's guidance recommends that
states use either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS: a deterministic test or a statistical test.
The deterministic test requires the state to compare predicted 1-
hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day
5 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the
predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The initial, "ramp-up" days for each episode are excluded
from this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of
the 1-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a three-year
period, the area has an average of one or fewer exceedances per year,
the area is not violating the standard. Thus, if the state models a
very extreme day, the statistical test provides that a prediction above
0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment
of the standard. (The form of the 1-hour standard allows for up to
three readings above the standard over a three-year period before an
area is considered to be in violation.)
The acceptable upper limit above 0.124 ppm is determined by
examining the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet the 1-
hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four highest
1-hour average concentrations over a three-year period are 0.136 ppm,
0.130 ppm, 0.128 ppm and 0.122 ppm is attaining the standard. To
identify an acceptable upper limit, the statistical likelihood of
observing ozone air quality exceedances of the standard of various
concentrations is equated to the severity of the modeled day. The upper
limit generally represents the maximum ozone concentration observed at
a location on a single day and it would be the only reading above the
standard that would be expected to occur no more than an average of
once a year over a three-year period. Therefore, if the maximum ozone
concentration predicted by the model is below the acceptable upper
limit, in this case 0.136 ppm, then EPA might conclude that the modeled
attainment test is passed. Generally, exceedances well above 0.124 ppm
are very unusual at monitoring sites meeting the NAAQS. Thus, these
upper limits are rarely substantially higher than the attainment level
of 0.124 ppm.
2. Additional Analyses Where Modeling Fails to Show Attainment
When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment,
additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area
will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are
inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and its results. For
example, there are uncertainties in some of the modeling inputs, such
as the meteorological and emissions data bases for individual days and
in the methodology used to assess the severity of an exceedance at
individual sites. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, and
provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess whether
attainment of the NAAQS is likely. The process by which this is done is
called a weight of evidence (WOE) determination.
Under a WOE determination, the state can rely on and EPA will
consider factors such as other modeled attainment tests, e.g., a
rollback analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the
predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted
changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends;
estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the
responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and,
whether there are additional control measures that are or will be
approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis.
This list is not an exclusive list of factors that may be considered
and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's guidance
contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test must be to
passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is
sufficiently compelling to suggest attainment. However, the further a
modeled attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling the
WOE needs to be.
The EPA's 1996 modeling guidance also recognizes a need to perform
a mid-course review as a means for addressing uncertainty in the
modeling results. Because of the uncertainty in long term projections,
EPA believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on WOE needs
to contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring, emissions, and
modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements to emission
control measures are needed. The mid-course review is discussed in
section C.6.
C. What Is The Frame Work For Proposing Action On The Attainment
Demonstration SIPs?
In addition to the modeling analysis and WOE support demonstrating
attainment, the EPA has identified the following key elements which
must be present in order for EPA to approve or conditionally approve
the 1-hour Attainment Demonstration SIPs. These elements are listed
below and then described in detail.
--CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled Attainment
Demonstration SIP. This includes adopted and submitted rules for all
previously required CAA mandated measures for the specific area
classification. This also includes measures that may not be required
for the area classification but that the state relied on in the SIP
submission for attainment and ROP plans on which EPA is proposing to
take action on today.
--NOX reductions 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 SIP
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.
[[Page 70369]]
1. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Modeled Attainment
Demonstration SIP
The states should have adopted the control measures already
required under the CAA for the area classification. Since these 10
serious and severe areas need to achieve substantial reductions from
their 1990 emissions levels in order to attain, EPA anticipates that
these areas need all of the measures required under the CAA to attain
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
In addition, the states may have included 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 following tables present a summary of the CAA requirements that
need to be met for each serious and severe nonattainment area for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements are specified in section 182 of
the CAA. Information on more measures that states may have adopted or
relied on in their current SIP submissions is not shown in the tables.
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) (for serious
areas) or (d) (for severe areas).
CAA Requirements for Serious Areas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--NSR for VOC and NOX 1, including an offset ratio of 1.2:1 and a major
VOC and NOX source cutoff of 50 tons per year (tpy).
--Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX\1\.
--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.
--15% volatile organic compound (VOC) plans.
--Emissions inventory.
--Emission statements.
--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
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island is not such an area.
CAA Requirements for Severe Areas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--All of the nonattainment area requirements for serious areas.
--NSR, including an offset ratio of 1.3:1 and a major VOC and NOX source
cutoff of 25 tons per year (tpy).
--Reformulated gasoline.
--9 percent ROP plan through attainment year.
--Requirement for fees for major sources for failure to attain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NOX Reductions Affecting Boundary Conditions
The EPA completed final rulemaking on the NOX SIP Call
on October 27, 1998, which required states to address transport of
NOX and ozone to other states. To address transport, the
NOX SIP Call established emissions budgets for
NOX that 23 jurisdictions were required to show they would
meet through enforceable SIP measures adopted and submitted by
September 30, 1999. The NOX SIP Call is intended to reduce
emissions in upwind states that significantly contribute to
nonattainment problems. The EPA did not identify specific sources that
the states must regulate nor did EPA limit the states' choices
regarding where to achieve the emission reductions. Subsequently, a
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued an order staying the portion of the NOX SIP
Call rule requiring States to submit rules by September 30, 1999.
The NOX SIP Call rule establishes budgets for the states
in which 9 of the nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing action
today are located. The 9 areas are: Greater Connecticut, Springfield
MA, New York-North New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore MD,
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington,
D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta GA, Milwaukee-Racine WI, and Chicago-Gary-Lake
County (IL-IN).
Emission reductions that will be achieved through EPA's
NOX SIP Call will reduce the levels of ozone and ozone
precursors entering nonattainment areas at their boundaries. For
purposes of developing attainment demonstrations, states define local
modeling domains that include both the nonattainment area and nearby
surrounding areas. The ozone levels at the boundary of the local
modeling domain are reflected in modeled attainment demonstrations and
are referred to as boundary conditions. With the exception of Houston,
the 1-hour attainment demonstrations on which EPA is proposing action
have relied, in part, on the NOX SIP Call reductions for
purposes of determining the boundary conditions of the modeling domain.
Emission reductions assumed in the attainment demonstrations are
modeled to occur both within the state and in upwind states; thus,
intrastate reductions as well as reductions in other states impact the
boundary conditions. Although the court has indefinitely stayed the SIP
submission deadline, the NOX SIP Call rule remains in
effect. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to
continue to assume the reductions from the NOX SIP Call in
areas outside the local 1-hour modeling domains. If states assume
control levels and emission reductions other than those of the
NOX SIP Call within their state but outside of the modeling
domain, states must also adopt control measures to achieve those
reductions in order to have an approvable plan.
Accordingly, states in which the nonattainment areas are located
will not be required to adopt measures outside the modeling domain to
achieve the NOX SIP Call budgets prior to the time that all
states are required to comply with the NOX SIP Call. If the
reductions from the NOX SIP Call do not occur as planned,
states will need to revise their SIPs to add additional local measures
or obtain interstate reductions, or both, in order to provide
sufficient reductions needed for attainment.
As provided in section 1 above, any controls assumed by the state
inside the local modeling domain 6 for purposes of the
modeled attainment demonstration must be adopted and submitted as part
of the state's 1-hour attainment demonstration SIP. It is only for
reductions occurring outside the local modeling domain that states may
assume implementation of NOX SIP Call measures and the
resulting boundary conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70370]]
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, 2000.7 In order for EPA to complete the adequacy
process by the end of May, states should submit a budget no later than
December 31, 1999.8 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For severe areas, EPA will determine the adequacy of the
emissions budgets associated with the post-1999 ROP plans once the
states submit the target calculations, which are due no later than
December 2000.
\8\ A final budget is preferred; but, if the state public
hearing process is not yet complete, then the proposed 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 proposed 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 1-hour ozone modeling and monitoring
information that support EPA's belief that the Tier 2/Sulfur program is
necessary to help areas attain the 1-hour NAAQS. Under the proposed
rule, NOX and VOC emission reductions (as well as other
reductions not directly relevant for attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard) would occur beginning in the 2004 ozone season although
incentives for early compliance by vehicle manufacturers and refiners
will likely result in some reductions prior to 2004. Nationwide, the
Tier 2/Sulfur program is projected to result in reductions of
approximately 800,000 tons of NOX per year by 2007 and
1,200,000 tons by 2010.
In the October 27, 1999 supplemental notice, EPA reported in Table
1 that EPA's regional ozone modeling indicated that 17 metropolitan
areas for which the 1-hour standard applies need the Tier 2/Sulfur
program reductions to help attain the 1-hour ozone standard. The New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area whose
Attainment Demonstration SIP EPA is proposing to approve and
disapprove-in-the-alternative 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.9 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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.10 This memorandum
explains that conformity analyses in serious and severe ozone
nonattainment areas can begin including Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits
once EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program is promulgated, provided that the
Attainment Demonstration SIPs and associated motor vehicle emissions
budgets include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits. For areas that
require all or some portion of the Tier 2/Sulfur program 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/Sulfur program until the SIP budgets are revised to reflect Tier 2/
Sulfur program benefits. See EPA's memorandum for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton, Baltimore, Houston, and Atlanta nonattainment
areas, the EPA is proposing to determine that additional emission
reductions 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/Sulfur program 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
[[Page 70371]]
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.
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 document, or alternatively, as part of the
SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission inventories and
budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits needed in order
for EPA to approve the SIP submittal.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 Demonstration SIPs
for New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island; Baltimore; Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton; Houston; and Atlanta, even considering the Tier 2/
Sulfur program reductions and the WOE, will not achieve attainment
without the application of additional emission control measures to
achieve additional emission reductions. Thus, for each of these areas,
EPA has identified specific tons per day emissions of NOX
and/or VOC that must be reduced through additional control measures in
order to demonstrate attainment and to enable EPA to approve the
demonstration. The need for additional emission reductions is generally
based on a lack of sufficient compelling evidence that the
demonstration shows attainment at the current level of adopted or
planned emission controls. This is discussed in detail below for the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area. The method
used by EPA to calculate the amount of additional reductions is
described in a technical support document located in the record for
this proposed rule. Briefly, the method makes use of the relationship
between ozone and its precursors (VOC and NOX) to identify
additional reductions that, at a minimum, would bring the model
predicted future ozone concentration to a level at or below the
standard. The relationship is derived by comparing changes in either
(1) the model predicted ozone to changes in modeled emissions or (2) in
observed air quality to changes in actual emissions.
The EPA is not requesting that states perform new photochemical
grid modeling to assess the full air quality impact of the additional
measures that would be adopted. Rather, as described above, one of the
factors that EPA can consider as part of the WOE analysis of the
attainment demonstration is whether there will be additional emission
reductions anticipated that were not modeled. Therefore, EPA will
consider the reductions from these additional measures as part of the
WOE analysis if the state adopts the measures or, as appropriate,
submits an enforceable commitment to adopt the measures.
As an initial matter, for areas that need additional reductions,
the state must submit a commitment to adopt additional control measures
to meet the level of reductions that EPA has identified as necessary
for attainment. For purposes of conformity, if the state submitted a
commitment, which has been subject to public hearing, to adopt the
control measures necessary for attainment and ROP through the area's
attainment date in conformance with the December 1997 Wilson policy,
the state will not need an additional commitment at this time. However,
the state will need to amend its commitment by letter to provide two
things concerning the additional measures.
First, the state will need to identify a list of potential control
measures (from which a set of measures could be selected) that when
implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional
emission reductions to meet the level of reductions that EPA has
identified as necessary for attainment. States need not commit to adopt
any specific measures on their list at this time, but if they do not do
so, they must affirm that some combination of measures on their list
has the potential to meet or exceed the additional reductions
identified later in this notice by EPA. These measures may not involve
additional limits on highway construction beyond those that could be
imposed under the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget. (See
memorandum, "Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-hour
Ozone Attainment Demonstrations," from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of
Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI.12)
States may, of course, select control measures that do impose limits on
highway construction, but if they do so, they must revise the budget to
reflect the effects of specific, identified measures that were either
committed to in the SIP or were actually adopted. Otherwise, EPA could
not conclude that the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget would be
providing for attainment, and EPA could not find it adequate for
conformity purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the letter should provide that the state will recalculate
and submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the
effects, if any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted
when those measures are submitted as SIP revisions should any of the
measures pertain to motor vehicles.
For purposes of approving the SIP, the state will need an
enforceable commitment that identifies the date by which the additional
measures will be submitted, identifies the percentage reductions needed
of VOC and NOX, and provides that the state will recalculate
and submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the
effects, if any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted
when these measures are submitted as SIP revisions should any of the
measures pertain to motor vehicles. To
[[Page 70372]]
the extent the state's current commitment does not include one of the
above items or to the extent that a state plans to revise one of the
above items in an existing commitment, the state will need a new public
hearing.
For areas within the OTR, such as the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island nonattainment area, EPA believes it is appropriate to
provide a state that is relying on a regional solution to a
Congressionally-recognized regional air pollution problem with more
time to adopt and submit measures for additional reductions to EPA than
for a state that will rely on intrastate measures to achieve the
reductions. Therefore, the EPA believes that states in the OTR must be
allowed sufficient time for the OTR to analyze the appropriate measures
as well as time for the state to adopt the measures. For these states,
EPA believes it is appropriate for them to commit to work through the
OTR to develop a regional strategy regarding the measures necessary to
meet the additional reductions identified by EPA for these areas.
However, as a backstop, the state will need to commit to adopt
intrastate measures sufficient to achieve the additional reductions if
the regional measures are not identified by the OTR and adopted by the
relevant states. For purposes of conformity, if the state submitted a
commitment consistent with the December 1997 Wilson policy and which
has been subject to public hearing, the state may amend its current
commitment by letter to provide these assurances. However, before EPA
can take final rulemaking action to approve the attainment
demonstration, the state will need to meet the public hearing
requirements for the commitment and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision.
The EPA will have to propose and take final action on this SIP revision
before EPA can fully approve the state's attainment demonstration. The
state will have to submit the necessary measures themselves (and a
revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the effects, if
any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted should any
of the measures pertain to motor vehicles) as a SIP revision no later
than October 31, 2001.
Guidance on Additional Control Measures. Much progress has been
made over the past 25 years to reduce VOC emissions and over the past 9
years to reduce NOX emissions. Many large sources have been
controlled to some extent through RACT rules or other emission
standards or limitations, such as maximum achievable control technology
(MACT), new source performance standards (NSPS) and the emission
control requirements for NSR--lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER)
and best achievable control technology (BACT). However, there may be
controls available for sources that have not yet been regulated as well
as additional means for achieving reductions from sources that have
already been regulated. The EPA has prepared a report to assist states
in identifying additional measures. This report is called ``Serious and
Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on Emissions, Control
Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available Control Measures.'' The
purpose of this report is to provide information to state and local
agencies to assist them in identifying additional control measures that
could, if later determined to be appropriate, be adopted into their
SIPs to support the attainment demonstrations for the serious and
severe nonattainment areas under consideration. This report has been
added to the record for this proposal.
In summary, the report provides information in four areas. First,
the report contains detailed information on emissions for ozone
precursor emissions of NOX and VOCs. This inventory data
gives an indication of where the major emissions are coming from in a
particular geographic area and may indicate where it will be profitable
to look for further reductions. Second, the report contains information
on control measures for emission sources of NOX and VOC
(including stationary, area and mobile source measures) for which
controls may not have been adopted by many jurisdictions. This would
include many measures listed among the control measures EPA considered
when developing the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for promulgation
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Third, the report includes information on
standards EPA has issued for the NSPS and MACT programs as well as
information on alternative control techniques (ACT) documents. This may
be useful to states who may already specify emission limits on existing
source categories to which NSPS and MACT for new sources apply, but the
current RACT level of control for these existing sources may not match
the level specified in the NSPS or MACT standards for new sources or
sources which emit hazardous air pollutants. Finally, the report
includes information on the control measures not already covered
elsewhere that states have adopted, or have proposed to adopt at the
date of the report, into their SIPs. Comparison of information on
measures already adopted into others' SIPs may help inform states about
reductions that may be available from their sources whose emissions are
currently not regulated.
Another source of information is the BACT and LAER determinations
that states have made for individual new sources. Information on BACT/
LAER determinations is available through EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse (RBLC) which may be accessed on EPA's web site on the
internet at the following address: www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/.
The ACT documents for VOC and NOX are valuable because
EPA has not issued control technique guidelines (CTGs) that specify the
level of RACT for several categories of sources. For some of these
source categories, EPA has prepared ACT documents which describe
various control technologies and associated costs for reducing
emissions. While states were required to adopt RACT for major sources
within these source categories, the ACT documents may identify an
additional level of control for regulated sources or may provide
control options for non-major sources within these source categories.
States are free to evaluate the various options given and use the
results to assist in formulating their own regulations.
The EPA report lists the various sources EPA used to develop the
lists of additional measures. These sources include an EPA draft
control measure data base, state and Territorial Air Pollution
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Official's (STAPPA/ALAPCO's) books "Controlling Nitrogen Oxides under
the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options," and "Meeting the 15-Percent
Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of
Options," California's ozone SIP for the South Coast and various ACT
documents.
There is one control approach which bears special mention because
it is broader in application than any one specific control measure. The
is the approach of "cap and trade." In this approach, a cap is placed
on emissions, and existing sources are given emission allotments. Under
a declining cap, emissions would be decreased each year. Sources may
over-control and sell part of their allotments to other sources which
under-control. Overall, the percentage decrease in emissions is
maintained, but the reductions are made where they are most economical.
A cap and trade program has been in operation in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District in California since about 1992.
[[Page 70373]]
The State of Illinois has adopted a declining cap and trade
program. The Illinois program will set a cap on future emissions of
major sources in the Chicago area that in most cases is 12 percent
lower than baseline emissions. Illinois will issue a number of emission
allotments corresponding to the cap level and will require each source
to have VOC emissions at or below the level for which it holds emission
allotments. Trading of emission allotments will be allowed, so that
sources that reduce VOC emissions more than 12 percent may sell
emission allotments, and sources that reduce VOC emissions less than 12
percent must buy emission allotments. The proposed reductions are
planned to begin in the next ozone season, May 2000.
In addition, EPA's draft economic incentives program guidance (EIP)
was proposed in September 1999. This encourages cost-effective and
innovative approaches to achieving air pollution goals through
emissions trading. Such an approach has been demonstrated to be
successful and cost-effective in reducing air pollution in EPA's acid
rain emissions trading program. These and other similar programs should
allow cost-effective implementation of additional control measures.
Finally, a reduction in VOC and NOX emissions can be
achieved through a wide range of control measures. These measures range
from technology based actions such as retrofitting diesel trucks and
buses, and controlling ground service equipment at airports to activity
based controls such as increased use of transit by utilizing existing
Federal tax incentives, market and pricing based programs, and ozone
action days. States can also achieve emission reductions by
implementing programs involving cleaner burning fuels. The State of
Texas is also considering a rule to change the times during the day in
which construction can occur to reduce ozone precursor emissions during
periods when ozone formation is occurring. There are a wide range of
new and innovative programs beyond the few examples listed here. These
measures, if taken together, can provide significant emission
reductions for attainment purposes. In addition, a variety of mobile
source measures could be considered as part of the commitment to meet
the need for additional emission reduction measures.
6. Mid-Course Review
A mid-course review (MCR) is a reassessment of modeling analyses
and more recent monitored data to determine if a prescribed control
strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air quality
improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard for
ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the statutory
dates.
The EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical
element of the WOE analysis for the attainment demonstration on which
EPA is proposing to take action today. In order to approve the
Attainment Demonstration SIP for the New York Metro Area, EPA believes
that New York must submit an enforceable commitment to perform a MCR as
described here.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 MCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA invites the states to participate in a public consultative
process to develop a methodology for performing the MCR and developing
the criteria by which adequate progress would be judged.
For severe areas, the states must have an enforceable commitment to
perform the MCR, preferably following the 2003 ozone season, and to
submit the results to EPA by the end of the review year (e.g., by
December 31, 2003). EPA believes that an analysis in 2003 would be most
robust since some or all of the regional NOX emission
reductions should be achieved by that date. EPA would then review the
results and determine whether any states need to adopt and submit
additional control measures for purposes of attainment. The EPA is not
requesting that states commit now to adopt new control measures as a
result of this process. It would be impracticable for the states to
make a commitment that is specific enough to be considered enforceable.
Moreover, the MCR could indicate that upwind states may need to adopt
some or all of the additional controls needed to ensure an area attains
the standard. Therefore, if EPA determines additional control measures
are needed for attainment, EPA would determine whether additional
emission reductions as necessary from states in which the nonattainment
area is located or upwind states, or both. The EPA would require the
affected state or states to adopt and submit the new measures within a
period specified at the time. The EPA anticipates that these findings
would be made as calls for SIP revisions under section 110(k)(5) and,
therefore, the period for submission of the measures would be no longer
than 18 months after the EPA finding. A draft guidance document
regarding the MCR process is located in the docket for this proposal
and may also be found on EPA's web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram/.
D. In Summary, What Does EPA Expect to Happen with Respect to
Attainment Demonstrations for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas?
The following table shows a summary of information on what EPA
expects from the states which make up the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island nonattainment area, to allow EPA to approve the 1-hour
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIPs.
Summary Schedule of Future Actions Related to Attainment Demonstration for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island Severe Nonattainment Area in New York Which is Located in the OTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Req'd no later than Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/31/99......................................................... State submits the following to EPA:
--motor vehicle emissions budget 1.
--Commitments 2 to do the following:
-- --Submit by 10/31/01 measures for additional
emission reductions as required in the
attainment demonstration test; for
additional emission reduction measures
developed through the regional process, the
State must also submit a commitment for the
additional measures and a backstop
commitment to adopt and submit by 10/31/01
intrastate measures for the emission
reductions in the event the OTR process does
not recommend measures that produce emission
reductions.
--Submit revised SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget by 10/31/01 if additional
measures (due by 10/31/01) affect the motor
vehicle emissions inventory.
[[Page 70374]]
--Revise SIP & motor vehicle emissions
budget 1 year after MOBILE6 issued 3.
--Perform a mid-course review.
--A list of potential control measures that
could provide additional emission reductions
needed to attain the standard 4.
4/15/00.......................................................... State submits in final form any previous
submissions made in proposed form by 12/31/
99.
Before EPA final rulemaking...................................... State submits enforceable commitments for any
above-mentioned commitments that may not yet
have been subjected to public hearing.
12/31/00......................................................... --State submits adopted modeled measures
relied on in attainment demonstration and
relied on for ROP through the attainment
year.
--State revises & submits SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget to account for Tier 2
reductions as needed 5.
10/31/01......................................................... --OTR States submit additional measures
developed through the regional process.
--State revises SIP & motor vehicle emissions
budget if the additional measures are for
motor vehicle category.
Within 1 yr after release of MOBILE6 model....................... State submits revised SIP & motor vehicle
emissions budget based on MOBILE6.
12/31/03......................................................... State submits to EPA results of mid-course
review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Final budget preferable; however, if public process is not yet complete, then a proposed 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 proposed submitted earlier, the final budget must be submitted by 2/
15/00 to accommodate the 90 day processing period prior to the 5/31/00 date by which EPA must find the motor
vehicle emissions budget adequate. Note that the budget can reflect estimated Tier 2 emission reductions--see
memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, "1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking."
2. As provided in the preamble text, the state may clarify by letter an existing commitment, which has been
subject to public hearing, to submit the control measures needed for attainment. If the state has not yet
submitted such a commitment, the state should adopt a commitment after public hearing. If the public hearing
process is not yet complete, then proposed commitments may be submitted at this time. The final commitment
should be submitted no later than 4/15/00.
3. The revision for MOBILE6 is only required for SIPs that include the effects of Tier 2. The commitment to
revise the SIP after MOBILE6 may be submitted at the same time that the state submits the budget that includes
the effects of Tier 2 (no later than 12/31/00).
4. The state is not required to commit to adopt any specific measures. However, if the state does not do so, the
list cannot include any measures that place limits on highway construction.
5. If the state submits such a revision, it must be accompanied by a commitment to revise the SIP and motor
vehicle emissions budget 1 year after MOBILE6 is issued (if the commitment has not already been submitted).
E. What Are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
This proposal has cited several policy and guidance memoranda. The
EPA has also developed several technical documents related to the
rulemaking action in this proposal. Some of the documents have been
referenced above. The documents and their location on EPA's web site
are listed below; these documents will also be placed in the docket for
this proposal action.
Recent Documents
1. "Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through
Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality
Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.
2. "Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on
Emissions, Control Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available
Control Measures." Draft Report. November 3, 1999. Ozone Policy and
Strategies Group. U.S. EPA, RTP, NC.
3. Memorandum, "Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
One-Hour Attainment Demonstrations," from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of
Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI. November 3,
1999. Web site: https://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
4. Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air
Division Directors, Regions I-VI, "1-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur/Sulfur Rulemaking." November 8, 1999.
Web site: https://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
5. Draft Memorandum, "1-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Mid-Course Review
Guidance" From John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Web site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.
6. Memorandum, "Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas." John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999.
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. EPA's Review and Technical Information
A. What Was Included in New York's Submittal?
On June 26, 1998 the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to EPA a SIP revision for the New York
portion of the New York-Northern New
[[Page 70375]]
Jersey-Long Island Area (described previously) to meet requirements
related to attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone, referred to here
as Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP. This was further supplemented
with additional documentation on July 10, 1998, November 27, 1998 and
April 15, 1999. These submittals included the following: Demonstration
of Attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS for Ozone; commitments for future
actions; transportation conformity budgets; 3 percent per-annum Rate Of
Progress (ROP) requirements for the years 2002, 2005 and 2007 for the
New York Metro Area; 2002, 2005 and 2007 ozone projection emission
inventories; and contingency measures. New York held a public hearing
on April 30, 1998 and re-opened the comment period to allow for public
comment on subsequent revisions.
These revisions are intended to fulfill EPA's Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP requirements ("Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,"
March 2, 1995 memo from Mary Nichols and "Guidance for Implementing
the 1-hour Ozone and Pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS," December 29, 1997 memo
from Richard D. Wilson).
ROP for Milestone Years 2002, 2005 and 2007
The December 29, 1997 Wilson policy memo required states to submit
a "SIP commitment to submit a plan on or before the end of 2000 which,
(1) contains target calculations for post-1999 ROP milestones up to the
attainment date and, (2) adopted regulations needed to achieve post
1999 ROP and to attain the 1-hour NAAQS." New York's submittal
included more than just a commitment, it identified the target
calculations for the post-1999 ROP milestones for the years 2002, 2005
and 2007 and identifies air pollution control programs which have
occurred since New York's Phase I Ozone SIP submittal, including
control measures which have been adopted or are to be adopted in order
to achieve 3 percent per-annum post-1999 ROP requirements up to the
attainment date of 2007.
NOX SIP Call
New York identified emission reduction credits resulting from the
NOX SIP Call and is relying on these credits to achieve
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. New York proposed emission
budgets consistent with the NOX SIP Call and held public
hearings on the proposed budgets on August 2 and 3, 1999 and additional
public hearings on the emission budget demonstration on August 31, 1999
and September 2, 1999. On November 15, 1999, New York's Environmental
Board adopted 6 NYCRR Part 204, "NOX Budget Trading
Program." This regulation will allow New York to comply with the
NOX SIP Call. The regulation will be submitted to EPA after
it becomes effective. New York's administrative process takes at least
40 days from adoption to effectiveness.
Emission Inventories
In addition, New York provided projection emission inventories for
milestone years 2002, 2005 and 2007.
Commitments
New York also made the following commitments in their Ozone
Attainment Demonstration SIP revision: (1) To undertake an assessment
of the ambient air quality and modeling as part of the mid-course
review and submit a report to EPA, in the 2001/2002 time period; (2) to
review any future technology breakthroughs for feasibility, to achieve
any necessary, additional emission reductions; (3) to evaluate all
control measures which are not currently implemented (referring to
STAPPA/ALAPCO list of measures) for potential future implementation;
(4) to evaluate all control measures listed in the California Federal
Implementation Plan list of control measures, and compare the
stringency of these measures to those already in place in New York. EPA
will further discuss these commitments below.
EPA is in the process of evaluating New York's ROP control
strategies, projection year inventories and contingency measures and
will act on these in a separate Federal Register notice.
B. What Modeling Did the States Do To Show Attainment of the 1-Hour
Ozone Standard?
As discussed previously, EPA's guidance allows the states to use
modeling with optional WOE analyses to show that they will attain the
1-hour ozone standard. The goal is to calculate how much ozone-forming
emissions need to be reduced to meet the ozone standard by 2007. The
two main kinds of emissions that form ozone are VOCs and
NOX.
New Jersey, New York and Connecticut worked together to predict
future concentrations of ozone as a result of emission control
programs. The states primarily used a photochemical grid model called
Urban Airshed Model-IV (UAM-IV) to predict ozone concentrations in the
year 2007.
The states also used other methods as well to make a WOE argument
that the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area
will attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2007. One of these methods is
called "design value rollback." Design value rollback relies on
actual measurements of ozone levels and information from the modeling
results to predict future ozone design values. The states also used air
quality trends analysis, extrapolating changes in measured air quality
over the last decade to predict future ozone concentrations.
C. How Did the States Do Photochemical Grid Modeling?
New Jersey, New York and Connecticut agreed to work together on the
modeling for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment
area since parts of all three states are in the nonattainment area.
They developed a modeling protocol, which they used to guide their
work. New York agreed to perform the photochemical grid modeling and
coordinate the effort. Connecticut contributed analysis of air quality
trends and New Jersey performed additional analyses to support the WOE
for attainment. All three states contributed air quality and emissions
data and worked together on special analyses like selection of days for
modeling.
The modeling domain included the entire New York City ozone plume
including locations downwind in Connecticut, southeast New York and
northern New Jersey. New York ran the UAM-IV model for the two episodes
selected by the states. The states reviewed air quality and weather
data from 1987 through 1991 to find periods representative of high
ozone which could be used for modeling. The July 1988 and July 1991
episodes were selected as being representative of the days most
conducive to ozone formation. Other episodes were reviewed, but only
the 1988 and 1991 episodes were selected. EPA guidance recommends three
episodes from at least two kinds of weather conditions that occur with
high ozone concentrations. However, EPA allowed the states to use the
two episodes they selected for the following reasons. The episodes were
representative of weather conditions on over 50 percent of the high
ozone days and had some of the most severe ozone days during the time
from 1987 through 1991. In addition, modeling over a broader region was
available to support analyses of the 1988 and 1991 episodes in the
metropolitan area modeling domain. This modeling is referred to as
regional modeling. The states used this regional modeling to provide
input into the local modeling
[[Page 70376]]
on changes in ozone and ozone-forming chemicals coming into the
modeling domain from sources outside the nonattainment area.
The states used emission inventories developed for the regional
modeling for the base year modeling. For the year 2007 prediction of
ozone, the states used an emission inventory that was used to model the
effects of emission controls in the Ozone Transport Region. These
controls included low emission vehicles and reductions in
NOX from major sources and is representative of the emission
reduction plans submitted by these states and the emission reductions
from EPA's NOX SIP Call.
To model how the winds distributed the pollution, two methods were
tested and compared with observed data. The method selected did better
at predicting where the highest ozone concentrations were observed.
The results of the modeling for the 1988 and 1991 episodes were
compared with the observed ozone from those episodes. The model
performed well, based on the statistics recommended by EPA guidance.
The model also did well at reproducing the observed distribution of
ozone, however, the predicted ozone concentrations exceeded the maximum
monitored concentrations. Since there are more modeling grid cells than
monitoring sites, it is possible that higher concentrations could occur
between monitors.
D. What Were the Results of Photochemical Grid Modeling?
The modeling for the nonattainment area predicted that ozone levels
in 2007 would exceed the 1-hour ozone standard. The highest ozone in
the predictions for 2007 using the 1988 and 1991 weather conditions
were 0.171 ppm and 0.169 ppm, respectively. If the predicted peaks were
adjusted to approximate the estimated design values, the design value
in 2007 would be 0.163 ppm, well over the 0.124 ppm standard. However,
the design value for the peak site from the area in and downwind of the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island area was less than 0.163 ppm
for the past four years. Since some major controls included in the
0.163 ppm prediction for 2007 are yet to be implemented, EPA believes
that the design value in 2007 is likely to be lower than the
photochemical grid model's prediction for 2007. To corroborate these
results, the states turned to other methods, namely design value
rollback and extrapolation of air quality trends.
E. What Were the Results of the States' Design Value Rollback Analysis?
The results depended on the method selected. The states did several
design value rollback calculations using slightly different data sets.
Some calculations used the amount of ozone change from the regional or
local photochemical grid modeling results. The calculations included
different starting points from which the modeling "rolled back" to
predict the ozone design value in 2007. In general, the calculations
predicted that the ozone design value in 2007 could be close to or
below the 0.124 ppm standard, with results ranging from as low as 0.122
ppm to as high as 0.131 ppm. The states acknowledged that there was
significant uncertainty in these estimates. New York proposed to
address this uncertainty by committing to a mid course review.
As discussed later in this notice, EPA independently performed a
design rollback analysis using the change in ozone from 1990 to 2007
from the local modeling and using an average design value from around
1990. However, EPA performed its own design value rollback analysis
with more robust data to account for fluctuations in the results due to
meteorology. EPA's results predict nonattainment.
F. What Were the Results of Air Quality Trends Analyses?
States used data from the late 1980s through 1997 to attempt to
make a qualitative argument that by extrapolating the 1-hour peak ozone
and the highest design value in the airshed over the past decade, ozone
would decrease to less than the standard by 2007.
Year to year trends in ozone are affected by the number of days
with hot weather. Since hot weather favors ozone formation, hot summers
will tend to have more high ozone days. Some of the trends analyses
used by the states and EPA attempt to factor out the effects of year to
year changes in weather so we can see effects of emission changes on
ozone. These state and EPA analyses show that ozone changes due to
emission changes have leveled off in recent years.
EPA agrees that ozone will decrease as these new programs are
implemented. However, EPA believes that these trends data are not
quantitative enough to help EPA determine if the standard will be
attained in 2007. The design value rollback analyses provide more
accurate answers to the question about how much ozone air quality will
improve by the 2007 attainment date due to future emission reductions.
G. What Are the Uncertainties in These Analyses?
There is a large difference between the results using the
photochemical grid modeling and methods that use air quality data, like
design value rollback and extrapolation of air quality trends. The UAM-
IV predicts concentrations in 2007 that would lead to a design value of
0.163 ppm in 2007, well above the 0.124 ppm standard. The predictions
for 2007 from design value rollback range from 0.122 to 0.141 ppm. Air
quality trends projected to 2007 show ozone concentrations nearing
attainment, but trends analyses are not sufficient for showing
attainment.
The wide range of values from these analyses lead EPA to conclude
that additional assurances are needed to conclusively determine that
the New York's Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP will result in
attainment and EPA will be able to approve these plans.
H. What Are the Results of EPA's Evaluation?
EPA finds that New York's Attainment Demonstration SIP does not
conclusively predict attainment. The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island nonattainment area will need more reductions in ozone-causing
emissions than that presented in New York's Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP. Specifically, the additional reductions needed is a
3.8 percent reduction in VOCs and a 0.3 percent reduction in
NOX, based on the 1990 emission inventory. This is
equivalent to reducing emissions in the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island ozone nonattainment area by 85 tons of VOC per summer day
and 7 tons of NOX per summer day.
EPA determined the amount of additional reductions needed by
performing an additional analysis (described later in this notice) to
better calculate a design value for 2007 using a nationally consistent
method for serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas. EPA's analysis
included the modeled decrease in ozone due to the emission reductions
resulting from all the adopted and implemented measures, including
those reductions expected from the NOX SIP Call (both at the
boundaries and in the local area). To make the method more robust, EPA
used a three-year average of design values from 1990 through 1992 with
the design value rollback technique. The method calculates that the
ozone design value in 2007 will be 0.129 ppm. Since
[[Page 70377]]
this more robust method predicts a 2007 concentration above the 0.124
ppm standard, the states will need to achieve additional emission
reductions to demonstrate attainment.
Then EPA developed methods for calculating the amount of additional
reductions the states need to attain the ozone standard. Details are in
the Technical Support Document. These methods extrapolate the
additional VOC and NOX reductions needed to reduce ozone
from 0.129 to 0.124 ppm. The additional reductions described earlier
are after EPA applied credits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program.
New York can use either VOC or NOX reductions in the ROP
Plan and the Attainment Demonstration to the extent allowed by the CAA.
This is because photochemical grid modeling studies for New York
predict that ozone will be reduced if emissions of VOC or of
NOX are reduced. When the states modeled the impact of
proportionally reducing emissions of VOC and NOX together
the results showed that reductions in VOC or NOX together or
alone reduces peak ozone concentrations. The actual substitution ratio
will vary and depends on the total VOC and NOX emission
inventories.
I. What Is Needed To Demonstrate Attainment?
In order to be more certain that the area will attain the standard
by 2007, EPA has determined that the states will need additional
measures to reduce ozone by 0.005 more ppm after all the already
planned measures are implemented. These additional measures include
Tier 2/Sulfur program, the NOX SIP call and some additional
local controls.
If the states commit to implementing these additional reductions,
they will provide sufficient assurance of attainment by 2007. In
addition, New York has committed to a mid-course review as part of
their WOE argument. If New York adopts these commitments, this would
account for any uncertainty in the ability of the states to show that
they will attain the ozone standard by 2007.
J. How Is the Tier 2/Sulfur Program Needed?
As result of EPA's review of the State's SIP submittal, EPA
believes that the ozone modeling submitted by the State for the New
York Metro Area on which EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove-in-
the-alternative today will need the emission reductions from EPA's Tier
2/Sulfur program to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA
believes that the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island area will
require additional emission reductions identified by EPA, beyond those
from EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
For the New York Metro Area, EPA is proposing to determine that the
submitted control strategy does not provide for attainment by the
attainment deadline. However, the emission reductions from EPA's Tier
2/Sulfur program, which are not reflected in the submitted SIP, will
assist in attainment. Because the New York Metro Area must rely on
reductions from the Tier 2/Sulfur program in order to demonstrate
attainment, the effects of these standards must be included in the
motor vehicle emissions budget that is established for transportation
conformity purposes.
To assist the State in the preparation of a new submission, EPA has
prepared an estimate of the air quality benefits of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur
program in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment
area. In our calculation, EPA assumed that all of the Tier 2/Sulfur
emissions reductions will contribute to the ability of the New York
Metro Area to demonstrate attainment. The EPA suggests that the State
include these calculations as part of the WOE analysis accompanying the
adjusted attainment demonstration and revised motor vehicle emissions
budget for this area.
K. What Is the Status of New York's Transportation Conformity Budgets?
1. Conformity Budgets for Milestone Years 2002 and 2005
On November 16, 1999, EPA published a Federal Register document (64
FR 62194) finding that the conformity budgets for VOCs and
NOX for 2002 and 2005 meet the adequacy criteria contained
in section 93.118(e)(4) of the transportation conformity regulation.
EPA will take action on the approvability of these budgets when we act
on the full 2002 and 2005 ROP plans.
2. Conformity Budgets for Attainment Year 2007
The EPA has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the
Attainment Demonstration submitted by New York is inadequate for
conformity purposes for Attainment Year 2007 (November 16, 1999, 64 FR
62194). The EPA is proposing to approve the Attainment Demonstration
SIP if New York corrects the deficiencies that cause the motor vehicle
emissions budget to be inadequate and, alternatively, to disapprove it
if New York 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 New York 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.
L. What Future Actions Are Needed From New York for an Approvable Ozone
Attainment Demonstration SIP?
1. NOX SIP Call Submittal
Since New York has taken credit for emission reductions associated
with the NOX SIP Call occurring in the New York Metro Area
for purposes of the 1-hour Attainment Demonstration SIP, the
NOX SIP Call, which New York has adopted, must be submitted
to EPA as part of an approved 1-hour attainment demonstration.
2. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Modeled Attainment
Demonstration SIP
New York has adopted the control measures already required under
the CAA for the New York Metro Area classification of severe. Generally
these measures have been approved by EPA or are in the process of being
acted on by EPA. With the exception of the NOX SIP Call, all
measures relied on in the current SIP have been adopted by New York and
will be approved before EPA takes final action on the ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP.
3. Additional Measures To Further Reduce Emissions
New York must submit an enforceable commitment to adopt additional
control measures to meet that level of reductions identified by EPA for
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. New York should submit the
commitment by December 31, 1999. However, if the public process on the
commitment is not yet complete by that date, it should submit the
proposed commitment and submit the final commitment as quickly as
possible, but no later than April 15, 2000.
New York must commit to work through the OTR to develop a regional
strategy regarding the measures necessary to meet the additional
reductions identified by EPA. However, as a backstop, New York will
need to commit to adopt intrastate measures sufficient to achieve the
additional reductions if the regional measures are
[[Page 70378]]
not identified by the OTR and adopted by the relevant states.
4. Attainment Demonstration--Conformity Budget--Tier 2/Sulfur Program
Benefit
a. In order for EPA to complete the adequacy determination by May
31, 2000, New York should submit a revised budget no later than
December 31, 1999. This revised budget would be submitted with the
commitment to adopt sufficient measures to address the required level
of emission reductions identified by EPA. The State may chose to
include preliminary Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits in this submittal.
If the State chooses not to include these benefits, then Metropolitan
Planning Organizations may not use these emission reductions in
conformity determinations until the State revises the budgets to
account for the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits.
In addition, in order for EPA to find the motor vehicle emissions
budget adequate for conformity purposes, the State will need to
identify a list of potential control measures that could provide
sufficient additional emission reductions as identified by EPA. These
measures may not involve additional limits on highway construction
beyond those that could be imposed under the submitted motor vehicle
emissions budget. New York need not commit to adopt any specific
measure(s) on their list at this time. In satisfying the additional
emission reductions, the State is not restricted to the list and could
choose other measures that may prove feasible. It is not necessary for
the State to evaluate each and every measure on the list.
b. If New York chooses not to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program
benefits in its December 31, 1999 SIP submittal, New York must make a
subsequent SIP submittal by December 31, 2000. This latter SIP
submittal would incorporate the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits and
appropriately modify the transportation conformity budgets.
c. New York must submit an enforceable commitment to revise its
transportation conformity budgets within one year after EPA's release
of MOBILE6. This commitment should be submitted to EPA along with the
other commitments discussed in this section, or alternatively, as part
of the SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission
inventories and transportation conformity budgets to include the Tier
2/Sulfur program benefits which is due December 31, 2000.
d. New York must commit to recalculate and submit a revised motor
vehicle emissions budget if any of the additional emission reductions
pertain to motor vehicle measures. This must be done when the measures
are submitted as a SIP revision.
5. Mid Course Review
While New York has submitted a commitment to perform a MCR, the
commitment does not include a firm end date for this submittal. New
York must submit an enforceable commitment to perform a MCR as
described previously by December 31, 1999 which contains a firm end
date. However, if the public process on the commitment is not yet
complete by that time, a proposed commitment may be submitted at that
time, with a final enforceable commitment to be submitted no later than
April 15, 2000.
M. 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 (FIP) if states fail to submit a required
plan, submit a plan that is determined to be incomplete or if EPA
disapproves a plan submitted by the state. (EPA is using the phrase
"failure to submit" to cover both the situation where a state makes
no submission and the situation where the state makes a submission that
we find is incomplete in accordance with section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40
CFR part 51, appendix V.) For purposes of sanctions, there are no
sanctions clocks in place based on a failure to submit. Thus, the
description of the timing of sanctions, below, is linked to a potential
disapproval of the state's submission.
1. What Are the CAA's Provisions for Sanctions?
If EPA disapproves a required SIP, such as the Attainment
Demonstration SIPs, section 179(a) provides for the imposition of two
sanctions. The first sanction would apply 18 months after EPA
disapproves the SIP if the state fails to make the required submittal
which EPA proposes to fully or conditionally approve within that time.
Under EPA's sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction
would be 2:1 offsets for sources subject to the new source review
requirements under section 173 of the CAA. If the state has still
failed to submit a SIP for which EPA proposes full or conditional
approval 6 months after the first sanction is imposed, the second
sanction will apply. The second sanction is a limitation on the receipt
of Federal highway funds. EPA also has authority under section 110(m)
to sanction 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 discussed previously, EPA provided for states to submit
the attainment demonstration SIPs in two phases. In June 1996, EPA made
findings that ten states (including New York) 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.
N. What Are EPA's Conclusions?
EPA has evaluated New York's 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
SIP submittal for consistency with the CAA, applicable EPA regulations,
and EPA policy. EPA has determined that the ozone standard in the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island area will not be achieved until
the states and EPA implement some additional measures, including Tier
2/Sulfur program and some additional local controls. EPA is proposing
two alternative actions on New York's Ozone Attainment Demonstration
SIP, depending on whether New York submits the adopted NOX
SIP Call, the revised transportation conformity budgets and necessary
enforceable commitments.
First, EPA is proposing to approve New York's Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP provided New York submits:
--The adopted NOX SIP Call program as a SIP revision;
[[Page 70379]]
--An enforceable commitment to adopt sufficient measures to address the
required level of emission reductions identified by EPA;
--Revised transportation conformity budgets which reflect the
additional emission reductions identified by EPA for attainment;
--Revised transportation conformity budgets to include the Tier 2/
Sulfur program benefits, if these benefits have not already been
incorporated;
--An enforceable commitment to revise the Attainment Demonstration SIP,
including recalculation of the transportation conformity budgets (if
any of the additional emission reductions pertain to motor vehicle
measures) to reflect the adopted additional measures needed for
attainment;
--An enforceable commitment to revise the Attainment Demonstration,
including transportation conformity budgets, when MOBILE6 is released;
and
--An enforceable commitment to perform a mid course review and submit
the results to EPA by December 31, 2003.
With respect to the NOX SIP Call, the proposed approval
is predicated upon the expectation that New York will submit the
NOX SIP Call program prior to EPA taking final action on
today's proposal.
EPA also is proposing to disapprove-in-the-alternative New York's
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP if New York does not provide one or
more of the identified elements by the required dates.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
"Regulatory Planning and Review."
B. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled "Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is
"economically significant," as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health
and safety risks.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is
unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities." Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements
that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful
and timely input by state and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications." "Policies
that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government." Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local
governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
state law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
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 CAA 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
CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
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).
[[Page 70380]]
The EPA's alternative proposed disapproval of the state request
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA would not affect
any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-
existing Federal requirements would remain in place after this
disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect
State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the submittal would
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that
the proposed disapproval would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed approval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to the proposed disapproval
because the proposed disapproval of the SIP submittal would not, in and
of itself, constitute a Federal mandate because it would not impose an
enforceable duty on any entity. In addition, the Act does not permit
EPA to consider the types of analyses described in section 202 in
determining whether a SIP submittal meets the CAA. Finally, section 203
does not apply to the proposed disapproval because it would affect only
the State of New York, which is not a small government.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with
NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use "voluntary consensus standards"
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 29, 1999.
Jeanne M. Fox,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 99-31712 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P