Technology Transfer Network / NAAQS
Ozone Implementation
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations
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
[Federal Register: December 16, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 241)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70380-70397]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16de99-26]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Region 2 Docket No. NJ40-205, FRL-6502-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations 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 Jersey's Ozone Attainment
Demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area(NAA) and the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, Trenton NAA or in the alternative to disapprove it,
depending on whether New Jersey submits the adopted NOX SIP
Call, the revised transportation conformity budgets and necessary
enforceable commitments.
First, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP provided New Jersey 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; and, an enforceable
commitment to revise the Attainment Demonstration, including
transportation conformity budgets, when MOBILE6 (the most recent model
for estmating obile source emissions) is released.
With respect to the NOX SIP Call, the proposed approval
is predicated upon the expectation that New Jersey 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 Jersey's
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP for the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island NAA and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton NAA if
New Jersey does not provide one of more of the identified elements by
the required dates.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2000.
ADDRESSES: All 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 Jersey 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 and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Office of Air Quality Management, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401
East State Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Truchan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290
[[Page 70381]]
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249
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 State of New Jersey.
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 Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area 1-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Areas?
E. What are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?
II. EPA's Review and Technical Information
A. What was included in New Jersey's submittals?
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?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
D. What Were the Results of Photochemical Grid Modeling?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
E. What Were the Results of the State's Design Value Rollback
Analysis?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
F. What were the results of air quality trends analyses?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
G. What Are the Uncertainties in These Analyses?
H. What are the results of EPA's Evaluation?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
I. What Is Needed To Demonstrate Attainment?
J. How is the Tier 2/Sulfur Program needed?
K. What Is the Status of New Jersey's Transportation Conformity
Budgets?
L. What Future Actions Are Needed from New Jersey for an
Approvable Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP?
1. NOX SIP Call Submittal
2. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Attainment
Demonstration SIP
3. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions
4. Attainment Demonstration--Conformity Budget--Tier 2/Sulfur
Program Benefit
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. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates
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 Philadelphia, Wilmington,
Trenton nonattainment area is classified as severe 15 so its attainment
date is November 15, 2005. The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area is classified as severe 17 so its attainment date is
November 15, 2007.
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 State
of New Jersey for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton and the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment areas. EPA is also
proposing action on the State's commitment to submit ROP target
calculations and the adopted measures to achieve ROP by December 2000.
In addition, elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is today proposing
to take action on eight other serious or severe 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration and, in some cases, ROP Plan SIPs. The additional nine
areas are Greater
[[Page 70382]]
Connecticut (CT), Springfield (Western Massachusetts) (MA), Baltimore
(MD), Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta (GA),
Milwaukee-Racine (WI), Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL-IN), and Houston-
Galveston-Brazoria (TX).
In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling
analysis component showing how the area will achieve the standard by
its attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those
reductions. Another component of the attainment demonstration SIP is a
motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes.
Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring that states
consider the effects of emissions associated with new or improved
federally-funded roadways on attainment of the standard. As described
in section 176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations necessarily include
the estimates of motor vehicle emissions that are consistent with
attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of
determining whether transportation plans and projects conform to the
attainment SIP.
2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment
Demonstration SIP. Notwithstanding significant efforts by the
states, in 1995 EPA recognized that many states in the eastern half of
the United States could not meet the November 1994 time frame for
submitting an attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of
NOX and VOCs in upwind states (and the ozone formed by these
emissions) affected these nonattainment areas and the full impact of
this effect had not yet been determined. This phenomenon is called
ozone transport.
On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's
Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by states but
noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment demonstration
SIP submittals.1 Recognizing the problems created by ozone
transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative
process among the states in the eastern half of the country to evaluate
and address transport of ozone and its precursors. This memorandum led
to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)
2 and provided for the states to submit the attainment
demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to
complete its evaluation of ozone transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued
March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web
site.
\2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States
(ECOS) Members, dated April 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations
regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport
of ozone and the precursor NOX is significant and should be
reduced regionally to enable states in the eastern half of the country
to attain the ozone NAAQS.
In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29,
1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for
states to submit the following elements of their attainment
demonstration SIPs for serious and severe 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 Plan emissions reduction
requirement and to reach attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a
commitment to adopt and submit target calculations for post-1999 ROP
Plan and the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP 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,'' issues 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 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 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
[[Page 70383]]
partially approve and partially disapprove, or may conditionally
approve based on a commitment to correct the deficiency by a date
certain, which can be no later than one year from the date of EPA's
final conditional approval.
The EPA may partially approve a submission if separable parts of
the submission, standing alone, are consistent with the CAA. For
example, if a state submits a modeled attainment demonstration,
including control measures, but the modeling does not demonstrate
attainment, EPA could approve the control measures and disapprove the
modeling for failing to demonstrate attainment.
The EPA may issue a conditional approval based on a state's
commitment to expeditiously correct a deficiency by a date certain that
can be no later than one year following EPA's conditional approval.
Such commitments do not need to be independently enforceable because,
if the state does not fulfill its commitment, the conditional approval
is converted to a disapproval. For example, if a state commits to
submit additional control measures and fails to submit them or EPA
determines the state's submission of the control measures is
incomplete, the EPA will notify the state by letter that the
conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval. If the state
submits control measures that EPA determines are complete or that are
deemed complete, EPA will determine through rulemaking whether the
state's attainment demonstration is fully approvable or whether the
conditional approval of the attainment demonstration should be
converted to a disapproval.
Finally, EPA has recognized that in some limited circumstances, it
may be appropriate to issue a full approval for a submission that
consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. Unlike the commitment
for conditional approval, such an enforceable commitment can be
enforced in court by EPA or citizens. In addition, this type of
commitment may extend beyond one year following EPA's approval action.
Thus, EPA may accept such an enforceable commitment where it is
infeasible for the state to accomplish the necessary action in the
short term.
B. What Are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
The EPA provides that states may rely on a modeled attainment
demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate
attainment. 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.
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.4 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis
that are essential to obtain credible results. First, the state must
develop and implement a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol
describes the methods and procedures to be used in conducting the
modeling analyses and provides for policy oversight and technical
review by individuals responsible for developing or assessing the
attainment demonstration (state and local agencies, EPA Regional
offices, the regulated community, and public interest groups). Second,
for purposes of developing the information to put into the model, the
state must select air pollution days, i.e., days in the past with bad
air quality, that are representative of the ozone pollution problem for
the nonattainment area. Third, the state needs to identify the
appropriate dimensions of the area to be modeled, i.e., the domain
size. The domain should be larger than the designated nonattainment
area to reduce uncertainty in the boundary conditions and should
include large upwind sources just outside the nonattainment area. In
general, the domain is considered the local area where control measures
are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment. Fourth, the
state needs to determine the grid resolution. The horizontal and
vertical resolutions in the model affect the dispersion and transport
of emission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical
layers and horizontal grids) may dilute concentrations and may not
properly consider impacts of complex terrain, complex meteorology, and
land/water interfaces. Fifth, the state needs to generate
meteorological data that describe atmospheric conditions and emissions
inputs. Finally, the state needs to verify that the model is properly
simulating the chemistry and atmospheric conditions through diagnostic
analyses and model performance tests. Once these steps are
satisfactorily completed, the model is ready to be used to generate air
quality estimates to support an attainment demonstration.
The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the
level of the NAAQS. A predicted concentration above 0.124 ppm ozone
indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the
attainment year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that
the area is expected to attain the standard. This type of test is often
referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's guidance recommends that
states use either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS: a deterministic test or a statistical test.
The deterministic test requires the state to compare predicted 1-
hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day
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
[[Page 70384]]
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 determination.
Under a Weight of evidence 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
Weight of evidence 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 Weight of
evidence 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 Weight of evidence 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 and
the motor vehicle emissions budget.
--In certain areas, additional measures to further reduce emissions
to support the attainment test. Additional measures may be measures
adopted regionally such as in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), or
locally (intrastate) in individual states.
--Mid-course review. An enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-
course review and evaluation based on air quality and emission trends.
The mid-course review would show whether the adopted control measures
are sufficient to reach attainment by the area's attainment date, or
that additional control measures are necessary.
1. CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled attainment
demonstration SIP
The states should have adopted the control measures already
required under the CAA for the area classification. Since these 10
serious and severe areas need to achieve substantial reductions from
their 1990 emissions levels in order to attain, EPA anticipates that
these areas need all of the measures required under the CAA to attain
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
In addition, the states may have included 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 Plan control measures and target
calculations, before EPA can issue
[[Page 70385]]
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
--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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
The EPA believes that attainment demonstration SIPs must
necessarily estimate the motor vehicle emissions that will be produced
in the attainment year and demonstrate that this emissions level, when
considered with emissions from all other sources, is consistent with
attainment. The estimate of motor vehicle emissions is used to
determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the
SIP, as described by CAA section 176(c)(2)(A). For transportation
conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle emissions is known
as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The EPA believes that
appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budgets are a
necessary part of an attainment demonstration SIP. A SIP cannot
effectively demonstrate attainment unless it identifies the level of
motor vehicle emissions that can be produced while still demonstrating
attainment.
The EPA has determined that except for the Western MA (Springfield)
attainment demonstration SIP, the motor vehicle emission budgets for
all areas in today's proposals are inadequate or missing from the
attainment demonstration. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the
attainment demonstration SIPs for those nine areas if the states do not
submit motor vehicle emissions budgets that EPA can find adequate by
May 31, 2000. In order for EPA to complete the adequacy process by the
end of May, states should submit a budget no later than December 31,
1999.7 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
[[Page 70386]]
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\ 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 budget 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-North New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia NAA areas 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.8 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.9 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 rule is promulgated, provided that the attainment demonstration
SIPs and associated motor vehicle emissions budgets include the Tier 2
rule benefits. For areas that require all or some portion of the Tier 2
rule benefits to demonstrate attainment but have not yet included the
benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budgets, EPA's adequacy finding
will include a condition that conformity determinations may not take
credit for Tier 2 until the SIP budgets are revised to reflect Tier 2
benefits. See EPA's memorandum for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the New York-North New Jersey-Long Island area, Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Houston nonattainment
areas, the EPA is proposing to determine that additional emission
reduction beyond those provided by the SIP submission are necessary for
attainment. With the exception of the Atlanta nonattainment area, a
portion of that reduction will be achieved by EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur
program, which EPA expects to finalize shortly. States that need to
rely in whole or in part on the Tier 2 benefits to help demonstrate
attainment will need to adjust the demonstration for their SIP
submission, emission inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets to
include the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions in order for EPA to
approve the SIP submittal. The submittal requirement including the
analysis to make that submission is described in the two memoranda
cited. States may use the tonnage benefits and guidance in these
memoranda to make these adjustments to the SIP submission and motor
vehicle emission budgets. The EPA encourages states to submit these SIP
revisions by December 31, 1999 to allow EPA to include them in the
motor vehicle emissions budget adequacy determinations which need to be
completed by May 31, 2000. Alternatively, these revisions should be
submitted by July 2000 for serious nonattainment areas, as EPA
anticipates completing rulemaking on these SIPs in the fall of 2000.
For severe nonattainment areas, these revisions should be submitted by
December 31, 2000.
A number of areas for which the EPA is not proposing to determine
that additional emission reduction beyond those provided by the SIP
submission are necessary for attainment will be taking a partial credit
for Tier 2 when they use credit from national low emissions vehicles
(NLEV) in their attainment demonstration. These nonattainment areas are
the Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan
Washington, D.C. areas. By regulation, the NLEV standards do not extend
beyond the 2003 model year unless EPA promulgates Tier 2 vehicle
standards at least as stringent as the NLEV standards. See 40 CFR
86.1701-99(c). Thus, the emission reductions relied upon from 2004 and
later model year NLEV vehicles will actually be due to the promulgation
of the Tier 2 standards, either through the extension of the NLEV
program or a portion of the reduction from vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards.
Like all the other SIPs that rely on Tier 2 reductions in order to
demonstrate attainment, the attainment demonstrations for the
Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan Washington,
D.C. areas must be revised to estimate the effects of Tier 2 according
to our policy before EPA can take final action approving such
attainment demonstrations. Until the SIPs are revised to include full
Tier 2 credit, EPA can determine by May 31, 2000 that a motor vehicle
emissions budget is adequate if the budget would be otherwise adequate.
No conditions need be placed on such adequacy determinations since the
budgets in such SIPs already include reductions equivalent to the
amount of emission reductions the areas will be relying on from Tier 2
by virtue of the NLEV reductions included in the budgets.
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
[[Page 70387]]
benefit of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, states will need to revise
their motor vehicle emissions budgets in their attainment demonstration
SIPs if the Tier 2/Sulfur program is necessary for attainment. In
addition, the budgets will need to be revised using MOBILE6 in those
areas that do not need the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment but
decide to include its benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budget
anyway. The EPA will work with states on a case-by-case basis if the
new emission estimates raise issues about the sufficiency of the
attainment demonstration.
States described in the paragraph above will need to submit an
enforceable commitment in the near term to revise their motor vehicle
emissions budget within one year after EPA's release of MOBILE6. This
commitment should be submitted to EPA along with the other commitments
discussed elsewhere in this notice, or alternatively, as part of the
SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission inventories and
budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits needed in order
for EPA to approve the SIP submittal.
5. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions
The EPA is proposing to find that the attainment demonstrations for
New York-North New Jersey-Long Island; Baltimore; Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton; Houston and Atlanta, even considering the Tier II/
Sulfur program reductions and the Weight of evidence, 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 State of New Jersey. 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
reductions that would be adopted. Rather, as described above, one of
the factors that EPA can consider as part of the Weight of evidence
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 Weight of evidence 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 measures, 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''). 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.
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 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 New Jersey, 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
[[Page 70388]]
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 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.
That 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.
The State of Illinois has adopted a declining cap and trade
program. The Illinois program will set a cap on future emissions of
major sources in the Chicago area that in most cases is 12 percent
lower than baseline emissions. Illinois will issue a number of emission
allotments corresponding to the cap level and will require each source
to have VOC emissions at or below the level for which it holds emission
allotments. Trading of emission allotments will be allowed, so that
sources that reduce VOC emissions more than 12 percent may sell
emission allotments, and sources that reduce VOC emission less than 12
percent must buy emission allotments. The proposed reductions are
planned to begin in the next ozone season, May 2000.
In addition, EPA's draft economic incentives program guidance (EIP)
was proposed in September 1999. This encourages cost-effective and
innovative approaches to achieving air pollution goals through
emissions trading. Such an approach has been demonstrated to be
successful and cost-effective in reducing air pollution in EPA's acid
rain emissions trading program. These and other similar programs should
allow cost-effective implementation of additional control measures.
Finally, a reduction in VOC and NOX emissions can be
achieved through a wide range of control measures. These measures range
from technology based actions such as retrofitting diesel trucks and
buses, and controlling ground
[[Page 70389]]
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 Weight of evidence analysis for the attainment
demonstration on which EPA is proposing to take action today. In order
to approve the attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, Trenton and the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment areas, EPA believes that the state must submit an
enforceable commitment to perform a MCR as described here.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 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 Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area 1-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Areas?
The following table shows a summary of information on what EPA
expects from states 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 and Philadelphia,
Wilmington, Trenton Severe Nonattainment Area in New Jersey Which is
Located in the OTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required 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
--Revise SIP & motor vehicle emissions
budget 1 year after MOBILE6 issued.3
--Perform a mid-course review.4
--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
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 State submits revised SIP & motor vehicle
MOBILE6 model. emissions budget based on MOBILE6.
[[Page 70390]]
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\ New Jersey's August 31, 1998 submittal contains an enforceable
commitment to perform a mid course review.
\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/ome/transp/traqconf.ht.
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.'' Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.
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 Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) Requirement and 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 PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS.''
II. EPA's Review and Technical Information
There are four areas in New Jersey designated nonattainment for the
ozone standard: one classified as marginal--the Allentown Bethlehem
Easton Area; one classified as moderate--the Atlantic City Area; and
two classified as severe--the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area. The marginal and
moderate areas have monitored attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
for the last three years and consequently, are not required to submit
an attainment demonstration. This Federal Register action addresses the
New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and
the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton
nonattainment areas and will be referred to as, respectively, the
Northern New Jersey ozone nonattainment area (NAA) and the Trenton NAA.
Unless specifically discussed below, the following discussions apply to
both nonattainment areas since New Jersey usually addresses CAA
requirements on a statewide basis.
A. What Was Included in New Jersey's Submittals?
On August 31, 1998, Commissioner Shinn of the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted to EPA a SIP revision
``Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards--Meeting the Requirements of the Alternate Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Policy.'' Referred to as the Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP. On October 16, 1998 this was supplemented with the
public participation appendix. New Jersey held a public hearing on the
Ozone
[[Page 70391]]
Attainment Demonstration SIP on August 6, 1998 and the comment period
closed on August 13, 1998.
This SIP submittal addresses the requirements related to attainment
of the 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone
and are intended to fulfill the requirements contained in the March 2,
1995 memo from Mary Nichols and the December 29, 1997 memo from Richard
D. Wilson which were previously described. This submittal included the
following: Demonstration of Attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS for Ozone
for the two nonattainment areas; enforceable commitments described
later in this action; control measures adopted to date; and potential
control measures the state will be investigating.
Commitments
New Jersey made the following commitments in their Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP revision:
(1) to submit post-1999 ROP Plans and to submit adopted regulations
needed to achieve post-1999 emission reductions by December 31, 2000;
(2) to implement its portion of the EPA regional NOX cap
(NOX SIP Call);
(3) to undertake an assessment of the ambient air quality and
modeling as part of the mid-course review and submit a report to EPA by
December 31, 2002;
(4) evaluate additional control measures which are not currently
implemented for potential future implementation; and
(5) to propose such reasonable and necessary control measures
needed to address any shortfall identified in the mid-course review
which are necessary for attainment.
All of these commitments have gone through New Jersey's
administrative public hearing process and therefore are considered
enforceable commitments.
Post-1999 ROP Plans
Pursuant to the December 29, 1997 Wilson policy memo, New Jersey
submitted a SIP commitment to submit a plan on or before the end of
2000 which contains target calculations for post-1999 ROP Plan
milestone up to the attainment date and to submit adopted regulations
needed to achieve the post-1999 ROP Plan requirements. EPA is proposing
to approve this commitment.
NOX SIP Call
New Jersey has identified emission reduction credits resulting from
the NOX SIP call and are relying on these credits to achieve
attainment of the
1-hour ozone standard. New Jersey adopted Subchapter 31
``NOX Budget Program'' in 1998 to implement Phase II and
Phase III of the Ozone Transport Commission's NOX Budget
Trading Program. Minor revisions to Subchapter 31 were necessary to
accommodate EPA's NOX SIP Call, as well as proposing
specific source category budgets. These were proposed on July 2, 1999
and public hearings were held on September 1, 1999. EPA anticipates
that New Jersey will complete the adoption process within a few months.
Mid-Course Review
New Jersey's commitment to a mid-course evaluation and submittal of
a report to EPA by December 31, 2002 satisfies EPA's requirement
discussed earlier for a mid-course review (see section I.C.6.). New
Jersey, however, may wish to consider coordinating the mid-course
evaluation with the surrounding states which are likely to complete
this effort by December 31, 2003. A revised enforceable commitment
would be necessary if the date is changed.
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 weight of evidence 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 the 2005
attainment deadline for the Trenton NAA and 2007 for the Northern New
Jersey NAA. The two main kinds of emissions that form ozone are
volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides.
The Clean Air Act requires ozone nonattainment areas like the
Northern New Jersey NAA to attain the ozone standard by 2007. These
areas are called severe-17 since these areas have 17 years from 1990 to
attain the standard. This area includes most of northern New Jersey,
southeastern New York and southwest Connecticut. The Clean Air Act
requires ozone nonattainment areas like the Trenton NAA to attain the
ozone standard by 2005. These areas are called severe-15 since they
have 15 years from 1990 to attain the standard. This area includes most
of southern New Jersey, southeastern Pennsylvania, northern Delaware
and northeastern Maryland.
Both areas primarily used a photochemical grid model called Urban
Airshed Model-IV (UAM-IV) to predict ozone concentrations for the
attainment year. The states also used other methods as well to make a
Weight of evidence argument that they will attain the 1-hour ozone
standard by the attainment date. 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 project future ozone concentrations.
C. How Did the States Do Photochemical Grid Modeling?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
New Jersey, New York and Connecticut agreed to work together on the
modeling for the Northern New Jersey Nonattainment area since parts of
all three states are in the nonattainment area. They developed a
modeling protocol, which they followed. 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 Weight of evidence 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
[[Page 70392]]
states used this regional modeling to provide input into the local
modeling 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, reductions in nitrogen oxides
from major sources and is representative of the emission reduction
plans submitted by these states.
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.
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
The states in the Trenton NAA worked together to prepare modeling
for their SIPs and developed and followed a modeling protocol. The
Ozone Research Center at Rutgers University did the photochemical grid
modeling runs for the Philadelphia airshed. The SIPs from these states
use modeling results to show how emission control programs will reduce
emissions to decrease future ozone concentrations. New York was also in
the modeling area and supplied information on its emissions and air
monitoring data, as well. The states reviewed the modeling and prepared
modeling inputs as they needed to complete the modeling. The modeling
domain included the entire Philadelphia area plume including its extent
downwind into New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania.
The Ozone Research Center ran the UAM-IV model for the two episodes
selected by the states. 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 states reviewed air
quality and weather data from 1987 through 1991 to find periods of high
ozone for modeling. The July 1998 and July 1991 episodes were selected
as being representative of the days most conducive to ozone formation.
The 1988 and 1991 episodes had national modeling which could be used by
our states to represent ozone and ozone-forming chemicals coming into
the area from sources outside the area the nonattainment area. States
modeled one additional episode from June 1987, which was representative
of a different weather type than the other two episodes. The other two
episodes were more severe and regional modeling was not done for the
1987 episode, so the states did not run an attainment year model since
they did not have the information needed by the model at the boundaries
of the domain for the attainment year.
The states used emission inventories developed for the regional
modeling when they started the modeling, but later, particularly for
the 1991 episode, the states developed local emission inventories. To
model how the winds distributed the pollution, various methods were
tested and compared with observed data. One method was selected by the
states since it did a better job at predicting the location of areas of
high ozone and was used for future case runs which predicted ozone for
2005.
D. What Were the Results of Photochemical Grid Modeling?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
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 171 ppb and 169 ppb, respectively. These concentrations predicted
for 2007 are well over the 124 ppb standard. However, the design value
for the peak site in and downwind of the Northern New Jersey NAA was
less than 163 ppb in the past four years. Since some major controls
included in the 163 ppb prediction for 2007 are yet to be implemented,
the area's design value for 2007 should 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.
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
The photochemical grid modeling for the nonattainment area
predicted that ozone concentrations in 2005 would exceed the one-hour
ozone standard. The highest ozone predicted for 2005, using 1988 and
1991 weather conditions, was 159 ppb and 149 ppb, respectively. These
are the peak concentrations in the portion of the modeling domain
affected by the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Since the modeling
domain included the entire state of New Jersey, ozone plumes from the
New York City metro area are in the modeling domain on some days. These
days were modeled by the New York modeling domain and are considered in
their modeling and attainment demonstration. Therefore, peak
concentrations associated with the New York City nonattainment area are
not considered here.
Present air quality in the Trenton NAA is better than the
concentrations the model predicts for 2005. Since some major controls
included in the model's predictions for 2005 have not been implemented
yet, ozone in 2005 should be less than the ozone predicted by the
photochemical grid model's prediction for 2005. 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 State's Design Value Rollback Analysis?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
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 124 ppb standard, with results ranging from as low as 122 ppb
to as high as 131 ppb. The states acknowledged that there was
significant uncertainty in these estimates. New Jersey 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
[[Page 70393]]
due to meteorology. EPA's results predict nonattainment.
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
The design value rollback used in the Philadelphia airshed used the
1996 design value as the starting point from which the modeling
``rolled back'' to predict the ozone design value in 2005. The regional
modeling from EPA's NOX SIP Call proposal was used. The rollback method
predicted ozone of 122 ppb in 2005, which was less than the 124 ppb
needed for attainment. As we noted in the discussion of results for the
Northern New Jersey NAA, different starting design values and modeling
data give different results. In the case of Trenton NAA, these methods
predict concentrations at or less than 124 ppb. 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?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
New Jersey, working with the other states in the New York metro
area, 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 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.
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
New Jersey believes that the emission control programs in their
SIPs will continue the downward trend in ozone that occurred in earlier
years before ozone concentrations leveled off. EPA agrees that ozone
will decrease as 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 2005 in the Trenton area
downwind of Philadelphia. 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. For
example, in the Northern New Jersey NAA, UAM-IV predicts concentrations
in 2007 that would lead to a design value of 163 ppb in 2007, well
above the 124 ppb standard. The predictions for 2007 from design value
rollback range from 122 to 141 ppb. Air quality trends, if
extrapolated, may predict attainment by 2007. A similar wide range of
values also occurs for Trenton NAA. The wide range of values from these
analyses lead EPA to conclude that additional assurances are needed to
conclusively determine that New Jersey's Ozone Attainment SIP will
result in attainment and EPA will be able to approve these plans.
H. What are the results of EPA's Evaluation?
1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area
EPA finds that New Jersey's attainment demonstration 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 Jersey's Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP. Specifically, the additional reductions needed is
3.8 percent reduction in VOCs and 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 document) 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 and
account for fluctuations in ozone due to meteorology, 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 129 ppb. Since this more robust method predicts a
2007 concentration above the 124 ppb standard, EPA has determined that
the states will need to commit to 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 129 to 124 ppb. The additional emission reductions described
earlier are after EPA applied credits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program.
New Jersey can use either VOC or NOX reductions in the
ROP Plans and the Attainment Demonstrations to the extent allowed by
the Act. This is because photochemical grid modeling studies for New
Jersey 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 ration
will vary and depends on the total VOC and NOX emission
inventories.
2. Trenton Nonattainment Area
EPA finds that New Jersey's attainment demonstration does not
conclusively predict attainment. The Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton
NAA will need more reductions in ozone-causing emissions than that
presented in New Jersey's Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP.
Specifically, the additional reductions needed is 4.5 percent reduction
in VOCs and 0.3 percent reduction in NOX, based on the 1990
emission inventory. This is equivalent to reducing emissions in the
Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton NAA by 62 tons of VOC per summer day
and 3 tons of NOX per summer day.
[[Page 70394]]
This was calculated using the same method as for the Northern New
Jersey NAA. EPA determined that the ozone design value in 2005 will be
128 ppb. Since this, more robust method, predicts a 2005 concentration
above the 124 ppb standard, EPA has determined that the states will
need to commit to additional emission reductions to demonstrate
attainment. The additional reductions described earlier are after EPA
applied credits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program. 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.
I. What Is Needed To Demonstrate Attainment?
EPA's analysis predicts that the states will need additional
measures to reduce ozone after all the already planned measures are
implemented in order to be more certain that the area will attain the
standard by 2007 for Northern New Jersey NAA and 2005 for Trenton NAA.
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 2007/2005. In
addition, New Jersey has committed to a mid-course review as part of
their Weight of evidence argument. These commitments account for any
uncertainty in the ability of the states to show that they will attain
the standard by the attainment date.
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
Northern New Jersey and Trenton NAA 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 Northern New Jersey and Trenton
NAA 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 Northern New Jersey and Trenton NAA, EPA is proposing to
determine that the submitted control strategy does not provide for
attainment by the attainment deadline. However, the emission reductions
of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, which are not reflected in the
submitted SIP, will assist in attainment. Because the New Jersey 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 which
could be approved, EPA has prepared an estimate of the air quality
benefits of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program. In our calculation, EPA
assumed that all of the Tier 2/Sulfur emissions reductions will
contribute to the ability of New Jersey to demonstrate attainment. The
EPA has further calculated how much additional emission reduction is
needed for the Northern New Jersey and Trenton NAAs in order for EPA to
approve a revised and re-submitted attainment demonstration for this
area. The EPA suggests that the State include these calculations as
part of the Weight of evidence analysis accompanying the adjusted
attainment demonstration and revised motor vehicle emissions budget for
this area. Today EPA is proposing to approve a new attainment
demonstration if it meets this description.
K. What Is the Status of New Jersey's Transportation Conformity
Budgets?
The EPA has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the
attainment demonstrations submitted by New Jersey for the Northern New
Jersey NAA and the Trenton NAA inadequate for conformity purposes for
Attainment Year 2007 and 2005, respectively (November 16, 1999, 64 FR
62197). The EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration
SIP if New Jersey corrects the deficiencies that cause the motor
vehicle emissions budget to be inadequate and, alternatively, to
disapprove it if New Jersey 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 Jersey 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 Jersey for an Approvable
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP?
1. NOX SIP Call Submittal
Since New Jersey has taken credit for emission reductions
associated with the NOX SIP Call occurring in the Northern
New Jersey and the Trenton NAAs for purposes of the 1-hour Attainment
Demonstration SIP, it must be adopted as part of an approved 1-hour
attainment demonstration.
2. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Modeled Attainment
Demonstration SIP
With the exception of two CAA requirements, New Jersey has adopted
all required elements. As discussed above, New Jersey provided an
enforceable commitment to submit the post-1999 ROP Plans for the
Northern New Jersey NAA and the Trenton NAA up to the attainment date
and the adopted regulations needed to achieve the post-1999 ROP Plan
emission reductions by December 31, 2000. The remaining element
involves implementation of the enhanced inspection and maintenance
program which EPA has not yet fully approved. For details see 63 FR
45402, August 26, 1998.
New Jersey has made significant strides to implement the enhanced
inspection and maintenance program. In a joint letter dated November
19, 1999, from Commissioners Robert C. Shinn (Department of
Environmental Protection) and James Weinstein (Department of
Transportation), New Jersey confirmed that the enhanced inspection and
maintenance program will be operational on December 13, 1999. EPA will
be taking action on the enhanced inspection and maintenance program in
a separate Federal Register action.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this attainment
demonstration provided EPA has first fully approved the enhanced
inspection and maintenance program. New Jersey must submit: the adopted
ROPs along with the supporting control measures by December 31, 2000
which EPA is proposing to approve. New Jersey must continue to
implement the enhanced inspection and maintenance program. Failure by
New Jersey to implement the enhanced inspection and maintenance program
will jeopardize this proposed approval of the 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration since this program is a required CAA measure and has been
relied upon in the attainment demonstrations. EPA must fully approve
the enhanced inspection and
[[Page 70395]]
maintenance program prior to giving full approval to this attainment
demonstration.
3. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions
New Jersey 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 Jersey 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 Jersey 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
Jersey 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.
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 Jersey 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 Jersey 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 Jersey chooses not to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program
benefits in its December 31, 1999 SIP submittal, New Jersey 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 Jersey 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 Jersey 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.
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 Jersey) 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 Jersey's Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP
submittal for consistency with the Act, applicable EPA regulations, and
EPA policy. EPA has determined that the ozone standard in the Northern
New Jersey NAA and the Trenton NAA 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 to
approve New Jersey's Post
[[Page 70396]]
1999 ROP Plan commitment. EPA is proposing two alternative actions on
New Jersey's Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP, depending on whether
New Jersey submits the adopted NOX SIP Call, the revised
transportation conformity budgets and necessary enforceable
commitments.
First, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIP provided New Jersey 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; and
--an enforceable commitment to revise the Attainment Demonstration,
including transportation conformity budgets, when MOBILE6 is released.
With respect to the NOX SIP Call, the proposed approval is
predicated upon the expectation that New Jersey 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 Jersey's
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP if New Jersey does not provide one
or more of the identified elements by the required dates.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under E.O. 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 E.O. 13045 because it does not
involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health and safety
risks.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 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 E.O. 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
[[Page 70397]]
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).
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 Jersey, 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,
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. 99-31713 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U