+(,121/,1(

Citation: 68 Fed. Reg. 7476 2003 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Dec 8 18:07:20 2009

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

Dated: January 30, 2003.

L.M. Henderson,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Captain of the Port, Chicago.

[FR Doc. 03-3739 Filed 2-13-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-7452-2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Rhode Island;

One Hour Ozone Attainment

Demonstration for the Rhode Island

Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to fully

approve the one-hour ozone attainment

demonstration State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for the Rhode Island serious

ozone nonattainment area, submitted by

the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Protection on January

27, 2003. This action is based on the

requirements of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990, related to one-hour

ozone attainment demonstrations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 17, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Written comments (two

copies if possible) should be sent to:

David B. Conroy at the EPA Region I

(New England) Office, One Congress

Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston,

Massachusetts 02114-2023.

Copies of the state submittal and

EPA's technical support document

(TSD) are available for public inspection

during normal business hours (9 A.M. to

4 P.M.) at the following addresses: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 1 (New England), One Congress

St., 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts,

telephone (617) 918-1664, and at the

Office of Air Resources, Department of

Environmental Management, 235

Promenade Street, Providence, Rhode

Island 02908-5767. Please telephone in

advance before visiting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard P. Burkhart, (617) 918-1664.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice provides an analysis of the onehour ozone attainment demonstration

SIP submitted by the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental

Management (Rhode Island DEM) in

proposed form on January 27, 2003 for

the Rhode Island serious ozone

nonattainment area. This revision is

being proposed under a procedure

called parallel processing. Under

parallel processing, EPA proposes

action on a state submission before it

has been formally submitted to EPA,

and will take final action on its proposal

if the final submission is substantially

unchanged from the submission on

which proposal is based, or if significant

changes in the final submission are

anticipated and adequately described in

EPA's proposal as a basis for EPA's

proposed action.

The Rhode Island DEM will hold a

public hearing on its proposed SIP

revision on February 27, 2003. The SIP

revision that Rhode Island has proposed

includes all the basic elements of what

EPA is proposing to approve. If the

proposed attainment demonstration

plan is substantially changed, EPA will

evaluate those changes and may publish

another notice of proposed rulemaking.

If no substantial changes are made, EPA

will approve the state's plan consistent

with this proposal and any submitted

comments. Before EPA can finally

approve this SIP revision, Rhode Island

must finally adopt the SIP revision and

submit it formally to EPA for

incorporation into the SIP.

Table of Contents

I. Clean Air Act Requirements for Serious

Ozone Nonattainment Areas

II. Background and Current Air Quality

Status of the Rhode Island Ozone

Nonattainment Area

III. History and Time Frame for the State's

Attainment Demonstration SIP

IV. What are the Components of a Modeled

Attainment Demonstration?

V. What is the Framework for Proposing

Action on the Attainment Demonstration

SIPs?

VI. What are the Relevant Policy and

Guidance Documents?

VII. How Does the Rhode Island Submittal

Satisfy the Framework?

VIII. Proposed Action

IX. Administrative Requirements

I. Clean Air Act Requirements for

Serious Ozone Nonattainment Areas

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires

EPA to establish national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS or standards)

for certain widespread pollutants that

cause or contribute to air pollution that

is reasonably anticipated to endanger

public health or welfare. CAA sections

108 and 109. In 1979, EPA promulgated

the one-hour 0.12 parts per million

(ppm) ground-level ozone standard. 44

FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Groundlevel 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 groundlevel ozone. NOx and VOC are referred

to as precursors of ozone.

An area exceeds the one-hour ozone

standard each time an ambient air

quality monitor records a one-hour

average ozone concentration of 0.125

ppm or higher.' An area is violating the

standard if, over a consecutive threeyear period, more than three

exceedances are expected to occur at

any one monitor. The area's 4th highest

ozone reading at a single monitor is its

design value. The CAA, as amended in

1990, required EPA to designate as

nonattainment any area that was

violating the one-hour ozone standard,

generally based on air quality

monitoring data from the three-year

period from 1987-1989. CAA section

107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (November 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 were required to attain the

one-hour ozone standard by November

15, 1999 and severe areas are required

to attain by November 15, 2005 or

November 15, 2007. The Rhode Island

ozone nonattainment area is classified

as serious and its attainment date is

November 15, 1999.

Under section 182(c)(2) of the CAA,

serious areas were required to submit by

November 15, 1994 demonstrations of

how they would attain the one-hour

ozone standard and how they would

achieve reductions in VOC emissions of

9 percent for each three-year period

until the attainment year. In some cases,

NOx emission reductions can be

substituted for the required VOC

emission reductions.

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

'The one-hour ozone standard is 0.12 ppm.

EPA's long-standing practice is that monitored

values of 0.125 ppm or higher are rounded up, and

thus considered an exceedance of the NAAQS and

values less than 0.125 ppm are rounded down and are not an exceedance.

7476

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7476 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

measures necessary to achieve those

reductions. Another component of the

attainment demonstration SIP is a motor

vehicle emissions budgets for

transportation conformity purposes.

Transportation conformity is a process

for ensuring that the effects of emissions

associated with new or improved

federally-funded roadways and transit

are considered before they are Federally

funded or approved. As described in

section 176(c)(2)(A) of the CAA,

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 federallysupported transportation plans,

transportation implementation

programs, and projects conform to the

attainment demonstration SIP.

II. Background and Current Air Quality

Status of the Rhode Island Ozone

Nonattainment Area

The Rhode Island ozone

nonattainment area is a state wide area.

Historically and throughout most of the

1990's, ozone monitors throughout the

Rhode Island nonattainment area

violated the one-hour ozone standard.

Directly downwind of the Rhode Island

nonattainment area, there were also a

number of other nonattainment areas

violating the one-hour ozone standard

during the 1990's in Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, and in portions of

southern Maine.

On June 9, 1999, EPA determined that

the Rhode Island serious ozone

nonattainment area had attained the 1-

hour ozone standard (64 FR 30911).2

This determination was based on data

collected from 1996-1998. On June 9,

1999, EPA also determined that the

Eastern Massachusetts area, the

Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, New

Hampshire ozone nonattainment area,

and the Portland, Maine ozone

nonattainment area had also attained

the 1-hour ozone standard based on data

collected from 1996-1998. See 64 FR

30911. At the time of these

determinations of attainment, there

were no areas in any portion of Rhode

Island, Eastern Massachusetts, New

Hampshire or Maine that violated the

one-hour ozone standard.

The Rhode Island nonattainment area

continued to have air quality meeting

2

1n that notice, EPA also determined the onehour ozone standard no longer applied to the Rhode

Island area. Subsequently, due to continued

litigation regarding the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA

reinstated the applicability of the one-hour ozone

standard in all areas. See 65 FR 45182 (July 20,

2000). EPA, however, did not modify its

determination that the Rhode Island area had

attained the one-hour ozone standard.

the one-hour ozone standard in 1999

(based on data from 1997-1999) and in

2000 (based on data from 1998-2000).

Based on data collected in 1999-2001,

however, the Rhode Island area now has

air quality violating the one-hour ozone

standard. The violating monitors, based

on 1999-2001 ozone data, are in West

Greenwich, East Providence, and

Narragansett, Rhode Island. Ozone data

readings from the monitors for the area

from the summer of 2002 now show

only the West Greenwich and East

Providence monitors registering a

violation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS

for the three-year period 2000-2002.

III. History and Time Frame for the

State's Attainment Demonstration SIP

A. Ozone Transport Assessment Group

and the NOx SIP Call

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. 3 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) 4

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.

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

3 Memorandum, "Ozone Attainment

Demonstrations," issued March 2, 1995. A copy of

the memorandum may be found on EPA's Web site

at http://www.epa.govlttnloarpg/tlpgm.html.

4 Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to

Environmental Council of States (ECOS) Members,

dated April 13, 1995.

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 rate-ofprogress (ROP) emissions reduction

requirement and to reach attainment; (3)

for severe areas only, a commitment to

adopt and submit target calculations for

post-1999 ROP and the control measures

necessary for attainment and ROP plans

through the attainment year by the end

of 2000; (4) a commitment to implement

the SIP control programs in a timely

manner and to meet ROP emissions

reductions and attainment; and (5)

evidence of a public hearing on the state

submittal.5 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

motor vehicle emissions budgets.

Building upon the OTAG

recommendations and technical

analyses, in November 1997, EPA

proposed action addressing the ozone

transport problem. In its proposal, EPA

found that current SIPs in 22 states and

the District of Columbia (23

jurisdictions) were insufficient to

provide for attainment and maintenance

of the one-hour ozone standard because

they did not regulate NOx emissions

that significantly contribute to ozone

transport. 62 FR 60318 (November 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 (October

27, 1998). This final rule is commonly

referred to as the NOx SIP Call.

5 Memorandum, "Guidance for Implementing the

1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS,"

issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this

memorandum may be found on EPA's Web site at

http://www.epa.govlttnloarpg/tlpgm.html.

7477

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7477 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

B. Rhode Island Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Submittal

Unlike other states with serious ozone

nonattainment areas, Rhode Island did

not in 1998 submit a final ozone

attainment demonstration as a SIP

revision pursuant to EPA's December

29, 1997 memorandum. Based on data

collected from 1996-1998, EPA

determined on June 9, 1999 (64 FR

30911) that the Rhode Island serious

ozone nonattainment area had attained

the 1-hour ozone standard. Consistent

with EPA policy, since the Rhode Island

area had attained the standard by

November 15, 1999, its statutory

attainment date, Rhode Island did not

need to submit an attainment

demonstration to EPA for EPA to take

action on. 6

The Rhode Island nonattainment area

continued to have air quality meeting

the one-hour ozone standard through

the summer of 2000, and it was not until

after the summer of 2001 that the Rhode

Island area had air quality violating the

one-hour ozone standard. At that point

in time, this nonattainment area was

once again required to have an approved

attainment demonstration and ROP plan

with respect to section 182(c)(2) of the

CAA. Today, in this proposed rule, EPA

is proposing action on the proposed

attainment demonstration SIP submitted

by the Rhode Island DEM on January 27,

2003. EPA has previously approved the

state's 15% plan (63 FR 67594, 12/8/98)

and 9% ROP plan (66 FR 30811, 6/8/

01).

The Rhode Island Attainment

Demonstration contains the following

elements: (1) The required

photochemical grid attainment

demonstration modeling, supplemented

with a weight-of-evidence (WOE)

analysis showing how attainment will

be achieved; (2) an analysis showing

that Rhode Island is implementing all

reasonably available control measures

(RACM) and that no other RACM could

be adopted in Rhode Island that would

advance the attainment year; (3) motor

vehicle emissions budgets for the

attainment year, which are used for

conformity determinations, and (4)

contingency measures as required

pursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the

6 Policy guidance contained in a May 10, 1995

memorandum from John Seitz, Director of EPA's

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

entitled "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment

Demonstration, and Related Requirements for

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard"

recommends that ROP and attainment

demonstration requirements, along with certain

other related requirements, of Part D of Title 1 of

the Clean Aft Act are no longer applicable to an

area once it has aft quality data indicating that the

one hour ozone standard has been attained.

CAA. Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Protection will hold a

public hearing on this Attainment

Demonstration SIP on February 27,

2003.

The statutory attainment date for the

Rhode Island Area was November 15,

1999. The area attained the standard as

of its attainment date, but then

subsequently experienced a violation.

The CAA does not expressly address the

appropriate attainment date for an area

that attains the standard by its

attainment date but then subsequently

violates the standard nor does it address

the planning requirements that apply to

such an area. (CAA sections 179 (c) and

(d) and 181(b)(2) establish requirements

only for those areas that EPA determines

do not attain the standard by their

attainment date.) With respect to the

attainment date, both subparts 1 and 2

specify outside dates for attainment and

provide that attainment must be "as

expeditiously as practicable." CAA

sections 172(a)(2) and 181(a)(1). With

respect to control obligations, EPA

generally attempts first to work with the

State to submit a revised SIP and, where

necessary, would issue a SIP Call

pursuant to section 110(k)(5). See e.g.,

65 FR 64352 (Oct. 27, 2000). Here,

Rhode Island is already well on its way

to submitting a final attainment

demonstration and has indicated that

the demonstration provides for

attainment as expeditiously as

practicable, i.e. by November 15, 2007.

We review Rhode Island's submission in

the following sections.

IV. 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 account for inherent uncertainty in

the modeling. 7 In order to have a

complete modeling demonstration

submission, states should have

submitted the required modeling

analysis and identified any additional

evidence that EPA should consider in

evaluating whether the area will attain

the standard.

7 The EPA issued guidance on the air quality

modeling that is used to demonstrate attainment

with the one-hour ozone NAAQS. See U.S. EPA,

(1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the

Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July

1991). A copy may be found on EPA's web site at

http://www.epa.govlttnlscraml (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.govlttnlscram (file

name: "O3TEST").

A. Modeling Requirements

For purposes of demonstrating

attainment, section 182(c) of the CAA

requires serious areas to use

photochemical grid modeling or an

analytical method EPA determines to be

as effective.8 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 consistent with conditions

specified by EPA's guidance. When the

predicted concentrations are above the

NAAQS, an optional weight-of-evidence

determination which incorporates, but

is not limited to, other analyses, such as

air quality and emissions trends, may be

used to address uncertainty inherent in

the application of photochemical grid

models.

The EPA guidance identifies the

features of a modeling analysis that are

essential to obtain credible results. First,

the state must develop and implement

a modeling protocol. The modeling

protocol describes the methods and

procedures to be used in conducting the

modeling analysis 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 poor 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

8

Ibid.

7478

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7478 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

resolution. The horizontal and vertical

resolutions in the model affect the

dispersion and transport of emission

plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too

few vertical layers and horizontal grids)

may dilute concentrations and may not

properly consider impacts of complex

terrain, complex meteorology, and land/

water interfaces. Fifth, the state needs to

generate meteorological data that

describe atmospheric conditions and

emissions inputs. Finally, the state

needs to verify that the model is

properly simulating the chemistry and

atmospheric conditions through

diagnostic analyses and model

performance tests. Once these steps are

satisfactorily completed, the model is

ready to be used to generate air quality

estimates to support an attainment

demonstration.

The modeled attainment test

compares model-predicted one-hour

daily maximum concentrations in all

grid cells for the attainment year to the

level of the NAAQS. A predicted

concentration above 0.124 ppm ozone

indicates that the area is expected to

exceed the standard in the attainment

year and a prediction at or below 0.124

ppm indicates that the area is expected

to attain the standard. This type of test

is often referred to as an exceedance

test. The EPA's guidance recommends

that states use either of two modeled

attainment or exceedance tests for the

one-hour ozone NAAQS: a deterministic

test or a statistical test.

The deterministic test requires the

state to compare predicted one-hour

daily maximum ozone concentrations

for each modeled day 9 to the attainment

level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the

predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test

is passed.

The statistical test takes into account

the fact that the form of the one-hour

ozone standard allows exceedances. If,

over a three-year period, the area has an

average of one or fewer exceedances per

year, the area is not violating the

standard. Thus, if the state models a

very extreme day, the statistical test

provides that a prediction above 0.124

ppm up to a certain upper limit may be

consistent with attainment of the

standard. (The form of the one-hour

ozone standard allows for up to three

readings above the standard over a

three-year period before an area is

considered to be in violation.)

The acceptable upper limit above

0.124 ppm is determined by examining

the size of exceedances at monitoring

sites which meet the one-hour NAAQS.

For example, a monitoring site for

9 The initial, "ramp-up" days for each episode are

excluded from this determination.

which the four highest one-hour average

concentrations over a three-year period

are 0.136 ppm, 0.130 ppm, 0.128 ppm

and 0.122 ppm is attaining the standard.

To identify an acceptable upper limit,

the statistical likelihood of observing

ozone air quality exceedances of the

standard of various concentrations is

equated to the severity of the modeled

day. The upper limit generally

represents the maximum ozone

concentration observed at a location on

a single day and it would be the only

reading above the standard that would

be expected to occur no more than an

average of once a year over a three-year

period. Therefore, if the maximum

ozone concentration predicted by the

model is below the acceptable upper

limit, in this case 0.136 ppm, then EPA

might conclude that the modeled

attainment test is passed. Generally,

exceedances well above 0.124 ppm are

very unusual at monitoring sites

meeting the NAAQS. Thus, these upper

limits are rarely substantially higher

than the attainment level of 0.124 ppm.

B. Additional Analyses Where Modeling

Fails To Show Attainment

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-ofevidence determination.

Under a WOE determination, the state

can rely on and EPA will consider

factors such as: other modeled

attainment tests, e.g., a rollback

analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g.,

changes in the predicted frequency and

pervasiveness of exceedances and

predicted changes in the design value;

actual observed air quality trends;

estimated emissions trends; analyses of

air quality monitored data; the

responsiveness of the model predictions

to further controls; and, whether there

are additional control measures that are

or will be approved into the SIP but

were not included in the modeling

analysis. This list is not an exclusive list

of factors that may be considered and

these factors could vary from case to

case. For example, the EPA's guidance

contains no limit on how close a

modeled attainment test must be to

passing to conclude that other evidence

besides an attainment test is sufficiently

compelling to suggest attainment.

However, the further a modeled

attainment test is from being passed, the

more compelling the WOE needs to be.

The EPA's modeling guidance also

recognizes a need to perform a midcourse review as a means for addressing

uncertainty in the modeling results.

Because of the uncertainty in long term

projections, EPA believes a viable

attainment demonstration that relies on

WOE needs to contain provisions for

periodic review of monitoring,

emissions, and modeling data to assess

the extent to which refinements to

emission control measures are needed.

The mid-course review is discussed

below.

V. What Is the Framework for

Proposing Action on the Attainment

Demonstration SIPs?

In addition to the modeling analysis

and WOE support demonstrating

attainment, the EPA has identified the

following key elements which generally

must be present in order for EPA to

approve the one-hour attainment

demonstration SIPs. These elements are:

measures required by the CAA and

measures relied on in the modeled

attainment demonstration SIP; NOx

reductions affecting boundary

conditions; motor vehicle emissions

budgets; any additional measures

needed for attainmentlo; and a MidCourse Review (MCR).

A. 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. In

addition, a state may have included

control measures in its attainment

strategy that are in addition to measures

required in the CAA. For purposes of

fully approving the state's SIP, the state

needs to adopt and submit all VOC and

NOx controls within the local modeling

domain that were relied on for purposes

of the modeled attainment

demonstration.

The information in Table 1 is a

summary of the CAA requirements that

should be met for a serious area for the

one-hour ozone NAAQS. These

requirements are specified in section

182 of the CAA. EPA must have taken

final action approving all measures

10 As discussed in detail below, the Rhode Island

attainment demonstration shows attainment

without the need for additional measures beyond

what has been adopted into the SIP or will be

required by federal regulations. Therefore

additional measures are not required for Rhode

Island.

7479

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7479 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

relied on for attainment, including the a final full approval of the attainment 182(c)(2). This was done for all the

required ROP control measures and demonstration as meeting CAA section measures for Rhode Island.

target calculations, before EPA can issue

TABLE 1 .- CAA REQUIREMENTS FOR SERIOUS AREAS

-NSR for VOC and NOx1 1 , including an offset ratio of 1.2:1 and a major VOC and NOx source cutoff of 50 tons per year

-Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOx11

-Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.

-15% volatile organic compound 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.

-Stage II vapor recovery.

-Contingency measures.

-Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis.

11 Unless the area has in effect a NOx waiver under section 182(f). The Rhode Island area is not such an area.

1. Control Measures Adopted by Rhode classification that are being relied on in in the SIP submission for attainment. As

Island the attainment demonstration are explained in Table 2, Rhode Island has

Adopted and submitted rules for all required. This also includes measures submitted and EPA has approved SIPs

previously required CAA mandated that may not be required for the area for all of the measures the state is

measures for the specific area classification but that the state relied on relying on for attainment.

TABLE 2.-CONTROL MEASURES IN THE ONE-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT PLAN FOR THE RHODE ISLAND SERIOUS OZONE

NONATTAINMENT AREA

Name of control measure Type of measure Approval status

On-board Refueling Vapor Recovery ................ Federal rule ............................. Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86.

Federal Motor Vehicle Control program (Tier 0) Federal rule ............................. Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86 (pre-1990).

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines (On-road) .............. Federal rule ............................. Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86.

Federal Non-road Heavy Duty diesel engines .. Federal rule ............................. Promulgated at 40 CFR part 89.

Federal Non-road Gasoline Engines ................. Federal rule ............................. Promulgated at 40 CFR part 90.

Federal Marine Engines ..................................... Federal rule ............................. Prom ulgated at 40 CFR part 91.

Rail Road Locomotive Controls ......................... Federal rule ............................. Promulgated at 40 CFR part 92.

Automotive Refinishing ...................................... State initiative .......................... SIP approved (61 FR 3827; 2/2/96).

Enhanced Inspection & Maintenance ................ CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (66 FR 9663; 2/9/01).

NOx RACT ......................................................... CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (62 FR 46202; 9/2/97).

VOC RACT pursuant to sections 182(a)(2)(A) CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (59 FR 52429; 10/18/94).

and 182(b)(2)(B) of CAA.

VOC RACT pursuant to section 182(b)(2)(A) CAA SIP Requirement ............ Marine vessel loading SIP approved (61 FR 14975; 4/4/96).

and (C) of CAA. limited approval for non-CTG RACT rule (61 FR 14975; 4/

4/96 64 FR 67500; 12/2/99). EPA approval pending for certain non-CTG RACT determinations. The state does not

rely on reductions from the facilities with approval pending

for attainment.

Stage II Vapor Recovery ................................... CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP Approved (58 FR 65933; 12/17/93).

Reform ulated Gasoline ...................................... State opt-in .............................. SIP approved (65 FR 12476; 3/9/00).

National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) ............ State opt-in .............................. Federal program promulgated at 40 CFR 86 subpart R. State

opt-in SIP approved (65 FR 12476; 3/9/00).

Clean Fuel Fleets ............................................... CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (65 FR 12476; 3/9/00). Rhode Island used

RFG reductions to meet the Clean Fuel Fleet requirement.

Base Year Emissions Inventory ......................... CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (61 FR 55902; 10/30/96, amended 63 FR

67600, 12/8/98).

15% VOC Reduction Plan and Contingency CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (63 FR 67594; 12/8/98).

Plan.

9% rate of progress plan ................................... CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (66 FR 30811; 6/8/01).

Emissions Statements ....................................... CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (60 FR 2526; 1/10/95).

Enhanced Monitoring (PAMS) ........................... CAA SIP Requirement ............ SIP approved (61 FR 55897; 10/30/96).

OTC NOx MOU Phase II ................................... State initiative .......................... SIP approved (64 FR 29567; 6/2/99).

NOx SIP Call ..................................................... CAA requirement established SIP approved (65 FR 81748; 12/27/00).

pursuant to SIP call.

7480

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7480 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

B. NOx Reductions Consistent With the

Modeling Demonstration

On October 27, 1998, EPA completed

rulemaking on the NOx SIP call 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 by 2007 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. The

courts have largely upheld EPA's NOx

SIP Call, Michigan v. United States Env.

Prot. Agency, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir.

2000), cert. denied, U.S., 121 S.Ct. 1225,

149 L.Ed. 135 (2001); Appalachian

Powerv. EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir.

2001). Although a few issues were

vacated or remanded to EPA for further

consideration, states subject to the NOx

SIP call have largely adopted the

controls necessary to meet the budgets

set for them under the NOx SIP call

rule. The controls to achieve these

reductions should be in place by May

2004.

Rhode Island used the best available

NOx SIP Call information in its

modeling analysis. The modeling

analysis is discussed in more detail

below. Furthermore, Rhode Island

adopted control measures to meet the

requirements of the NOx SIP call. EPA

approved the regulation Rhode Island

adopted pursuant to the NOx SIP call on

December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81748).

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

(MVEBs)

The EPA believes that attainment

demonstration SIPs must necessarily

estimate the level of motor vehicle

emissions, which when considered with

emissions from all other sources

(stationary, area and other mobile

source), 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. See section VIII. below for

the discussion of the motor vehicle

emissions budgets included in the

Rhode Island attainment demonstration.

D. Mid-Course Review

A mid-course review (MCR), which

generally is performed midway between

approval of the attainment

demonstration and the attainment date,

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. See

section VII.G. below for additional

discussion on Rhode Island's midcourse review.

E. Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM) Analysis

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires

SIPs to contain all RACM and provide

for attainment as expeditiously as

practicable. EPA has previously

provided guidance interpreting the

requirements of 172(c)(1). See 57 FR

13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA

indicated its interpretation that

potentially available measures that

would not advance the attainment date

for an area would not be considered

RACM. EPA also indicated in that

guidance that states should consider all

potentially available measures to

determine whether they were

reasonably available for implementation

in the area, and whether they would

advance the attainment date. Further,

states should indicate in their SIP

submittals whether measures

considered were reasonably available or

not, and if measures are reasonably

available they must be adopted as

RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that

states could reject measures as not being

RACM because they would not advance

the attainment date, would cause

substantial widespread and long-term

adverse impacts, would be economically

or technologically infeasible, or would

otherwise be inappropriate for local

reasons, including costs. The EPA also

issued a memorandum re-confirming

the principles in the earlier guidance,

entitled, "Guidance on the Reasonably

Available Control Measures (RACM)

Requirement and Attainment

Demonstration Submissions for Ozone

Nonattainment Areas." John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web

site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpgl

tlpgm.html.

When EPA presented its statutory

argument in support of its RACM policy

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit in defense of its approval of the

Washington D.C. ozone SIP, the D.C.

Circuit found reasonable EPA's

interpretation that measures must

advance attainment to be RACM. Sierra

Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C.

Cir. 2002). Specifically, the Court found

that:

EPA reasonably concluded that because the

Act 'use[s] the same terminology in

conjunction with the RACM requirement' as it does in requiring timely attainment,

compare 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1) (requiring

implementation of RACM 'as expeditiously as practicable but no later than' the

applicable attainment deadline), with id.

§ 7511(a)(1) (requiring attainment under same constraints), the RACM requirement is to be

understood as a means of meeting the

deadline for attainment.

Id. Morever, the D.C. Circuit rejected, as

a "misreading of both text and context,"

Sierra Club's arguments that EPA's

interpretation of RACM conflicts with

the Act's text and purpose and lacks any

rational basis. The D.C. Circuit also

found reasonable EPA's interpretation

that it could consider costs in a RACM

analysis and that measures may be

rejected if they would require an

intensive and costly effort for regulation

of many small sources. Sierra Club v.

EPA, 294 F.3d at 162,163. See section

VII.H. below for additional discussion

on Rhode Island's RACM analysis.

VI. What Are the Relevant Policy and

Guidance Documents?

This proposal has cited several policy

and guidance memoranda. 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.

Relevant 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: http://www.epa.gov/ttnl

scram (file name: "ADDWOEIH").

2. "Serious and Severe Ozone

Nonattainment Areas: Information on

Emissions, Control Measures Adopted

or Planned and Other Available Control

Measures." November 24, 1999.

OAQPS. U.S. EPA, RTP, NC.

3. Memorandum, "Guidance on Motor

Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour

7481

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7481 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

Attainment Demonstrations," from

Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile

Sources, to the Air Division Directors,

Regions I-VI. November 3, 1999. Web

site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transpl

trafconf.html.

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 Rulemaking."

November 8, 1999. Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/oms/transp/trafconf .html.

5. Memorandum from John Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, "Mid-Course Review

Guidance for the 1-Hour Ozone

Nonattainment Areas that Rely on

Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment

Demonstration." Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/scramOO1/tt25.htm (file

name: "MCRGUIDE").

6. Memorandum, "Guidance to Clarify

EPA's Policy on What Constitutes "As

Expeditiously as Practicable" for

Purposes of Attaining the One-Hour

Ozone Standard for Serious and Severe

Ozone Nonattainment Areas." John S.

Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. November

1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttnl

oarpg/tlpgm.html.

7. 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").

8. U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use

of Modeled Results to Demonstrate

Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA454/B-95-007, (June 1996). Web site:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file

name: "O3TEST").

9. Memorandum, "Ozone Attainment

Demonstrations," from Mary D. Nichols,

issued March 2, 1995. Web site: http:/

/www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tlpgm.html.

10. December 29, 1997 Memorandum

from Richard Wilson, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation

"Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour

Ozone and Pre-Existing PM1o NAAQS."

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpgl

tlpgm.html.

VII. How Does the Rhode Island

Submittal Satisfy the Framework?

This section provides a review of

Rhode Island" submittal and an analysis

of how this submittal satisfies the

framework discussed in Section V. of

this notice.

A. What Did the State Submit?

The attainment demonstration SIP

submitted by the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental

Management for the Rhode Island area

includes a modeling analysis using the

CALGRID model. The SIP was

submitted in proposed form on January

27, 2003. The SIP is subject to public

notice and comment and a hearing will

be held on February 27, 2003.

Information on how the photochemical

grid modeling, the RACM analysis, the

mid-course review and the Motor

Vehicle Emissions Budgets are

consistent with the CAA and EPA

guidance is summarized below.

As explained earlier, the Rhode Island

area attained the one-hour ozone

standard as of 1999, its statutory

deadline under the CAA. Moreover, the

Rhode Island nonattainment area

continued to have air quality meeting

the one-hour ozone standard until the

1999 through 2001 time period. In its

attainment demonstration, Rhode Island

provides evidence that the area will

once again attain by 2007.

Rhode Island chose a 2007 attainment

date because it has determined that the

current violations are due to upwind

emissions, some of which cannot be

reduced until as late as the beginning of

the 2007 ozone season. The additional

reductions that will occur in upwind

areas, as well as in Rhode Island,

include the following programs: (1)

EPA's NOx SIP call, which will be

implemented by May 31, 2004, with

states expected to fully comply with

their budgets by 2007; (2) EPA's Tier 2

standards, which will impose new

tailpipe standards for motor vehicles

and reduce the sulfur content of fuel,

and will be phased in beginning in

2004; (3) EPA's NOx requirements for

highway heavy-duty engines (i.e., trucks

and buses), which beginning in 2004

require new diesel trucks and buses to

be 50 percent cleaner than today's

models; (4) new nonroad diesel NOx

standards, which started in 1996 with

increasingly more stringent standards

being phased in through 2006; and (5)

a number of upwind states will adopt

new VOC controls for architectural

coatings and consumer products that

will go into effect in 2004.

Rhode Island also notes that New

York, New Jersey and Connecticut have

CAA attainment dates of 2007, which is

when these upwind states will have

fully implemented all measures

necessary for them to attain the

standard. Also, as discussed in section

VII.H there is nothing more Rhode

Island can do to advance their

attainment date. Attainment in Rhode

Island will be achieved when transport

of ozone into Rhode Island is reduced

below the one-hour standard, and the

Rhode Island attainment plan discussed

below shows this will not occur until

November 15, 2007. Based on this

information, EPA agrees that an

attainment date of November 15, 2007 is

as expeditiously as practicable and EPA

proposes approval of this attainment

date for the Rhode Island area.

B. How Was the Photochemical Grid

Modeling Conducted?

The key element of the attainment

demonstration is the photochemical grid

modeling required by the CAA. The

Rhode Island SIP used the CALGRID

model which was approved for use by

EPA since it was found to be at least as

effective as the guideline model which

is UAM-IV. The modeling domain for

CALGRID extends from southwest

Connecticut, northward 340 km to

northern Vermont, and eastward to east

of Nantucket, Massachusetts. For the

Rhode Island nonattainment area, the

domain is consistent with EPA guidance

since it contains adequate areas both

upwind and downwind of the

nonattainment area. The domain also

includes the monitors with the highest

measured peak ozone concentrations in

Rhode Island. Since the CALGRID

modeling was done for a much larger

domain that includes not only all of

Rhode Island but also includes all of

Massachusetts, most of Connecticut,

southern New Hampshire, southern

Vermont, and most of southern Maine,

the CALGRID model has several

"source" areas and several receptor

areas. The only receptor area of import

to this notice and the Rhode Island SIP

submittal is the Rhode Island serious

ozone nonattainment area. For the

purposes of this notice, only model

results in Rhode Island will be used,

unless otherwise noted. As shown

below, EPA believes the modeling

portion of the attainment demonstration

is consistent with EPA guidance.

The model was run for 10 days during

four distinct episodes (August 14-17,

1987, June 21-22, 1988, July 7-8, 1988

and July 10-11, 1988). These episodes

represent a variety of ozone conducive

weather conditions, and reflect days

with high measured ozone in a variety

of areas within the entire domain. This

is because, as stated above, the domain

covers several nonattainment areas, and

in order to model the meteorology that

causes high ozone, several different

episodes were needed. The episodes

chosen for New England do include the

worst ozone episode for Rhode Island

over the last 15 years. The CALGRID

model results for the first day of each

episode are not used for attainment

demonstration purposes, because they

are considered "ramp-up days." Rampup days help reduce impacts of initial

conditions; after ramp-up days, model

results are more reflective of actual

7482

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7482 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

emissions being emitted into the

atmosphere. Since the first day of each

episode was not considered, this leaves

six days for strategy assessment. August

16, 1987 was also not used for strategy

assessment. This leaves five strategy

days: August 15, 1987; August 17, 1987;

June 22, 1988; July 8, 1988 and July 11,

1988.

The CALGRID model was run using

the CALMET meteorological processor.

This processor took actual

meteorological data collected by the

National Weather Service and the State

Air Pollution Agencies and using

extrapolation and other analysis

techniques provided winds,

temperatures and other meteorological

parameters at approximately 400

specific grid points for each hour of the

episode up to 14 levels (i.e., from the

surface to top of the model which is

about 5000 feet). CALMET is described

in detail in the Rhode Island attainment

demonstration, and was approved by

EPA for use in the CALGRID modeling

system.

The CALGRID model was run with

emissions data prepared by EPA Region

I and/or a contractor working with EPA

Region I. The data were taken from the

EPA Aerometric Informational Retrieval

System (AIRS) data base in late 1993

and reflect the emission data supplied

from the six New England States. The

emission data for the small portion of

New York state that forms the western

edge of the domain was supplied by

New York. EPA Region I quality assured

all the New England AIRS data, the New

York supplied data and all necessary

modifications to the data. The data was

further processed through the Emissions

Preprocessor System (EPS Version 2.0).

To more accurately model ozone in New

England, day specific emissions were

simulated for on-road mobile sources

(cars, trucks, busses, etc.), and for large

fossil-fueled fired power plants in New

England. The base case CALGRID model

is consistent with EPA guidance on

model performance

Future emissions were projected to

1999 and 2007 accounting for both

emission increases due to industrial

growth, population growth and growth

in the number of miles traveled by cars,

as well as emission reductions due to

cleaner gasoline, cleaner cars and

controls on industrial pollution. Growth

factors were derived using the EPAapproved Bureau of Economic Analysis

(BEA) factors and all the emissions were

processed using the EPS 2.0 system.

Model runs were also performed for

the year 2007. The runs employed 2007

emission estimates inside the New

England Domain, along with boundary

condition files reflecting EPA's NOx SIP

Call emission estimates in upwind

areas. Year 2007 emissions estimates for

the states inside the modeling domain

reflected EPA's NOx SIP call as well as

other federal and state control strategies

being implemented by the beginning of

the 2007 ozone season. This was

accomplished using a two-step process.

The first step was to project emissions

using growth factors to account for

increases or decreases in economic

activity by industrial sector. In general,

the states projected their emissions

using the same growth factors that were

used in the OTAG modeling effort. The

second step involved applying control

factors to source categories that would

be regulated by the year 2007. States

used a combination of information for

control levels: those used for the OTAG

modeling effort, and state-specific

information relating to the effectiveness

of control programs planned or in place.

These 2007 emission estimates did not,

however, include the Tier 2/Gasoline

Sulfur program that was subsequently

adopted by EPA on February 10, 2000

(65 FR 6698). The ozone reductions in

2007 from the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur

program are discussed in Section

VII.C.4.

C. What Are the Conclusions From the

Modeling?

The EPA guidance for approval of the

modeling aspect of a one-hour ozone

attainment demonstration is to use the

one-hour ozone grid modeling to apply

one of two modeled attainment tests

(deterministic or statistical) with

optional weight-of-evidence analyses to

supplement the modeled attainment test

results when the modeled attainment

test is failed. For the July 8, 1988 ozone

episode, the deterministic test is passed

for the future year 2007 for Rhode Island

(i.e. all grid cells for every hour of that

day using 2007 emissions are below

0.124 ppm). For the other modeled

strategy days (i.e., August 15, 1987;

August 17, 1987; June 22, 1988; and July

11, 1988), neither the 1999 nor the 2007

CALGRID modeling performed for the

Rhode Island area predicts ozone

concentrations below the one-hour

ozone standard (0.124 ppm) at every

grid cell for every hour of every strategy

day modeled. The maximum predicted

2007 concentration in the Rhode Island

nonattainment area for the relevant

episodes is 0.140 ppm, which occurred

for the July 11 episode. The 2007

modeling was performed for two

episode days: July 8 and July 11. Only

these two days could be run for 2007,

because 2007 boundary conditions were

not available for the other strategy days.

This maximum concentration is in

western Rhode Island on the border

with Connecticut, and is the result of

transport into Rhode Island. Since the

CALGRID model does not predict ozone

concentrations below the one-hour

ozone standard (0.124 ppm) at every

grid cell for every hour of every episode

day modeled, the strict deterministic

test is not passed. Although the

CALGRID model, as run for this

analysis, does not pass the strict

deterministic test at every grid cell,

when additional weight-of-evidence

analyses are considered, attainment is

demonstrated.

Rhode Island submitted an analysis

using the model predicted change in

ozone to estimate a future air quality

design value. In this analysis, Rhode

Island uses the photochemical ozone

modeling in a relative sense. In other

word, Rhode Island uses the modeled

ozone concentrations, from the EPAapproved CALGRID model, in

conjunction with monitored ozone air

quality data. Rhode Island conducted an

analysis which shows how the

photochemical modeling results, when

applied to ozone design values at the

West Greenwich, East Providence and

Narragansett monitors, predict

attainment at these three monitors by

2007 after taking into account

anticipated emission reductions from

the NOx SIP call and the Tier 2/Low

Sulfur program. The results show that

with the planned emission reductions in

the two precursor emissions (VOC and

NOx), ground-level ozone

concentrations will be below the

ambient standard by the 2007

attainment date. The steps Rhode Island

DEM used in this analysis are discussed

in the next four subsections.

1. Base Year Ozone Design Values

In the attainment demonstration,

Rhode Island DEM reviewed ozone

monitoring data to determine a baseyear design value for each monitor in

Rhode Island. Ozone data collected in

1995, 1996, and 1997 were used for

calculating 1997 design values. Using

1997 design values versus 1999 design

values results in a conservative analysis.

2. Ozone Reduction Between 1999 and

2007

The second step of this approach

consists of comparing photochemical

modeling run results in order to

determine the predicted ozone

reduction at each ozone monitor in

Rhode Island between 1999 and 2007.

Modeling runs were not performed for

1997 but were performed for 1999. The

Rhode Island DEM's use of modeling

results for 1999 is conservative since as

emissions reductions that occurred

between 1997 and 1999 are not

7483

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7483 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

accounted for and relied on. Modeling

results for 1999 were then compared

with modeling results for 2007 (only

two strategy days, July 8 and July 11, are

used for 2007, because these are the

only two days for which 2007 boundary

conditions are available) to estimate

changes between 1999 and 2007.

The average predicted change in

ozone levels between 1999 and 2007

was determined for each 9-cell block of

surface cells containing and

surrounding each Rhode Island monitor

(i.e., the cell containing the monitor and

the 8 surrounding cells). The average

predicted change in ozone level was

then divided by the 1999 average

modeled concentration, in order to

calculate the percent ozone reduction

between 1999 and 2007. The percent

ozone reduction for each monitoring

location in Rhode Island are presented

in the state's submittal.

3. Predicted Ozone Design Values for

2007

The third step was to determine a

2007 ozone design value for each Rhode

Island ozone monitoring station

location. This was accomplished by

reducing the 1997 ozone design value

by the percent ozone reduction

predicted for each monitoring location

derived in step 2, above. If the resulting

design value dropped below the onehour ozone standard, it is reasonable to

assume that the monitor can attain the

one-hour ozone standard by 2007.

Rhode Island showed in their submittal

that the predicted 2007 design values

for all monitors in Rhode Island are all

below the one-hour ozone NAAQS,

except for one day at the East

Providence monitor. As discussed in

detail below, additional reduction in

emissions will bring this monitor's

predicted design value below the

standard by 2007 as well.

For the West Greenwich monitor (the

monitor currently with the highest

design value), there was a reduction in

ozone levels of 24 percent for the July

8 episode and a reduction in ozone

levels of 13 percent at the West

Greenwich monitor for the July 11

episode. For both episodes, the future

adjusted design value for the West

Greenwich monitor is predicted to be

below the one-hour ozone standard

(0.105 ppm for July 8 and 0.124 ppm for

July 11.)

It should also be noted that Rhode

Island DEM performed this same

analysis for all of the ozone monitors in

Massachusetts, New Hampshire and

Maine that are also in the CALGRID

modeling domain (i.e., the areas

downwind of Rhode Island that may be

affected by pollution transport from

Rhode Island on ozone conducive days).

The results from this analysis, which are

contained in the submittal, show that all

of these monitors are predicted to have

ozone values below the one-hour

standard by 2007. This is consistent

with the EPA-approved attainment

demonstrations for both New

Hampshire (67 FR 72574; 12/6/02) and

Massachusetts for both the Eastern (67

FR 72576; 12/6/02) and Western

Massachusetts (66 FR 665; 1/3/01)

serious ozone nonattainment area.

4. Predicted Ozone Design Values for

2007 With the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur

Program

As previously noted, the CALGRID

runs for 2007 included the benefits of

the NOx SIP call as well as other CAA

measures, but did not account for the

Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program. The

Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program consists

of emission reductions due to more

protective tailpipe emissions standards

for all passenger vehicles, including

sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans,

vans and pick-up trucks, as well as

lower standards for sulfur in gasoline.

These new standards require passenger

vehicles to be 77 to 95 percent cleaner

than those on the road today and to

reduce the sulfur content of gasoline by

up to 90 percent. This program, which

does not achieve emission reductions

until 2004 and beyond, was not

included in the CALGRID modeling

analysis discussed above.

Rhode Island DEM, however, has

looked at the EPA modeling performed

in 199912 to assess the effectiveness of

the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur. For three

episodes in the summer of 1995, EPA

performed two sets of modeling runs:

one run with 2007 CAA emission files

including emission reductions

associated with Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur

program and a second run that did not

include Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program

emission reductions. In both cases, the

CAA emission files included EPA's NOx

SIP Call emission reductions. After the

modeling runs were completed, EPA

used the modeling results in a relative

manner to estimate the percent ozone

reduction associated with the Tier 2/

Gasoline Sulfur program.

Rhode Island DEM included the

predicted ozone design values for the

2007 CAA run and the 2007 Tier 2 run

for each county in the Rhode Island

nonattainment area. As shown in their

submittal, the benefit at all ozone

monitors in Rhode Island is at least an

additional 0.001 ppm, over what

12 See "Technical Support Document for the Tier

2/Gasoline Sulfur Ozone Modeling Analyses,"

EPA420-R-99-031, December 1999.

CALGRID predicted. The improvement

at the East Providence monitor is 1%.

The Tier 2 modeling performed by EPA

showed all 2007 design values for

Rhode Island less than the one-hour

standard. This combined with the

results of the CALGRID analysis add to

the weight-of-evidence.

Rhode Island DEM believes it is

reasonable to conclude that the design

value at the East Providence monitor for

2007 will be reduced by approximately

1 percent once the Tier 2/Gasoline

Sulfur program is implemented, which

will result in attainment of the one-hour

standard at that monitor and throughout

Rhode Island.

5. Conclusions From the Future Air

Quality Design Value Analysis

Through this additional analysis,

Rhode Island DEM has demonstrated

that substantial ozone reductions can be

expected to occur after the

implementation of a number of control

strategies that are in place both within

and upwind of the New England

Domain. Those strategies include EPA's

NOx SIP Call as well as EPA's Tier 2/

Gasoline Sulfur program. Therefore,

EPA believes it is reasonable to

conclude that the Rhode Island

nonattainment area will attain the onehour ozone standard by 2007. While the

absolute modeling results do not

demonstrate attainment, the modeling

results are useful in demonstrating a

relative reduction in ozone levels

sufficient to demonstrate attainment in

2007.

6. Additional Evidence To Support

Attainment in Rhode Island

In addition to the ozone design value

analysis performed by the Rhode Island

DEM, EPA performed an additional

design value analysis using a slightly

different method. EPA used the

CALGRID modeling in a relative sense

to estimate a future design value. EPA

compared base case CALGRID runs to

future case CALGRID runs to estimate

the improvement in ozone air quality

levels between the base and future

cases. Four strategy days (August 15 and

17 1987; July 8, 1988 and July 11,

1988) 1 3 are used in this analysis, which

compared the improvement in modeled

air quality between the base and future

modeling cases. The following

procedure is applied. First, base case

CALGRID runs are examined to discern

the maximum one-hour ozone

concentration modeled in Rhode Island.

The four strategy days are all examined.

13The June 22, 1988 strategy day is not used

because of problems re-analyzing the base case

model run for this episode.

7484

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7484 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

Next, the same area is used to determine

future modeled ozone values. The

modeled maximum results of the four

strategy days are averaged and a

reduction factor calculated from the

base case to the future case. This

reduction factor represents the amount

of ozone reduced in this area, as the

result of the emission reductions

modeled. This reduction factor is used

to adjust the average ozone design value

for this part of the model domain (i.e.,

Rhode Island), as monitored between

1985 and 1990. This monitored design

value represents both the base case

model years of 1987 and 1988 and also

the design values used in 1991 to

classify one-hour nonattainment areas.

The future design value is further

reduced when the benefits of EPA's Tier

2/Gasoline Sulfur program are factored

in.

This additional analysis also shows

that air quality design values in Rhode

Island can reasonably be expected to be

reduced below 0.124 ppm based on

continued additional reductions within

the domain and reductions upwind,

reflected in the future year boundary

conditions, and the benefits of EPA's

Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program.

7. Summary of the Ozone Modeling

In summary, the ozone modeling

submitted for the Rhode Island area is

consistent with the CAA and EPA

guidance and demonstrates attainment.

Other information, which provides

additional support for concluding the

Rhode Island area will attain in 2007 are

the ambient ozone data trends and a

trajectory analysis of exceedance days in

the area.

D. What Are the Conclusions From the

Ozone Trends?

There are three ozone air quality

monitors in the Rhode Island

nonattainment area that have data from

2000-2002. They are in the Rhode

Island cities and towns of West

Greenwich, East Providence, and

Narragansett. The original serious

classification of the nonattainment area

was based on data from the 1987

through 1989 time period. Since then

and up to and including 2002 ozone

data, all 3 sites show a decrease in

ozone due to emission reductions, both

within Rhode Island and also upwind.

At the three Rhode Island monitors

the ozone trend is downward. At the

West Greenwich site, the one-hour

ozone design value has dropped from

0.162 ppm in 1988 to 0.130 ppm in

2002, a drop of 20 percent. This site is

not in attainment, based on 2000-2002

ozone data. At the East Providence site,

the one-hour design value has dropped

from 0.138 ppm in 1988 (site moved

from Providence to East Providence in

1997) to 0.127 ppm in 2002, for a drop

of 8 percent. This site, too, is not in

attainment, based on 2000-2002 ozone

data. The Narragansett site only has data

for the last five years so no trend was

calculated. The current design value for

the Narragansett site is 0.124 ppm,

which is below the standard. To show

how close West Greenwich and East

Providence are to meeting the NAAQS

one can look at the fifth highest value

over the same 3-year period 2000-2002.

The fifth highest value for West

Greenwich is 0.127 ppm and for East

Providence it is 0.125 ppm. The sixth

highest value is below the one-hour

standard at these sites.

The ozone trend is also downward at

the Truro, MA ozone monitor, the only

monitor in eastern Massachusetts with a

design value over the one-hour

standard. At the Truro site, the one-hour

design value has dropped from 0.146

ppm in 1989 to 0.130 ppm in 2002, for

a drop of 11 percent. This site is not in

attainment, based on 2000-2002 ozone

data. To show how close Truro is to

meeting the NAAQS one can look at the

fifth highest value over the same 3-year

period 2000-2002, the fifth highest

value at the Truro site is below the level

of the one-hour ozone standard.

Based on the overall downward trend

in one-hour ozone concentrations in

Rhode Island, and because precursor

emissions are projected to keep falling,

both within the nonattainment area and

upwind from it, there is no reason to

believe that the downward trend in

ozone concentrations will not continue

over the near term. The future emission

reductions will be a result of the

following: continued benefits from

tighter standards on vehicles (National

Low Emission Vehicles or CA LEV in

upwind areas) due to fleet turnover; the

reductions from large point sources due

to the OTC NOx Budget Program and

EPA's NOx SIP call; other federal

control measures such controls on nonroad engines; and the Tier 2 vehicle and

low sulfur gasoline program.

E. What Do the Ozone Exceedance Day

Trajectory Analyses Show?

Trajectory analysis is a tool for

assessing atmospheric transport and

identifying likely source regions of

locally measured air contaminants. The

Rhode Island DEM used the HYSPLIT4 (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian

Integrated Trajectory) model, developed

by NOAA's Air Resources Lab (ARL), to

compute backward trajectories.

To assess airflow patterns on days

when any Rhode Island monitor

recorded exceedances of the one-hour

ozone NAAQS during the period 1999-

2002, 24-hour backward trajectories

were computed by the Rhode Island

DEM. The surface-based trajectories

(start height of 10 meters) for these days,

indicators of shorter range transport,

follow a general track that crosses near

the New York metropolitan area before

turning northeastward toward Rhode

Island. These trajectories cross no high

emission areas in Rhode Island. Upperlevel trajectories (500 and 1000 meters

elevation), indicators of long-range

transport, generally begin farther west

over New York State, Pennsylvania or

Ohio and follow a more west-to-east

track, passing north of the New York

metropolitan area. Since the trajectories

for the exceedance days strongly

resemble one another, the Rhode Island

DEM concluded that there is a

consistent meteorological pattern and

source region for ozone and precursors

when monitors in Rhode Island exceed

the one-hour ozone NAAQS.

Furthermore, the Rhode Island DEM

concluded that one-hour exceedance

level ozone concentrations will occur at

the West Greenwich, East Providence

and Narragansett monitors only if the air

reaching these monitors had previously

crossed nearby high emission areas such

as the greater New York metropolitan

area. It should be noted, that on all days

when there are exceedances at West

Greenwich, East Providence and

Narragansett, there are also exceedances

in Connecticut. EPA concludes that

without the influence of the emissions

from the greater New York metropolitan

area, no one-hour exceedances would

have occurred at these monitors.

Attainment demonstrations already

approved by EPA for Connecticut and

the New York city area show attainment

will be achieved in 2007, and likewise

this attainment demonstration for Rhode

Island concludes that attainment will be

achieved in 2007.

To corroborate the Rhode Island

DEM's results, EPA performed its own

trajectory analyses for those days when

there were exceedances of the one-hour

ozone standard on either Cape Cod, in

southeastern Massachusetts, and/or in

Rhode Island, over the three year period

1999 through 2001. This area

encompasses the ozone monitoring sites

in Truro, MA; Fairhaven, MA;

Narragansett, RI; East Providence, RI;

and West Greenwich, RI. The

exceedance days at these sites during

1999-2001 are as follows: June 7, 1999,

July 6, 1999, July 16, 1999, June 10,

2000, June 30, 2001, July 25, 2001,

August 7, 2001, and August 9, 2001.

EPA's trajectory analyses of the days

with ozone exceedances at these sites

(Truro, MA, Fairhaven, MA,

7485

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7485 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

Narragansett, RI, East Providence, RI

and West Greenwich, RI) support the

Rhode Island DEM trajectories and the

CALGRID modeling which shows that

the most probable source region of the

exceedances at these sites is areas to the

south and west of Rhode Island,

including Connecticut and the New

York City area. Connecticut is less than

20 miles from West Greenwich or less

than 2 hours of typical meteorological

transport time. Details of this analysis

are found in the TSD for this action.

Both the analyses done by the Rhode

Island DEM and EPA support the

conclusion that without the influence of

emissions from upwind, no exceedances

would have occurred at the Rhode

Island ozone monitors. This further

supports the conclusion that the Rhode

Island ozone nonattainment area will

attain in 2007.

F. Are the Causes of the Recent

Violation Being Addressed?

The Rhode Island ozone

nonattainment area was in attainment

for three consecutive, three-years

periods from 1998-2000 (i.e., 1996-

1998, 1997-1999, and 1998-2000).

CALGRID sensitivity runs looked at the

effectiveness of NOx reductions versus

VOC reductions by reducing each

pollutant individually within the

domain by varying percentages (i.e.,

25%, 50%, 75% and 100%). These

sensitivity runs concluded that reducing

nitrogen oxide emission reductions is a

more effective ozone control strategy for

the New England Domain. Furthermore,

in order to assess the role of transport

into the New England domain,

sensitivity modeling runs were

preformed using very clean boundary

conditions. These runs use boundary

conditions from the OTAG run IN60,

which assumed the reductions similar

to NOx SIP call emissions, plus an

additional 60 percent reduction in NOx

from the ozone nonattainment areas

classified as serious or above. These

runs show that upwind NOx reductions

would be effective at reducing ozone

throughout southern New England,

including in Rhode Island where the

current one-hour ozone violations

occur. From these sensitivity runs as

well as its trajectory analyses, EPA

concludes that elevated ozone levels at

the Rhode Island monitors are

principally due to ozone and NOx

generated in Connecticut and upwind

areas. Rhode Island DEM further

concluded based on CAMx Source

Apportionment Modeling described in

EPA's October 27, 1998 Final

Rulemaking on the NOx SIP Call (63 FR

57355), that reducing NOx emissions in

adjacent upwind areas-Connecticut,

New York City and New Jersey-will

significantly reduce ozone levels at the

Rhode Island monitors. Emissions of

NOx and VOC will also be lowered in

Rhode Island as well, as a result of the

emission control programs listed in

Table 2. These local controls, combined

with upwind controls will result in the

Rhode Island ozone nonattainment area

attaining in 2007.

As part of its submittal, Rhode Island

DEM included the NOx emission

reductions anticipated to occur in

Connecticut, New York City and New

Jersey between 1999 and 2007 and

between 2002 and 2007. The reduction

between 2002 and 2007 was intended to

illustrate the reductions that can be

expected to reduce current air quality

levels being monitored in Rhode Island.

The NOx reduction expected to occur in

Connecticut, New York City and New

Jersey between 1999 and 2002 is

expected to be 126.5 tons per summer

day. Those emission reductions have

already occurred, and presumably affect

the current ozone levels measured in

2002. Between 2002 and 2007, the NOx

reduction expected to occur in

Connecticut, New York City and New

Jersey is expected to be a bit higher, at

137 tons per summer day. These

reductions, which largely have not

occurred yet, will benefit future ozone

levels in Rhode Island and will help the

Rhode Island ozone nonattainment area

meet attainment by 2007.

As part of its submittal, Rhode Island

DEM also calculated the NOx and VOC

emission reductions projected to occur

between 1999 and 2007 in the Rhode

Island area. VOC emissions in Rhode

Island are projected from 1999 to 2007

to go from 141.1 tons per summer day

(tpsd) to 119.0 tpsd, which is a

reduction of 22.1 tpsd or 15.6 percent.

NOx emissions in Rhode Island are

projected from 1999 to 2007 to go from

93.1 tpsd to 73.6 tpsd, which is a

reduction of 19.5 tpsd or 20.9 percent.

When combined with the significant

reductions in NOx emissions expected

in upwind states by 2007, the Rhode

Island emissions inventory data

provides additional reason to anticipate

that the area will attain the one-hour

ozone standard by 2007.

G. Is the Rhode Island Mid-Course

Review Consistent With EPA Guidance?

As discussed above, the Rhode Island

serious ozone nonattainment area

attained the ozone standard based on

ozone data collected in 1997-1999 and

1998-2000, but is now violating the

standard. Rhode Island DEM has

submitted an attainment demonstration

supplemented with a weight-ofevidence analysis; therefore, Rhode

Island DEM needs to commit to a midcourse review. The Rhode Island DEM

has committed to perform a mid-course

review for this area by December 31,

2004.

H. Is the Rhode Island RACM Analysis

Consistent With the CAA and EPA

Guidance?

The EPA has reviewed the SIP and the

RACM analysis submittal for the Rhode

Island area to determine if it includes all

required RACM measures and sufficient

documentation concerning available

RACM measures. The RACM analysis

will be subject to a public hearing on

February 27, 2003.

The trajectory analyses, which are

discussed in greater detail in section

VILE, indicate that elevated ozone levels

at the three Rhode Island monitors are

largely the result of local transport from

upwind high emission areas in

Connecticut, New York City and New

Jersey. 1 4 In addition to what the Rhode

Island DEM submitted, EPA performed

a trajectory analysis of each of the days

during 1999 through 2001 when

exceedances of the one-hour ozone

NAAQS were monitored in the Rhode

Island ozone nonattainment area. That

analysis shows similar results, i.e., that

the source region for these exceedances

is areas to the south and west of Rhode

Island.

The CAM-x source apportionment

modeling showed that emissions in

Connecticut and Rhode Island

combined contribute only 5% to the

anthropogenic one-hour ozone levels in

Rhode Island. This CAM-x modeling

also shows that Rhode Island cannot

attain the one-hour NAAQS without

substantial NOx emission reductions in

upwind states, and that, since upwind

controls will not be fully implemented

prior to 2007, the adoption of additional

in-state emission reduction measures

would not advance the State's

attainment date.

The trajectory analyses and both the

CALGRID and CAM-x modeling

discussed above indicate that Rhode

Island must rely on significant emission

reductions from upwind states in order

to attain the one-hour ozone standard,

and that additional emission reduction

measures adopted in Rhode Island alone

would have a sufficiently small impact

on ozone levels that they could not

advance the attainment date in the

Rhode Island area. Nonetheless, the

Rhode Island DEM RACM analysis does

review control measures that could

14 These areas have approved attainment

demonstrations and also have EPA-enforceable

emission reduction strategies to bring about

attainment of the one-hour standard by 2007.

7486

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7486 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

reduce emissions of VOC and NOx in

Rhode Island and analyzed whether

adoption of such measures might lead to

attainment earlier than 2007.

Rhode Island DEM examined

emissions from all significant emission

source categories to assess whether

there are any additional RACM that

could be adopted. The methodology

used consists of a two-step procedure.

First, Rhode Island DEM reviewed its

2007 emissions inventory to identify

significant source categories. After that,

Rhode Island DEM screened potential

control measures for the significant

emitting source categories to determine

if they could provide sufficient benefits

to accelerate attainment in the Rhode

Island area, and, if so, analyzed if the

measures were feasible.

The methodology used by the Rhode

Island DEM is based on the RACM

analysis performed by EPA for the

Greater Connecticut serious ozone

nonattainment area. See 66 FR 634;

January 3, 2001. The RACM analysis for

Greater Connecticut looked at projected

2007 emissions from various source

categories after taking into account

CAA-mandatory controls, additionally

adopted regional and national controls,

and State-adopted SIP controls. The

RACM analysis then assumed that

stationary sources that have already

been controlled nationally, regionally or

locally in the SIP would not be effective

candidates for additional controls that

could be considered RACM, since these

categories have only recently been

required to reduce emissions or are

about to shortly.

For VOC emissions, Rhode Island

DEM reviewed its 2007 emissions

inventory for stationary point, area, and

non-road sources and culled from it the

sixteen largest source categories.

Emissions from each were at least one

ton per summer day (tpsd), and in their

aggregate emissions from these sixteen

source categories represent

approximately 90 percent of the total

VOC inventory from these three sectors.

Rhode Island DEM then analyzed

whether control requirements exist for

each source category, and found that in

most instances state or federal control

are currently in place.

For example, the largest emitting

source category from these three sectors

is the area source surface cleaning

category. Rhode Island DEM estimates

2007 emissions for this activity will be

12.44 tpsd. However, Rhode Island DEM

notes that most of the sources in the

small surface cleaning sector, including

all vapor degreasers and cold cleaners,

are regulated by Rhode Island Air

Pollution Control (APC) Regulation No.

36, "Control of Emissions from Organic

Solvent Cleaning," which became

effective in 1996. This regulation

incorporates control requirements from

EPA's Control Technique Guideline

(CTG) for this source category, as well

as the requirements of EPA's 1994

National Emission Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for

Halogenated Solvent Cleaners. These

requirements represent Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT).

Rhode Island DEM believes that any

additional control measures for this

activity would result in relatively small

decreases in emissions and would not

accelerate the State's attainment of the

one-hour ozone NAAQS in emissions.

Control measures for the remaining

VOC source categories were reviewed in

a similar manner, and then Rhode

Island DEM performed a similar

analysis for the largest NOx emitting

source categories. Rhode Island's

conclusion from this analysis is that,

based on the types of measures

reviewed and the costs of these

programs, in association with the

potential emission reduction benefits in

the Rhode Island area, there are no

stationary point, area, or non-road

RACM that could be adopted in the state

that would advance attainment prior to

2007.

Rhode Island also analyzed whether

there were any additional mobile source

measures that could be implemented

that represent RACM. The Rhode Island

DEM is already implementing a wide

range of statewide mobile source

emissions reduction programs including

Stage 2 vapor recovery, enhanced

inspection and maintenance, the

national low emissions vehicle program,

and reformulated gasoline. In addition

to the above programs, Rhode Island

implements transportation projects

under the Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality (CMAQ) program, designed to

reduce ozone precursor emissions in the

transportation sector. The CMAQ

program in Rhode Island's 2003-2004

Transportation Improvement Program

(details are provided in the submittal

and the TSD for this proposal) includes

measures aimed at increasing bicycle,

ferry and public transit travel,

eliminating traffic congestion through

improving transportation management,

signalization and roadways, reducing

emissions from diesel on-road vehicles

with a heavy duty vehicle inspection

program, and the installation of

emissions controls on public transit

diesel buses. However, implementation

of these projects, and other similar

programs that will be funded with

CMAQ monies in the coming years, will

only achieve a minimal emission

reduction of 0.07 tons per summer day

of VOC and 0.06 tons per summer day

of NOx. This small reduction in

precursors will not result in an

acceleration of the attainment date.

Since a large number of mobile source

emissions control programs are already

being implemented and since additional

measures of the type that have been

funded by CMAQ monies would not

accelerate the attainment date, Rhode

Island has not identified any additional

mobile source RACM measures. The

Rhode Island DEM's conclusion on

mobile sources is that Rhode Island is

currently implementing all reasonably

available control measures for mobile

sources, since the benefits from these

projects is minimal compared to Rhode

Island's own emissions and even

smaller when compared to the transport

of ozone and ozone precursors.

EPA concludes that based on the

available information, there are no

additional technologically and

economically feasible emission control

measures in Rhode Island that will

advance the attainment date for the

Rhode Island ozone nonattainment area.

Thus no potential measure can be

considered RACM for purposes of

section 172(c)(1) for the Rhode Island

area for its one-hour ozone attainment

demonstration. The Rhode Island DEM

analysis is consistent with EPA

requirements, which as noted above

were upheld by the DC Circuit Court.

The EPA therefore proposes that the

Rhode Island SIP is consistent with the

requirements for RACM.

Although EPA does not believe that

section 172(c)(1) requires

implementation of additional measures

for this area, this conclusion is not

necessarily valid for other areas.

L What About Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budgets?

On June 8, 2001 (66 FR 30811) EPA

approved the Rhode Island post-1996

plan which included a 1999 VOC motor

vehicle emissions budgets of 41.57 tons

per summer day VOC, as well as a NOx

budget of 46.40 tons per summer day of

NOx. These 1999 motor vehicle

emissions budgets were formally

determined adequate by EPA New

England for use in transportation

conformity on September 29, 1998.

Subsequent to the rate-of-progress SIPs,

on January 27, 2003, Rhode Island DEM

submitted its ozone attainment

demonstration to EPA, for parallel

processing, which includes new motor

vehicle emissions budgets for both VOC

and NOx for 2007, and these budgets are

shown in Table 3. EPA is proposing

these budgets for approval.

7487

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7487 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

TABLE 3.-2007 EMISSIONS BUDGETS

FOR ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES IN

TONS PER SUMMER DAY (TPSD)

Area 2007 VOC 2007 NOx budget budget

Rhode Island ........ 30.37 33.62

On March 2, 1999, the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit issued a decision on

certain provisions of EPA's 1997

conformity rule in response to a case

brought by the Environmental Defense

Fund. As a result of the decision, a

conformity determination cannot be

made using the submitted motor vehicle

emissions budgets until EPA makes a

positive determination that the

submitted budget is adequate. In

response to the court's decision, EPA

issued guidance on our new adequacy

process on May 14, 199915

EPA believes that these motor vehicle

emissions budgets are adequate for use

in future transportation conformity

analyses as these budgets meet all of the

requirements set forth by EPA's

adequacy criteria, were developed using

EPA's MOBILE6 model, and are

consistent with the attainment

demonstration. However, prior to

making an adequacy finding, EPA must

administer a 30 day comment period for

these budgets. Therefore, in today's

action EPA is opening up the adequacy

comment period on these budgets to run

concurrently with the comment period

for all of today's action. In addition, this

Federal Register Notice will appear on

EPA's Transportation and Air Quality

planning website at

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transpconform/adequacy.htm. All comments

on these budgets should be submitted to

EPA using the procedure outlined

earlier in this notice.

j. Contingency Measures

Rhode Island addressed the

contingency measure requirement of

section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act by

demonstrating that the emission

reductions from the federal on-road

motor vehicle Tier 2 tailpipe standards

and sulfur in gasoline rules, and the

federal non-road engine control program

that accrue between 2007 and mid-2009,

which is the date by which emission

reductions from contingency measures

would need to occur, will achieve more

emission reductions than Rhode Island

15 Memo from Gay MacGregor, Director, Regional

and State Programs Division, USEPA Office of

Mobile Sources, to Regional Air Division Directors,

titled "Conformity Guidance on Implementation of

March 2, 1999 Conformity Court decision," dated

May 14, 1999.

needs to meet its three percent

attainment contingency obligation. We

propose approval of Rhode Island's

contingency measure submittal.

VIII. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to fully approve as

meeting CAA section 182(c)(2) the

ground-level one-hour ozone attainment

demonstration State Implementation

Plan for the Rhode Island nonattainment

area submitted by Rhode Island on

January 27, 2003. EPA is proposing an

attainment date of November 15, 2007

for the area, and is proposing that the

RACM analysis for the Rhode Island

area is consistent with the requirements

of section 172(c)(1). EPA proposes

approval of Rhode Island's contingency

measures submittal, which is consistent

with the requirements of section

172(c)(9) of the CAA. This notice also

proposes to approve 2007 motor vehicle

emissions budgets for Rhode Island into

the SIP.

This SIP is being proposed under a

procedure called parallel processing,

whereby EPA proposes rulemaking

action concurrent with the state's

procedures for amending its regulations.

If the proposed plan is substantially

changed, EPA will evaluate those

changes and may publish another notice

of proposed rulemaking. If no

substantial changes are made, EPA will

publish a Final Rulemaking Notice on

the revisions. Before EPA can finally

approve this plan Rhode Island must

finally adopt the SIP revision and

submit it formally to EPA for

incorporation into the SIP.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the issues discussed in this proposal.

These issues will be considered before

EPA takes final action. Interested parties

may participate in the Federal

rulemaking procedure by submitting

written comments to the EPA Regional

office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this action.

A more detailed description of the

state submittal and EPA's evaluation are

included in a Technical Support

Document (TSD) prepared in support of

this rulemaking action. A copy of the

TSD is available upon request from the

EPA Regional Office listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

IX. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a "significant regulatory action" and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. For

this reason, this action is also not

subject to Executive Order 13211,

"Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This action merely approves

state law as meeting Federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this

rule approves pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal

implications because it will not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This

action also does not have Federalism

implications because it does not have

substantial direct effects on the states,

on the relationship between the national

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not economically

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the state to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. This rule does

7488

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7488 2003
Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

not impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: February 6, 2003.

Robert W. Varney,

Regional Administrator, EPA NewEngland.

[FR Doc. 03-3698 Filed 2-13-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 401

[USCG-2002-11288]

RIN 2115-AG30

Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment

period and notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending

the comment period on the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on rates

for pilotage on the Great Lakes

published in the Federal Register

January 23, 2003, for 45 days. This will

extend the comment period to April 24,

2003. The Coast Guard also intends to

delay the publishing of an Interim Rule

(IR) previously planned for February 12,

2003 (68 FR 3204), to about April 30,

2003.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before April 24, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your

comments directly to the Docket

Management Facility. To make sure that

your comments and related material do

not enter the docket [USCG-2002-

11288] more than once, please submit

them by only one of the following

means:

(1) By mail to the Facility, U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(2) By delivery to room PL-401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202-366-

9329.

(3) By fax to the Facility at 202-493-

2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

The Facility maintains the public

docket for this notice. Comments, and

related material as indicated in this

notice, will become part of this docket

and will be available for inspection or

copying at room PL-401, on the Plaza

level of the Nassif Building at the same

address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. You may also access this

docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov.

Anyone is able to search the

electronic form of all comments

received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the

comment (or signing the comment, if

submitted on behalf of an association,

business, labor union, etc.). You may

review DOT's complete Privacy Act

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume

65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this notice, call or e-mail

Tom Lawler, Chief Economist, Office of

Great Lakes Pilotage (G-MW-1), U.S.

Coast Guard, at telephone 202-267-

1241, or tlawler@comdt.uscg.mil. For

questions on viewing, or submitting

material to the docket, call Dorothy

Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of

Transportation, telephone 202-366-

9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Requests for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to

submit comments and related material

concerning the NPRM on "Rates for

Pilotage on the Great Lakes" published

January 23, 2003, [68 FR 3203] in the

Federal Register. If you do so, please

include your name and address, identify

the docket number [USCG-2002-

11288], and give the reasons for each

comment. You may submit your

comments and material by mail,

delivery, fax, or electronic means to the

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES; but please

submit your comments and material by

only one means. If you submit them by

mail or delivery, submit them in an

unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If you submit them by

mail and would like to know they

reached the Facility, please enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope. We will consider all

comments and material received during

the comment period.

Background Information

On January 23, 2003, the Coast Guard

published an NPRM in the Federal

Register to update the rates for pilotage

on the Great Lakes. At a public meeting

conducted on January 31, 2003, in

Cleveland, OH, it received requests from

the public to extend the comment

period and to delay the issuance of an

IR until after the comment period has

ended.

A comment submitted to the docket

has similarly requested that the

comment period be extended by 45 days

and an IR be delayed until the comment

period has closed.

We have decided to grant this request

for an extension of the comment period

from March 10, 2003, to April 24, 2003,

and to delay the publication of an IR

until after the close of the comment

period. The delay will allow the Coast

Guard to collect and review all

comments before it issues an IR.

The Coast Guard has also extended

the comment period to obtain comments

on two specific aspects of the NPRM

and to obtain industry-related

information that will aid the Coast

Guard in assessing the economic impact

of the IR.

To assist the Coast Guard in analyzing

the impact of the IR on industry, the

public should comment on the

following issues:

1. Determining the total cost of

operating a vessel on the Great Lakes

and determining what percentages of

those costs are attributable to: (a)

Pilotage fees, (b) dockage, (c)

longshoremen services, (d) tug services,

(e) port and agent fees, (f) running

expenses, and (g) other operating

expenses.

2. Projections of traffic and cargoes

anticipated for the 2003 navigational

season.

Dated: February 10, 2003.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety, Security and Environmental

Protection.

[FR Doc. 03-3737 Filed 2-11-03; 3:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

7489

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7489 2003