# + 2

(,1 1/,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. CoastGuard, Acting CaptainofthePort,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 isproposing 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 onJanuary 27, 2003. This action is based on the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, related to one-hour

ozone attainment demonstrations. DATES: Comments mustbe received on

orbefore March 17, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written comments (two copies ifpossible) should be sent to: David B. Conroy at the EPA Region I (NewEngland) Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ,Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.

Copies ofthe state submittal and EPA's technical support document (TSD) are available for public inspection duringnormal business hours (9 A.M. to 4 P.M.) atthe following addresses: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 (NewEngland), One Congress St., 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, telephone (617) 918-1664, and at the Office ofAir 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 ofthe onehour ozone attainment demonstration SIP submitted bythe Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental 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 aprocedure called parallel processing. Under parallel processing, EPA proposes action on astate submission before it has been formally submittedto EPA, and will take final action onits proposal ifthe final submission is substantially unchanged from the submission on which proposal is based, orif 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 itsproposed SIP revision onFebruary 27, 2003. The SIP revision that Rhode Island hasproposed includes allthe basic elements ofwhat EPA isproposing to approve. Ifthe proposed attainment demonstration plan is substantially changed, EPAwill evaluate those changes andmay publish another notice ofproposed rulemaking. Ifno substantial changes are made, EPA will approve the state's plan consistent with this proposal and any submitted
comments. Before EPA canfinally
approve this SIP revision, Rhode Island
must finally adopt the SIP revision and submitit formally to EPAfor incorporation intothe SIP.
Table ofContents
I.Clean AirAct Requirements for Serious

Ozone Nonattainment Areas II.Background and Current Air Quality

Status oftheRhode Island Ozone Nonattainment Area III. History and Time Frame forthe State's

Attainment Demonstration SIP IV. What arethe Components ofaModeled

Attainment Demonstration? V. Whatis theFramework forProposing

Action onthe Attainment Demonstration SIPs? VI. What arethe Relevant Policy and

Guidance Documents? VII. How Doesthe Rhode Island Submittal

Satisfy theFramework? VIII. Proposed Action IX. Administrative Requirements

I. CleanAir 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, EPApromulgated 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 ofnitrogen oxides (NOx) andvolatile organic compounds (VOCs)react in the
presence ofsunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOx and VOC are referred
to as precursors ofozone.

An area exceeds the one-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air quality monitor records a one-hour average ozone concentration of0.125 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 EPAto 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 (November6, 1991). The CAAfurther classified these
areas, based onthe area's design value,

as marginal, moderate, serious, severe,

or extreme. CAA section 181(a). Marginal areas were suffering the least significant airpollution 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 andhave 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 byNovember 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) ofthe CAA, serious areas were required to submitby November 15, 1994 demonstrations of howthey 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 amodeling analysis component showing howthe

area will achieve the standard byits attainment date and the control

'The one-hourozone standard is0.12ppm. EPA's long-standing practiceisthat monitored valuesof0.125ppmorhigher areroundedup, and thusconsidered anexceedance oftheNAAQS and valuesless than 0.125ppm arerounded down and

arenot anexceedance. 

### 7476

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

measures necessary to achieve those reductions. Another component ofthe attainment demonstration SIP is a motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes. Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring thatthe effects ofemissions 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) ofthe CAA, attainment demonstrations necessarily include the estimates ofmotor vehicle emissions that are consistent with attainment, which then act as abudget

orceiling for the purposes of determining whether federallysupported transportation plans, transportation implementation programs, and projects conform to the attainment demonstration SIP.

II. Background andCurrentAir Quality Status ofthe Rhode Island Ozone Nonattainment Area

The Rhode Island ozone nonattainment area is astate wide area. Historically and throughout most ofthe 1990's, ozone monitors throughout the Rhode Island nonattainment area violated the one-hour ozone standard. Directly downwind ofthe Rhode Island nonattainment area, there were also a number ofother nonattainment areas violating the one-hour ozone standard duringthe 1990's in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, andin 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 thatthe Eastern Massachusetts area, the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, New Hampshire ozone nonattainment area, andthe Portland, Maine ozone nonattainment area had also attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on data collected from 1996-1998. See64 FR 30911. At the time ofthese determinations of attainment, there

were no areas in any portion ofRhode Island, Eastern Massachusetts, New Hampshire orMaine thatviolated the one-hour ozone standard.

The Rhode Island nonattainment area continued tohave 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 ofthe one-hour ozone standard in all areas. See 65 FR 45182 (July 20, 2000). EPA, however, didnot modify its determination thatthe Rhode Islandarea had attained the one-hour ozone standard. the one-hour ozone standard in 1999 (based on datafrom 1997-1999) and in 2000 (based on data from 1998-2000). Based on data collected in 1999-2001, however, the Rhode Island area nowhas 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 of2002 now show onlythe West Greenwich andEast Providence monitors registering a violation ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS for the three-year period 2000-2002.

III. History andTime Framefor the State'sAttainment Demonstration SIP

A. Ozone Transport Assessment Group andtheNOx SIP Call

Notwithstanding significant efforts by the states, in 1995 EPA recognized that
many states in the eastern halfofthe United States could not meet the November 1994 time frame for submitting an attainment demonstration SIP because emissions ofNOx and VOCs in upwind states (and the ozone formed by these emissions) affected these nonattainment areas and the full impact ofthis effect had not yetbeen determined. This phenomenon is called

ozone transport.

OnMarch 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant Administrator for Air andRadiation, 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.3Recognizing the problems created by ozone transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative process among the states in the eastern halfofthe country to evaluate and address transport ofozone andits precursors. This memorandum led tothe formation ofthe Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)4
andprovided for the states to submit the attainment demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to complete its evaluation ofozone transport.

In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded thattransport of

ozone andthe precursor NOxis

3Memorandum, "Ozone Attainment Demonstrations," issued March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum maybefound on EPA's Web site
at http://www.epa.govlttnloarpg/tlpgm.html.

4 Letterfrom Mary A. Gade, Director, Stateof Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council ofStates (ECOS) Members,
dated April 13, 1995. significant and shouldbe reduced regionally to enable states in the eastern halfofthe country to attain the ozone NAAQS.

In recognition ofthe length ofthe OTAG process, in aDecember 29, 1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's thenActing Assistant Administrator for Air andRadiation, provideduntil April 1998 for states to submit the following elements oftheir attainment demonstration SIPs for serious and

severe nonattainment areas: (1) Evidence thatthe applicable control

measures in subpart 2ofpart D oftitle Iofthe CAA were adopted and implemented or were on an expeditious

course to being adopted and implemented; (2)a list ofmeasures needed to meettheremaining rate-ofprogress (ROP) emissions reduction requirement and to reach attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a commitment to adopt and submittarget calculations for post-1999 ROP andthe control measures necessary for attainment and ROP plans through the attainment year bythe end of2000; (4) a commitment to implement the SIP control programs in atimely

manner andto meet ROP emissions reductions and attainment; and (5) evidence ofapublic hearing on the state submittal.5This 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 ofthe measures needed.Thus, state submissions due in April 1998 under the Wilson policy shouldhave included
motorvehicle emissions budgets.

Building upon the OTAG recommendations and technical analyses, in November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing the ozone transportproblem. In its proposal, EPA foundthat current SIPs in 22 states and the District ofColumbia (23 jurisdictions) were insufficient to provide for attainment and maintenance ofthe one-hour ozone standard because they did notregulate NOx emissions that significantly contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318 (November 7, 1997). The EPA finalizedthat rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions to revise their SIPs to require NOxemissions reductions within the state to a level consistent with a NOx emissions budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). Thisfinal rule is commonly referred to as the NOx SIP Call.

5Memorandum, "Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-ExistingPM 10 NAAQS," issued December 29, 1997. A copy ofthis memorandum maybe foundon EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.govlttnloarpg/tlpgm.html. 

### 7477

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

B. RhodeIslandOzoneAttainment DemonstrationSubmittal

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 toEPA's December 29, 1997 memorandum. Based on data collected from 1996-1998, EPA determined onJune 9, 1999 (64 FR 30911) thatthe Rhode Island serious

ozone nonattainment area had attained the 1-hour ozone standard. Consistent with EPApolicy, 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 toEPA for EPAto take action on.6

The Rhode Island nonattainment area continued tohave air quality meeting the one-hour ozone standard through the summer of2000, and it was not until afterthe summer of2001 thatthe Rhode Island area had air quality violating the one-hour ozone standard. At thatpoint 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) ofthe 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 haspreviously 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) andthat 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) ofthe

6Policy guidance contained in a May 10, 1995 memorandum from John Seitz, Director ofEPA's Office ofAir 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 withcertain other related requirements, of PartD ofTitle 1 of the Clean Aft Act are no longer applicable to an

area once ithas aft quality data indicating that the

one hour ozone standard hasbeen attained. CAA. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Protection will hold a public hearing on this Attainment Demonstration SIP onFebruary 27, 2003.

The statutory attainment date for the Rhode IslandArea was November 15, 1999. The area attainedthe standard as ofits attainment date, but then subsequently experienced aviolation. The CAA does not expressly address the appropriate attainment date for an area that attains the standardby its attainment datebut 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 onlyfor those areas that EPA determines donot attain the standard by their attainment date.) With respect to the attainment date, both subparts 1and 2 specify outside dates for attainment and provide that attainment must be "as expeditiously aspracticable." 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 Islandis 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.byNovember 15, 2007. We review Rhode Island's submission in the following sections.

IV. WhatAre the Components ofa Modeled AttainmentDemonstration?

The EPAprovides that states may rely

on amodeled attainment demonstration supplemented with additional evidence
to account for inherent uncertainty in the modeling. 7In order to have a complete modeling demonstration submission, states should have submittedthe required modeling analysis andidentified any additional evidence thatEPA should consider in evaluating whether the area will attain the standard.

7TheEPA issued guidance on the airquality modeling that is used to demonstrate attainment with the one-hour ozone NAAQS. See U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application ofthe Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). A copymaybe found on EPA's web siteat http://www.epa.govlttnlscraml(file name: "UAMREG"). See also U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance

on Useof Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment ofthe Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95- 007, (June 1996). A copy may befound on EPA's Web site athttp://www.epa.govlttnlscram (file

name: "O3TEST"). A. ModelingRequirements
For purposes of demonstrating attainment, section 182(c) ofthe 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 setup using meteorological conditions conducive tothe formation ofozone. Emissions for a base year are usedto evaluate the model's abilityto reproduce actual monitored air quality values andto predict air quality changes in the attainment year due to the emission changes which include growth
up to and controls implemented bythe 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 orbelow the NAAQS or at an acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS consistent with conditions specified by EPA's guidance. Whenthe 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 usedto address uncertainty inherent in the application ofphotochemical grid models.

The EPA guidance identifies the features ofa 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 andtechnical review by individuals responsible for developing

or assessing the attainment demonstration (state andlocal agencies, EPARegional offices, the regulated community, and public interest groups). Second, for purposes of developing the information to putinto the model, the
state must select air pollution days, i.e., days in the past with poor air quality, that are representative ofthe ozone pollution problem for the nonattainment

area. Third, the state needs to identify the appropriate dimensions ofthe area to be modeled, i.e.,the domain size. The domain shouldbe larger thanthe 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 mostbeneficial to bring the area into attainment. Fourth, the
state needs to determine the grid

8Ibid. 

### 7478

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7478 2003Federal 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 ofemission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical layers and horizontal grids) may dilute concentrations and may not properly consider impacts ofcomplex 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 thatthe 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 ofthe NAAQS. A predicted concentration above 0.124ppm ozone indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the attainment year and aprediction at orbelow 0.124
ppm indicates thatthe area is expected
to attain the standard. This type oftest 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 day9to the attainment level of0.124 ppm. Ifnone ofthe predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.

The statistical test takes into account the factthat the form ofthe one-hour

ozone standard allows exceedances. If,

over a three-year period, the area has an average ofone or fewer exceedances per year, the area is not violating the standard. Thus, ifthe state models a very extreme day,the statistical test provides that a prediction above 0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limitmay be consistent with attainment ofthe standard. (Theform ofthe 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 inviolation.)

The acceptable upper limitabove 0.124 ppm is determined by examining the size ofexceedances at monitoring sites which meetthe one-hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for

9The initial, "ramp-up" days for each episode are excluded from this determination. which the four highest one-hour average concentrations over athree-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 ofobserving

ozone air quality exceedances ofthe standard ofvarious concentrations is equated to the severity ofthe modeled day. The upper limitgenerally represents the maximum ozone concentration observed at alocation on

a single day and itwould be the only reading above the standard that would be expected to occur no more than an average ofonce a year over a three-year period. Therefore, ifthe maximum

ozone concentration predicted bythe model isbelow the acceptable upper limit, in this case 0.136 ppm, then EPA might conclude that the modeled attainment testis 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 of0.124 ppm.
B.AdditionalAnalyses WhereModeling FailsTo ShowAttainment

As with otherpredictive tools, there

are inherent uncertainties associated with modeling andits results. For example, there are uncertainties in some ofthe modeling inputs, such as the meteorological and emissions databases for individual days and in the methodology used to assess the severity ofan exceedance atindividual sites. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, andprovides a means for considering other evidence to help

assess whether attainment ofthe NAAQS is likely. The process by which this is done is called a weight-ofevidence determination.

Under a WOE determination, the state

canrely on and EPAwill consider factors such as: other modeled attainment tests, e.g., a rollback analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in thepredicted frequency and pervasiveness ofexceedances and predicted changes in the designvalue; actual observed air quality trends; estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the responsiveness ofthe model predictions
to further controls; and, whether there

are additional control measures that are
orwill be approved into the SIPbut

were not included in the modeling analysis. This listis not an exclusive list offactors thatmay be considered and these factors could vary from case to

case. For example, the EPA's guidance contains no limit onhow 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 testis from being passed, the

more compelling the WOE needs tobe.

The EPA's modeling guidance also recognizes aneed to perform a midcourse review as ameans for addressing uncertainty in the modeling results. Because ofthe uncertainty in long term projections, EPA believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on WOE needs to contain provisions for periodic review ofmonitoring, emissions, andmodeling 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 Frameworkfor Proposing Action onthe Attainment Demonstration SIPs?

In addition to the modeling analysis and WOE support demonstrating attainment, the EPA has identified the following key elements which generally
mustbe present in order for EPAto 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; motorvehicle emissions budgets; any additional measures needed for attainmentlo; and aMidCourse Review (MCR).

A. CAA MeasuresandMeasuresRelied

on in theModeledAttainment DemonstrationSIP

The states should have adoptedthe control measures already required under the CAA forthe 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 allVOC and NOx controls within the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes ofthe modeled attainment demonstration.

The information in Table 1is a summary ofthe CAArequirements that shouldbe met for a serious area for the one-hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements are specified in section 182 ofthe CAA. EPAmust have taken final action approving allmeasures

10As discussed in detailbelow, the Rhode Island
attainment demonstration shows attainment without the need for additional measures beyond whathas been adopted into the SIP or will be required by federal regulations. Therefore additional measures are notrequired for Rhode Island. 

### 7479

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

relied on for attainment, including the afinal full approval ofthe attainment 182(c)(2). This was done for allthe required ROP control measures and demonstration as meeting CAA section measures for Rhode Island. target calculations, before EPAcan 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 peryear -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 IIvapor recovery. -Contingency measures. -Reasonably Available Control Measures Analysis.

11Unless 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 onin 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 alsoincludes measures submitted and EPAhas approved SIPs previously required CAA mandated that may notbe required for the area for all ofthe 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 (Tier0) 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

............................. Promulgated 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 IIVapor Recovery

................................... CAA SIP Requirement

............ SIP Approved (58 FR 65933; 12/17/93). Reformulated 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 NOxMOU 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 ReductionsConsistentWith the ModelingDemonstration

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 meetby 2007 through enforceable SIP measures adopted and submittedby 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,Michiganv. UnitedStatesEnv. 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 EPAfor further consideration, states subject tothe NOx SIP call have largely adopted the controls necessary to meet the budgets
setfor them under the NOx SIP call rule. The controls to achieve these reductions shouldbe 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 meetthe requirements ofthe NOx SIP call.EPA approved the regulation Rhode Island adopted pursuant tothe NOx SIP call on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81748).

C.MotorVehicle EmissionsBudgets (MVEBs)

The EPAbelieves that attainment demonstration SIPs must necessarily estimate the level ofmotorvehicle emissions, which when considered with emissions from all other sources (stationary, area and other mobile source), is consistent with attainment. The estimate ofmotor vehicle emissions is used to determine the conformity of transportation plans andprograms to the SIP, as described by CAA section 176(c)(2)(A). Fortransportation 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 ofan attainment demonstration SIP. ASIP
cannot effectively demonstrate attainment unless it identifies the level ofmotor vehicle emissions that can be produced while still demonstrating attainment. See section VIII. belowfor the discussion ofthe motor vehicle emissions budgets included in the Rhode Island attainment demonstration.

D.Mid-CourseReview

A mid-course review (MCR), which generally isperformed midway between approval ofthe attainment demonstration and the attainment date, is a reassessment ofmodeling analyses andmore recent monitored datato determine ifaprescribed control strategy isresulting in emission reductions and airquality improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard for ozone

as expeditiously aspracticable. See sectionVII.G. belowfor additional discussion on Rhode Island's midcourse review.

E.ReasonablyAvailableControl Measures(RACM)Analysis

Section 172(c)(1) ofthe CAArequires SIPs to contain all RACM and provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable. EPAhas previously provided guidance interpreting the requirements of172(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 alsoindicated 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 ifmeasures are reasonably available they must be adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that
states could reject measures as notbeing RACM because they would not advance the attainment date, would cause substantial widespread andlong-term adverse impacts, would be economically

ortechnologically infeasible, orwould otherwise be inappropriate for local
reasons, including costs. The EPA also issued amemorandum re-confirming the principles in the earlier guidance, entitled, "Guidance onthe Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas." John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpgl tlpgm.html.

When EPApresented its statutory argument in support ofits RACM policy
to the U.S.Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit in defense ofits approval ofthe Washington D.C. ozone SIP,the D.C. Circuit foundreasonable EPA's interpretation that measures must advance attainment to be RACM. Sierra Clubv. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Specifically, the Court found that:

EPA reasonably concluded thatbecause the Act 'use[s] the same terminology in conjunctionwith the RACMrequirement' as itdoes in requiring timely attainment, compare42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1) (requiring implementation ofRACM 'asexpeditiously

aspracticable butno laterthan' the applicable attainment deadline), with id. §7511(a)(1) (requiringattainment under same constraints), the RACMrequirement istobe understood asa means ofmeetingthe deadline forattainment.
Id.Morever, the D.C. Circuit rejected, as

a "misreading ofboth text and context," Sierra Club's arguments that EPA's interpretation ofRACM conflicts with the Act's text andpurpose andlacks any rational basis. The D.C. Circuit also foundreasonable EPA's interpretation thatit could consider costs in aRACM analysis and thatmeasures may be rejected ifthey would require an intensive and costly effort forregulation ofmany small sources. SierraClubv. 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 theirlocation onEPA's web site are listed below; these documents will alsobe placed inthe docket for this proposal action.

RelevantDocuments
1. "Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir 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 2003Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 31/Friday, February 14, 2003/Proposed Rules

Attainment Demonstrations," from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office ofMobile 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 andMerrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI, "1- Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations andTier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking." November 8, 1999. Web site: http:// www.epa.gov/oms/transp/trafconf .html. 5.Memorandum from John Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, "Mid-Course Review Guidance for the 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas thatRely 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 ofAttaining the One-Hour Ozone Standard for Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas." John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir 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 ofthe Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). Web site: http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/(filename: "UAMREG").

8. U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use ofModeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment ofthe 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 andRadiation "Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM1oNAAQS." Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpgl tlpgm.html.

VII. How Doesthe Rhode Island Submittal Satisfy the Framework?

This sectionprovides a review of Rhode Island" submittal and an analysis ofhowthis submittal satisfies the framework discussed in Section V. of this notice.

A. WhatDidthe StateSubmit?

The attainment demonstration SIP submittedby the Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental Management for the Rhode Island area includes amodeling analysis using the CALGRID model. The SIP was submitted in proposed form onJanuary 27, 2003. The SIP is subject to public notice and comment and ahearing will be held onFebruary 27, 2003. Information on howthe photochemical grid modeling, the RACM analysis, the mid-course review and the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets are consistent with the CAA andEPA 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 Islandnonattainment area continued tohave airquality 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 attainby 2007.

Rhode Island chose a 2007 attainment datebecause it has determined that the
current violations are dueto upwind emissions, some ofwhich cannot be reduced until as late asthe beginning of the 2007 ozone season. The additional reductions thatwill occur in upwind
areas, aswell as in Rhode Island, include the following programs: (1) EPA's NOx SIP call, which willbe implemented byMay 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 andreduce the sulfurcontent offuel, and will be phased in beginning in 2004; (3)EPA's NOxrequirements for highway heavy-duty engines (i.e.,trucks andbuses), which beginning in 2004 require new dieseltrucks andbuses 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)

anumber ofupwind states will adopt

new VOC controls for architectural coatings and consumer products that will go into effect in 2004.

Rhode Island alsonotes thatNew York, New Jersey and Connecticut have CAA attainment dates of2007, 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 doto advance their attainment date. Attainment in Rhode Island will be achieved when transport ofozone into Rhode Island isreduced below the one-hour standard, andthe Rhode Island attainment plan discussed below shows this will not occur until November 15, 2007. Based onthis information, EPA agrees that an attainment date ofNovember 15, 2007 is

as expeditiously aspracticable andEPA
proposes approval ofthis attainment date forthe Rhode Island area.
B.How Was thePhotochemicalGrid ModelingConducted?

The key element ofthe 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 itwas found to be atleast 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 ofNantucket, Massachusetts. For the Rhode Islandnonattainment area, the domain is consistent with EPA guidance since itcontains adequate areas both upwind and downwind ofthe nonattainment area. The domain also includes the monitors with thehighest measured peak ozone concentrations in Rhode Island. Since the CALGRID modeling was done for a muchlarger domain that includes not only all of Rhode Islandbut also includes all of Massachusetts, most ofConnecticut, 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 ofimport
to this notice and the Rhode Island SIP submittal is the Rhode Island serious

ozone nonattainment area. For the
purposes ofthis notice, onlymodel results inRhode Island willbe used, unless otherwise noted. As shown below, EPAbelieves the modeling portion ofthe 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 andJuly 10-11, 1988). These episodes represent avariety ofozone conducive weather conditions, and reflect days with high measured ozone in avariety ofareas within the entire domain. This isbecause, 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 ofeach episode are not used for attainment demonstration purposes, because they

are considered "ramp-up days." Rampup days help reduce impacts ofinitial conditions; afterramp-up days, model results are more reflective ofactual 

### 7482

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

emissions being emitted into the atmosphere. Since the first day ofeach episode was not considered, this leaves six days for strategy assessment. August 16, 1987 was alsonot used for strategy assessment. This leaves five strategy days: August 15, 1987; August 17, 1987; June 22, 1988; July 8, 1988 andJuly 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 andusing extrapolation and other analysis techniques provided winds, temperatures and other meteorological parameters atapproximately 400 specific grid points for each hour ofthe episode up to 14 levels (i.e.,from the surface to top ofthe 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) database in late 1993 andreflect the emission data supplied from the six New England States. The emission data for the small portion of New York state thatforms the western edge ofthe domain was supplied by New York. EPARegion I quality assured allthe NewEngland AIRS data, the New York supplied data and all necessary modifications to the data. The data was further processed through the Emissions Preprocessor System (EPSVersion 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 dueto industrial growth, population growth and growth in the number ofmiles traveledby cars,

as well as emission reductions due to cleaner gasoline, cleaner cars and controls onindustrial pollution. Growth factors were derived using the EPAapproved Bureau ofEconomic 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 theNew England Domain, alongwith 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 otherfederal and state control strategies being implemented bythe beginning of the 2007 ozone season. This was accomplished using atwo-step process. The first step was to project emissions using growth factors to account for increases or decreases in economic activity byindustrial 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 ofinformation for control levels: those used for the OTAG modeling effort, and state-specific information relating to the effectiveness ofcontrol 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 onFebruary 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. WhatAre the ConclusionsFromthe Modeling?

The EPA guidance for approval ofthe modeling aspect ofa one-hour ozone attainment demonstration is to use the one-hour ozone grid modeling to apply

one oftwo 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 theJuly 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 ofthat 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 belowthe one-hour

ozone standard (0.124 ppm) at every grid cell for every hour ofevery strategy day modeled. The maximum predicted 2007 concentration in the Rhode Island nonattainment area for the relevant episodes is0.140 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 onthe border with Connecticut, and is the result of transportinto Rhode Island. Since the CALGRID model does not predict ozone concentrations below the one-hour

ozone standard (0.124ppm) at every grid cell for every hour of every episode day modeled, the strict deterministic
test is not passed. Although the CALGRID model, as runfor this analysis, does notpass 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 airquality design value. In this analysis, Rhode Islanduses 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 atthese three monitors by 2007 after taking into account anticipated emission reductions from the NOx SIP call andthe 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 bythe 2007 attainment date. The steps Rhode Island DEM usedin this analysis are discussed in the nextfour subsections.

1.Base Year Ozone Design Values

In the attainment demonstration, Rhode IslandDEM 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 resultsin a conservative analysis.

2. Ozone Reduction Between 1999 and 2007

The second step ofthis approach consists of comparing photochemical modeling run results in order to determine the predicted ozone reduction at each ozone monitor in Rhode Islandbetween 1999 and 2007. Modeling runswere not performed for 1997 but were performed for 1999. The Rhode IslandDEM's use ofmodeling results for 1999 is conservative since as emissions reductions that occurred between 1997 and 1999 are not 

### 7483

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7483 2003Federal 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 onlytwo days for which 2007boundary conditions are available) to estimate changesbetween 1999 and 2007.

The average predicted change in

ozone levels between 1999 and 2007

was determined for each 9-cellblock 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 bythe 1999 average modeled concentration, in order to calculate thepercent 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 designvalue by the percent ozone reduction predicted for each monitoring location derived in step 2, above. Ifthe resulting designvalue dropped below the onehour ozone standard, it isreasonable to

assume that the monitor can attain the one-hour ozone standardby 2007. Rhode Island showed in their submittal that the predicted 2007 design values for allmonitors 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 designvalue below the standard by 2007 as well.

For the West Greenwich monitor (the monitor currently with the highest designvalue), there was a reduction in

ozone levels of24 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. Forboth episodes, the future adjusted design value for the West Greenwich monitor is predicted to be below the one-hour ozone standard (0.105 ppm forJuly 8 and 0.124 ppm for July 11.)

It should also be noted thatRhode Island DEM performed this same analysis for allofthe ozone monitors in Massachusetts, NewHampshire and Maine that are alsoin the CALGRID modeling domain (i.e.,the areas downwind ofRhode Island that maybe 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 ofthese 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 aswell as other CAA
measures, but did not account for the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program. The Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program consists ofemission reductions due tomore protective tailpipe emissions standards for allpassenger 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 theroad today and to reduce the sulfur content ofgasoline by
up to 90 percent. This program, which does not achieve emission reductions until 2004 andbeyond, was not included in the CALGRID modeling analysis discussed above.

Rhode Island DEM, however, has looked at theEPA modeling performed in 199912 to assess the effectiveness of the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur.For three episodes in the summer of1995, EPA performed two sets ofmodeling 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 CAArun andthe 2007 Tier 2run for each county in the Rhode Island nonattainment area. As shown in their submittal, the benefit at all ozone monitors in Rhode Island is atleast an additional 0.001 ppm, over what

12 See "Technical SupportDocument forthe Tier
2/Gasoline Sulfur Ozone ModelingAnalyses," EPA420-R-99-031, December 1999. CALGRID predicted. The improvement
atthe East Providence monitor is 1%. The Tier 2modeling performed by EPA showed all 2007 design values for Rhode Islandless than the one-hour standard. This combined with the results ofthe CALGRID analysis addto the weight-of-evidence.

Rhode Island DEMbelieves it is reasonable to conclude that the design value atthe East Providence monitor for 2007 will be reduced by approximately 1percent oncethe Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program is implemented, which will resultin attainment ofthe 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 IslandDEM has demonstrated that substantial ozone reductions can be expected to occur after the implementation ofa number of control strategies that are in place both within and upwind ofthe New England Domain. Those strategies include EPA's NOx SIP Call as well as EPA's Tier 2/ Gasoline Sulfur program. Therefore, EPAbelieves itis reasonable to conclude thatthe 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 bythe Rhode Island DEM, EPAperformed an additional design value analysis using a slightly different method. EPAused the CALGRID modeling in a relative sense to estimate a future design value. EPA compared base case CALGRID runsto future case CALGRID runs to estimate the improvement in ozone air quality levels between thebase and future

cases. Four strategy days (August 15 and 17 1987; July 8, 1988 andJuly 11, 1988) 13 are used in this analysis, which compared the improvement in modeled air quality between the base andfuture 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 dayis notused because ofproblems re-analyzing thebase case modelrun for this episode. 

### 7484

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7484 2003Federal 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 ofthe four strategy days are averaged and a reduction factor calculated from the base case tothe future case. This reduction factor represents the amount ofozone reduced in this area, asthe result ofthe emission reductions modeled. This reduction factor isused
to adjust the average ozone design value for this part ofthe 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 ofEPA'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 tobe reduced below 0.124 ppm based on continued additional reductions within the domain and reductions upwind, reflected in the future yearboundary conditions, andthe benefits ofEPA's Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program.
7.Summary ofthe Ozone Modeling

In summary, the ozone modeling submitted for the Rhode Island area is consistent with the CAA andEPA guidance and demonstrates attainment. Otherinformation, which provides additional support for concluding the Rhode Island area will attain in 2007 are the ambient ozone data trends and a trajectory analysis ofexceedance days in the area.
D. WhatAre the ConclusionsFromthe Ozone Trends?

There are three ozone air quality monitors in the Rhode Island nonattainment area thathave data from 2000-2002. They are in the Rhode Island cities and towns ofWest Greenwich, East Providence, and Narragansett. The original serious classification ofthe nonattainment area

was based on data from the 1987 through 1989 time period. Since then andup 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 of20 percent. This site is
not in attainment, based on 2000-2002

ozone data. Atthe East Providence site, the one-hour design value has dropped from 0.138 ppm in 1988 (sitemoved from Providence to East Providence in 1997) to 0.127 ppm in 2002, for a drop of8 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 siteis 0.124 ppm, which isbelow the standard. To show how close West Greenwich and East Providence are to meeting the NAAQS

one can look atthe 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 isbelow 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. Atthe Truro site, the one-hour design value has dropped from 0.146 ppm in 1989 to 0.130 ppm in 2002, for

a drop of11 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 atthe fifth highest value over the same 3-year period 2000-2002, the fifth highest value atthe Truro site isbelow the level ofthe one-hour ozone standard.

Based onthe overall downward trend in one-hour ozone concentrations in Rhode Island, and because precursor emissions are projected tokeep 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 ofthe following: continued benefits from tighter standards onvehicles (National Low Emission Vehicles orCA LEV in upwind areas) due to fleet turnover; the reductions from large point sources due
to the OTC NOxBudget Program and EPA's NOx SIP call; otherfederal control measures such controls onnonroad engines; and the Tier 2vehicle and low sulfur gasoline program.
E. WhatDo the Ozone ExceedanceDay TrajectoryAnalysesShow?

Trajectory analysis is atool for assessing atmospheric transport and identifying likely source regions of locally measured air contaminants. The Rhode IslandDEM used the HYSPLIT4 (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model, developed by NOAA's Air Resources Lab (ARL), to compute backward trajectories.

To assess airflowpatterns on days when any Rhode Island monitor recorded exceedances ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS duringthe period 1999- 2002, 24-hour backward trajectories

were computed by the Rhode Island DEM. The surface-based trajectories (startheight of10 meters) for these days, indicators ofshorter rangetransport, follow a general track that crosses near the New Yorkmetropolitan area before turningnortheastward toward Rhode Island. These trajectories cross no high emission areas in Rhode Island. Upperlevel trajectories (500 and 1000 meters elevation), indicators oflong-range transport, generally begin farther west

over New York State, Pennsylvania or Ohio and follow amore west-to-east track, passing north ofthe NewYork 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 andprecursors when monitors inRhode 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, EastProvidence and Narragansett monitors only ifthe air reaching these monitors had previously crossed nearby high emission areas such

as the greater New Yorkmetropolitan

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. EPAconcludes that without the influence ofthe emissions fromthe greater New Yorkmetropolitan
area, no one-hour exceedances would have occurred atthese monitors. Attainment demonstrations already approved by EPAfor Connecticut and the New Yorkcity area show attainment willbe 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, EPAperformed its own trajectory analyses forthose days when there were exceedances ofthe 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 WestGreenwich, 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 ofthe days with ozone exceedances at these sites (Truro, MA, Fairhaven, MA, 

### 7485

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

Narragansett, RI, East Providence, RI andWest Greenwich, RI) support the Rhode Island DEM trajectories andthe CALGRID modeling which shows that the mostprobable source region ofthe exceedances atthese sites is areas to the south and west ofRhode Island, including Connecticut and the New York City area. Connecticut is less than 20 miles from West Greenwich or less than 2hours oftypical meteorological transport time. Details ofthis 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 CausesoftheRecent ViolationBeingAddressed?

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 atthe effectiveness ofNOx reductions versus VOC reductions byreducing each pollutant individually within the domain byvarying percentages (i.e., 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%). These sensitivity runs concluded thatreducing nitrogen oxide emission reductions is a
more effective ozone control strategy for the NewEngland Domain. Furthermore, in order to assess therole oftransport into the NewEngland domain, sensitivity modeling runs were preformed usingvery 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 thatupwind NOx reductions would be effective at reducing ozone throughout southern NewEngland, including in Rhode Island where the
current one-hour ozone violations

occur. From these sensitivity runs as well as itstrajectory analyses, EPA concludes that elevated ozone levels at the Rhode Island monitors are principally due to ozone andNOx generated in Connecticut and upwind

areas. Rhode Island DEM further concluded based onCAMx 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 YorkCity and NewJersey-will significantly reduce ozone levels at the Rhode Islandmonitors. Emissions of NOx and VOC will also be lowered in Rhode Island aswell, as a result ofthe 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 ofits submittal, Rhode Island DEM included the NOx emission reductions anticipated to occur in Connecticut, New YorkCity and New Jersey between 1999 and 2007 and between 2002 and 2007. The reduction between 2002 and 2007 was intended to illustrate thereductions thatcan be expected toreduce current air quality levels being monitored in Rhode Island. The NOxreduction expected to occur in Connecticut, New YorkCity and New Jersey between 1999 and 2002 is expected tobe 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 YorkCity and New Jersey is expected to be a bithigher, 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 ofits submittal, Rhode Island DEM also calculated the NOx andVOC emission reductions projected to occur between 1999 and 2007 in the Rhode Island area. VOC emissions in Rhode Island areprojected from 1999 to 2007
to go from 141.1 tons per summer day (tpsd)to 119.0 tpsd, which is a reduction of22.1 tpsd or 15.6 percent. NOx emissions inRhode 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 withthe 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 theRhodeIslandMid-Course Review ConsistentWithEPA 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 nowviolating the standard. Rhode Island DEM has submitted an attainment demonstration supplemented with aweight-ofevidence analysis; therefore, Rhode IslandDEM needs to commit to a midcourse review. The Rhode IslandDEM has committed to perform a mid-course review for this area by December 31, 2004.

H. Isthe RhodeIslandRACMAnalysis ConsistentWith the CAA andEPA Guidance?

The EPA has reviewed the SIP andthe RACM analysis submittal for the Rhode Island area to determine ifit includes all required RACM measures and sufficient documentation concerning available RACM measures. The RACM analysis willbe subject to a publichearing on February 27, 2003.

The trajectory analyses, which are discussed in greater detail in section VILE, indicate that elevated ozone levels
atthe three Rhode Island monitors are largely the result oflocal transport from upwind high emission areas in Connecticut, New YorkCity and New Jersey. 14In addition to what the Rhode IslandDEM submitted, EPAperformed

a trajectory analysis ofeach ofthe days during 1999 through 2001 when exceedances ofthe 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 ofRhode 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 thatRhode Island cannot attain the one-hour NAAQS without substantial NOx emission reductions in upwind states, andthat, since upwind controls will notbe 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-xmodeling discussed above indicate thatRhode Islandmust rely on significant emission reductions from upwind states in order
to attain the one-hour ozone standard, and that additional emission reduction

measures adopted inRhode 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 IslandDEM RACM analysis does review control measures that could

14These areas have approved attainment demonstrations and also have EPA-enforceable emission reduction strategies to bring about attainment ofthe one-hour standard by 2007. 

### 7486

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

reduce emissions ofVOC and NOxin Rhode Island and analyzed whether adoption of suchmeasures 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 couldbe adopted. The methodology used consists ofatwo-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 ifthey could provide sufficient benefits
to accelerate attainment in the Rhode Island area, and, ifso, analyzed ifthe

measures were feasible.

The methodology used by the Rhode Island DEM isbased on the RACM analysis performed by EPA for the Greater Connecticut serious ozone nonattainment area. See66 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 andnational 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 notbe effective candidates for additional controls that couldbe considered RACM, since these categories have only recently been required to reduce emissions orare 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 sixteenlargest 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 ofthe total VOC inventory from these three sectors. Rhode Island DEM then analyzed whether control requirements exist for each source category, and found thatin
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 willbe 12.44 tpsd. However, Rhode Island DEM
notes thatmost ofthe sources in the small surface cleaning sector, including allvapor degreasers and cold cleaners,

are regulated by Rhode Island Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulation No. 36, "Control ofEmissions from Organic SolventCleaning," whichbecame effective in 1996. This regulation incorporates control requirements from EPA's Control Technique Guideline (CTG)for this source category, as well

asthe requirements ofEPA's 1994 National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)for Halogenated SolventCleaners. These requirements represent Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). Rhode IslandDEM believes that any additional controlmeasures for this activity would result in relatively small decreases in emissions and would not accelerate the State's attainment ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS in emissions.

Control measures for the remaining VOC source categories were reviewed in

a similar manner, andthen Rhode Island DEM performed a similar analysis for the largest NOx emitting

source categories. Rhode Island's conclusion from this analysis is that, based onthe types ofmeasures reviewed and the costsofthese 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 ofstatewide mobile source emissions reduction programs including Stage 2vapor recovery, enhanced inspection andmaintenance, the national low emissions vehicle program, andreformulated 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 andthe TSD for this proposal) includes

measures aimed atincreasing bicycle, ferry andpublic 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 ofthese projects, and other similar programs that willbe funded with CMAQ monies in the coming years, will only achieve aminimal emission reduction of0.07tons per summer day ofVOC and 0.06 tons per summer day ofNOx. This small reduction in
precursors will not result in an acceleration ofthe attainment date. Since a large number ofmobile source emissions control programs are already being implemented and since additional

measures ofthe type thathave been fundedby CMAQ monies wouldnot accelerate the attainment date, Rhode Islandhas not identified any additional mobile source RACM measures. The Rhode IslandDEM's conclusion on mobile sources is thatRhode Island is currently implementing all reasonably available control measures for mobile
sources, since the benefits from these projects is minimal compared toRhode Island's own emissions and even smaller when compared to the transport ofozone and ozone precursors.

EPA concludes thatbased on the available information, there are no additional technologically and economically feasible emission control

measures inRhode Island that will advance the attainment date for the Rhode Island ozone nonattainment area. Thus no potential measure canbe 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 asnoted above

were upheld by the DC Circuit Court. The EPAtherefore proposes that the Rhode Island SIP is consistent withthe 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 WhatAboutMotorVehicleEmissions Budgets?

OnJune 8, 2001 (66 FR 30811) EPA approved the Rhode Islandpost-1996 planwhich included a 1999 VOC motor vehicle emissions budgets of41.57 tons per summer day VOC, aswell as a NOx budget of46.40 tons per summer day of NOx. These 1999 motor vehicle emissions budgets were formally determined adequate by EPA New England for use intransportation conformity on September 29, 1998. Subsequent to the rate-of-progress SIPs,

onJanuary 27, 2003, Rhode IslandDEM 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 inTable 3.EPAis proposing thesebudgets for approval. 

### 7487

HeinOnline -- 68 Fed. Reg. 7487 2003Federal 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 ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on certainprovisions ofEPA's 1997 conformity rule in response to a case broughtby the Environmental Defense Fund. As a result ofthe decision, a conformity determination cannot be made using the submitted motorvehicle emissions budgets until EPAmakes a positive determination thatthe submittedbudget is adequate. In
response to the court's decision, EPA issued guidance on our new adequacy

process on May 14, 199915

EPAbelieves thatthese motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for use in future transportation conformity analyses as thesebudgets meet all ofthe requirements set forthby 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
commentperiod on thesebudgets to run concurrently with the comment period for alloftoday's action. In addition, this Federal Register Notice will appear on EPA's Transportation andAir Quality planning website athttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/transpconform/adequacy.htm.All comments

onthese budgets shouldbe submitted to EPA using the procedure outlined earlierin this notice. j. Contingency Measures
Rhode Island addressed the contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) ofthe Clean Air Act by demonstrating that the emission reductions from the federal on-road
motor vehicle Tier 2tailpipe standards and sulfurin gasoline rules, and the federal non-road engine control program that accrue between 2007 and mid-2009, which isthe dateby which emission reductions from contingency measures would need to occur, will achieve more emission reductions than Rhode Island

15Memo from GayMacGregor, Director, Regional
and StatePrograms 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 itsthree percent attainment contingency obligation. We propose approval ofRhode Island's contingency measure submittal.

VIII. Proposed Action

EPA isproposing 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 byRhode Island on January 27, 2003. EPA isproposing an attainment date ofNovember 15, 2007 for the area, and isproposing that the RACM analysis for the Rhode Island

area is consistent with the requirements ofsection 172(c)(1). EPA proposes approval ofRhode Island's contingency

measures submittal, which is consistent with therequirements ofsection 172(c)(9) ofthe CAA. This notice also
proposes to approve 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets for Rhode Island into the SIP.

This SIP isbeing proposed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrent with the state's procedures for amending its regulations. Ifthe proposed plan is substantially changed, EPAwill evaluate those changes and may publish another notice ofproposed rulemaking. Ifno substantial changes aremade, EPAwill publish aFinal Rulemaking Notice on the revisions. Before EPA can finally
approve this plan Rhode Island must finally adopt the SIP revision and submitit formally to EPAfor incorporation intothe SIP.

EPA is solicitingpublic comments on the issues discussed in this proposal. These issues will be considered before EPA takesfinal 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 ofthe state submittal andEPA's evaluation are included in a Technical Support Document (TSD)prepared in support of this rulemaking action. A copy ofthe TSD is available upon request from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section ofthis document.
IX. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this actionis
not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore isnot subject toreview bythe Office ofManagement 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 andimposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 etseq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond thatrequired by state law, itdoes not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely 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 willnot 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 andIndian 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 onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely
approves a staterule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established inthe Clean Air Act. This rule also isnot subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks" (62FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, providedthat they meetthe criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence ofa 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. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15U.S.C. 272 note)do not apply. This rule does 

### 7488

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

not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: February 6,2003. Robert W. Varney, RegionalAdministrator, EPANewEngland. [FRDoc. 03-3698 Filed 2-13-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION

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 ofextension ofcomment period and notice ofintent.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the comment period onthe 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 ofan 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 ofthe following

means: (1)Bymail to the Facility, U.S. Department ofTransportation, room PL401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (2)Bydelivery toroom PL-401 on the Plaza level ofthe NassifBuilding, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366- 9329. (3)Byfax to the Facility at 202-493- 2251.

(4) Electronically through theWeb Site for the Docket Management System

athttp://dms.dot.gov.

The Facility maintains the public docketfor this notice. Comments, and related material as indicated in this notice, will become part ofthis docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401, on the Plaza level ofthe NassifBuilding at the same address between 9 a.m. and 5p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also access this docket onthe Internet athttp:// dms.dot.gov.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any ofour dockets by the

name ofthe individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted onbehalf ofan association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the FederalRegister published onApril 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions onthis notice, call or e-mail Tom Lawler, ChiefEconomist, Office of Great Lakes Pilotage (G-MW-1), U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone 202-267- 1241, or tlawler@comdt.uscg.mil.For questions onviewing, or submitting material to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief,Dockets, Department of Transportation, telephone 202-366- 9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests forComments

The Coast Guard encourages you to submit comments andrelated material concerning the NPRM on "Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes" published January 23, 2003, [68 FR 3203] in the Federal Register. Ifyou do so,please include your name and address, identify the docket number [USCG-2002- 11288], andgive thereasons for each
comment. You may submityour comments andmaterial bymail, delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; butplease submityour comments and material by only one means. Ifyou submit themby mail or delivery, submitthem in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. Ifyou submit them by mail andwould like to know they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments andmaterial received during the comment period. Background Information

OnJanuary 23, 2003, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register to update the rates for pilotage

on the GreatLakes. At apublic meeting conducted onJanuary 31, 2003, in Cleveland, OH, it received requests from the public to extend the comment period and to delay the issuance ofan IRuntil after the comment period has ended.

A comment submitted to the docket has similarly requested thatthe
comment period be extended by 45 days and an IRbe delayed until the comment period has closed.

We have decided to grant this request for an extension ofthe commentperiod fromMarch 10, 2003, to April 24, 2003, and to delay thepublication ofan IR until after the close ofthe comment period. The delay will allow the Coast Guardto collect and review all
comments before itissues an IR.

The Coast Guard has also extended the comment period to obtain comments

on two specific aspects oftheNPRM and to obtain industry-related information thatwill aid the Coast Guard in assessing the economic impact ofthe IR.

To assist the Coast Guard in analyzing the impact ofthe IR onindustry, the public should comment onthe following issues:

1. Determining the total cost of operating a vessel onthe 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 oftraffic and cargoes anticipated forthe 2003 navigational

season.

Dated:February 10, 2003. JosephJ.Angelo, ActingAssistantCommandant forMarine Safety,Securityand 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