# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 66 Fed. Reg. 586 2001

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Jun 17 11:32:31 2010

-- 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. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [DC-2025, MD-3064, VA-5052; FRL-6922- 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia; Post 1996 Rate-of-Progress Plans, OneHour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Attainment Date Extension forthe Metropolitan Washington D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) consisting ofthe Post-1996 rate-ofprogress (ROP)plans with transportation control measures andthe one-hour ozone attainment demonstrations for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. serious nonattainment

area (theWashington area) submitted by the District ofColumbia's Department of Health (DoH), Maryland's Department of the Environment (MDE) and by the Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality (VADEQ). EPA is also approving the request to extend the attainment date to November 15, 2005. The Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) requires EPA
to establish national air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain widespread pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution for the
purposes ofthe one-hour ozone NAAQS. The Post-1996 ROP plans and the one-hour ozone attainment demonstrations will result in significant emission reductions ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)in theWashington area. The intended effect ofthis action isto approve these SIP revisions as meeting the requirements ofthe Act. DATES: This final rule is effective on February 2, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection duringnormal business hours atthe Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; District ofColumbia Department of Public Health, Air Quality Division, 51 N Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002; Maryland Department ofthe Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland, 21224; and the Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179 or Janice Lewis, (215) 814-2185 atthe EPA Region III office above or e-mail Cripps.Christopher@epa.gov or Lewis.Janice@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sectionis organized to address the following questions:
A. What actions isEPA taking today? B.What Previous Action Has Been Taken on These SIPRevisions? C.What were the conditions for approval provided in the Notice ofProposed Rulemakings for thePost-1996 ROP plans and the attainment demonstrations? D. What amendments to the attainment demonstration SIP didthe Washington, DC area States' make since theDecember 16, 1999? E. What State enforceable commitments were needed for approval? F. What was the scope ofthe July 28, 2000 Supplemental Notice ofProposed Rulemaking? G. Whatwas the scope ofthe October 16, 2000 Supplemental Notice of Availability? H.When did EPA make a determination regarding the adequacy ofthe Motor VehicleEmissions Budgets for the Metropolitan Washington, DC area? I.What SIP elements didEPA need to take final action on before full approval ofthe attainment demonstration could be granted? J. Whatare the Clean Air Act measures relied

on for the post1996 and attainment demonstration SIP submission? K. What are the conformity budgets in the post1996 ROP plans and the attainment demonstrations? L. What happens to the 2005 budgets when States change theirbudgets using the MOBILE6 Model? M. What comments were received on the proposed approvals and how has EPA responded to those?

I. Background

A. WhatAction IsEPA Taking Today?

EPA is approving the Post-1996 ROP plans, the one-hour attainment demonstrations and attainment date extension submitted by DoH, MDE and VADEQ for the Washington area. The following tables identify submittal dates and amendment dates for the post-1996 ROP plans and the attainment demonstrations:



### TABLE 1.- POST-1996 ROP PLANS

DC MD VA

Initial submittal dates

........................... November 10, 1997

............................. December 24, 1997

............................. December 19, 1997. Amendment dates

................................ May 25, 1999

...................................... May 20, 1999

...................................... May 25, 1999.

TABLE 2.-ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATIONS

DC MD VA

Initial submittal dates

........................... April 24, 1998

...................................... April 29, 1998

........... .......... April 29, 1998. Amendment dates

................................ October 27, 1998

................................ August 17, 1998

.................................. August 18, 1998. Supplemental dates

............................. February 16, 2000

............................... February 14, 2000

............................... February 9, 2000. (MD SIP No. 00-01)

............................ Supplemental dates

............................. March 22, 2000

................................... March 31, 2000

................................... March 31, 2000. (MD SIP No. 00-02)

............................

TABLE 3.-ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION REQUEST

Initial submittal dates

........................... September 20, 1999

............................ July 16, 1999

....................................... September 3, 1999. Supplemental dates

............................. February 16, 2000

............................... February 14, 2000

............................... February 9, 2000. 

### 586

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 586 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 587

B. WhatPrevious Action HasBeen Taken on These SIPRevisions?

On September 28, 2000, and October 19, 2000, EPA published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking on the Post-1996 plans for the Washington area (65 FR 58243 and 65 FR 62658). On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70460), we proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstration and request for an attainment date extension for the Metropolitan Washington, DC area.

On February 22, 2000 (65 FR 8703), EPA published a notice of availability

onguidance memoranda relating to the
ten one-hour ozone attainment demonstrations (includingthe Washington area) proposed for approval

orconditional approval on December 16, 1999. The guidance memoranda are entitled: "Guidance onMotor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations" dated November 3, 1999, and "Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas" dated November 30, 1999.

On July 28, 2000, EPA published a supplemental notice ofproposed rulemaking (SNPR) on the attainment demonstration (65 FR 46383). In that supplemental notice, we clarified and expanded ontwo issues relating to the
motor vehicle emissions budgets in these SIPs. This supplemental notice is discussed in the section entitled "What

was the scope ofthe July 28, 2000 Supplemental Notice ofProposed Rulemaking?" below.

On October 16, 2000 (65 FR 61134), another notice ofsupplemental proposed rulemaking was published to specifically support the proposed attainment demonstration published on December 16, 1999 for the four serious

ozone nonattainment areas (including the Washington area). Originally, EPA established a commentperiod for this supplemental proposal ending on October 31, 2000. A notice extending the comment period onthe October 16, 2000 notice was published on November 2, 2000 (65 FR 65818). An additional notice correcting a typographical error was published on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67319). This supplemental notice is discussed in the section entitled "What was the scope of the October 16, 2000 Supplemental Notice ofAvailability?" below.

Comments received on all ofthe proposed notices listed in this section relevant to the Metropolitan Washington, DC area attainment demonstration, Post-1996 ROP plan and attainment date extension are discussed in section I.M. below.

C. What Were the Conditions for ApprovalProvided in theNoticeof ProposedRulemakings forthePost-1996 ROPPlansandtheAttainment Demonstrations?
OnDecember 16, 1999 (64 FR 70460),

we proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstration and request for an attainment date extension for the Metropolitan Washington, DC area. Our approval was contingent upon certain actions by Maryland, Virginia and the District ofColumbia ("theDistrict").

These actions were: 1.The District, Maryland and Virginia each had to adopt and submit an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget and concurrently submit alist of potential control measures that, when implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional emission reductions to ensure nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels contained in the attainment demonstrations considering growth. These measures could not involve additional limits on highway construction beyond those that could be imposed under the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget. The states andthe District needed to submit the revised budget andlist ofpotential

measures intime to allow EPA to determine thebudgets adequate by May 31, 2000.

2.The District, Maryland and Virginia each had to adopt and submit an enforceable commitment, or reaffirm an existing enforceable commitment to do the following: (a) Submit measures byJuly 1, 2000 for additional emission reductions, if
any, asrequired to ensure nonattainment area emissions in 2005

are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels.

(b) Submit arevised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget byJuly 1, 2000 ifadditional measures affect the motor vehicle emissions inventory. (c) Submit a revised SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget 1year after the mobile sources MOBILE6 model is issued (required only ifthe attainment SIPs include the benefits ofEPA's Tier 2/sulfur rule).

(d)Perform a mid-course review. 3.The District, Maryland and Virginia each had to adopt and submit arule or rules for additional emission reductions needed, ifany, to ensure nonattainment

area emissions in 2005 are equal to or less than the 1999 control strategy levels. Ifany ofthese adopted measures affected the motor vehicle emissions budgets, thenthe District, Maryland and Virginia each needed to adopt and submit a revised SIP that incorporated revised motor vehicle emissions budgets reflecting such measures. These rules and revised motor vehicle emissions budgets, ifany, needed to be submitted by July 1,2000.

D. WhatAmendments to theAttainment DemonstrationSIPdid the Washington, D.C.,Area States'Make SinceDecember 16, 1999?

The following is a summary ofsuch submittals which include submittal dates ofrevisions, the content ofthese submissions and other pertinent facts regarding these submissions:

On February 9, 14 and 16, 2000, Virginia, Maryland andthe District, respectively, submitted the "State Implementation Plan (SIP)Revision, Phase II Attainment Plan for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area"-dated February 3, 2000. Hereafter in this notice the phrase "the February 3 plan document" means the document entitled "State Implementation Plan (SIP)Revision, Phase II Attainment Plan for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area" that was dated February 3, 2000. These submittals contain the 2005
motorvehicle emissions budgets that include Tier 2/sulfurbenefits, commitments to a mid-course review and a list ofpotential control measures (from which a set ofmeasures couldbe selected)that when implemented, wouldbe expected to provide sufficient additional emission reductions to

ensure nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are equal to orless than the control strategy levels contained in the modeled demonstration of attainment. Also, they contain a demonstration that sufficient additional emission reductions are included to ensure nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are equal to or less thanthe 1999 control strategy levels contained in the attainment demonstrations considering growth.

On March 22 and 31, 2000, the District, Maryland and Virginia submitted the "Proposed Revision to State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Phase II Attainment Plan for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area, establishing the
outyear Mobile Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity"-dated March 22, 2000. (Hereafter in this notice the phase "the March 22 plan document" means the document entitled "Proposed Revision to State Implementation Plan (SIP)Revision, Phase II Attainment Plan for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area, establishing out year Mobile

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 587 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity" that was dated March 22, 2000.) These submittals amended chapters 1 and 9 ofthe February 3plan document. These submittals established outyearbudgets and submitted an enforceable commitment to revise the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget 1year after the MOBILE6 model is issued. In today's action EPAis acting only on the commitment found in section 9.1.1.2 entitled "Commitment to Revise Mobile Emissions Budgets" to revise the motorvehicle emissions budget one-year after the MOBILE6 model isissued. The portions ofthe March 22 plan document that establish outyearbudgets will be the subject of a separate rulemaking action.

E. What StateEnforceable Commitments WereNeeded forApproval?
Of the four enforceable commitments described in the December 16, 1999, NPR two are now moot: Numbers 2.a and 2.b described in the section entitled "What were the conditions for approval in our December 16,1999 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" above. The first is mootbecause EPA has approved the relevant rules. The Regional Administrator has signed the final action final approving the rules for additional reductions, and these final actions have been or shortly willbe published in the Federal Register. The second is mootbecause none ofthese

new measures affect the motor vehicle emissions budgets. Thus the relevant criterion for approving the attainment demonstration SIP is whether or not the States and the District have submitted SIP revisions to fulfill the other relevant conditions for approval set forth in the December 16, 1999 NPR.

Of the two remaining commitments regarding the mid-course review and revision ofthe motor vehicle emissions budgets using the MOBILE6 model, the States and the District submitted specific enforceable commitments in the February 3 and March 22 plan documents to meet these conditions.

F. What Was theScope oftheJuly28, 2000SupplementalNotice ofProposed Rulemaking?

On July 28, 2000, EPA published a supplemental notice ofproposed rulemaking (SNPR) on the attainment demonstration (65 FR 46383). In that supplemental notice, we clarified and expanded ontwo issues relating to the
motor vehicle emissions budgets in these SIPs:

First, we proposed a clarification of what occurs ifwe finalize conditional or full approval ofany ofthese SIPs based

on a State commitment to revise the SIP'smotor vehicle emissions budgets in the future. Under the proposal, the
motor vehicle emissions budgets in the approved SIP will apply for transportation conformity purposes only until thebudgets are revised consistent with the commitment andwe have found the new budgets adequate. Once

we have found the newly revised budgets adequate, then they would apply instead ofthe previous conditionally orfully approved budgets. Normally, revisions to approved budgets
cannot be used for conformity purposes until we approve the revised budgets into the SIP. Therefore, we proposed to clarify that when our approval ofthese 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations is based on a commitment to future revisions to the budget, our approval of the budget lasts onlyuntil revisions to satisfy those conditions are submitted and we find them adequate.

Second, we proposed that States may optto commit to revise their emissions budgets 1year after the release ofthe MOBILE6 model, as originally proposed

onDecember 16, 1999. Or, Statesmay committo a new option, i.e., to revise their budgets 2years following the release ofthe MOBILE6 model, provided that conformity isnot determined without adequate MOBILE6- derived SIP budgets duringthe second year. This proposal did not affect the Metropolitan Washington, DC area because the District, Maryland and Virginia have submittted an enforceable commitment to revise the motor vehicle emissions budgets within one year after the official release ofthe MOBILE6 model.

In addition, we reopened the
comment period totake comment on these two issues and to allow comment

on any additional materials that were placed in the dockets for the proposed actions close to or afterthe initial
comment period closed on February 14, 2000 (65 FR at46383, July 28, 2000). For many ofthe areas, additional information had been placed in the docket close to or since the initial
comment period concluded. In general, these materials were identified as consisting ofmotor vehicle emissions budgets, andrevised or additional commitments orreaffirmations submittedby the States (65 FR at 46387, July 28, 2000).

G. What Was the Scope ofthe October 16, 2000 Supplemental Notice of Availability? On October 16, 2000 EPApublished

aNotice ofAvailability and reopening ofthe commentperiod (65 FR 61134).

This notice was in regards to an analysis to evaluate emission levels of oxides ofnitrogen (NOx) andvolatile organic compounds (VOC) andtheir relationships to the application of
current and anticipated control

measures expected tobe implemented in four serious one-hour ozone nonattainment areas. This analysis was done to determine ifadditional reasonably available control measures (RACM) are available after adoption of Act required measures for the following serious ozone nonattainment areas: Greater Connecticut; Springfield, Massachusetts; Washington, D.C.- Virginia-Maryland; and Atlanta, Georgia. The EPAperformed this analysis inresponse to comments that

were submitted on the proposals on these areas' one-hour ozone attainment demonstrations. The EPA took action to propose approval (and disapproval in the alternative) ofthese areas' State implementation plans (SIPs) on December 16, 1999 (Greater Connecticut (64 FR 70332); Springfield (64 FR 70319); Metropolitan Washington (64 FR 70460); and Atlanta (64 FR 70478)). Thisinformation supplemented the December 16, 1999 proposals.

H. When DidEPAMake a Determination RegardingtheAdequacy oftheMotorVehicleEmissionsBudgets fortheMetropolitanWashington,DC Area?

The District, Maryland and Virginia submitted revisions to the attainment plan SIP for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area onFebruary 16, 14 and 9, 2000, respectively. These revisions contained revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for the attainment year of2005 with a list of control measures that,when implemented, wouldbe expected to provide sufficient additional emission reductions to ensure nonattainment area emissions in 2005 are equal to or less thanthe 1999 control strategy levels contained in the attainment demonstrations considering growth. On January 6, 2000, December 22, 1999, and December 28, 1999, the District, Virginia and Maryland, respectively, reaffirmed their existing enforceable commitments. The lists ofmeasures were identified in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 ofthe February 3, 2000 plan document.

On March 2, 2000, anotice was posted on EPA's website commencing the comment period onthe adequacy of the motor vehicle emissions budgets in these February 2000 SIP revisions for the Washington DC area. Thatnotice also informed the public thatthe entire revised attainment plan submitted by the District, Maryland and Virginia had been posted by them electronically. EPA'sMarch 2, 1999 website notice also provided a link to and the address for 

### 588

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 588 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

the website where interested members ofthepublic could access the attainment plan. EPA's adequacy public
commentperiod closed on April 3, 2000. No public comments were received pursuant to EPA's March 2, 2000 posting.We did receive comments

onthe adequacy ofthe budgets pursuant to our December 16, 1999 NPR. The
comments relevant to the adequacy determination ofthesebudgets were addressed in aresponse to comments document portion ofthe technical support document prepared for the adequacy determination. The finding that the budgets ofthe revised attainment plan are adequate were made in letters, dated May 31, 2000, from EPA Region III to the Maryland Department ofthe Environment, Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality andthe District ofColumbia Environmental Regulation Administration. In a June 8, 2000, Federal Register notice we announced that we had determined the budgets contained in the February 2000 submissions were adequate (65 FR 36439). These findings were effective on June 23, 2000.

These budgets included the benefits ofEPA's Tier 2/sulfur rule. The District, Maryland and Virginia have an acceptable commitment to revise the attainment year motor vehicle emissions budgets using the MOBILE6 model one year after the release ofthe MOBILE6 model.

L WhatSIPElementsDidEPANeed To TakeFinal Action onBeforeFull ApprovaloftheAttainment DemonstrationCouldBe Granted?

In the NPR for the Metropolitan Washington, DC attainment demonstration SIP published on December 16, 1999, EPAnoted in Tables 3through 6 the status ofmany ofthe control measures orpart D requirements ofthe Act for serious areas. Not all of these were approved on the date ofthe NPR. The following provides the status ofthese SIP elements:

On October 29, 1999, EPA approved Maryland's enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance SIP (64 FR 58340). On October 27, 1999, EPA approved the District's Non-CTG VOC RACT rule andrules for Stage II, surface cleaning and degreasing and graphic arts rule (64
FR 57777). OnDecember 28, 1999, EPA approved Maryland's andVirginia's national low emission vehicle (NLEV) SIPs (64 FR 72564).

OnJuly 20, 2000, EPA approved the District's national low emission vehicle (NLEV) SIP (65 FR 44981).

OnJuly 19, 2000, and October 6, 2000, EPA approved Maryland's and Virginia's, respectively, 15% VOC Reduction Plans (65 FR 44686 and 65 FR 59727, respectively). OnNovember 3, 1999, EPA approved Virginia's surface cleaning and degreasing rules (64 FR 59635).

Elsewhere in today's Federal Register EPA is approving Maryland's new

source review regulation for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area.

EPA is not crediting the Virginia attainment demonstration or Post-1996 ROP plan for measures from VOC

sources subject to the Non-CTG RACT

orthe expanded point source regulations to 25 TPY measure requirements unless source specific limits are approved into the SIP. One of the source specific rules was approved

onJanuary 22, 1999 (64 FR 3425) as well as a category specific rule covering lithographic printing operations on March 12, 1997 (62 FR 11334). The Regional Administrator ofEPA Region III has signed a final action approving the remaining source specific RACT rules. That actionhas been or will be published shortly in the Federal Register.

Maryland has a state-wide Non-CTG RACT rule which statutorily had to

cover 50 TPY sources in theWashington

area and which Maryland lowered the applicability ofthe Non-CTG rule to 25 TPY. Because EPA has not finished action on allthe source specific RACT determinations for otherparts ofthe state, EPA has not fully approved the state-wide Non-CTG RACT rule. However, Maryland has submitted RACT regulations for allrelevant

sources located in the Washington area, and EPAhas determined that Maryland is not taking credit for any RACT reductions from sources or categories of

sources in the attainment demonstration

or Post-1996 ROPplan for which there is not a SIP-approved RACT rule. These rules hadbeen approved into the SIP prior to December 16, 1999. These rules covered categories such as structural steel coating, explosives and propellant manufacturing, bakeries, and other categories. Further details are documented in the technical support for this final action.

On December 14, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed a final action approving the District's NOx RACT rule. That action hasbeen orwill be published shortly in the Federal Register.

On December 15, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed final actions approving Maryland's and Virginia's NOx RACT rules. The Virginia final approval also included RACT determinations for Non-CTG major VOC

sources. These actionshave been orwill be published shortly in the Federal Register.

On December 15, 2000, EPA approved into the SIP the Maryland's NOxbudget rule consistent with the OTC MOU Phase 11(65 FR 78416).

On December 14, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed a final action approving the District's beyond RACT rule forlarge NOx sources. That action hasbeen or will be published shortly in the Federal Register.

On December 14, 2000, EPA approved into the SIP two Virginia permits that impose a 0.15 pounds ofNOxper millionBTU heat input on emissions units at two electric generating facilities in the Washington area (65 FR 78100).

On December 14, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed a final action approving the Maryland's NOx SIP Call state-wide rule. That action hasbeen or willbe published shortly in the Federal Register.

J.WhatAre theCleanAirActMeasures Beliedon for thePost-1996and AttainmentDemonstrationSIP Siuhmi..qinn?

TABLE 3.-CONTROL MEASURES IN THE 1-HOUR OZONE POST-1996 ROP AND ATTAINMENT PLANS FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON NONATTAINMENT AREA

Control measure Type of measure Credited in post- Credited in at1996 plan tainment plan

Enhanced Inspection & Maintenance

.................................................... Federal Motor Vehicle Control program
................................................ NLE V

...................................................................................................... Reformulated Gasoline (Phase 1 & 2)

................................................... Transportation Control Measures (TCM)

............................................... Federal Non-road Gasoline Engine standards

...................................... Approved SIP

................................ F ederal

.......................................... Approved SIP opt-in

...................... State opt-in

.................................... Approved SIP

................................ F ederal

.......................................... Yes

................... Tier 1

................ Yes

................... Phase 1

............ Yes

................... Yes

................... Yes. Tier 1 and 2. Yes 1 Phase 2. Yes. Yes. 

### 589

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 589 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3.-CONTROL MEASURES IN THE 1-HOUR OZONE POST-1996 ROP AND ATTAINMENT PLANS FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON NONATTAINMENT 

### AREA-Continued

Control measure Type of measure Credited in post- Credited in at1996 plan tainment plan

Federal Non-road Heavy Duty diesel engine standards

....................... Federal

.......................................... Yes

................... Yes. Railroad Locomotive Controls

................................................................ Federal

.......................................... N o

..................... Yes. N

Ox RACT

............................................................................................. Approved SIP

................................ Yes

................... Yes

. N

on-CTG RACT to 50 tpy

...................................................................... Approved SIP

................................ Yes

................... Yes. VOC Point Source Regulations to 25 tons/year 2

............... . ..... ..... .... .... Approved SIP

................................ Yes

................... Yes. Stage II Vapor Recovery 3 & On-board Refueling Vapor Recovery Approved SIP; Federal

................. Yes

................... Yes.

(ORVR). AIM Surface Coatings

............................................................................ Federal

.......................................... Yes

................... Yes

. Consumer &commercial products

......................................................... Federal

.......................................... Yes

................... Yes. Autobody refinishing

.............................................................................. Federal

.......................................... Yes ................... Yes

. Surface Cleaning/Degreasing

................................................................ Approved SIP

................................ Yes

................... Yes. Open Burning Ban 2 .... .....

...................................... .. .... .... .... ..... ..... .... .... Approved SIP

................................ Yes

................... Yes

. Stage IVapor Recovery 4

................................. .. ..... .... .... .... ..... ..... .... .... Approved SIP

................................ Yes

................... Yes. Graphic Arts

........................................................................................... Approved SIP

................................ Yes ................... Yes

. H

eavy D uty Diesel Engines (On-road)

.................................................. Federal

.......................................... N o

..................... Yes. Beyond RACT NOx Requirements on Utilities

...................................... Approved SIP

................................ No

..................... Yes.

Notes: 1 To the extent NLEV not superceded byTier 2.

2 Maryland and Virginia only. 3 Reduction credits calculated for Maryland and Virginia only. The District required implementation of Stage II in 1985 for most sources, and claimed no reductions since 1990. (The District's Stage IIregulation was amended after 1990 to comply with the requirements for Stage IIcon- trols set forth in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. EPA has approved the District's rule into the SIP.

4 Reductions only in those additional areas in Maryland and Virginia thatwere added to the Metropolitan Washington D.C. area after 1990.

K. WhatAre the ConformityBudgets in thePost-1996ROPPlansandthe AttainmentDemonstrations?

TABLE 4.-TRANSPORTAT FORMITY BUDGETS FOR INGTON AREA

VOC (tons/ day)

Post-1996

ROP Plan 128.5 One-hour

Ozone AttainmentDemonstration

............ 101.8

EPA has concluded that th demonstrates attainment wit budgets and contains the me necessary to support thesebi

L. WhatHappensto the2005 When States ChangeTheirB UsingtheMOBILE6Model?

All States whose attainme demonstration includes the the Tier 2/sulfur program we to revise and resubmit their vehicle emissions budgets af releases the MOBILE6 model 22, 2000, March 31, 2000, an 31, 2000, the District, Maryla Virginia, respectively, submi commitment to revise the 20 vehicle budgets in the attain demonstrations within one y EPA's release ofthe MOBILE the State fails to meet its con to submit revised budgets us MOBILE6 model, EPA could finding offailure to implemeION CON- which would start a sanctions clock THE WASH- under Clean Air Act section 179. As we proposed onJuly 28, 2000, the final approval action we are taking
NOx (tons/ today on the 2005 attainment budgets day) will be effective for conformity purposes onlyuntil revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are submitted andwe 196.4 have found them adequate. In other words, the budgets we are approving today as part ofthe attainment demonstration will apply for conformity
161.8 purposes onlyuntil there arenew, adequate budgets consistent withthe States' commitments to revise the h these budgets. The revised budgets will apply h these for conformity purposes as soon aswe

asures find them adequate. udgets. We are limiting the duration ofour

Budgets approval in this manner because we are udgets only approving the attainment demonstrations and their budgets because the States have committed to nt revise them. Therefore, once we have effects of confirmed that therevised budgets are

rerequired adequate, they will be more appropriate
motor than the budgets we are approving for
ter EPA conformity purposes now.

-. On March Ifthe revised budgets raise issues d March about the sufficiency ofthe attainment nd and demonstration, EPA will workwith tted a States on a case-by-case basis. Ifthe 05 motor revised budgets show that motor vehicle
ment emissions are lower than the budgets we

ear of are approving today, a reassessment of 6 model. If the attainment demonstration's analysis nmitment will be necessary before reallocating the ing the emission reductions or assigning them make a to the motor vehicle emissions budget as nt the SIP, a safety margin. In other words, the area must assess howits original attainment demonstration is impacted by using the MOBILE6 model vs. the MOBILE5 model before itreallocates any apparent motorvehicle emission reductions resulting from the use ofthe MOBILE6 model.

M. What CommentsWereReceivedon theProposed ApprovalsandHowHas EPA Respondedto Those?

EPA received comments from the public on the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPR) published on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70319) for the Washington area's ozone attainment demonstration and Post-1996 ROP plan. Comments were received from the Robert E. Yuhnke onbehalf of Environmental Defense andNatural Resources Defense Council; the Midwest Ozone Group; and fromthe EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund (EarthJustice), on behalf ofthe following organizations: Virginia Chapter ofthe Sierra Club, Audubon Naturalist Society, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Environmental Defense, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Washington Regional Network forLivable Communities, Piedmont Environmental Council, and Southern Environmental Law Center.

EPA also received comments from the public on the supplemental proposed rulemaking published on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), in which EPA clarified and expanded on two issues relating to the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the attainment demonstration SIPs. 

### 590

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 590 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 591

Comments were received from Environmental Defense.

EPA received comments from the public on the supplemental proposed rulemaking published on October 16, 2000 (65 FR 61134) to support the proposed attainment demonstration published onDecember 16, 1999. In that notice, EPAmade available an analysis it had performed to evaluate emission levels ofoxides ofnitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) and their relationships to the application of
current and anticipated control

measures expected to be implemented in four serious one-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Comments applicable tothe Metropolitan Washington, DC area nonattainment

area were received from the EarthJustice.

EPA received additional comments on the District's Post-1996 ROP plans for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area from the EarthJustice in response tothe September 28, 2000 proposal (65 FR 58243) on the Post-1996 ROP plan submittedby the District, and from the EarthJustice, on behalfofthe Maryland and Virginia Chapters ofthe Sierra Club in response to the October 19, 2000 proposal (65 FR 62658) on the Post-1996 ROP plans submitted by Maryland and Virginia.

A summary ofthe comments received

onthis action are provided in section II "Response to Comments".

II. Response to Comments

The following discussion summarizes andresponds to the comments received

on all oftheproposed actions summarized in section I.B. above.

A. AttainmentDateExtensionPolicy

In these responses, EPA addresses both the comments received on this rulemaking and those received in Docket A-98-47 on its notice regarding "Extension ofAttainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas" 64 FR 12221 (March 25, 1999), insofar as here relevant. This includes responses to comments filed byEarthJustice and incorporated byreference in later
comments filed on proposed EPA actions onthe individual areas. General
comments on the policy are considered first. Then specific comments as applied
to the area are addressed.

1.Comments Received in Response to March 1999 Notice
Comment1:EPA does not have the legal authority to extend the attainment deadline for serious areas until hopedfor NOx reductions occur from upwind
states in response to the NOx SIP Call and/or section 126 actions

. Such an extension is not authorized by any provision ofthe statute. Itis not within EPA's discretion to extend the attainment dates for downwind areas classified as moderate or serious. The Act does not authorize EPA to extend attainment deadlines. Congress provided express attainment deadlines in the Clean Air Act, andEPA is without authority to create exemptions from them. Section 181 provides the only exception to the general rule that

areas must meet their attainment dates, and is the exclusive remedy. Section 181(a)(5) allows a one-year extension if the state has complied with all requirements and commitments in the applicable SIP andhad no more than

one exceedance in the attainment year. In section 181(a)(5), Congress provided other authority for extending attainment dates, but not to address effects of transport. See sections 181(a)(5). Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires reclassification for failure to attainby the attainment date. Section 182 requires submissions of attainment plansby the applicable attainment date. EPA's policy violates these express provisions. The statutory deadlines for attainment, the requirement that SIPs adopt measures adequate toprovide for attainment by the statutory deadlines, the statutory limitation on EPA's authority to extend attainment dates under section 181(b), andthe procedures to be followed in the
event an area fails to attain bythe deadline are unequivocal and unambiguous, and compliance is required under step one ofChevron. The extension policy is inconsistent with sections 182(b)(1)(A), 182(c)(2)(A) and 172(c)(1), which require each nonattainment area toprovide for attainment and submit SIPs providing for attainment by the applicable deadline. There is no exemption from these mandates for downwind areas that

can attain through local reductions, but find it difficult to do so. The EPA policy is also inconsistent with the Phoenix reclassification action, which statedthat EPA had no flexibility toprovide for attainment date extensions in that circumstance. In section 181(i) Congress refused to give EPA authority to extend attainment dates in light of reclassification.

Response 1:The absence ofan express provision in the Clean Air Act for an attainment date extension based on transport does not deprive EPA ofthe authority to interpret the Act to permit such an extension. Nor do the specific attainment date extension provisions in the statute preclude EPA's interpreting the statute to allow for an extension to account forupwind transport that has interfered with downwind attainment. Thisinterpretation is necessary to preventthe thwarting ofCongressional intentnot to unfairly burden downwind

areas. Invarious parts ofthe statute, Congress expressed an intent to accomplish this through provisions prohibiting transport, but these provisions failed to achieve the Congressional goal in timeto allow the downwind areas to meet their originally prescribed attainment dates.

The provisions of section 182 governing reclassification also do not prohibit EPAfrom interpreting the Act
to provide for an attainment date extension based on transport. EPA's policy of extending attainment dates for

ozone nonattainment areas affected by transport ofozone and ozone precursors represents areasonable effort to avoid the frustration ofCongressional intent to which a literal application offthe reclassification provisions would lead. Where a "literal reading ofthe statute would actually frustrate the congressional intent supporting it, [a court may uphold] an interpretation of the statute more true to Congress's purpose." EDFv.EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 468 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

In 1990, Congress established a classification scheme for ozone nonattainment areas thatprovided for those areas to be classified onthe basis ofthe severity oftheir ozone problems and for areas with more serious problems to be given more time to attain, but also required to implement

more control measures. As part ofthese provisions, Congress enacted the reclassification provisions under which

ozone nonattainment areas that failed to attain the ozone standard as oftheir attainment dates were tobe reclassified
to a higher classification, thereby receiving an extension oftheir attainment date, but also being subjected to additional control requirements. See section 181(b)(2).

On theirface, the reclassification provisions do notprovide for any exemption from the reclassification
process for areas affected by ozone transportfrom other States. However, EPAbelieves that, in light of developments since the enactment of the 1990 CleanAir Act Amendments, a literal application ofthose provisions to such areas would frustrate broader congressional intent. In this context itis important to recognize that, apart from the ozone reclassification provisions, the Act contains aprovision-section 110(a)(2)(D)-that obligates upwind
states to prohibit pollution-including

ozone andits precursors-from sources within the state that contribute significantly to nonattainment and

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 591 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

maintenance problems in downwind
states. Congress was cognizant ofthe need to control such emissions, and of the inequities between upwind and downwind sources that could result if upwind states did not impose emission controls ontheir sources that contribute
to downwind air quality problems. Congress thus sought to establish a regime that would eliminate such inequities.

The legislative history ofthe 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments regarding the enactment ofsection 110(a)(2)(E), the predecessor ofsection 110(a)(2)(D), and section 126 (a provision that allows EPA to directly regulate sources that significantly contribute to nonattainment in another state) clearly demonstrates this. The Senate Committee Report criticized the lack of effective "interstate abatement procedures" and "interstate enforcement actions" under existing law, which the Committee viewed as "resulting in serious inequities among several States, where one State may have more stringent implementation plan requirements than in another State." S.Rep. No. 95-127 at41, reprintedin 3 1977 Legis. Hist. 1416. It is reasonable to assume that Congress, when itenacted the ozone reclassification regime in 1990, would have expected thatupwind states would have in place implemented SIP provisions that would eliminate significant contributions, as required by section 110(a)(2)(D), by the time downwind areas were obligated to attain the ozone standard. Ifthat had happened, downwind areas that failed
to attain bytheir attainment dates would have failed to attain as a consequence oftheir own failures to adopt necessary controls, not as a consequence ofthe failure ofother
states to adopt and implement controls necessary to eliminate the contribution oftheir own sources to the downwind area's nonattainment problem.

Such controls were not in place, however, since, as explained in EPA's transport policy, it in fact took many years for EPA and the States to gain a sufficient understanding ofthe interstate ozone transport problem to determine the appropriate division of control responsibilities between the upwind and downwind States under the Clean Air Act. Itwas only through the work ofthe Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), which consisted ofmembers from states, industry and environmental groups, and EPA's subsequent NOx SIP Call, promulgated in October, 1998, thatthe division ofresponsibilities among the
states was established. Consequently, the fruits ofthose efforts-the implementation ofthe control measures in upwind states thatwere needed to eliminate the significant contribution of

sources in those states-would not ripen until 2003 or 2004, years after the statutory attainment dates for areas such

as Springfield, MA. Moreover, because the allocation ofresponsibility for transport was not made until late 1998, the prohibitions onupwind contributions under section 110(a)(2)(D) and section 126 could not be enforced prior to the attainment dates of areas such asWashington, DC, Greater Connecticut and Springfield, MA. Nor could Congress intend that the upwind

areas with later attainment dates accelerate the timetables provided for their own attainment as an indirect

means ofcontrolling transported pollution inthe absence ofdata on transport impacts.

To apply the reclassification provision ofsection 181(b) without taking into account the timing ofthe identification and implementation of the emission reductions needed to eliminate the significant contribution of the upwind states to the downwind
states would lead to the result thatthe downwind states' sources are required
to implement potentially costly control

measures to offset the effects ofupwind
state pollution-pollution that EPAhas

now determined must be prohibited under the Act and pollution that will

soonbe eliminated as aresult ofthe NOx SIP Call andby emissions reductions in upwind states with later attainment dates. Imposing on downwind areas the burden of controlling for pollution attributable to upwind sources would compound the inequities that Congress was seeking to avoid with the enactment of sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126, thereby frustrating Congressional intent. Moreover, such a result would be at odds with the kind ofconcerns that led Congress to adopt section 179B for international border

areas-concerns that areas not be held accountable for pollution over which they exercise no control. Section 181(b)(2) provides thatEPA should determine whether an area attained the standard "within six months following the applicable attainment date (including any extension thereof)." This reference to extensions in section 181(b)(2) is not limited to extensions granted under section 181(a)(5). Nor does section 181(a)(5) state that Congress intended it
to be the only source for an extension.

Moreover, section 181(a)(5) addresses only one specific type of an extension. The fact that Congress provided an extension based on air quality thatis near attainment at the time ofits deadline does notimply that Congress precluded the Administrator from conferring extensions based on other considerations-such as the case when air quality is affected by downwind transport. The principle underlying section 181(a)(5)-that areas should not be reclassified ifthey have done enough
to control local airpollution but are still
not able to attain-also applies in the

case ofdownwind transport. Section 181(a)(5) shows that Congress was not unalterably opposed to extensions of attainment dates without requiring an

area to be subjected toreclassification and the increased control burdens that
go with reclassifications. Indeed, section 181(a)(5) indicates that Congress wanted
to extend attainment dates without adding control obligations when an area had done whatwas apparently sufficient to bring it into attainment.

The United States Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit has previously held that EPAmay extend SIP submission deadlines even without explicit statutory authorization. In NaturalResources Defense Council,Inc.

versus EPA,22 F.3d 1125,1135-36,the Court upheld EPA's extension ofa statutory deadline for submission of
NOxrules and a NOx exemption request under section 182(f). Although the Court did not use the theory advanced by EPA, the court did find thatthe Agency had authority under the CAA to extend the deadline. EPAhad found that additional time wouldbe needed for States to conduct photochemical grid modeling in order to document the effects ofNOx reductions on an area. EPAhad found that "the time needed to establish andimplement a modeling protocol and to interpret the model results will, in a variety ofcases, extend beyond the November 15, 1992 deadline for submission ofNOxrules." EPAthus extended the submission deadline, provided the states could show that modeling was not available or did not consider effects ofNOxreductions and thatthe states submit progress reports

on the modeling. The DCCircuit upheld EPA's extension ofthe deadline and of EPA'stime to review the submissions and make an exemption determination. The Court foundthat "because only a single NOx RACT submission is required under the statute, it is logical
to infer that Congress intended data supporting exemptions tobe included in that submittal andthat the EPA have the full 14-18 months to review them and to make an exemption determination." Even in the absence of explicit statutory authority, the Court heldthat "had Congress foreseen the 

### 592

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 592 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

exemption timing problem, a matter outside the EPA's control, it would have elected to accord the EPA the full statutory review time." 22 F.3d at 1136. The court ruled that "under the circumstances here the NOx RACT deadlines were properly extended to further the Clean Air Act's purposes." 

### id. At 1137."

Here, similarly, EPA's and the states' inability, until the OTAG and NOx SIP Call process was completed, to document the impacts ofupwind areas

onthe attainment status ofdownwind
areas, andto assess and allocate responsibilities amongthe areas, caused

a delay in meeting the attainment deadlines. EPAbelieves that, had Congress foreseen this timing problem, it would have elected to accord the
states and EPAmore time to meet the attainment deadlines without imposing reclassification requirements on downwind areas. As in the case ofthe delayed photochemical grid modeling needed for the NOx submissions at issue in NRDCversus EPA,EPAhas shown that the ability to document and analyze

ozone transport was delayed. And as with the criteria imposed on areas seeking NOx submission extensions in NRDC,EPAhas required analogous showingsby the states, limiting the extensions tothose areas that document

atransport problem and that submit attainment demonstrations and adopt local measures to address the pollution that is within local control.

As for Section 182(i), it has no bearing

onthe authority ofthe Administrator with respect tothe attainment date extensions at issue here. Section 182(i) applies to the authority ofthe Administrator afteran area hasbeen reclassified, and relates to the setting of

an attainment date for the reclassified

area. It does not apply to an area thatis
not being reclassified, but rather isbeing granted an extension ofits attainment date that effectively defers the applicability ofthereclassification provisions. Here, EPA is authorizing an attainment date extension to relieve an

area from reclassification requirements, andthus 182(i) does not apply. The section explicitly applies to an area that has already been reclassified, and indicates nothing about the authority of the Administrator to extend an area's attainment date prior to a determination that the area mustbe reclassified. Nor does section 182(i) indicate Congressional intent to deny EPA authority to interpret the Act consistently withprovisions designed to prevent downwind areas from being forced to compensate for upwind pollution. Comment2:The Act does not authorize EPA to extend the time for implementation of adopted local control

measures. EPA's approach allows downwind areas to defer implementation oflocal measures until the extended attainment deadline, thereby precluding any determination that the local measures have achieved the degree ofemission reduction
necessary to provide for attainment when the upwind sources are controlled. EPAunlawfully proposes to allow attainment date extensions for downwind areas to implement local control measures. Under sections 182(b)(1), 182(c)(2)(A), and 172(c)(1), downwind areas must provide for attainment ofthe NAAQS, and EPA unlawfully seeks to lessen these statutory obligations.

Response2:As explained in Response 1, above, EPA's attainment date extension policy aimsto effectuate, not frustrate the intent ofCongress, by providing for an equitable allocation of responsibilities between upwind and downwind areas. Under EPA's interpretation, when an upwind area interferes with a downwind area's ability timelyto attain the standard, the downwind area retains the obligation to adopt all applicable local measures, and
to implement them as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by which the upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved. Moreover, EPA requires that the area submit an approvable attainment demonstration containing any necessary, adopted local measures and showing that, assuming the appropriate upwind emission reductions, the area will attain the 1-hour standard no later than the final NOx SIP Call and/or the upwind area's attainment date. Thus both the upwind and downwind areas

are held accountable for their respective shares ofthe emissions reductions required to achieve attainment in the

area. EPA views this coordination ofthe responsibilities ofthe upwind and downwind areas not as alessening of the statutory obligations, but as a reconciliation ofthem with the reality of air transport as we have come to understand it, and with the intent of Congress that areas make expeditious
progress towards attainment without sacrificing basic principles offairness. The attainment date extension policy thus will still lead to attainment as expeditiously aspracticable, taking into
account the upwind contribution. Indeed, given the impact ofupwind areas' contributions andthe need for upwind area emissions reductions, requiring local contributions earlier would not accelerate attainment, considering that EPA is requiring downwind areas to implement local controls as expeditiously aspracticable. Moreover, the difficulty ofassessing relative contributions and responsibilities ofupwind and downwind areas until the completion of the OTAG effort andthe NOx SIP Call lends support to extending attainment deadlines in these circumstances, even without express statutory permission. See NRDCversus EPA, discussed supra, in Response to Comment 1.

Comment3:Reclassification alone has

no immediate or mandated regulatory
consequence. ASIP revision can consist ofa showing that attainment will result fromimplementation ofemission reductions already required pursuant to the SIP Call. EPA's Extension Policy is inconsistent with Clean Air Act sections 179 (c) and (d). This provision does not require additional local control

measuresbeyond those previously approved implemented by the State if adequate control measures have been adopted for upwind areas and are in the
process ofbeing implemented.

Response3:Reclassification does impose regulatory consequences. Section 182(i) requires that "each state containing an ozone nonattainment area reclassified under section 181(b)(2) shall
meet the requirements ofsubsections (b) through (d) ofthis section as may be applicable to the area asreclassified." Thus the area must meet the more stringent requirements ofa higher classification, including new source review offsets and changes in cutoffs for permitting. The provisions ofsection 181(b) apply to reclassification ofozone
areas. Sections 179 (c) and (d) donot apply to ozone areas that are classified

as marginal, moderate, or serious, which

are subject tothe requirements of section 181, ifEPA determines thatthey failed to attain the ozone standard as of the applicable attainment date pursuant to that section.

Comment4:Sections 176 and 184 of the Act do not support EPA's extension policy. Congress left no room in the
statute for attainment date extensions for downwind areas, considering instead the additional recommended OTC control measures for upwind areas to be sufficient. Sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A) do not authorize the EPA policy. Section 110(a)(2)(D) imposes aburden only on upwind states and does not relieve downwind states oftheir obligation to attainby the pre-set attainment dates. EPAlacks the authority to rewrite the extension authority Congress wrote into sections 181 (a)(4) and (b)(3). Congress

was well aware ofthe transportproblem 

### 593

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 593 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

and addressed it in explicit provisions, including section 110(a)(2)(D), section 110(a)(2)(A), section 184, section 176A, section 126, section 182(h), and section 181(a)(4). Thus Congress knew howto address pollutant transport and howto draft an attainment date extension addressed to itwhen itwished to do so. It also provided forvoluntary reclassification under section 181(b)(3)
to be available for downwind areas that

are affected by transport. Congress dealt with transport explicitly in sections 181(a)(4), 182(h) and 182(j)(2). Congress knew how to exempt transport-affected

areas from control requirements ifit wanted to, as it did for rural transport

areas under section 182(h). Congress limited relieffor areas subject to transport to exemption from sanctions, but did not extend this to section 110(c) FIPs. H.R. 101-490, at 248. This shows Congress' intent to apply all ofthe Act's enforcement tools except for sanctions under section 179. Congress considered the effects oftransport, but not in the reclassification context. Congress did provide for attainment date extensions, but not in this context.

Response4:Having crafted provisions in the 1990 Amendments that it believed would be adequate to address the problem ofdownwind nonattainment, Congress did not expressly provide for an attainment date extension based on transport. But the absence of such a provision does not prevent EPA from inferring that Congress would have intended to provide such reliefshould the express provisions fail to function as envisioned. In fact, the manner in which Congress did address the issue of transport shows thatEPA's interpretation is consistent with Congress' approach in other sections of the Act. EPA's interpretation resolves the problem that arose when the express statutory tools failed to function as Congress had envisioned. It also, as EPA pointed out in its guidance, 61 FR 14441 (March 25, 1999), provide a means to reconcile the attainment demonstrations and attainment date requirements for downwind areas with the graduated attainment date scheme and schedule for achieving reductions in the upwind

areas. Although Congress intended that upwind areas be responsible for preventing interference with downwind areas' attainment dates, it also expressly allotted more time for certain upwind

areas toreduce their emissions so as to attain the standard.

Sections 110(a)(2)(D), 126, 184 and 176, provide principles for dealing with transport, mostimportantly the principle thatupwind areas be held accountable for reducing emissions that interfere with the ability ofdownwind

areas to attain the ozone standard. EPA disagrees with commenters that Congress intended section 110(a)(2)(D) andthe other transport provisions to exclude the possibility ofrelieffor downwind areas evenifno timely and adequate recourse against transport was in fact available to them. These sections
express Congressional intent that downwind states not be saddled with responsibility for pollution beyond their control. Their premise was thatthere would be ameans ofredress against upwind states prior tothe downwind area's attainment date-a means that also would not be at odds with Congress' decision to provide longer attainment periods for upwind areas confronting onerous pollution problems. But, as EPA pointed out in its guidance, there was in fact no practicable way to carry out the Congressional scheme until a much more comprehensive understanding ofthe complex facts of

ozone transport couldbe achieved.

Although Congress in the 1990 Amendments andin prior versions of the Clean Air Act attempted to deal with the issue oftransport, the reality ofthe problem proved far more complicated and intractable than expected. As explained in EPA's guidance, 64 FR 14441 (March 25, 1999), ittook many years for EPA and the states to study, analyze, and attempt toresolve the allocation ofresponsibility for transported ozone pollution. EPA's initial efforts included a policy memorandum addressing the issue of overwhelming transport in 1994. The Ozone Transport Assessment Group was launched in 1995. Through this collaborative process, EPA, 37 states and industry and environmental groups tackled theproblem ofallocating responsibility for transport in its Overwhelming Transport Policy.During the period required for this effort, the resolution ofregional transport issues

was held in abeyance. Itwas not until late in 1998 that the conclusion ofthe OTAG and SIP Call processes resulted in assignments ofresponsibility that could assistin the design ofSIPs and the formation and implementation of attainment demonstrations. 63 FR 57356 (Oct 27, 1998) (NOx SIP Call Rule). In May 1999, these efforts were reinforced when EPA approved petition submitted under Clean Air Act section 126 by northeast states to mandate federal controls onutilities and other large NOx emitters in upwind States. 64 FR 28250 (May 27, 1999) (Section 126 Rule). A

more detailed description ofthe history ofefforts to address ozone transport through the 1990's may be found in the preambles to these rulemakings. 63 FR 57360-63, 64 FR 28253-54.

Even after the NOx SIP Call rulemaking was complete, it was temporarily placed in doubt when the Court stayed the SIP Call rule pending judicialreview. The court has ordered
NOxSIP Call SIPS to be submitted by October 30, 2000, andto require sources to implement controls by May 31, 2004.

Thus, although Congress in the Clean AirAct had formulated aprohibition on transportinterfering with downwind attainment, itremained largely theoretical until EPA and the states could understand how to identify, quantify, and analyze the transport of emissions, and develop regulatory

means to coordinate the respective responsibilities ofa multitude of upwind and downwind areas. Although Congress endowed EPA and the states with legal tools to protect downwind

areas from interference with attainment, itdid notgive them the ability to use the tools in the time frame anticipated by Congress. By the time EPA andthe
states gained an understanding of regional transport sufficient to allow enforcement ofthe provisions ofthe Act, itwas too late to help some downwind areas meet their attainment dates. Thus itis spurious to argue that EPA and the States could have sought and obtained meaningful relief earlier under section 126 and section 110.

The fact that upwind states are subject
to the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D) but other countries are not provides a possible explanation as to why Congress explicitly provided that

ozone nonattainment areas not be reclassified upwards ifthey would have attainedby their attainment dates "but for emissions emanating from outside" the United States (section 179B(b)) but provided no such express exemption fromthe reclassification provisions in the case of domestic transport. See IV 1990 Legis. Hist. 5741-42 (remarks of Sen. Gramm introducing the international provision and Sen. Baucus supporting it; Senator Gramm stated: "It is unfair to holdEl Paso accountable for pollution thatis generated in a foreign country that they have no control over. So what this amendment does it says that in assessing whether or not the State implementation plan hasbeen met, and when assessing the levels of

ozone * * * pollution that isbeing generated across theborder has to be taken into account so that our cities and regions will bejudged based onwhat they do. * * * [The State, region and city] will have the opportunity to come to EPA and saythat they are in compliance in terms oftheir emissions, thattheir failure to meet the overall 

### 594

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 594 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 595

standards is due to something that is happening in a sovereign foreign country over which they exercise no control." Senator Baucus stated that, "It is clear that cities like El Paso inthe State ofTexas do not have control of their own destiny themselves. Much of the air that affects them is from outside, from another country, over which the Senator said the State ofTexas and EPA in this country has virtually no control."). Congress assumed that EPA would have control over domestic transport under section 110(a)(2)(D), so it saw no need to enact a domestic counterpart to section 179B. As set forth in EPA's responses and the history of EPA and the states' efforts to understand and control transport, Congress' assumptions were not realized.

As set forth in Response 1 above, Congress intended, through enactment oftheprovisions addressing transport citedby commenters, to prevent downwind areas from being held accountable for pollution over which they exercise no control. Because ofthe complexity ofthe transport problem, EPA and the states could not deploy these statutory provisions in time to achieve attainment by their original attainment dates. But this does not

mean that Congress would have intended EPAto construe the very provisions designed to protect downwind areas as precluding EPA from interpreting the statute to provide the reliefthatthose provisions failed to furnish. Notwithstanding the absence of

an express provision for an attainment date extension based on transport, EPA believes that, taking into account the Act read as a whole, Congressional intent supports EPA's interpretation of

an attainment date extension in the circumstances presented here.

Commenters argue thatthe fact that Congress formulated various provisions addressing certain specific types of issues concerning transported pollution, but did not provide for an explicit attainment date extension based on transport, should be taken as proofthat Congress meant to preclude such relief. But each ofthe provisions citedby
commenters-to sections 181(a)(4), 182(h) and 182(j)(2)-was designed to address a different problem from the

one EPA addresses here, and none undermines EPA's interpretation that Congress intended to provide reliefin the situations currently confronted by downwind areas. As shown in EPA's previous responses, Congress expressed its intent in the transport sections to protect downwind areas from the burdens oftransported pollution, but the mechanisms itprovided could not be invoked in time. As for the sections referenced by commenters, Section 181(a)(4) concerns the potential for adjustment ofthe original classification ofan area ifits design value is within a certain margin. It allows the Administrator to consider

anumber offactors, including among them transport. This provision in no way casts doubt on the Congressional intent not to penalize downwind areas through mandatory reclassification shouldthey later fail to attain the standard due to transport. Section 182(h) provides a mechanism for original classifications ofrural transport

areas as marginal areas, the lowest level ofozone nonattainment areas. Far from indicating that Congress did not intend relieffor areas that are victims of transport, this provision reflects Congressional concern with not burdening areas with responsibility for transport not oftheir making. It sheds

no light on whether Congress would have intended EPAto reclassify areas suffering from transported pollution if they were subsequently unable to meet their attainment dates.

Nor, as commenters suggest, would so-called "voluntary" reclassification under section 181(b)(3) furnish an adequate remedy for the situation confronting areas that fail to attain due
to interference from transport. An area that felt constrained to seek "voluntary" reclassification would still be forced to subject itselfto more stringent requirements to control local pollution in lieu ofimposing onupwind areas the responsibility for the transport they caused.

Comment5: The states had power to timely submit SIPs controlling local pollution to the full extent that itwas in the state's power to require, and combine it with arequest toEPA to invoke EPA's authority to control upwind pollution, and in this way the
state could have attained bythe applicable deadline. EPA's 1994 overwhelming transport policy required transport modeling tobe documented the same time as the attainment demonstration due in 1994. There is no justification for allowing states to request attainment date extensions based ontransport ofwhich they were

aware many years ago. An opening is created for upwind states to argue that the NOx SIP Call effectively accelerates their attainment dates. The OTC was to recommend measures tobring about attainment by the deadlines "in this subpart."

Response 5: As pointed out in EPA's Response 4, above, an awareness that transport was occurring isnot equivalent to an abilityto identify, analyze, and control the emissions that cause it. This ability, which grew out of years ofstudy andjoint effort, did not coalesce until late in 1998. Thus, downwind states were faced with the prospect ofhaving to shoulder responsibility for pollution not oftheir making-a responsibility that Congress did not intend to impose onthem, even

as they were aware ofan ongoing effort, involving EPA and thirty-seven states, to allocate responsibilities for transport through the OTAG process. As EPA statedin its guidance on the attainment date extension, the state ofknowledge about and the abilityto document and model transport has advanced considerably since the issuance ofEPA's overwhelming transport guidance. The
commenters seek to ignore the climate ofuncertainty in which states and EPA

were operating with respect to controlling transported pollution. Section 110(a)(2)(D) and 126 are not self-executing, and until the culmination ofthe OTAG process, downwind areas inthe OTAG region could not determine what boundary conditions they should assume in preparing attainment demonstrations and determining the sufficiency oflocal controls to bring about attainment. Meaningful reliefunderthese provisions simply was not available earlier.

But even with the allocation of responsibilities now available, EPA believes that Congress did not intend to accelerate the obligations ofupwind
states so that downwind states can meet earlier attainment dates. This would undermine the objective, firmly embodied in the graduated attainment framework ofthe CleanAir Act, to allow upwind areas with more severe pollution longer attainment deadlines. Upwind areas with later attainment dates still find itdifficult to reduce emissions solely to control for transport without accelerating the time frames intended byCongress. It is unrealistic to expect upwind areas to be able to segregate out the reduction ofemissions for purposes oftransport from the reduction ofemissions for purposes of achieving attainment in the upwind

area.

The fact, as a commenter points out, that Congress envisioned that the OTCrecommended measures would bring about attainment by the dates "in this subpart" reflects Congress" over optimistic view thattransport would be understood and controlled in time to allow upwind areas to be held accountable for their contributions to downwind nonattainment. The
comment underscores thatCongress expected upwind reductions to take place by the time the downwind area

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 595 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

was supposed to attain-this confirms that Congress expected thatupwind pollution would be controlled prior to downwind attainment deadlines, and that only local pollution would remain

as the downwind area's responsibility. But, as we previously stated, the time line for analyzing and assessing transport, and the resulting ability to implement appropriate measures to control upwind pollution, did not keep
pace with Congress's expectations. EPA is extending attainment deadlines in order to allow upwind areas to assume responsibility for the pollution they generate andthat is transported across State boundaries, andto fulfill the Congressional intent that downwind

areas notbe saddled with this burden.

Comment6:EPA's decision directly conflicts with NRDCv. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994), where the Court held that EPA could not extend a clear statutory submission deadline.

Response6:To the contrary, EPA believes that NRDCv. EPAsupports EPA's authority to issue the attainment date extensions at issue here. In that

case the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the DC Circuit upheld EPA's extension of SIP submittal deadlines even though such extensions were not expressly permitted by the Clean Air Act. See the discussion in Response to Comment 1, above. The Courtrelied in part on the need for additional time toundertake photochemical modeling to document the impact ofNOx reductions on individual areas, an effort that took

more time than Congress anticipated. Here, the effort to document, model, and analyze regional ozone transport issues and assess responsibility for relative contributions is,ifanything, more complex than the NOx exemption showings for which the Court upheld deadline extensions in NRDCv. EPA. The Court's reasoning in NRDCv. EPA shouldbe fully applicable to the policy
at stake here.

Comment7:Acommenter concedes that "EPA's delay in establishing the mandatory emission reduction targets for upwind States might justifythe delay in adoption of adequate section 110(a)(2)(D) measures bythe upwind states," but concludes thatthe delay "cannot justify delaying the obligation ofdownwind States to implement all the local measures necessary for attainment by the statutory deadline." One commenter, while acknowledging that it "does not take issue with EPA's objective of accommodating the delayed control contributions from upwind areas," contests EPA's claim ofauthority
to extend attainment dates. This
commenter suggests thatthe appropriate remedy isfor EPA to authorize states to take credit for mandated emission reductions when preparing attainment demonstrations and determining the degree oflocal controls needed to attain.

Response 7:While the commenter recognizes that there was a delay in understanding and regulating transported pollution that "might justify the delay" in upwind states adopting section 110(a)(2)(D) measures, and agrees with EPA's objective in taking this delay into account, the commenter's proposed solution fails to address the problem it acknowledges. The
commenter suggests allowing areas to take credit when theyprepare their attainment demonstrations-but this solution addresses onlythe planning requirement, and does not assistthe

areas in solving the problem offailing
to meet their attainment deadline. It is
to address this issue, and to effectuate Congressional intent to avoid penalizing downwind areas in these circumstances, that EPAhas formulated the attainment date extension. The delay in ascertaining the amount and achieving the reality ofupwind reductions-a delay conceded by commentersresulted in uncertainty in a downwind area's abilitynot onlyto plan for attainment, but to realize it.

This comment alsohighlights the difficulties thatEPA's attainment date extension policy was designed to address: namely thatthe states andEPA

were (1)not able to assess relative contributions until itwas too late to implement the controls to bring about attainment; and (2)upwind areas with longer attainment dates should not be required to accelerate their reductions in time to help bring about attainment

as scheduled in affected downwind

areas with earlier attainment dates. As the policy explains, the determination ofrelative upwind and downwind contributions andthe allocation of responsibility for determining controls did not occur in time for a number of

areas to meet their attainment deadlines.

Comment8:EPA's approach allows emission reductions from motor vehicles to be deferred beyond the deadlines currently required bythe Act. The policy allows deferral ofconformity budgets beyond the statutory attainment
year. Itis also inconsistent with statutory requirements for reasonable further progress in section 182(c)(2)((B), for implementation of allreasonably available control measures as expeditiously aspracticable in section 172(c)(1), and for requiring that transportation plans andTIPs "will not delay timely attainment ofany standard

or

...othermilestones in any area in section 176(c)(1)." Response8:EPA disagrees with the
commenter thatthe policy allows deferral ofmotor vehicle emission reductions and reasonably available control measuresbeyond dates contemplated inthe Act. The statute requires SIPs to provide for attainment

as expeditiously aspracticable andfor reasonable further progress as necessary to provide for attainment. The motor vehicle and RACM measures the
commenter is apparently referring to are not specific measures that the statute requires to be implemented by a fixed date. Rather, they are whatever motor vehicle and RACM measures are necessary to provide for attainment and RFP by the applicable attainment date. Thus, whatever attainment date is applicable, either byvirtue ofthe statute

or an attainment date extension, defines the outside date bywhich motor vehicle and RACM measures necessary to provide for timely attainment must be implemented. Adetermination must thenbe made whether any additional

measures could advance that date, but the analysis is keyedto the established attainment date. The commenter also complains about delays in establishing budgets for conformity purposes, and requirements that transportation activities not delay timely attainment. Again, these issues are not relevant to establishing an appropriate attainment date. Motor vehicle emission budgets for conformity purposes are those budgets that are established for the attainment year. The Act does not require that these budgets be set for any specific year,but rather contemplates that they will be established forthe attainment year. Where EPA has properly determined that an attainment date extension shouldbe granted, conformity budgets

are required for the extended attainment
year; they are no longer required for the superseded attainment year. The requirement thattransportation activities not delay timely attainment is

a duty imposed on transportation planning agencies to insure thattheir activities will not interfere with attainment ofthe standard bythe applicable attainment date. This duty is irrelevant to establishing the appropriate attainment date in the first instance. Once an applicable attainment date is established, transportation planners must insure thattheir activities will not delay attainment by that date.

Comment9:A commenter argues that underthe terms ofsection 188(e), an extension ofthe PM attainment date may notbe granted unless the State demonstrates thatthe area's SIP contains "the most stringent measures that are included inthe implementation 

### 596

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 596 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 597

plan of any State or are achieved in practice in any Sate, and can feasibly be implemented in the area." Moreover, section 188(e) provides for consideration oftransboundary emissions from "foreign countries," not from U.S. sources. EPA's proposed

ozone nonattainment extension policy includes neither ofthese limitations.

Response9:The provision citedby
commenters applies the PM-10 standard, and is not applicable to attainment dates for ozone. Moreover, the regulatory regimes applicable to

ozone and PM-10 are quite different, as
are the types oftransport issues that arise with respect to these two different pollutants. The issues EPA and the
states confront with respect to longrange regional transport ofozone do not apply to PM-10. Beyond that, section 188(e) embodies a standard of" impracticability" as a basis for seeking

an extension for a PM-10 attainment deadline. With respect to the ozone attainment deadlines at issue here, EPA is not granting extensions solely on the grounds ofimpracticability ofattaining the standard, but rather, that Congress intended both upwind and downwind

areas tohave an opportunity tobear the responsibility for their respective contributions to an area's attainment problems. Comment10:EPA's effort to "manufacture a conflict" between the statutory deadlines and transport provisions fails, since these provisions
must be read together so that the upwind area's "obligation to control pollution affecting the downwind areabe it interstate or intrastate-falls due

no later than the downwind area's attainment date." EPA's argument that

areas with longer attainment dates be given additional time ignores the statutory requirement that areas attain

as expeditiously as practicable, even if that results in attainment before section 181(a)(1)'s outer deadlines. The section 181 attainment deadlines are "outside limits." A commenter argues that Section 181(a) does not prevent upwind

areas from abating pollution in downwind areas in time to meet the downwind area's attainment date. EPA's policy cannot be defended as necessary to reconcile 181(a) with the Act's antitransport provisions. Upwind areas shouldbe able to control pollution contributing to downwind area's nonattainment even before reaching their own later-prescribed attainment dates.

A commenter disputes EPA's interpretation ofthe language in section 110(a)(2)(D)(1) that SIP provisions prohibiting emissions which cause transport be "consistent withthe provisions ofthis subchapter." EPA shouldinterpret theprovisions to respect the attainment schedules of sections 181 and 182, and address transport separately. No reference is made to any legislative history that would legitimize EPA's reading. An upwind area's obligation to control transported pollution does not depend

onits own timetable for attainment. EPA's policy excuses upwind area's responsibility from their obligations under sections 110, 176A and 184, exempting them via granting extensions
to downwind areas. The policy defers downwind action until the upwind area attains.

EPA improperly assumes thatit would notbe practicable for upwind

sources toreduce emissions contributing to downwind nonattainment prior to the time such reductions would be required to attain in the upwind area. The presumption shouldbe precisely the opposite: unless the upwind state can show that such reductions are impracticable, EPA should assume suchreductions can be made attimes to eliminate the upwind state's contribution to nonattainment downwind bythe downwind area's attainment date. EPA's rule eliminates the Act's requirement that attainment be accomplished as expeditiously as possible. Section 184 indicates Congressional intent thatupwind areas make reductions ifnecessary to permit downwind areas to attain bytheir statutory deadlines.

Response 10:EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that it has "manufactured a conflict." Rather, EPA believes that itrecognizes andresolves the real tension between the statutory deadlines and the transport provisions. EPA explained this tension in its guidance onthe attainment date extension policy. See also EPA's response to Comment 4. Congress did
not intend that areas with more severe pollution problems, and accordingly longer attainment dates, be forced to accelerate reductions on atimetable that otherwise would not be deemed to be required in order to meet their obligation to attain "as expeditiously as practicable." Commenters want EPA to read therequirement for upwind areas, not as containing the limitation that their attainment deadline be "as expeditiously aspracticable"-but instead, to require deadlines that are not practicable solelyfor the purpose of obtaining downwind reductions.

In dealing with ozone, aregional pollutant, an upwind nonattainment

area cannot make reductions for transport purposes without affecting its schedule for making reductions for attainment purposes. Compelling the upwind area to make drastically faster reductions is akin to asking itto go on

a crash diet. But the interplay ofthe statutory provisions on attainment deadlines and transport reduction indicates that Congress intended upwind areas toreduce transport, but
notto the extent ofrequiring shorter schedules for upwind attainment.

Separating out reductions for
purposes ofattainment and those forthe purposes oftransport is more difficult than commenters depict, andEPA believes that Congress did not intend a regimen ofdrastic reductions without regard to the upwind area's attainment schedule. Inreality, an upwind area that remains in nonattainment may doubtless be shown to continue to transportpollution to an affected downwind area.

Congress provided statutory tools to address the issue oftransport (including sections 184, 126, and 110(a)(2)(d)), and believed that they would be used to reach an accommodation among upwind and downwind areas-but as EPA and some commenters have recognized, this accommodation took longer than anticipated. Congress did not,however, intend thatupwind areas be forced to apply draconian measures in order to allow the downwind areas to meet their shorter attainment periods.

And although the attainment deadlines can be looked at as "outside limits," they in factrepresent the dates
atwhich statutory consequences must be considered. As long as no earlier date is deemed tobe "as expeditiously as practicable," there is no evidence that Congress considered an earlier date to be acceptable for these areas, regardless of"practicability." Even ifearlier deadlines would be beneficial to downwind areas, Congress did not indicate thatthis criterion should override the criterion of "practicability" for the upwind area.

In administering the Clean Air Act and the NOx SIP Call, EPA has interpreted section 110(a)(2)(d)'s significant contribution test as requiring reductions as expeditiously as practicable without requiring upwind

areas to impose draconian measures. The United States Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit recently upheld EPA's use ofa cost component in applying that section's significant contribution test.Michiganv. EPA,213 F.3d 663, 674-679 (D.C. Cir 2000). EPA decided that the states that were "significant contributors" under section 110(a)(2)(D) need onlyreduce their emissions by the amount achievable with "highly cost-effective controls." 63 Fed.Reg. At 57,403. "Thus, once a state

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 597 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

had been nominally marked a "significant contributor," it could satisfy the statute, i.e.,reduce its contribution to a pointwhere it would
not be 'significant' within the meaning ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by cutting back the amount that couldbe eliminated with 'highly cost-effective controls.'" 213 F.3d at675.

In applying section 110(a)(2)(D), the D.C. Circuit concluded that EPA can consider not only air quality impacts, but also costs ofcontrol. Thus EPAhas been upheld in interpreting the Act in

away that limits the upwind area's responsibility to control pollution so as to mitigate itsresponsibility under section 110(a)(2)(D). The upwind area shouldnot have to impose draconian controls. As the Court in Michiganv. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 674-679 (D.C. Cir. 2000) concluded, "there is nothing in the text, structure, or history ofsection 110(a)(2)(D) thatbars EPAfrom considering cost in its application." 213 F.3d 679. The Court's discussion makes clear thatEPA, in interpreting the responsibilities ofupwind states under section 110(a)(2)(D), may consider differences in cutback costs in determining what constitutes a significant contribution, and thatEPA's inquiry is based onbalancing a number ofconsiderations to balance health effects and cost-effectiveness.

EPA's policy does not excuse the upwind areas from fulfilling their obligations under section 110. Upwind

areas willbe held to section 110 and RACM requirements. EPA has determined the upwind areas' section 110 obligations through the SIP call. The SIP call requires reductions by the date EPA determined was as soon as practicable to eliminate significant contributions to downwind areas. 1

,2
This is coupled withthe upwind area's obligation to attain as expeditiously as practicable. Itis appropriate to hold downwind areas to the upwind area's attainment date as an outside limituntil EPA acts on the upwind area's attainment demonstration. The modeling evidence we have now shows that upwind areas need to come into attainment for the downwind areas of Metropolitan Washington, DC and Greater Connecticut to attain the standard.

Comment11:The section 182(j)(2) "but for" standard applies to intrastate transport. An area must demonstrate that itwould have accomplished attainment but for the failure ofother

1,2Because the D.C. Circuit stayed the obligation ofStates to submit plans by 13 months, the court also extended by 13 months the date by which

sources must implement the necessary controls. areas to implement sufficient controls. The policy is vague, and fails to establish clear standards for a showing oftransport. The "affected bytransport" standard isunclear.

Response 11:EPA is not constrained by the section 182(j)(2) standard. This sectionis limited in application to single nonattainment areas thatare located in more than one state, and does
not address transport coming into an

area from another, separate area. Our determinations inthe SIP call were clear, andthe modeling that resulted from the SIP call effort showed that there were significant impacts from upwind areas on the downwind areas,

no matter whether one used as a standard the "butfor," "significant contribution" or "affected by transport" formulation. Congress intended that an upwind area that significantly contributes to a downwind area's nonattainment problem shouldbear responsibility for thatpollution. The modeling shows that significant contributions aremade by the upwind

areas to the downwind areas seeking attainment date extensions. EPA still believes that Congress would not have intended to impose theburden on downwind areas for an upwind area's contribution.

Comment 12:Transport is already incorporated into each area's section 181 design value andthus is assumed in settingthe projected attainment date. Congress understood transportresulted in elevated design values, but did not authorize classifications to take into
account transport, and provided for reclassification by operation oflaw based on air quality. In section 181(a)(1), Congress directed that ozone nonattainment areas be placed within certain classifications based solely on their design values, regardless of transport. Congress understood that many areas were classified asmoderate

or severe at least in part because of

ozone transport, but did not grant EPA discretion to take suchtransport into
account when establishing initial classifications under the Act.Why does EPA believe so stronglythat its approach is consistent with congressional intent, given congress's refusal to consider transport in establishing the initial classifications and in light ofsections 181(b)(2) and 182(i)?

Response 12:The fact thatthe provisions governing the initial classification process expressly take transport into account in a specific way-see section 181(a)(4)-does not

mean that EPAis precluded from taking transport into account when providing for an attainment date extension based on transport, prior to invoking the reclassification provisions. See EPA's Response to Comment 1. Byproviding for an extension ofthe attainment date, EPAis effectuating Congressional intent thatthe transport reliefprovisions have

a chance to take effect before EPA has

an obligation to determine whether the

area has attained for purposes of triggering the reclassification provisions.

Comment 13:EPAhas previously concluded that reclassification is not a

means ofpenalizing an area,but a

means ofproviding additional reductions that willbenefit public health. EPArejected the notion that bump-up is apenalty when it reclassified the Phoenix, Arizona area frommoderate to serious. There, EPA said:

The classification structure ofthe Act is a clear statement ofCongress'sbeliefthat the laterattainment deadlines afforded higherclassified andreclassified areas require compensating increases in the stringency of controls. Thereclassification provisions of theClean Air Act are areasonable mechanism to assure continuedprogress towardattainment ofthehealth-based ambient airquality standards when areas miss theirattainment deadlines and are not punitive.

Final Rule, 62 Fed. Reg. 60001, 60003 (Nov. 6, 1997). Phoenix NFR. Why has EPA changed its mind about the functions ofreclassification?

Response 13:EPA has not changed its mind about the function ofthe reclassification provision where the issue oftransport is not presented. In the context ofPhoenix, areclassification
notinvolving transport, EPA made the
response citedby commenter, and noted thatthe reclassification provision was notintended to be punitive. This view is consistent with the position that EPA takes here, where the circumstances are quite different from the non-transport reclassification context. In the absence oftransport, an area that fails to attain by its attainment date, may still fairly be held accountable for controlling local pollution, and be granted alonger attainment deadline in return for more stringent controls. Under these circumstances, applying the reclassification provisions is not punitive.But in the circumstances EPA and the states confront here, the local

area is not responsible for pollution that interferes with its ability to meet the standard. In such a case, to trigger reclassification wouldimpose on the

area the responsibility and costs for pollutionbeyond its control, and would indeedbe punitive.To avoid such a result, and to effectuate Congressional 

### 598

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 598 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

intent, EPAhas interpreted the Act to authorize an attainment date extension.

Comment 14: Congress directly considered andrejected EPA's interpretation ofits attainment date extension authority during the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. During debate, Senator Kasten expressed

concern about the proposed legislation's provisions concerning the "issue of downwind ozone nonattainment." He noted that pollution from Chicago affected southeastern Wisconsin, but described "the difficulty this poses is that the Nation's most polluted urban

areas are given a much more generous timetable for meeting air-quality standards. Chicago will have 5more years to meet air-quality standards than these Wisconsin counties will have." Senator Kasten then noted thatbecause ofChicago's longer attainment date, it

was likely thatthe Wisconsin counties "will be found in violation ofthe Clean Air Act because ofactions taking place outside oftheirjurisdiction in an upwind State." The commenter claims that Senator Kasten introduced an amendment which provided, among otherthings, for an attainment date extension for the downwind area until the upwind nonattainment area achieved emission reductions. S. Comm. OnEnvt. And Pub. Works, A Legislative History ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, pp. 4954-55 (1993). The commenter claims that "the amendment, was, ofcourse, rejected." Thus the commenter argues that Congress, although it addressed ozone transport in sections 176A and 184, declined to alterthe requirements of section 181, even though itwas aware oftheproblem that EPA seeks to solve with its attainment date extension policy.

Response 14: There is no evidence that the amendment discussed by Senator Kasten was ever debated, considered, or voted upon. Commenter cites no support for the proposition that it was considered and rejected. Thus no inferences can be drawn from the fact that the amendment was not embodied in the statute. Moreover, even ifthe amendment hadbeen considered and rejected, itdiffered from and went so far beyond the attainment date extension EPA is applying here as to not be probative ofCongressional intent with respect to EPA's current interpretation ofthe Act. Among other things, itwould have provided for a new and separate Ozone Transport Region, and would have provided for different obligations and consequences for downwind areas than what is contained in EPA's current interpretation ofthe attainment date extension policy. Legislative History at 4954-56. Comment 15:The EPA policy is an illegal expansion ofthe 1994 overwhelming transport policy. Now the upwind area need not be a nonattainment area with alater attainment date, as long asit is an upwind area in another state that significantly contributes to nonattainment in the downwind area. Also, the new policy would allow attainment even later than attainment for the upwind area ifthe date for the NOx SIP Call reductions is later. Where the upwind area is in attainment or where its attainment date is earlierthan the NOx SIP Call reductions, then an extension cannot bejustified as necessary to reconcile the transport provisions with section 181(a). There is

nojustification for applying the policy where the upwind area is in attainment,

oris in nonattainment but has air quality meeting the NAAQS, orwhere it is in nonattainment but has an attainment date earlierthan the extension proposed.

Response 15:The policy isnot an illegal expansion ofthe overwhelming transport policy, but an appropriate interpretation ofthe provisions ofthe Clean Air Act in order to fulfill Congressional intent. EPA's current articulation ofthe attainment date extension policy reflects the considerable advances in understanding and allocating responsibility for transport that have occurred since the formulation ofthe Overwhelming Transport Policy. These advances have resulted from the work on ozone transport included in, among other efforts, the OTAG, SIP call, and area modeling programs. EPA thus regards the attainment date extension policy as superseding the Overwhelming Transport Policy. SeeEPA's earlier
responses. The policy is not being applied here so as solelyto involve upwind attainment areas, orupwind

areas with earlier attainment dates. Upwind attainment areas with deficient SIPs have still been found to contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment. The SIP call involves a statewide area that may include attainment and nonattainment areas that have been found to contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment. Comment 16:Downwind areas should be required to implement, notjust adopt, all required measures before becoming eligible for an extension. Modeling is imprecise and an area might be able to attain ifthey implement all required measures, which should already have been implemented prior to the original attainment date. A
state could have timely submitted all the provisions for control oflocal pollution asrequired by sections 182(b)(1)(A)(i), 182(c)(2), and 172(c)(1) providing forthe full extent oflocal reductions that itwas inthe state's
power to require.

Response 16:In granting an attainment date extension for an area, EPAhas determined that upwind reductions are necessary to help the area reach attainment. Thus, requiring all local reductions to be implemented prior to the timethat upwind reductions

are achieved would not accelerate attainment. Nonetheless, EPA has required that local reductions be implemented as expeditiously as practicable. See EPA's Guidance 61 FR 14441 (March 25, 1999).

Comment 17:EPA's allegation that local measures "will become superfluous once upwind areas reduce their contribution to the pollution problem," 64 Fed. Reg. 14444, is mistaken. First, the measures will produce public health benefits during the period prior to implementation of upwind reductions, and second the Act independently requires all areas to "implement all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable," 172(c)(1), regardless of what reductions are expected from upwind areas. EPA should not allow downwind areas to postpone implementing local measures until upwind reductions are achieved. This extension is unlawful, and, because unexplained, arbitrary and capricious.

Response 17:EPA disagrees with the commenter's characterization ofEPA's actions. EPA is in factrequiring downwind areas to implement the local control measures required under the classification as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the time the upwind reductions are achieved. See EPA's Guidance, supra. To obtain

an extension the area must have provided that it will implement all adopted measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by which the upwind reductions needed for attainment willbe achieved. See also
response to Comment 16, above. No

measures are being postponed as a result ofthe areas being granted alater attainment deadlines. None ofthese

areas have delayed or postponed the effectiveness ofmeasures because their attainment date isbeing extended. The
states are enforcing their attainment

measures as expeditiously as practicable. Thus EPA'sinterpretation is
notunexplained, arbitrary, nor capricious. As EPAhas explained, it seeks to reconcile and coordinate the 

### 599

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 599 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

responsibilities ofupwind and downwind areas to worktogether to achieve attainment. However, as discussed elsewhere, EPAhas applied the section 172(c)(1) RACM requirement
to these areas. Comment18:EPAis excusing downwind areas from the requirement that nonattainment SIPs must provide for attainment ofthe NAAQS as provided in sections 182(b)(1)(A)(i), 182(c)(2)(A), 172(c)(1), and is also excusing them from the requirement that they implement all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable, regardless ofthereductions required for attainment. EPA's attempt to lessen these obligations is unlawful and, because unexplained, arbitrary and capricious.

Response18:EPAis not excusing downwind areas from the requirement that they submit SIPs providing for attainment. Nor is EPA excusing downwind areas from the RACM requirement. EPA's interpretation does
not exclude what is necessary for attainment; rather, ameasure is RACM ifitis needed for attainment. EPAis enforcing this requirement, but allowing the downwind state totake into account the control contribution ofupwind areas that Congress envisioned, and thatthe
commenters themselves acknowledge is embodied in Clean Air Act provisions, in determining the applicable attainment date. EPAis also requiring that the states implement reasonable control measures as expeditiously as practicable. See EPA's Responses to other comments.

Comment19:EPA's policy cannot be defended as a reconciliation of section 181(a) with the Act's anti-transport provisions. Under a proper interpretation ofthe Act, (1)upwind states' SIPs would ensure thatthe upwind areas' pollution contributing to NAAQS violations in downwind areas would be controlled, no later than the downwind areas' attainment date, (2) upwind areas would attain locally as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the date prescribed by section 181(a)(1) for the upwind area, and (3) downwind areas would attain locally "as expeditiously as practicable but not later than the applicable date prescribed in section 181(a)(1). This reading gives effect to all ofthe relevant statutory provisions.

Response19:The commenter concedes thatunder aproper interpretation ofthe Act,upwind states' SIPs would ensure thatupwind areas' pollution contributing to violations in downwind areas would be controlled, prior to the downwind area's attainment date. But in the circumstances actually confronting EPA andthe states, as EPA has explained in prior responses, itwas not possible, given the state of knowledge ofregional ozone transport, to control upwind transport prior to the original downwind attainment dates set forth in section 181(a)(1). Thus, in order
to allow the upwind areas to fulfill their responsibility under the Act andto avoid imposing on the downwind area

aburden Congress did not intend, EPA proposed interpreting the Act to adjust the downwind attainment deadlines, the
very interpretation that the commenter rejects asunnecessary. By adjusting the attainment date to allow the upwind and downwind areas to carry outthe statutory allocation ofresponsibility that is acknowledged by the commenter, EPA indeed isreconciling the Act and rendering a proper interpretation. Comment20:No extension should be granted unless the area is as small as possible. The basis for transport should
not be OTAGmodeling, since better datais available.

Response20:The boundaries for serious nonattainment areas were established by operation oflaw (CAA section 107(d)(4)). The modeling done by OTAG and byEPA in the SIP call andthe local modeling done in connection with the attainment demonstrations represents thebest available modeling.

2.Comments Received on 12/16/99 Proposals
Comment 1:The SIP submittals for Springfield, Greater Connecticut and Metropolitan D.C. do not contain substantive additional measures to reduce the state's ground level ozone problem. EPA cannot approve the attainment submittal because, among otherreasons, it does not provide for attainment "as expeditiously as practicable," as required by Section 181(a) ofthe CAA. Both the attainment submittal and theproposed rule simply
assertthat the states, acting alone,
cannot achieve attainment, either in 1999 or 2007. Neither the state nor EPA explores the question ofwhat can the
state can do, with the help ofspecified upwind emission reductions, to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable. There is no showing that the State could not achieve attainment in 2003 through a combination oflocal and state measures and the NOx SIP Call; we onlyknow thatthe NOx SIP Call is not likely toproduce attainment by 2003 without additional local reductions. The SIPs donot meet the requirements ofthe CAA toprovide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable and/orno later than November 15, 1999. States have made

no attemptto provide for attainment as

soon aspossible. Because they do not meet the CAAs requirements for timely attainment, EPAmust disapprove them.

Response 1:Congress did not intend for the states to be responsible for achieving attainment, acting alone, when upwind areas are transporting pollution that contributes to their nonattainment problem. EPAhas determined that, under the attainment date extension, the states will attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable. The basis for this determination, and EPA's findings thatthe area is affected by transport from upwind areas, is discussed extensively in section II.A.1. EPAhas determined that even with the attainment date extension, no reasonably available control measures would advance the attainment date. See other Responses to Comments in sections II. A and II. E.

Comment2:The state's SIP does not contain adequate contingency measures

as required by Section 172(c)(9) ofthe CAA. Such measures are especially important in a case such as this, where

a substantial portion ofthe emission reductions relied on are assumed to

occur well into the future, and well beyond the statutory attainment date.

Response2:Although no measures havebeen specifically designated as contingency measures, EPAhas found that measures that could reasonably constitute appropriate contingency

measures are already contained in the SIP or exist in promulgated Federal regulations. See discussion of contingency measures in sectionII. L below. Comment3:Even assuming the Transport Guidance is consistent with the Act, the states' attainment submittals do not meet the requirements and/or preconditions necessary to

secure adequate emissions reductions fromin-state sources. Forexample, CT and MA could secure further NOx reductions from power plants and other stationary sources through implementation ofRACT on additional stationary sources. The States could

secure additional reductions through a diesel inspection and maintenance
program.

Response3:EPAbelieves that a diesel I/Mprogram may have some potential for emission reductions. At this time, however, there is insufficient information available about the program to determine whether I/M wouldbe economically ortechnologically feasible. Also, the test protocols are not sufficiently developed to enable EPA to determine the magnitude ofreductions possible, andthus whether the 600

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 600 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 601

program's emission reductions would advance the attainment date. In its other Responses to Comments, EPA has explained and supported its conclusions that the states have adopted and will implement as expeditiously as practicable the measures necessary to

secure adequate emissions reductions from in-state sources. No additional RACM is required for these areas. Comment4:The States have failed to timely pursue administrative avenues for states to seek redress for transport problems: through a section 126 petition and a section 110 SIP call. CT and MA did not file section 126 petitions until the summer of 1997. Even ifEPA's transport Guidance were lawful, it shouldnot be applied except as a matter oflast resort-the downwind area must have identified and committed to all necessary local measures and exhausted its administrative remedies in a timely fashion to secure all necessary upwind reductions. The States have failed to do that and have waited too long. They
want to waituntil upwind reductions bring them into attainment without making any additional emission reductions oftheir own. This is not in keeping with the attainment provisions and schedules in the CAA.

Response 4:EPA disagrees with the
commenter that the States have waited
too long to seek relief. As set forth in detail in sectionII. A.1, the States and EPA have worked for years to solve the transport problem, and were unable to obtain adequate redress for transported pollution until the culmination ofthe OTAG effort. EPA finds that the States

were not dilatory in their efforts to pursue relieffrom transported pollution; reliefwas not available until regional transport could be analyzed and responsibility for remediation appropriately apportioned. These effort took years, and was more prolonged than Congress, EPA, orthe states had anticipated. See EPA's discussion ofthe history ofthe efforts to address transport in section II. A.1. The States have not failed to pursue any remedies as they became meaningful and available. Nor does EPA agree that its attainment date extension allows the States to wait for upwind reductions without making local emission reductions. EPA's policy is predicated upon an equitable allocation ofresponsibility between upwind and downwind areas, and explicitly requires the downwind areas to adopt and implement local controls

as expeditiously as practicable.

Comment5: The states have failed to implement all available control

measures and have not demonstrated that attainment isimpracticable dueto pollutant transport. The states have failed to meet the requirement ofEPA's transport policy thatthe states adopt all local measures required under the area's
current classification. Among other things, the Washington, DC area states have failed to adopt NOxRACT programs that meet all applicable requirements ofthe Act andEPA guidance.

Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention thatthe states being granted attainment date extensions have not satisfied the criterion ofadopting required local

measures. EPAfinds thatthe states have fulfilled their responsibility with respect to having adopted required local

measures. With respect to contingency
measures, EPAhas determined that

measures that can be reasonably construed to function as contingency

measures are already contained in the areas' SIPs. See further discussion ofthe contingency measure requirement in otherResponses to Comments. With respect to Washington, DC and Massachusetts, the areas have adopted andEPA has found approvable all other local measures that arerequired under their current classification, including NOx RACT. EPAhas further found that the states have orwill implement required local measures as expeditiously aspracticable. With respect to Connecticut, the state has adopted andEPA has approved all

measures required under its current classification except with respect to certain aspects ofits new source review (NSR)program. Connecticut's nonattainment area NSR program is the

one Clean Air Act measure required under the state's classification thatEPA has not yet approved asmeeting all the requirements ofthe Act. Nevertheless, EPA has determined that Connecticut's NSR program substantially addresses the Act's requirements andprovides a sufficient basis for EPA to apply its attainment date extension policy. The Connecticut NSR program imposes all the Act's requirements onnew and modified sources of air pollution for those sources covered by the state's program, including the lowest achievable emissions rate technology standard and emissions offsets consistent with the classification under the Act ofthe state's two ozone nonattainment areas. In addition,the state's NSR program captures the correct universe ofnew sources covered by the Act's requirements. The reason Connecticut's program does fully meet allthe Act's requirements is thatthe state's formula for capturing modified

sources of air pollution in the program differs from the federal requirements in one respect. EPA's federal NSR regulations generally require that modifications be measured by comparing the actual emissions ofthe existing facility with the potential emissions ofthe modified facility. Connecticut's regulations compare the potential emissions ofthe existing facility with the potential emissions of the modified facility. On the otherhand, Connecticut's program is more rigorous thanEPA's regulations in measuring a modification in so far as the state's program does not allow for "netting" at

a source to avoid being treated as a modification. Federal regulations would allow an increase in emissions at an existing source tobe balanced against contemporaneous emissions decreases elsewhere at the source to avoid NSR, while Connecticut's NSRprogram does
not. On balance, EPA has concluded thatthe state's NSRprogram substantially addresses this CleanAir Act requirement for the purposes of granting an attainment date extension underEPA's policy.

EPA thus concludes that substantial compliance with the NSR program and approval ofall remaining required

measures constitutes substantial compliance with the criterion thatthe
state adopt all measures required under Connecticut's current classification. EPAhas further foundthat it will implement these measures as expeditiously aspracticable. Thus, EPA believes thatthe states have fulfilled theirresponsibility to satisfy the requirements oftheir current classification, and that, under these circumstances, Congress would not have intended them to be reclassified for failure to attain.

The sufficiency ofthe Washington, DC area States' NOx RACT rules is discussed extensively in responses to other comments elsewhere inthis notice.

Comment6: The states have not shown thatthey have committed to implement all local measures necessary to secure adequate emissions reductions fromin-state sources. They have not shown that a combination oflocal reductions and upwind reductions will achieve attainment by their extended dates.

Response 6: EPAhas found thatthe
states have demonstrated attainment through a combination ofupwind and local measures. See otherEPA responses and discussion ofthe attainment demonstration. Secondly, although the
states theoretically could always secure

more reductions through additional local measures, Congress did notintend thatthe downwind states compensate for the upwind states failure to control

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 601 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

transported pollution. Having met the RACM requirements and controlled for local pollutants, the downwind area shouldnot be required to secure additional emissions reductions in order
to offset emissions from upwind

sources. As EPAhas discussed elsewhere in its responses, the States have committed to implement all

measures necessary to secure adequate emissions from in-state sources.

Comment7:The DC Circuit stated in American TmckingAss'nv EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) thatEPA "is precluded from enforcing arevised primary ozone NAAQS other than in accordance with the classifications, attainment dates, and control measures set outin Subpart 2." This means that EPA cannot ignore the attainment dates in Subpart 2.

Response 7:The opinion cited

concerns EPA's authority to implement

arevised 0.08 ppm 8-hour standard not the standard at issue here-the one-hour 0.12 ppm NAAQS. Regarding EPA's beliefthatthe provisions in Subpart 2 ofthe Act govern implementation ofthe one-hour standard, EPA isnot ignoring the attainment dates in Subpart 2. EPA is interpreting the provisions ofSubpart 2to allow EPA to extend the attainment deadlines in accordance with Congressional intent and using means setforth in theprovisions of Subpart 2. Thus EPAis properly implementing the one-hour standard.

Comment8:Each serious area plan on its face shows that the control measures described therein will not bythemselves produce attainment at any point, and clearly notby 1999. EPA's reliance on SIP call reductions is particularly unjustified in the DC Area, given that Virginia is challenging EPA's authority
to require those very reductions. EPA
cannot grant credit for SIP call reductions when the SIP call hasbeen judicially stayed.

Response8:As EPA has explained elsewhere in its responses, Congress did
not intend for a downwind area thatis affected by transport tobe responsible for pollution generated outside its borders. The stay ofthe SIP call has been vacated andthe SIP call has been upheld. The court lifted its stay and
states are required to submit SIPs fully addressing the SIP call and ifthey fail, EPA must promulgate a Federal plan. EPA is fullyjustified in itsreliance on SIP call reductions and in granting credit for them in the areas' attainment demonstrations.

Comment9:The SIPs fail to provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable eventhough this is a serious

area where a specific attainment deadline has passed. Furthermore, the States have not even evaluated the possibility ofattaining sooner than their extended attainment dates. The SIPs
must be disapproved by EPA since they donot meet the CAA's basic requirements for timely attainment nor dothey consider thepossibility of providing for earlier attainment evenif the attainment date extension were permissible.

Response9:EPA shows in its other Responses, the SIPs provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable, and the States have shown that they qualify for an attainment date extension due to transport. EPA evaluated the reductions required for attainment fromboth the upwind and downwind areas, and determined that the attainment dates were as expeditious aspracticable. See also Responses 11 and 12 below. Comment 10:This not a situation where the states have adopted all available measures and still show nonattainment due solelyto transport. The states have refused to even identify the levels ofVOC and NOx emissions that would be consistent with attainment inthe absence ofNOx reductions thatwould be required by the NOx SIP Call. Nor dothe plans state the level ofemission reductions that would be needed to produce attainment in the absence ofupwind reductions. EPA cannot rationally find that transported NOx renders attainment impracticable inthe serious areas, when the states have neither quantified the reductions needed locally to attain in the absence oftransport reductions, nor shown that such reductions are unachievable through adoption of additional state and local control

measures.

Response 10:EPA in its Responses has provided an extensive analysis of the role oftransport in downwind nonattainment for the serious areas. In the NOx SIP Call, EPA concluded that "EPA believes that available modeling analyses demonstrate that upwind reductions are necessary to help downwind areas come into attainment." 63 FR 57404 (October 27, 1998). These downwind areas included the areas being granted attainment date extensions here. The DC Circuit upheld EPA's conclusion inMichiganversus EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The SIP call andthe modeling done by the
states support the conclusion thatthe affected areas cannot attain without upwind reductions. Congress intended that upwind areas be responsible for pollution that interferes with downwind nonattainment, while at the same time requiring that downwind areas be accountable for locally generated emissions. The Clean Air Act reflects Congressional intent that downwind

areas not be compelled to compensate for lack ofupwind controls throughthe adoption of additional state and local control measures, as commenter suggests. EPA disagrees with commenter's suggestion that the downwind areas must show that no further local reductions are achievable before relying on upwind areas to shoulder responsibility for the pollution they generate. EPAfinds that a reading ofthe CleanAir Act shows that Congress did not intend for downwind

areas to be forced to impose additional local controls to offset significant pollution contributions from upwind
areas, before seeking relief.

Comment 11:EPAhas not demonstrated thatMetropolitan Washington, DC would attain but for transport. To the contrary, episodespecific data shows that the second highest ozone exceedance recorded last

summer occurred on a day on which air parcels originated in Northern Virginia. The EPAhas offered no rational basis for granting a longer transport-related extension to the Metropolitan Washington, DC area than to Massachusetts.

Response 11:Strong evidence indicates that the Washington, DC nonattainment area is impacted by transportfrom outside the area and
cannot attain without upwind reductions. Sensitivity modeling which applies additional local controls to the Baltimore nonattainment area indicates reducing levels of ozone and its
precursors in the Baltimore nonattainment area reduces ozone levels in the Washington, DC nonattainment

area. A more focused analysis ofdays when exceedances occur in the Washington, DC nonattainment area shows thatunder stagnant meteorological conditions the Washington, DC and Baltimore areas ultimately share the same air mass and mixing occurs throughout the CMSA as is evidenced by the strong correlation between high ozone concentrations in each ofthese areas (lessthan 40 miles apart) during stagnation events. Because air can be transported from Baltimore to Washington, DC within 24 hours and a portion ofthe DC exceedances occur on days when winds are from the north, including Baltimore, high ozone in Baltimore has the potential to cause exceedances in Washington, DC.

NOx SIP Call and local attainment modeling for the Washington, DC and Baltimore nonattainment areas show thatthe Washington, DC nonattainment

area will need controls not only local to the Washington, DC nonattainment area 602

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 602 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

but from upwind areas, especially Baltimore, MD. Local modeling for 1999 relies heavily on the NOx SIP Call reductions and the local controls in the Baltimore area, some ofwhich will not be implemented until 2005 (i.e,2005 boundary conditions were used that reflect the NOx SIP Call reductions in addition to the Baltimore area SIP controls). Ithas been clearly demonstrated that, until the Baltimore

area implements local controls and

comes into attainment, high ozone and precursor emissions from the Baltimore nonattainment area have the potential to

cause exceedances in the Washington, DC nonattainment area. Comment12:EPAhas not shown that the attainment date extension for Connecticut isjustified due to transport.

Response12:There is strong evidence
to support the premise that the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area is impacted by transport from outside the state, especially New York; and cannot attain without upwind reductions. Sensitivity modeling which removes all emissions from Connecticut indicate transported levels ofozone and its
precursors alone generate exceedances in the state ofConnecticut. Amore focused analysis ofdays when exceedances occur in Connecticut shows thatthe majority ofthese days

occur when winds are coming from the Southwest and thus carry NOx and

ozone from the New York City metropolitan area and points further
west and south. NOx SIP Call and local attainment modeling for the New York and Greater Connecticut nonattainment

areas show that the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area will need controls
not only local tothe Greater Connecticut nonattainment area but from upwind States, especially New York. Local modeling for 2007 relies heavily on the NOx SIP Call reductions (upwind and within the modeling domain) as well as controls being implemented in the New York nonattainment area. Ithas been clearly demonstrated that, until the New York nonattainment area implements local controls and comes into attainment, high ozone and precursor emissions from the New York nonattainment area have the potential to

cause exceedances in the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area. Comment13:The Plan fails to demonstrate emission reductions of 3 percent per year over each three year period after 1999 until attainment. Assuming a 2005 attainment date, the plan must provide for a nine percent reduction in VOC and/or NOx remissions by 2002 and another 9 percent between 2002 and 2005. The
states have not attempted to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, and EPA has not proposed to find that they have been
met. EPAhas no authority to waive the statutory mandate for three per cent annual reductions. Emission reductions in upwind states do not waive the statutory requirement for 3percent annual emission reductions within the downwind nonattainment area.

Response 13:EPA's guidance did not interpret theperiod oftime after granting the attainment date extension based ontransport asrequiring additional rate ofprogress increments from the downwind area, since we determined that the reason the area had
not attained was due toupwind transport. Therefore it would be unreasonable to lock the downwind area into fixed progress requirement reductions from local sources, when the combination oflocal reductions with upwind area source emission reductions is what will bring the area into attainment. In any event, tothe extent that it shouldbe determined otherwise, andthat any ROP required should be imposed onthe downwind area, this requirement wouldnot attach until EPA grants the attainment date extension and provides the area with alater attainment date. Since the requirement was not previously due, fulfilling the requirement, ifany is deemed to exist, is not a condition ofreceiving the attainment date extension.

Comment 14:EPAhas no legal authority to extend the one-hour attainment date. Such extension is unlawful andunwise. Under the explicitprovisions ofSection 181(a)(1) ofthe Act, the states are required to attain the one-hour ozone standard as expeditiously aspracticable, but no later than November 15, 1999. EPA cannot create exemptions from this requirement.

Response 14:EPA has responded extensively to issues pertaining to the legality ofthe attainment date extension in its March 1999 responses, above.

B. AttainmentDemonstrations-Weight ofEvidence

Comment:The weight ofevidence approach does not demonstrate attainment ormeet CAA requirements for amodeled attainment demonstration. Commenters added several criticisms ofvarious technical aspects ofthe weight ofevidence approach, including certain specific applications ofthe approach to particular attainment demonstrations. These comments are discussed in the following response.

Response:Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) ofthe CAA, serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas were required to submitby November 15, 1994, demonstrations ofhow they would attain the 1-hour standard. Section 182(c)(2)(A) provides that "[t]his attainment demonstration must be based

on photochemical grid modeling or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion, to be at least

as effective." As described in more detail below, the EPA allows states to supplement their photochemical modeling results, with additional evidence designed to account for uncertainties in the photochemical modeling, to demonstrate attainment. This approach is consistent with the requirement ofsection 182(c)(2)(A) that the attainment demonstration "be based

on photochemical grid modeling," because the modeling results constitute the principal component ofEPA's analysis, with supplemental information designed to account foruncertainties in the model. This interpretation and application ofthe photochemical modeling requirement of section 182(c)(2)(A) finds furtherjustification in the broad deference Congress granted EPAto develop appropriate methods for determining attainment, as indicated in the last phrase of section 182(c)(2)(A).

The flexibility granted to EPA under section 182(c)(2)(A) is reflected inthe regulations EPApromulgated for modeled attainment demonstrations. These regulations provide, "The adequacy ofa control strategy shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality models, data bases, and other requirements specified in [40 CFR part 51 Appendix W] (Guideline on Air Quality Models)." 340 CFR 51.112(a)(1). However, the regulations further provide, "Where an air quality model specified in appendix W * * * is inappropriate, the model may be modified or another model substituted [with approval byEPA, and after] notice and opportunity for public comment
* * *." Appendix W,in turn,provides that, "The Urban Airshed Model (UAM) is recommended for photochemical or reactive pollutant modeling applications involving entire urban areas," but further refers to EPA'smodeling guidance for data requirements and procedures for operating the model. 40 CFR 51 App. W section 6.2.1.a. The modeling guidance discusses the data requirements and operating procedures,

as well as interpretation ofmodel

3The August 12, 1996 version of"Appendix W
to Part 51-Guideline on Air Quality Models" was therule in effect for these attainment demonstrations. EPA is proposing updates to this rule which will notbe in effect until the new rule is promulgated. 

### 603

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 603 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

results as they relate to the attainment demonstration. This provision references guidance published in 1991, but EPA envisioned the guidance would change as we gained experience with model applications, which is why the guidance is referenced, but does not appear, in Appendix W. With updates in 1996 and 1999, the evolution of EPA's guidance has ledus to useboth the photochemical grid model, and additional analytical methods approved by EPA.

The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the level ofthe NAAQS. The results maybe interpreted through either oftwo modeled attainment or exceedance tests:

a deterministic test or a statistical test. Under the deterministic test, a predicted concentration above 0.124 parts per million (ppm)ozone indicates thatthe

area is expected to exceed the standard in the attainment year and a prediction
ator below 0.124 ppm indicates that the

area is expected to not exceed the standard. Under the statistical test, attainment is demonstrated when all predicted (i.e.,modeled) 1-hour ozone concentrations inside the modeling domain are at, orbelow, an acceptable
upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain conditions (depending on the severity ofthe episode modeled).4

In 1996, EPA issued guidance; 5to update the 1991 guidance referenced in 40 CFR 50 App. W, to make the modeled attainment test more closely reflect the form ofthe NAAQS (i.e.,the statistical test described above), to consider the area's ozone design value andthe meteorological conditions accompanying observed exceedances, andto allow consideration ofother evidence to address uncertainties in the modeling databases and application. When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment, EPA has concluded that additional analyses maybe presented tohelp determine whether the area will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are inherent uncertainties associated with air quality modeling and its results. The inherent imprecision ofthe model means thatit may be inappropriate to view the specific numerical result ofthe model as the only determinant ofwhether the SIP controls are likely to lead to attainment. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, andprovides a means for

4 Guidance on the Use OfModeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment ofthe Ozone NAAQS. EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996.

5Ibid. considering other evidence to help

assess whether attainment ofthe NAAQS is likely tobe achieved. The
process bywhich this is done is called

aweight ofevidence (WOE) determination. Under aWOE determination, the state can rely on, and EPA will consider in addition to the results ofthe modeled attainment test, otherfactors such as othermodeled output (e.g., changes in the predicted frequency and pervasiveness of 1-hour

ozone NAAQS exceedances, and predicted change in the ozone design value); actual observed air quality trends (i.e. analyses ofmonitored air quality data); estimated emissions trends; andthe responsiveness ofthe model predictions to further controls.

In 1999, EPA issued additional guidance 6that makes further use of model results for base case andfuture emission estimates to predict afuture design value. This guidance describes the use ofan additional component of the WOE determination, which requires, under certain circumstances, additional emission reductions that are or will be approved into the SIP,but that were not included in the modeling analysis, that will further reduce the modeled design value. An area is considered to monitor attainment ifeach monitor site has air quality observed ozone design values (4thhighest daily maximum ozone using the three most recent consecutive
years ofdata) at orbelow the level ofthe standard. Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA, when making a determination that

a control strategy will provide for attainment, to determine whether ornot the model predicted future design value is expected to be at or belowthe level ofthe standard. Since the form ofthe 1- hour NAAQS allows exceedances, it did
not seem appropriate for EPA torequire the test for attainment to be "no exceedances" inthe future model predictions. The method outlined in EPA's 1999 guidance uses the highest measured design value from all sites in the nonattainment area for each ofthree years. 7 The three year "design value"

6 "Guidance for Improving Weight ofEvidence Through Identification ofAdditionalEmission Reductions, NotModeled." 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/ttn/scram.

7A commenter criticized the 1999 guidance as flawed on grounds that itallows the averaging of the three highest airquality sites across a region, whereas EPA's 1991 and 1996 modeling guidance requires that attainment be demonstrated at each site. This has the effect ofallowing lower air quality concentrations to be averaged against higher concentrations thus reducing the total emission reduction needed to attain at the higher site. The commenter's concern is misplaced. EPA relies on represents the air quality observed during the time period used to predict

ozone for the base emissions.This is appropriate because the model is predicting the change in ozone from the base period tothe future attainment date. The three yearly design values (highestacross the area) are averaged to account for annual fluctuations in meteorology. The result is an estimate of

an area's base year design value.The base year design value is multiplied by

a ratio ofthe peak model predicted

ozone concentrations in the attainment
year (i.e., average ofdaily maximum concentrations from all days modeled)
to the peak model predicted ozone concentrations in thebase year (i.e., average ofdaily maximum concentrations from all days modeled). The result is an attainment year design value based onthe relative change in peakmodel predicted ozone concentrations from the base year to the attainment year. Modeling results also show that emission control strategies designed to reduce areas ofpeak ozone concentrations generally resultin similar ozone reductions in all core

areas ofthe modeling domain, thereby providing some assurance ofattainment
at allmonitors.

In the event that the attainment year design value is above the standard, the 1999 guidance provides a method for identifying additional emission reductions, not modeled, which at a minimum provide an estimated attainment year design value at the level ofthe standard. This step uses alocally derived factor which assumes a linear relationship between ozone and the
precursors. Although a commenter criticized this technique for estimating ambient improvement because it does
notincorporate complete modeling of the additional emissions reductions, the regulations do not mandate nor does EPA guidance suggest that States must model all control measures being implemented. Moreover, a component ofthis technique-the estimation of future design value, should be considered a model predicted estimate. Therefore, results from this technique

are an extension of"photochemical grid" modeling and are consistent with Section 182(c)(2)(A). Also, a commenter believes EPAhas notprovided sufficient opportunity to evaluate the calculations

this averaging only for purposes ofdetermining one component, i.e.-the amount ofadditional emission reductions notmodeled-ofthe WOE determination. The WOE determination, in turn, is intended to be a qualitative assessment ofwhether additional factors (including the additional emissions reductions not modeled), taken as a whole, indicate that the area is more likely than not
to attain. 604

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 604 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 605

used to estimate additional emission reductions. EPA provided a full 60-day period for comment on all aspects ofthe proposed rule. EPAhas received several
comments on the technical aspects of the approach and the results ofits application, as discussed above and in the responses tothe individual SIP's.

Commenter states, application ofthe method of attainment analysis in the December 16, 1999 guidance will yield

alower control estimate than ifwe relied entirely onreducing maximum predictions in every grid cell to less than or equal to 124 ppb on every modeled day. However, this approach may overestimate needed controls (e.g., the form ofthe standard allows up to 3 exceedances in 3years in every grid cell; andifthe model over predicts observed concentrations, predicted controls may alsobe overestimated, etc.). In recognition ofthis EPAhas considered other evidence to make these determinations, as described above through the weight ofevidence determination.

When reviewing a SIP, the EPA must make a reasonable determination that the control measures adopted more likely than not will lead to attainment. Under theWOE determination, EPAhas made these determinations based onall ofthe information presented by the States and available toEPA. The information considered includes model results for the majority ofthe control

measures. Though allmeasures were not modeled, EPA reviewed the model's
response to changes in emissions as well as observed air quality changes to evaluate the impact ofa few additional
measures, not modeled. EPA's decision

was further strengthened by each State's commitment to check progress towards attainment in 2003 and to adopt additional measures, ifthe anticipated progress is not being made.

A commenter further criticized EPA's technique for estimating the ambient impact ofadditional emissions reductions not modeled on grounds that EPA employed a rollback modeling technique that, according tothe commenter, isprecluded under EPA regulations. The commenter explained that 40 CFR 51 App. W section 6.2.1.e. provides, "Proportional (rollback/ forward) modeling is not an acceptable procedure for evaluating ozone control strategies." Section 14.0 of appendix W defines "rollback" as "a simple model that assumes that ifemissions from each

source affecting a given receptor are decreased bythe same percentage, ambient air quality concentrations decrease proportionately." Under this approach if20% improvement in ozone is needed for the area to reach attainment, itis assumed a 20% reduction in VOC would be required. There was no approach for identifying
NOx reductions. The "proportional rollback" approach is a purely empirically/mathematically derived relationship, and is not what EPA did. The prohibition in Appendix W applies
to the use ofarollback method which is empirically/mathematically derived and independent ofmodel estimates or observed air quality and emissions changes as the sole method for evaluating control strategies. For the demonstrations under proposal, EPA used alocally derived (as determined by the model and/or observed changes in air quality) ratio ofchange in emissions to change in ozone to estimate additional emission reductions to achieve an additional increment of ambient improvement in ozone. This did assume a linear relationship between the precursors and ozone for a small amount ofozone improvement. EPA has generally relied on photochemical modeling to evaluate the attainment demonstrations and their control strategies, and has used locally derived adjustment factors as a component to estimate the extentto which additional emissions reductions-not the core control strategies-would reduce ozone levels andthereby strengthen the weight of evidence test.This limited use of adjustment factors is more technically soundthan the unacceptable use of proportional rollback. The limited use ofadjustment factors is more practical in light ofthe uncertainty in the modeling; the resources andtime required to perform additional modeling; andthe requirement that

areas perform aprogress check bythe end of2003.

Contrary to concerns expressed by a commenter, EPA did not err by modifying the modeling requirements without first proposing to do so. Section 3.0 ofappendix W states, "It should not be construed thatthe preferred models identified here are the onlymodels available for relating emissions to air quality." Section 3.2.2 ofAppendix W further provides thatthe "determination ofacceptability ofa model is a Regional Office responsibility. Where the Regional Administrator finds that an alternative model is more appropriate than apreferred model, that model may be used subject tothe recommendations in appendix W. This finding will normally result from a determination that (1) apreferred air quality model is
not appropriate for the particular application; or (2)a more appropriate model or analytical procedure is available and is applicable." Therefore, EPA does havethe discretion to identify

a more appropriate analytical procedure without undergoing rulemaking on updates to Appendix W. Also, as discussed above, by reference to the modeling guidance, Appendix Wwas designed to allow changes in the predictive tools and databases without undergoing additional rulemaking. In any event, the EPAis taking comment during the SIP rulemaking process on the application ofits guidance.

A commenter also expressed concern thatEPA applied unacceptably broad discretion in fashioning and applying the WOE determinations. EPA disagrees. The WOE determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. EPAhas approved attainment demonstrations based on WOE determinations, generally with a requirement for additional reductions
notmodeled, only when the photochemical modeling provides a basis forbelieving thatthe SIP controls will achieve substantial ozone reductions, ifnot attainment levels. The fact that the WOE factors are incremental and differbetween demonstrations, leads EPA to conclude these determinations maybe made on a case-by-case basis, without hard-andfast guidelines. Moreover, EPAbelieves thatthe WOE approach is bounded by the strength ofthe various factors that
maybe applied. The commenter added,

as an example, EPA's application ofthe WOE approach to the Washington, DC attainment demonstration where modeling showing an ozone level (as adjusted) of 142 ppb was compared to the acceptable upper limit of 137 ppb. The commenter observed thatEPA adjusted the modeled prediction on average by afactor of19% to account for model over prediction, and statedthat such an adjustment was not appropriate. In EPA's view, the 19% over prediction thatunderlies the 142 ppb level is only

a rough approximation ofthe extent of modeling uncertainty. In EPA's view, consideration ofmodel performance (specifically, a bias to under- or overpredict ozone levels) is one way to

assess modeling uncertainty. To further address uncertainty, EPA appliedthe 1999 guidance to estimate the future design, in the same manner as applied
to all ofthe other attainment demonstrations received. Both the
assessment ofmodel performance and the estimated future design value were usedin the WOE determination.8

8Observing that for the attainment demonstration
forthe Washington, D.C. area, EPA reduced modeled ozone values by 19% to account for model overprediction, a commenter criticized this technique as lacking technical justification. EPA
Continued

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 605 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

The commenter also complained that EPA has applied the WOE determinations to adjust modeling results onlywhen those results indicate nonattainment, and not when they indicate attainment. WOE is not used to adjust model results. WOE is additional analysis that is reviewed when there is

reason to question the attainment demonstration. For the current demonstrations under proposal, EPA's decision to approve the demonstrations relied not only on the modeling, but otherWOE, as well. Forexample, EPA considered current air quality, model performance (over- as well as underprediction), number ofepisode days, model predicted future design values, andresults from the regional modeling for the NOx SIP Call, where applicable. For a given attainment demonstration any one ofthese elements could have indicated the area may not attain. But collectively the information supported EPA's decision. EPA has applied WOE determinations to all ofthe current demonstrations under proposal, although except for the Chicago and Milwaukee attainment demonstrations, the modeling results submitted do not pass the recommended "modeled attainment test." Reference the individual proposals for howWOE was applied in each case. These determinations were madebased on EPA's best understanding ofthe problem andrelied on a qualitative
assessment as well as quantitative
assessments ofthe available information. In some cases, EPA believed the demonstration of attainment was not conclusive, and in these cases EPA made the determination that additional emission reductions

guidance recommends assessment ofmodel performance (both over- andunder-prediction) as

one ofthe factors affecting the model results. In general performance measures thatfall within EPA recommended ranges are considered as an indication that the model is performing acceptably. For the Washington, D.C. area, EPA explained how performance was more closely reviewed and used

as part ofthe WOE. The technique is described in "Technical Support Document for the One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations submitted by the State ofMaryland, Commonwealth ofVirginia and the District ofColumbia for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area, November 30, 1999. The modeled peak ozone results generally correlated (ingeographic proximity) with the monitored peak ozone emissions (and the modeled plume generally correlated (ingeographic proximity) with the observed ozone plume), except that the peak modeled ozone levels averaged approximately 19- 20% higherthan the peak monitored levels. Modeling uncertainties (including, for example, the non-linearity ofthe modeling) lead EPA to conclude that adjusting each modeled peak by the 19%
average over-prediction was atleast as sensible as adjusting each modeledpeak by an amount that corresponds to thatmodeled peak's relationship to the monitored ozone value in the same vicinity. were needed to strengthen the demonstration.

The commenter further criticized EPA's application ofthe WOE determination ongrounds that EPA ignores evidence indicating that continued nonattainment is likely, such
as, according tothe commenter, monitoring data indicate that ozone levels in many cities during 1999 continue to exceed the NAAQS by margins as wide or wider than those predicted by the UAM model. EPA did consider the monitoring data along with otherinformation in these determinations. When reviewing the monitoring data, EPA considered other factors. For example, high monitoring values may have occurred for many

reasons including, fluctuations due to changes in meteorology andlack of emission reductions. The 1999 monitor values donot reflect several control programs, both local andthe regional which are scheduled for implementation in the next several
years. And the 1999 meteorology in the Northeast was suchthat July 1999 was

one ofthe warmest (ranked9th) ever experienced since 1895.9 In addition to the heat,the middle and southern portions ofthe Northeast were also drier than average during this month. This information supports EPA's beliefthat the high exceedances observed in 1999

are not likely to reoccur frequent enough to cause aviolation, oncethe controls adopted in these SIP's are implemented. There islittle evidence to support the statement that ozone levels in many cities during 1999 continue to exceed the NAAQS bymargins as wide

orwider than those predicted by the UAM. Since areas did not model logo

ozone levels using 1999 meteorology and 1999 emissions which reflect reductions anticipated by control
measures, that are orwill be approved into the SIP, there is no way to determine howthe UAM predictions for 1999 compare to the 1999 air quality. Therefore, we cannot determine whether or not the monitor values exceed the NAAQS by awider margin than the UAM predictions for 1999. In summary, there is little evidence to support the conclusion that high exceedances in 1999 will continue to

occur after adopted control measures are implemented.

In addition,the commenter argued that in applying the WOE determinations, EPAignored factors showing thatthe SIPs under-predict

9 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/ 1999/perspectives.html and "Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast U.S."; NESCAUM at http://www.nescaum.org/pdf/pubslist.pdf. future emissions, and the commenter included as examples certain mobile

source emissions sub-inventories. EPA did not ignore possible under-prediction in mobile emissions. EPA is presently evaluating mobile source emissions data

as part ofan effort toupdate the computer model for estimating mobile

source emissions. EPA is considering various changes to the model, and isnot prepared to conclude at this time that the net effect ofall these various changes would be to increase or decrease emissions estimates. For attainment demonstration SIPs that rely

on the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment or otherwise (i.e.,reflect these programs intheir motorvehicle emissions budgets), States have committed to revise their motor vehicle emissions budgets after the MOBILE6 model is released. EPA will work with States on a case-by-case basis ifthe new emission estimates raise issues about the sufficiency ofthe attainment demonstration. Corrections, ifneeded, willbe made in timefor the progress check in 2003 and ifthe analysis indicates additional measures are needed, EPA will take the appropriate action.

C.Relianceon NOx SIPCallandTier 2Modeling

Comment:Giventhe uncertainty surrounding the NOx SIP Call atthe time ofEPA's proposals onthe attainment demonstrations, there is no basis for the conclusion reached byEPA that states should assume implementation ofthe NOx SIP Call, or rely on it as apart oftheir demonstrations. The commenter references modeling data which demonstrates thatthe benefits of imposing NOx SIP Call controls are limited to areas near the sources controlled.

The commenter adds thatthere are

errors in the emissions used for the NOx SIP Call Supplemental Notice (SNPR). The commenter believes thatbecause of inaccurate inventories the modeling analyses, estimates ofair quality based

on that modeling, and estimates of EPA'sTier II tailpipe emissions reduction program not modeled in the demonstrations, are also flawed.

Response:InMichiganv. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), the court upheld the NOx SIP Call on most issues, although a subsequent order ofthe court delays the implementation date to no laterthan May 31, 2004. EPA is moving forward to implement those portions of the rule thathave been upheld, ensuring that most-if not all-ofthe emission reductions from the NOx SIP Call assumed bythe States in their 1-hour 606

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 606 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 607

ozone NAAQS attainment demonstrations will occur. EPA's modeling to determine the region-wide impacts ofthe NOx SIP Call clearly shows thatregional transport ofozone and its precursors isimpacting nonattainment areas several states away, andthis analysis was upheld bythe
court. Therefore, itis appropriate for States to assume implementation ofthe NOx SIP Call.

The EPA considered many factors when making these determinations. No single piece ofinformation was determinant. Itis important to recognize that the regional modeling for the Tier II rule was not used in the 1-hour attainment demonstrations and thatthe SNPR modeling was only one of several factors considered. EPA's decision was based ona qualitative assessment ofthe information presented. Information reviewed included results ofthe modeled attainment test, along with other supplemental information such as othermodeled outputs (e.g., changes in the predicted frequency and pervasiveness of 1-hour ozone NAAQS exceedances andpredicted changes in the ozone design value); actual observed air quality trends (i.e.analyses of monitored air quality data); estimated emissions trends; base year model performance; SNPR derived future designvalues; the responsiveness ofthe model predictions to further controls; and for some ofthe demonstrations estimates of additional emission reductions. EPA recognizes that any and all ofthis information has some degree ofuncertainty, including the SNPR modeling. EPA recognizes thatthese uncertainties shouldbe considered when making these determinations and that is why EPA considered other factors. EPA's weight ofevidence determinations are not affected by error in any one piece ofthe information.

D.ImpactoftheNOx SIP Callon Attainment ofthe 1-Hour NAAQS
Comment:One commenter states that Massachusetts's NOx emissions interfere with attainment in downwind

areas ofNew Hampshire and Maine and that Connecticut's NOxemissions interfere with attainment in downwind

areas ofMassachusetts, New Hampshire andMaine. Therefore, the commenter states that significant additional NOx reductions are needed for these areas to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The
commenter alsoremarked that neither Massachusetts nor Connecticut has committed to adequate emission control strategies.

Response:In the final rule for the NOx SIP Call (63 FR 57394, October 27, 1998), EPA indicated that Massachusetts contains sources that contribute significantly to 1-hour nonattainment in Maine and New Hampshire, and that Connecticut contains sources that contribute significantly to 1-hour nonattainment in Massachusetts, Maine andNew Hampshire. The NOx SIP Call rule specified the emissions that Connecticut and Massachusetts were required to regulate to address their significant contribution to nonattainment in these downwind States. Massachusetts submitted a rule meeting the NOx SIP Call on November 19, 1999, andEPA proposed approval of this rule onJuly 12, 2000 (65 FR 42907). Similarly, Connecticut submitted arule in response to the NOx SIP Call on October 1, 1999, andEPA proposed approval onJuly 12, 2000 (65 FR 42900). On October 20, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed notices fully approving these rules, and publication is expected soon. These rules have addressed Massachusetts's and Connecticut's contribution to ozone nonattainment in downwind areas. In addition,recent air quality monitoring data for 1998-2000, which have been quality assured, indicate that the Portland, ME, and Portsmouth-DoverRochester, NH, ozone nonattainment

areas no longer violate the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

E.RACM (IncludingTransportation ControlMeasures)

1.Comments on December 16, 1999 Proposal
Comment:Several commenters have statedthat there is no evidence in several states that they have adopted reasonably available control measures (RACM) orthat the SIPs have provided for attainment asexpeditiously as practicable. Specifically, the lack of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)was cited in several comments, but potential stationary source controls

were also covered. One commenter statedthat mobile source emission budgets in theplans are by definition inadequate because the SIPs donot demonstrate timely attainment or contain the emissions reductions required for all RACM. That commenter claims thatEPA may not find adequate

amotor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) that is derived from aSIP that is inadequate for thepurpose for which it is submitted. The commenter alleges that none ofthe MVEBs submittedby the states that EPAis considering for adequacy is consistent with either the level ofemissions achieved by implementation of allRACM; nor are they derived from SIPs that provide for attainment. Some commenters stated that for measures that are not adopted into the SIP, the State mustprovide a justification for why they were determined to not be RACM.

Response:The EPA reviewed the SIP submittals for the four serious areas (Greater Connecticut, Western Massachusetts (Springfield); Metropolitan Washington, D.C.; and Atlanta, Georgia 10) and determined that they did notinclude sufficient documentation concerning available RACM measures. Therefore, EPA reviewed numerous potential RACM

measures. As part ofthis review, EPA developed an analysis, which has been placed inthe dockets for the SIPs for the serious areas to help address thisissue: "RACM Analysis for Four Serious Areas Designated Nonattainment for 1-hr Ozone NAAQS." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. October 12, 2000. An electronic version ofEPA's RACM analysis cited above can be downloaded
atwww.epa.gov/ttn/rto under "What's New." The EPA published anotice of availability ofthis material on October 16, 2000 (65 FR 61134) and provided initially a 15 day public comment period on the material. The EPA extended the public comment period on this supplemental material for an additional 15 days in a notice published November 2, 2000 (65FR 65818) and corrected on November 9, 2000 (65FR 67319).

Section 172(c)(1) ofthe Act requires SIPs to contain RACM and provides for

areas to attain as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the requirements of 172(c)(1). See 57 FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA indicated its interpretation that potentially available measures that would not advance the attainment date for an area would not be considered RACM. EPA also indicated in that guidance that states should consider all potentially available measures to determine whether they were reasonably available for implementation in the area, and whether they would advance the attainment date. Further,
states should indicate in their SIP submittals whether measures considered were reasonably available or not, and ifmeasures are reasonably available they mustbe adopted as RACM. Finally, EPAindicated that

10Theseresponses to comments will not address Atlanta; that willbe addressed inthe future when EPA takes finalrulemaking action on the Atlanta SIP.

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 607 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

states could reject measures as notbeing RACM because they would not advance the attainment date, would cause substantial widespread andlong-term adverse impacts, or wouldbe economically or technologically infeasible. The EPA also issued a recent memorandum 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/oarpg/ tlpgm.html.

The EPA's RACM analysis cited above evaluated emission levels ofoxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) andtheir relationship tothe application of
current and anticipated control

measures expected to be implemented in four serious one-hour ozone nonattainment areas. This analysis was done to determine ifadditional RACM

are available after adoption ofClean Air Act (Act)required measures for the four serious ozone nonattainment areas. The analysis supplemented the December 16, 1999 proposals to approve the 1- hour 03 NAAQS attainment demonstrations in these areas.

Based onthis analysis and other information discussed below, EPA concluded that additional emission control measures would not advance the attainment date andtherefore do not constitute RACM in three nonattainment areas: Greater Connecticut; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Metropolitan Washington. The EPA therefore concludes thatthe SIPs for these areas meet therequirement for adopting RACM.

In addition to control measures already implemented locally, each of the three areas relies in large part on reductions from outside the nonattainment areas from EPA's NOx SIP Call rule or section 126 rule (65 Fed. Reg. 2674, January 18, 2000) toreach attainment. In the NOx SIP Call, 63 Fed. Reg. 57356, EPA concluded that reductions from various upwind states

were necessary to provide for timely attainment in nonattainment areas in various downwind states, including all four ofthe nonattainment areas that

were the subject ofthis analysis. The NOx SIP Call therefore established requirements for control ofsources of significant emissions in all upwind
states. However, these reductions were not slated for full implementation until May 2003. Further, the United States Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ordered that EPA could not require SIPs to provide for full implementation ofthe NOx SIP Call prior to May 2004. Michigan,eta].,

v. EPA,D.C. Cir. No. 98-1497, Order of Aug. 30, 2000.11

The attainment demonstrations for these three serious areas indicate that the ozone benefit expected to be achieved from regional NOx reductions (such asthe NOx SIP Call) are substantial. (See the individual attainment demonstrations in the docket for each ofthese areas.)

EPA had proposed to approve an attainment date extension beyond the original attainment date specified in the Clean Air Act (November 1999) for each ofthe three serious areas: to 2007 for Greater Connecticut; to 2003 for Western Massachusetts; andto 2005 for Metropolitan Washington. The rationale for such extensions is discussed in detail extensions elsewhere in these
responses to comments. Briefly, however, the extensions are being given mainly due to the fact that these areas will have to rely on emission reductions from upwind areas. Some ofthose upwind reductions will be provided under the NOx SIP Call rule with compliance in 2004, and from the section 126 rule, with compliance in 2003. Additional reductions from other nonattainment areas are relied onby Greater Connecticut andthe Metropolitan Washington, DC areas.

ForGreaterConnecticut-Greater Connecticut must rely onreductions from the New York Citynonattainment

area to reach attainment. The New York nonattainment area-classified severehas a statutory attainment date of as late

as 2007. The SIP submitted for New York City, which EPA has proposed to approve, establishes a 2007 attainment date. Itis unlikely that all the emission reductions necessary to reduce sufficiently upwind emissions to bring Greater Connecticut into attainment will be obtained until the attainment year for New YorkCity and the best available evidence indicates that date will be 2007. EPA's zero outmodeling analyses conducted in support ofEPA's NOx SIP Call show that even eliminating all of Connecticut's emissions does not help Connecticut attain prior tothe time New York Cityreaches attainment, since the effects oftransport are so significant. (See 64 FR 70343.) Therefore, EPA concludes that additional emission reductions within Connecticut would

"Several States (DE, PA, CT, MA, RI, MID, NY, NJ) have submitted plans providing forreductions by 2003. EPA has fully approved three ofthese plans (CT, MA, RI). not advance the attainment date for the Greater Connecticut area, andthus that

no additional measures are considered RACM.

ForMetropolitanWashington-There is strong evidence to support the premise that the Washington, DC nonattainment area is impactedby transportfrom outside the modeled Washington-Baltimore area and cannot attain without upwind reductions. The
response to comments on the issue of attainment date extensions for the Metropolitan Washington DC area provides a detailed discussion ofthe role oftransport from within the modeling area and we do not repeat that information here. See section II. A. Based onthat information, it has been clearly demonstrated that, until the Baltimore nonattainment area implements local controls and comes into attainment, there is thepotential for high ozone and precursor emissions fromthe Baltimore nonattainment area to cause exceedances inthe Washington, D.C. nonattainment area.

Based on the above, the Metropolitan Washington, DC area must rely on reductions from outside the nonattainment area toreach attainment. The Baltimore nonattainment areaclassified severe-has a statutory attainment date ofas late as 2005. The SIP submitted for Baltimore, which EPA has proposed to approve, establishes a 2005 attainment date. Itis unlikelythat all the emission reductions necessary to reduce sufficiently upwind emissions to bring Metropolitan Washington into attainment willbe obtained until the attainment year forBaltimore, and the best available evidence indicates that date willbe 2005. Therefore, EPA concludes that additional emission reductions within the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area would not advance the attainment date for the area, and thus that no additional measures

are considered RACM.

ForWesternMassachusettsand MetropolitanWashington: 1. Many ofthe measures designed to achieve emissions reductions from within these nonattainment areas-in particular, the regional NOx reductions-will also notbe fully implemented until justprior to each area's respective attainment date. One could argue that the local measures needed for attainment in these two areas couldbe implemented earlier and advance attainment. Additional reductions beyond those already provided for inthe SIPs for these two

areas could potentially be implemented in the interim period prior to the reductions from these upwind controls; however, they would onlybe needed for 608

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 608 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

an interim period oftime, after which the State could actually replace them if the State submits a new attainment demonstration showing they were no longer necessary. The interim implementation of suchmeasures could likely result in cases where sources would have to install controls, and then would be relieved of such responsibility, which could be disruptive. Thus, EPAbelieves this situation-where the local controls would only marginally advance attainment-supports afinding thatthe additional controls would not be considered RACM.

2.Also, the development ofrules for

sources in the Western Massachusetts andMetropolitan Washington nonattainment areas for which little control information may existespecially alarge number ofvery different source categories of small sources-will likely take much longer than development ofrules for source categories for which control information exists orthat comprise a smaller number oflarger sources. The longer the time frame for development ofrules by the State would decrease the possibility that the emission reductions from the rules would advance the attainment date earlierthan would be achieved from the larger amount ofreductions expected from upwind controls, such as the NOx SIP Call rule and the section 126 rule.

Forallthreeareas-Onecould also argue that the measures needed in the upwind area that is affecting the area in question couldbe implemented earlier andtherefore could result in earlier attainment. The EPA recognizes thatit has not taken final rulemaking on the

severe areas that affect the three serious

areas in question (NewYork for the Greater Connecticut andWestern Massachusetts nonattainment areas, and Baltimore for the Metropolitan Washington nonattainment area). However, since EPA must take rulemaking action on the three serious

areas at this time, and because it does
not have information tothe contrary at this point, EPA must presume the attainment dates submitted by the States and for which EPAproposed approval

onDecember 16, 1999, and therefore
presume that emission controls for those

severe areas will be implemented as expeditiously as practicable on a schedule to achieve those reductions. Because EPA proposed to approve the attainment dates for the severe areas in question, itis reasonable to assume that the severe areas cannot implement their

measures to achieve attainment any

more expeditiously.

Thus, EPA believes that implementation of additional measures in the three nonattainment areas will
not advance the attainment date, prior
to the time offull implementation ofthe SIP call and/orthe section 126 rule and, for Greater Connecticut and Metropolitan Washington, prior to implementation bythe upwind area of alllocal measures needed to attainby the area's attainment date.

Therefore, EPA concludes, based on the available documentation, thatthe reductions from additional control

measures willnot advance attainment, andthus none ofthese potential

measures analyzed can be considered RACM for purposes ofsection 172(c)(1) for these three areas for their 1-hour

ozone standard attainment demonstration.

Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires implementation of additional measures for these three serious areas, this conclusion is not necessarily valid for other areas. For 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as severe, for instance, some ofwhich are the "upwind" areas referred to in the above
responses for serious areas, such

measures mayin fact be RACM, andthe States in which such areas are located have aresponsibility toperform an analysis ofwhether additional measures

are RACM. EPA is about to issue additional guidance concerning the RACM requirement forthe severe areas. In addition,ifin the future EPAmoves forward to implement another ozone standard, thisRACM analysis would not control what is RACM for these or any other areas for that other ozone standard.

Also, EPA has long advocated that States consider the kinds ofcontrol

measures thatthe commenters have suggested, andEPA has indeed provided guidance onthose measures. See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ transp.htm. In order to demonstrate that they will attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable,

some areas may need to consider and adopt anumber ofmeasures-including the kindthat EPAitself evaluated in the RACM analysis for the three serious areas-that even collectively donot result in many emission reductions. Furthermore, EPA encourages areas to implement technically available and economically feasible measures to achieve emissions reductions in the short term-even if suchmeasures do
not advance the attainment date-since suchmeasures will likely improve air quality. Also, over time, emission control measures that may not be RACM

now for an area may ultimately become feasible for the same area due to advances in control technology or more cost-effective implementation techniques. Thus, areas should continue
to assess the state ofcontrol technology

as they make progress toward attainment and consider new control technologies that mayin factresult in

more expeditious improvement in air quality.

Discussion ofother factors related to RACM, such as economic and technological feasibility, are discussed below in responses to comments on EPA'sRACM analysis.

Elsewhere in thisresponse to comments, EPA addresses the issue of whether the attainment dates are as expeditious as practicable and that discussion is not repeated here.

EPA previously responded to comments concerning the adequacy of MVEBs when EPA tookfinal action determining the budgets adequate and does not address those issues again here. The responses are found at http:/ /www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/ pastsips.htm.

Comments on the supplemental material were received from several
commenters and are addressed below.

Note thatthe response to the
comment related to severe areas will be provided at the time EPAtakes final rulemaking action on those areas.
2.Comments on October 16, 2000 Notice ofAvailability

Comment 1:EPA cannotinvent rationales forthestates:EPA's role is limited to reviewing what the states have submitted, and approving or disapproving it. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); RiversideCement Co.v. Thomas, 843 F.2d 1246 (9thCir. 1988). EPA "may either accept or reject what the state proposes; but EPA may not take a portion ofwhat the state proposes and amend the proposal ad libitum." Id.If
states are going toreject control
measures, their decision to do so and the rationale therefore must be subject
to notice and hearing atthe state and local level.

Response 1:The SIP submittals from the States for the Metropolitan Washington, Western Massachusetts, and the Greater Connecticut nonattainment areas contained no
measures adopted for the sole purpose ofsatisfying the RACM requirement. The public did have a chance to comment atthe State level onthe fact thatthere were no additional measures. The EPAinterpreted this lack of additional measures as an indication thatthe State did not identify any additional measures as meeting the RACM requirement under section 172(c)(1). The EPA did not amend the SIP; EPA supplemented the rationale 

### 609

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 609 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

and approved the SIP with an explanation ofwhy itwas acceptable for the State to identify no additional

measures to meet the RACM requirement ofthe Clean Air Act.

The commenter cites Riverside Cementfor the proposition that EPA
cannot perform an analysis ofwhether the State's plan complies with the CAA's RACM requirement. The EPA believes that the holding ofthat case is inapplicable to these facts. In Riverside Cement,EPA approved a control requirement establishing an emission limit into the SIP and disregarded a contemporaneously-submitted contingency that would allow the State
to modify the emission limit. Thus, the
court concluded that EPA "amended" the State proposal by approving into the SIP something different than what the State had intended. 843 F.2d at 1248. In the present circumstances, EPA did not attempt to modify a substantive control requirement ofthe submittedplan. Rather, EPA performed additional analyses to determine ifthe plan, as submitted, fulfilled the substantive RACM requirement ofthe Act. As a general matter, EPA believes thatStates shouldperform their own analyses of RACM (aswell as submitting other supporting documents for the choices they make). The statute places primary responsibility on the States to submit plans that meet the Act's requirements. However, nothing in the Act precludes EPA from performing those analyses, andthe Act clearly provides thatEPA
must determine whether the State's submission meets the Act's requirements. Under that authority, EPA believes that itis appropriate, though
not mandated, that EPAperform independent analyses to determine whether a submission meets the requirements ofthe Act. The EPA has
not attempted to modify the State's submission by either adding or deleting

a substantive element ofthe submitted plan. Byvirtue ofthe supplemental RACM analysis, EPAhas concluded that the State's initial submission contains control measures sufficient to meet the RACM requirement. Comment2 (a):Inappropriate grounds forrejectingRACM. The
commenter claims thatEPA's bases for rejecting measures as RACM are inappropriate considerations: (a) The

measures are "likely to require an intensive and costly effort for numerous small area sources"; or (b)the measures "do not advance the attainment dates" for the four areas. 65 Fed. Reg. at 61134. Neither ofthese grounds are legally or rationally sufficient bases for rejecting control measures. Response2(a):The EPA's approach toward the RACM requirement is grounded in the language ofthe Clean Air Act. Section 172(c)(1) states that a SIP for a nonattainment area must meet the following requirement, "In general.-Such planprovisions shall provide for the implementation of all reasonablyavailablecontrolmeasures

asexpeditiouslyaspracticable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology) and shallprovide forattainmentofthenational primary ambientairqualitystandards." [Emphasis added.] The EPAinterprets this language astying the RACM requirement to therequirement for attainment ofthe national primary ambient air quality standard. The Act provides thatthe attainment date shall be "as expeditiously aspracticable but

no later than * * *" the deadlines specified in the Act. EPA believes that the use ofthe same terminology in conjunction with the RACM requirement serves the purpose of specifying RACM asthe way of expediting attainment ofthe NAAQS in advance ofthe deadline specified in the Act. As statedin the "General Preamble" (57 FR 13498 at 13560, April 16, 1992), "The EPAinterprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the area as componentsofthe area's attainmentdemonstration."[Emphasis added.] In other words, because ofthe construction ofthe RACM language in the CAA, EPA does not viewthe RACM requirement as separate from the attainment demonstration requirement. Therefore, EPA believes thatthe Act supports its interpretation that measures may be determined to notbe RACM if they do not advance the attainment date. In addition, EPAbelieves that it would notbe reasonable to require implementation ofmeasures that would
not in fact advance attainment. See 57 FR 13560.

The term "reasonably available control measure" is not actually defined in the definitions in the Act. Therefore, the EPAinterpretation thatpotential

measures maybe determined not to be RACM iftheyrequire an intensive and costly effort for numerous small area

sources isbased onthe common sense meaning ofthe phrase, "reasonably available." Ameasure that is reasonably available is one thatis technologically and economically feasible andthat can be readily implemented. Ready implemention also includes consideration ofwhether emissions from small sources are relatively small and whether the administrative burden,
to the States andregulated entities, of controlling such sources was likelyto be considerable. As stated in the General Preamble, EPAbelieves that States can reject potential measures based on local conditions including cost. 57 FR 13561.

Also, the development ofrules for a large number ofvery different source categories of small sources for which little control information may exist will likely take much longer than development ofrules for source categories for which control information exists or that comprise a smaller number oflarger sources. The longer the time frame for development ofrules by the State would decrease the possibility that the emission reductions from the rules in the three nonattainment areas would advance the attainment date earlierthan wouldbe achieved from the larger
amount ofreductions expected from upwind controls, such as from the NOx SIP Call and controls from severe areas with later statutory attainment dates.

Comment2(b):EPA's approach also illegally assumes thatthe attainment dates for these areas can be extended beyond November 15, 1999 via the Agency's downwind transport policy.

Response2(b):As noted above, EPA concluded that RACM is linked inthe language ofthe Clean AirAct to the attainment date. We elsewhere respond
to comments that objectto EPA's approval ofattainment date extensions and do notrestate those responses here. See Section II. A. Once an attainment date is set for an area, an analysis can thenbe made to determine whether any additional measures that may potentially be RACM would advance that attainment date.

Comment3:Failure to quantify reductionsneededtoattainsooner: Even ifadvancement ofthe attainment date were a relevant test for RACM, EPA has failed to rationally justify its claim that additional control measures would
notmeet thattest. To begin with, neither the Agency nor the states have quantified in amanner consistent with EPArules and guidance the emission reductions that wouldbe needed to attain the standard prior to achievement ofemission reductions required under the NOx SIP Call.

Response3:Elsewhere in this
response to comments on theproposed approval ofthe 1-hour ozone SIPs, EPA addresses the issue ofthe attainment date extension. See sectionII. A. EPA has thereinjustified the position that

areas affected bytransport may need 

### 610

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 610 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 611

additional time to attain-and in some
cases may need an extension out to either the date the NOx SIP Call willbe implemented or the attainment date of

an upwind area ifitcannot attain without the reductions from the upwind

area. In the case ofGreater Connecticut, it would be futile to perform analyses of whether additional emission reductions in the nonattainment area-whether RACM orbeyond RACM-would advance the attainment date when itis already demonstrated through modeling that the area cannot attain sooner than the upwind New York City nonattainment area that needs to control. In addition, all local measures needed for attainment are already being implemented. EPA considers this implementation as expeditious as practicable. In the case ofWestern Massachusetts, all local measures are already being implemented also. EPA also considers this implementation as expeditious as practicable. Issues concerned with timing of implementation of additional measures

are also discussed above for the three serious areas.

For all three areas, EPA's section 126 rule requires compliance with covered emission reductions in 2003, which EPA considers as expeditiously as practicable for those sources. Additional discussion ofthe Metropolitan Washington nonattainment area appears below. Comment4:Inadequate RACM analysis: EPA's RACM analysis is grossly inadequate in several key respects. Comment4(a):EPA's analysis fails to provide the technical basis and calculations by which itdeveloped its emission reduction estimates for various

measures. EPAfailed to provide citations to the literature regarding estimates ofemission reductions for various TCMs. EPAfailed to specify the level ofimplementation assumed for

some ofthe TCMs in the analysis.

Response4(a):EPA's RACM analysis (found atwww.epa.gov/ttn/rto) did provide the technical basis and calculations for its emission reduction estimates for controls possible for the

source categories in the emission inventory. The commenter apparently believes EPA's analysis is insufficient, however. The technical basis for the analyses and the assumptions used in the calculation ofestimated emission reductions were derived from a review ofthe literature on the implementation and effectiveness ofTCM's. 12The TCMs

12Transportation Control Meausres: State Implementation Plan guidance, USEPA 1992; Transportation Control Measure Information evaluated depend onthe level of implementation. Implementation variables, representing levels of implementation effort, are implicit in the range ofeffectiveness for each category ofTCM. EPA does not believe it isnecessary, or evenpossible, to evaluate every explicit variation of TCM's in order to adequately determine ifitis reasonably available. EPA believes that using the midpoint level of effectiveness represents a level of implementation effort that isnot so high

asto be economically infeasible, nor so low as to be ineffective. Comment4(b):EPA's analysis looks at only a small universe ofpotential
measures, and does not evaluate all of the measures identified in public
comment and other sources.

Response4(b):EPA's RACM analysis

was intended to address all potential categories of stationary and mobile

sources that couldprovide additional emission reductions that might be considered RACM. The EPA believes that all identified measures were included in the categories addressed in the analysis. Comment4(c):EPA's analysis also completely fails to consider the additional benefits likely from combined implementation of complementary TCMS e.g., parking management along with transit improvements. Itis arbitrary and irrational forEPA to assume that these

measures can andwill be implemented in complete isolation from one another.

Response4(c):EPA recognizes that
many control measures-particularly TCMS-are more effective ifdone in conjunction with others. EPA maintains, however, thatit wouldbe impossible to analyze a seeming infinite set of combinations ofmeasures for possible benefits. The EPA's analysis did lookat allmeasures in various categories and concluded that as a whole these categories ofmeasures would not advance attainment or would otherwise
not be reasonably available. Comment5: Stationarysources: The analysis ofpotential emission reductions from additional stationary

source measures isflawed in several key respects. Comment5(a):First, EPA arbitrarily excluded from any consideration the bottom 20% ofthe stationary source categories.

Response5(a):EPA does not consider this exclusion arbitrary, since it was designed to eliminate from

Documents, US EPA 1992; Costs andEffectiveness ofTransportation ControlMeausres: A Review and Analysis ofthe Literature, National Association of Regional Councils 1994. consideration controls on a number of

source categories that were not expected
to yieldmany emission reductions. The EPAbelieved that controls on categories with very low emission reduction potential would not constitute RACM. The fact that none ofthe top 80 percent ofthe categories considered for additional controls yielded measures thatEPA considered RACM for the areas in question validates EPA's decision not to analyze separately the bottom 20 percent ofthe categories, which would cumulatively have achieved fewer emission reductions. Therefore, EPA concludes that controlmeasures applied
to thebottom 20 percent ofthe categories are also not RACM.

Comment5(b):Second, EPA did not consider potential additional controls

on electric generating units and point

source combustion sources.

Response5(b):Undoubtedly there are additional controls that could be placed

on electric generating units and point

source combustion sources. However, EPAbelieves thatthe implementation of the RACT requirements in nonattainment areas and, more importantly, the implementation ofthe NOx SIP Callin all areas affecting the nonattainment areas in general provide

a level of controlthat represents all reasonably available controls for these

sources in the areas in question. The EPAbelieves that generally, the level of NOx emissions control required under the NOx SIP Call for larger sources, including electric generating units and point source combustion sources, is greater than the level ofcontrol presumed by EPAunder the NOx RACT requirement. The NOx SIP Call isbased

on a level ofhighly cost effective controls, characterized as having a $2000 per ton cost effectiveness or less (63 FR 57400, October 27, 1998). The presumptive level ofRACT provided in EPA guidance isbased on cost effectiveness up to $1300 per ton (Memorandum ofMarch 16, 1994, from D. Kent Berry re: "Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)"). EPA acknowledges that controls with
costs higherthan $2000 per ton are available and may be cost-effective. However, the control costs do not reflect other concerns regarding reasonableness ofcontrol. EPA received comments that predicted problems with availability of electrical generation even at the NOx SIP Call level ofcontrol; therefore, inits final NOx SIP Call rule, EPA included provisions for a NOx supplement pool
to allow more time for some units to

come into compliance andthus minimize potential power availability problems. At control levels greater than

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 611 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

those in the NOx SIP Call rule, EPA believes the time States would need to provide for sources to come into compliance while avoiding power availability problems would be more than the current amount oftime for Western Massachusetts and Metropolitan Washington to attain. Therefore, EPA had determined that such additional controls donot constitute RACM.

Comment5(c):Third, EPA assumes that only a 50% level ofcontrol is achievable for the uncontrolled emissions. This completely unsupported claim is hardto fathom.

Response5(c):EPA's long-standing guidance on the RACT requirement for stationary sources ofVOC has generally assumed a presumptive norm of81 percent control efficiency; this efficiency was based on the assumption ofa 90 percent capture efficiency and 90 percent control efficiency ofthe captured emissions (0.9 X 0.9 = 0.81). However, the specific VOC RACT control techniques guidelines were developed for emission sources for which much information about emissions and controls was available. The RACT rules often apply to smaller

sources as well as to major sources. There isnot nearly as much information available concerning source categories for which RACT guidelines have not been developed; nor is there information regarding what controls are appropriate for the smaller sources that

are not already subject to RACT. Therefore, without further information, EPA was hesitant to assume an 81 percent level ofcontrol. EPA therefore chose a 50 percent level ofcontrol for VOC control, which EPA believes is reasonable in light ofour limited knowledge on available controls.

The EPA established guidance to States in complying withthe Clean Air Act's requirements for NOxRACT in the NOx Supplement tothe General Preamble (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992). That guidance addressed RACT for major stationary sources ofNOx. Under section 182(b)(2) ofthe Act, moderate and higher ozone nonattainment area SIPs-and also SIPs for all areas in the Ozone Transport Region-were already required to contain provisions for applying a reasonably available level ofcontrol for NOx for major stationary sources. For NOx emission control for other sources, when EPApublished the NOx SIP Call (63 FR 57402, October 27, 1998), EPA evaluated other levels ofcontrol for categories ofstationary sources that

were not included in the highly costeffective controls assumed for establishing the level ofcontrol reflected in the Statewide NOx emission budgets in thatrule. The EPA determined that for area sources, additional controls that were technologically feasible andhighly costeffective could not be identified. The EPA determined thatfor smallpoint
sources, their collective emissions were relatively small and the administrative burden, tothe States and regulated entities, of controlling such sources was likely to be considerable. Nonetheless, for the purpose ofthe RACM analysis, EPA did assume alevel ofcontrol for

sources withpotential for control. In light ofthe lower level ofconfidence in information concerning NOx controls on these sources, andthe conclusion concerning cost effectiveness, however, EPA believed it had totake a more conservative approach, andthus chose a lower level ofcontrol, namely 50 percent. The EPAbelieves this level is reasonable in light ofthese facts. Comment6:Transportation Control Measures as RACM: EPA gives virtually

no consideration to the emission reduction benefits oftransportation
programs, projects and services contained in adopted regional transportation plans (RTPs), or that are clearly available for adoption as part of RTPs adopted for anonattainment area. In addition,it is arbitrary and capricious for EPA not to require asRACM economic incentive measures that are generally available to reduce motor vehicle emissions in every nonattainment area.

Response6:EPA's notice of availability ofthe RACM analysis (65 FR 61134, October 16, 2000) does consider transportation programs, projects and services that are generally adopted, or available for inclusion in a nonattainment area'sregional transportation plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The RACM analysis includes

sevenbroad categories and twentyseven subcategories ofTransportation Control Measures (TCMs)that represent

arange ofprograms, projects and services that canbe included in RTP's and TIP's. The inclusion ofa TCM in an RTP orTIP does not necessarily mean that itmeets EPA's criteria for RACM and must be included in the SIP. EPA has concluded that implementation of these TCM's would not advance the attainment date for the Greater Connecticut, Western Massachusetts, or Metropolitan Washington nonattainment areas, andtherefore are not considered RACM for purposes of the attainment SIPs for those three

areas.

Some ofthese TCM's, such asparking cashout,transit subsidies, and parking pricing, are explicitly economic incentive programs. Furthermore, these categories ofTCMs, as well as most of the others, couldbe infinitely differentiated according to criteria, such

as the method ofimplementation, level ofpromotional effort or market penetration, stringency ofenforcement,
etc. The application ofeconomic incentives to increase the effectiveness ofa TCM is one such criterion. These implementation variables, representing levels ofimplementation effort, are implicit in the range ofeffectiveness for each category ofTCM. EPA does not believe itis necessary, or even possible,
to evaluate every explicit variation of TCM's in order to adequately determine ifitis reasonably available. EPA believes thatusing the midpoint level of effectiveness represents a level of implementation effort that is not so high

as to be economically infeasible, nor so low as to be ineffective.

Also, there are many important

reasons why a state, regional, or local planning agency might implement TCMs in an integrated traffic management planbeyond whatever air quality benefits the TCMs might generate, including preserving open space, water shed protection, avoiding sprawl, mitigating congestion, and "smart growth" planning generally. So the fact that TCMs are being implemented in certain ozone nonattainment areas does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion thatthose TCMsrepresent mandatory RACM measures when they are analyzed primarily for the purpose of determining whether they would advance the ozone attainment date.

Comment7:Washington, D.C. area analysis: Having refused to consider a wide range ofmeasures for this area, and understating the potential benefits ofothers, EPA asserts that available

measures wouldnot advance the attainment date in Washington because: (a) The area relies heavily on control of transported emissions and ozone; and (b)the modeling indicates thatNOx reductions are generally more beneficial in reducing ozone levels, suggesting that the area may be NOx limited. The first point is truly irrelevant to the RACM inquiry. Even ifthe issue is whether additional measures could advance the attainment date, that inquiry is not informed by whether the area might attainby 2005 due to NOx SIP Call reductions, but by whether itcould attain sooner than 2005 through additional local emission reductions. As
to the second point, the modeling does
not show thatNOx reductions are inherently more beneficial. They merely show that under some circumstances 

### 612

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 612 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

generally involving very substantial NOx reductions (e.g., 60% cuts) NOx reductions mightprovide greater benefits per ton. The same model shows that NOxreductions can sometimes actually lead to increased ozone levels in some cells. Even ifthe ozone problem in the Washington area is NOx limited, that hardlyjustifies eschewing additional measures; at mostit would suggest focusing more heavily on additional measures for NOx sources. The commenter also attached a summary of South Coast AQMD Clean Fleet Rules.

Response 7:The sensitivity analyses that were performed with the photochemical grid model for the Baltimore-Washington area (see Attachment 4 ofthe RACM analysis) showed that, even with smaller NOx emission reductions (e.g., 30% from the

area and mobile sectors), the ozone benefits that are achieved are substantially greater than the minor

ozone benefits achieved from similar VOC emission reductions. Therefore, EPA stands byits beliefthat the levels ofVOC reductions in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area that could be achieved by additional stationary and mobile source control measures that are potentially RACM would not improve

ozone levels tothe point that would result in advancing the attainment date. Furthermore, EPA's analysis demonstrated that the source categories that were available for mobile NOx controls were considered too limitedeven with the area's ability tobenefit from NOx controls-to advance the attainment date.13 Also,EPA's analysis oflevels ofNOxreductions in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area that couldbe achieved by additional stationary source controls that are potentially RACM would have to come from a large number ofsmall sources where EPA does not have much guidance for control, and therefore couldbe costlyto develop. Therefore, EPA concluded that additional controls

onthe source categories evaluated would not be considered RACM. It shouldbe noted that the modeling was done for amodeling domain encompassing both Baltimore and Washington. The sensitivity analyses

were performed for the entire area. Baltimore is classified severe with a 2005 attainment date, whereas the Metropolitan Washington

13RACM Analysis for Four Serious Areas Designated Nonattainment for 1-hr Ozone NAAQS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, AnnArbor, MI 48105. October 12, 2000. p. 6. nonattainment area is classified as a serious area. EPA has proposed to approve an attainment date extension for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

area precisely because the modeling shows that additional controls are needed for theWashington area to come into attainment-both from outside the modeling domain, and from within the Baltimore area. Otherreasons for why EPA does not consider additional

measures to be RACM for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area are discussed elsewhere in these responses to comments. Comment8:EPA did not provide sufficient notice and time topermit adequate comment.

Response8:In its initial notice of availability ofthe RACM analysis (65 FR 61134, October 16, 2000) EPA offered a 15 day commentperiod (to October 31, 2000). OnNovember 2, 2000 (65 FR 65818), EPA extended the comment period an additional 15 days, specifically statingthat this would provide a total of 30 days for public
comment. Unfortunately, that notice

was published with a typographical

error that appeared to extend the
comment period an additional year and 15 days. Therefore, on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67319), EPA published a correction to clearly extend the
comment period 15 days from October 31, 2000, to November 15, 2000. EPA believes 30 days is an adequate period for public comment. The first notice to extend the public commentperiod (the November 2, 2000 notice) made it quite clear thatthe extension was for only 15 days toprovide a total of 30 days for comment; EPAbelieves no possible confusion should have resulted from the fact thatthe end date ofthe comment period contained atypographical error. Comment9:EPAis trying to circumvent obligations under 2Consent Decrees (MOG vs EPA andNRDC v. Browner).

Response9:This comment refers to consent decrees filed in two cases: NRDCv. Browner,No. 99-2976 (D.D.C.) andMidwest Ozone Groupv. EPA,No. 00-1047 (D.D.C.). InNRDC,the consent decree provides that byNovember 15, 2000, EPA shall propose a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the Springfield, Massachusetts; Greater Connecticut; andMetropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment areas if EPA has not approved full attainment demonstration SIP for that area. The
consent decree forMidwest Ozone Groupis similar,but not identical. It provides thatEPA shall propose federal implementation plans (FIPs) for two of the three nonattainment areasSpringfield, Massachusetts and Greater Connecticut-ifEPAhas not proposed approval ofa full attainment demonstration SIP forthat area. The EPAmet its obligation under the Midwest OzoneGroupdecree when it proposed approval ofthe full attainment demonstration SIPs for those two areas

on December 16, 1999. 64 FR 70319 and 64 FR 70332. On November 6, 2000, the DistrictCourt granted EPA'sunopposed motion to extend the deadline for action underthe NRDCdecree until December 15, 2000 for each ofthe three areas. On December 7, 2000, the court further extended the date for EPA action with respect to Springfield until December 22, 2000. The EPA has complied with theNRDCconsent decree withrespect to the Greater Connecticut and Metropolitan Washington, D.C. areas. The appropriate Regional Administrators signed final rulemaking actions approving the full attainment demonstration SIPs for those two areas by December 15, 2000. The EPAis on track to comply with the NRDCconsent decree for the Springfield, Massachusetts nonattainment area by December 22, 2000.

Comment 10:Since EPAfound that MA and CTfailed to conduct an adequate RACM analysis, EPAmust disapprove the SIPs and propose aFIP.

Response 10:Although EPA found thatMA and CTfailed to conduct an adequate RACM analysis, EPAbelieves itdoes have authority to supplement the record and conclude thatthe SIPs for these two areas meet the RACM requirement ofthe Act. See above the
response to comment.

F. Relianceon CommitmentsandState RulesNot Yet Adopted

Comment:Several commenters disagreed with the EPA'sproposal to approve attainment demonstrations and rate-of-progress plans for the Springfield, Massachusetts, Greater Connecticut, and Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone nonattainment

areas because not all ofthe emissions reductions credited inthe demonstrations or plans are supported by legally enforceable limitations adopted and approved by the state or District and approved bythe EPA as part ofthe SIP. Commenters also objected to accepting enforceable state commitments to adopt emission reduction control measures in the future in lieu ofcurrent adopted measures.

Response:The EPA has approved previously, or is approving together with the attainment demonstrations, all outstanding emission reduction limitations relied onfor attainment for these three areas. Thus, none ofthe three areas on which the EPAis 

### 613

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 613 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

approving have commitments to adopt emission reduction measures in the future and all emission reductions rules relied on for attainment have been fully approved bythe EPA.

G.Adequacy of MotorVehicle EmissionsBudgets
Comment:We received a number of
comments about theprocess and substance ofEPA's review ofthe adequacy ofmotor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity
purposes. (Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council, New York Department of Transportation, New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, EarthJustice, Southern Environmental Law Center)

Response:EPA's adequacy process for these SIPs hasbeen completed, and we have found the motor vehicle emissions budgets in all ofthese SIPs to be adequate. We have already responded to any comments related to adequacy when we issued our adequacy findings, andtherefore we are not listing the individual comments orresponding to them here. Our findings ofadequacy andresponses to comments can be accessed at www.epa.gov/otaq/traq (oncethere, click on the "conformity" button). At the web site, EPA regional
contacts are identified.

H. MotorVehicle EmissionsInventory
Comment:Several commenters stated that the motor vehicle emissions inventory is not current, particularly with respect tothe fleetmix. Commenters stated thatthe fleet mix does not accurately reflect the growing proportion of sport utility vehicles and gasoline trucks, which pollute more than conventional cars. Also, a commenter statedthat EPA and states have not followed a consistent practice in updating SIP modeling to account for changes invehicle fleets. For these
reasons, commenters recommend disapproving the SIPs. (Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council; EarthJustice; Southern Environmental Law Center)

Response:All ofthe SIPs on which

we are taking final action are based on the mostrecent vehicle registration data available at the time the SIP was prepared. The SIPs use the same vehicle fleet characteristics that were used in the mostrecent periodic inventory update. The Metropolitan Washington, DC Ozone Nonattainment Area SIP is based onvehicle registration data from 1996, which isthe mostrecent data available at the time the SIP was prepared and submitted. Clearly the 1999 data could not have been used in
motor vehicle emissions projections prepared in the fall of1998 as documented in appendix D ofthe SIP. EPA requires the most recent available datato be used, but we do not require it tobe updated on a specific schedule. Therefore, different SIPs base their fleet mix on different years ofdata. Our guidance does not suggest that SIPs shouldbe disapproved onthis basis. Further, EPA does not require states to go back and reanalyze SIP submissions ifnew databecomes available shortly before EPA takes final action on the SIP. Nevertheless, we do expect that revisions to these SIPs that are submitted using MOBILE6 (as required in those cases where the SIP isrelying

on emissions reductions from the Tier 2 standards) will use updated vehicle registration data appropriate for use with MOBILE6, whether itis updated local data or the updated national default data that will be part of MOBILE6. EPAis requiring the Metropolitan Washington, DC area states to revise the attainment budgets using MOBILE6.

L VOCEmissionReductions
Comment:For States that need additional VOC reductions, this
commenter recommends a process to achieve these VOC emission reductions, which involves the use ofHFC-152a (1,1 difluoroethane) as theblowing agent in manufacturing ofpolystyrene foam products such as food trays and
egg cartons. HFC-152a could be used instead ofhydrocarbons, a known pollutant, as ablowing agent. Use of HFC-152a, which is classified as VOC exempt, would eliminate nationwide the entire 25,000 tons/year ofVOC emissions from this industry.

Response:EPA has met with the
commenter andhas discussed the technology described bythe company to reduce VOC emissions from polystyrene foam blowing through the use ofHFC152a (1,1 difluoroethane), which is a VOC exempt compound, as a blowing agent. Since the HFC-152a isVOC exempt, itsuse would give aVOC reduction compared to the use ofVOCs such apentane or butane as ablowing agent. However, EPA has not studied this technology exhaustively. Itis each State's prerogative to specify which

measures itwill adopt in order to achieve the additional VOC reductions it needs. In evaluating the use ofHFC152a, States may want to consider claims thatproducts made with this blowing agent are comparable in quality
to products made with other blowing agents. Also the question ofthe over-all long term environmental effect of encouraging emissions offluorine compounds would be relevant to consider. This is atechnology which States may want to consider, but ultimately, the decision ofwhether to require this particular technology to achieve the necessary VOC emissions reductions must be made by each affected State. Finally, EPA notes that underthe significant new alternatives policy (SNAP) program, created under CAA §612, EPAhas identified acceptable foam blowing agents many of which are not VOCs (http:// www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/).

J.Credit forMeasuresNotFully Implemented

Comment:States shouldnot be given credit for measures that are notfully implemented. Forexample, the States

are being given full credit for Federal coating, refinishing and consumer product rules that have been delayed or weakened.

Response:Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings: OnMarch 22, 1995 EPA issued a memorandum 14 that provided that States could claim a 20% reduction in VOC emissions from the AIM coatings category in ROP and attainment plans based onthe anticipated promulgation ofa national AIM coatings rule. In developing the attainment andROP SIPs for their nonattainment areas, States relied on this memorandum to estimate emission reductions from the anticipated national AIM rule. EPA promulgated the final AIMrule in September 1998, codified at40 CFR part 59 subpart D. In the preamble to EPA's final AIM coatings regulation, EPA estimated that the regulation will result in 20% reduction ofnationwide VOC emissions from AIM coatings categories (63 FR 48855). The estimated VOC reductions from the final AIM rule resulted inthe same level as those estimated in the March 1995 EPA policy memorandum. In accordance with EPA's final regulation, States have assumed a 20% reduction from AIM coatings source categories in their attainment and ROP plans. AIM coatings manufacturers were required to be in compliance with the final regulation within one year of promulgation, except for certain pesticide formulations which were given an additional year to comply. Thus all manufacturers were required to comply, atthe latest, by September

14 "Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rules," March 22, 1995, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X. 

### 614

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 614 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 615

2000. Industry confirmed in comments

onthe proposed AIM rule that 12 months between the issuance ofthe final rule and the compliance deadline would be sufficient to "use up existing label stock" and "adjust inventories" to conform to therule. 63 FR 48848 (September 11, 1998). In addition, EPA determined that, after the compliance date, the volume ofnonconforming products would be very low (less than

one percent) and would be withdrawn from retail shelves anyway. Therefore, EPA believes that compliant coatings

were in useby the Fall of 1999 andthat it was appropriate for the States to take credit for those reductions in their SIPs.

Autobody Refinish Coatings Rule: Consistent with a November 27, 1994 EPA policy, 15 many States have claimed

a 37% reduction from this source category based on a proposed rule. However, EPA's final rule, "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings," published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48806), did not regulate lacquer topcoats and will result in a smaller emission reduction ofaround 33% overall nationwide. The 37% emission reduction from EPA's proposed rule was an estimate ofthe total nationwide emission reduction. Since this number is an overall national
average, the actual reduction achieved in any particular area could vary depending on the level ofcontrol which already existed in the area. Forexample, in California the reduction from the national rule is zero because California's rules are more stringent than the national rule. In the proposed rule, the estimated percentage reduction for areas that were unregulated before the national rule was about 40%. However

as a result ofthe lacquer topcoat exemption added between proposal and final rule, the reduction is now estimated to be 36% for previously unregulated areas. Both the District and Virginia claimed 35.7% credit in their attainment and ROP plans while Maryland claimed 45%. EPA's best estimate ofthereduction potential of the final rule was spelled out in a September 19, 1996 memorandum entitled "Emissions Calculations for the Automobile Refinish Coatings Final Rule" from Mark Morris to Docket No. A-95-18. The basis for approving Maryland's reductions is dealt with in a response to a separate comment

15

"Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans forReductions fromtheArchitectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Ruleand the Autobody Refinishing Rule," November 27, 1994, John S.Seitz, Director OAQPS, to AirDivision Directors, Regions I-X. Consumer Products Rule: Consistent with a June 22, 1995 EPA guidance,16 States have claimed a 20% reduction from this source category based on EPA's proposed rule. The final rule, "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products," (63 FR 48819), published on September 11, 1998, has resulted in a 20% reduction afterthe December 10, 1998 compliance date. In the consumer products rule, EPA determined andthe

consumer products industry concurred, that a significant proportion of subject products have been reformulated in
response to State regulations and in anticipation ofthe final rule. 63 FR 48819. That is, industry reformulated the products covered bythe consumer products rule in advance ofthe final rule. Therefore, EPAbelieves that complying products in accordance with the rule were in use by the Fall of1999 andthat itwas appropriate for the States
to take credit for those reductions in their SIPs.

K.EnforcementofControlPrograms
Comment:The attainment demonstrations do not clearly set out programs for enforcement ofthe various control strategies relied on for emission reduction credit.

Response:State enforcement program elements are contained in SIP revisions previously approved by EPAunder obligations for enforceable emission limitations set out in section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act. Once approved by the EPA, there isno need for states to readopt andresubmit their enforcement programs with each and every SIP revision generally required by other sections ofthe Act.

L. Contingency Measures
Comment:The SIPs for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment area do not provide contingency measures to make up for any emission reduction shortfall, either in achievement ofROP milestones or for failure to attain, as required by sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)ofthe Clean Air Act. The lawn/garden control measure that is included in the SIP for the District ofColumbia andindicated as sufficient for a contingency measure is
not currently legally enforceable, is only episodic in nature, andwould not be adopted until 18 months after notice of

amilestone failure.

Response:The EPA believes the contingency measure requirements of

16

"Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and
Commercial Products under Section 183(e) ofthe Clean Air Act," June 22, 1995, John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions
I-X. sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) are independent requirements from the attainment demonstration requirements under sections 172(c)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A) andthe rate-of-progress (ROP)requirements under sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B). The contingency measure requirements are to address the event that an area fails to meet a ROP milestone or fails to attain the ozone NAAQS by the attainment date established in the SIP. The contingency measure requirements have

nobearing onwhether a state has submitted a SIP that projects attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS orthe required ROPreductions toward attainment. The attainment orROP SIP provides a demonstration that attainment or ROP requirements ought to be fulfilled, but the contingency measure SIP requirements concern what is to happen onlyifattainment or ROP isnot actually achieved. The EPA acknowledges that contingency measures are an independently required SIP revision, but does not believe that submission of contingency measures is necessary before EPA may approve an attainment

or ROP SIP. Also see the discussion of contingency measures in the extension ofthe attainment date policy section.

The EPA has, however, examined the ROP and attainment SIPs for the Washington, D.C. nonattainment area.

The Post 1996 ROP and attainment demonstration SIPs for the Washington, D.C. area do not specify any specific

measures as contingency measures. The EPAis approving the nonattainment demonstration and ROP plans today. (Theplans pertain to the District and portions ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia and State ofMaryland.) Approval ofthe plans without contingency measures is appropriate as stated above. Furthermore, the EPA
notes that there are emission reductions
notrelied on or credited inthe ROP plan accruing from the January 1, 2000, implementation ofphase 2 ofthe reformulated gasoline program, NOx reductions beyond RACT, and other onroadmeasures, such as NLEV, and a variety ofoff-road national emissions reduction programs. These measures will continue to provide reductions after 1999. The additional NOx controls and reformulated gasoline measures alone

are estimated to reduce emissions in the

area by 1.7 percent ofthe VOC base line emissions and 10.5 percent ofthe NOx base line emissions byMay 2001. Thus, the SIP contains approved measures consistent with the contingency requirement.

Additionally, the EPA notes that there

are emissions reductions not relied on

or credited in the attainment

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 615 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

demonstration SIP accruing from the EPA's Tier IItailpipe standards and offroad national emission reduction

measures. These measures will continue
to provide reductions after November 2005, the attainment date thatEPA is approving for the area. The measures are estimated to reduce emissions in the

area by 2.5 percent ofthe VOCbase line emissions and 1.7 percent ofthe NOx base line emissions by May 2007 (the year following the time bywhich EPA
must determine whether the area has attained). More details on EPA's contingency measure analysis are included in the docket for the rulemaking action. While there is not an approved SIP contingency measure that would apply ifthe Washington, D.C.

area failed to attain, EPAbelieves that existing federally enforceable measures would provide the necessary substantive relief.

The EPA agrees with the commenter that the lawn/garden measure is insufficient as a contingency measure. However, the measure isnot critical to meeting the contingency obligation in view ofthe reductions generated by the other emission control measures noted above.

M.RateofProgress-NOx Substitution
Comment:We received comments that assert the 9% demonstration

assumes that a 1% reduction in NOx emissions is equivalent in ozone reducing benefit to a 1% reduction in VOC emissions. The commenters assert that EPA's NOx Substitution Guidance (December 1993) is flawed under section 182(c)(2)(C) ofthe Clean Air Act because it allows NOx substitution without a demonstration that such substitution will in fact provide ozone reductions at least equivalent to that which would result from a 3% annual
cut in VOC emissions. The commenters claim that such a demonstration requires photochemical grid modeling showing equivalency andthat EPA's

own guidance (Guidanceon thePost1996Rate-of-Progress Planand AttainmentDemonstration(corrected version as of2/18/94)) requires such modeling. The states cannot use a 1% NOx for 1%VOC substitution without proving thata 1%NOx cut will in fact provide ozone reductions atleast equivalent to thatresulting from a 1% VOC cut.

The commenters further assert that

more recent EPA guidance dated January 10, 2000 for NOx substitution in out-year conformity budgets requires 1.6
tons in NOx reductions to offset 1ton ofVOC reductions. The commenters do
not disavow their other comments that the states must prove the validity of their NOx substitution ratios as discussed in the summary oftheir
comments in the preceding paragraph but they claim the 9% demonstration fail to use the ratio of1.6 to 1required by the more recent EPA guidance.

Additionally, the commenters assert that substitutions should not be allowed because the plan does not demonstrate timely attainment.

Response:

1.NOx Substitution in General

The EPAbelieves States have the opportunity to substitute NOx reductions for required VOC reductions under certain circumstances. The opportunity for NOx substitution originates in section 182(c)(2)(C) ofthe CAA which specifically allows NOx emissions reductions to be substituted for VOC reductions required under section 182(c)(2)(B) for reasonable further progress (RFP) also called rateof-progress (ROP).

EPA issued guidance to the States on how to implement the NOx substitution provisions for the post-1996 ROP plans in 1993 (Memorandum ofDecember 15, 1993, from John S. Seitz re: "Transmittal ofNOx Substitution Guidance"). The guidance allows States to substitute
NOx emission reductions for VOC emission reductions if such substitution is consistent with the modeled attainment demonstration in the SIP. The modeled attainment demonstration in the SIP establishes the overall reductions ofVOC and/orNOx reductions required for attainment in the attainment year. The rate ofprogress plan is basically a tool to phase in emission reductions between the time the plan is prepared and the attainment date. To substitute NOx for VOC in post1996 ROP's, care must be taken to not substitute so much NOx suchthat the attainment demonstration is no longer valid. At the extreme case, in an area for which the attainment demonstration that relies totally on VOC emission reductions, it would be inconsistent to substitute NOx for VOC.

The NOx substitution guidance allows substitution on apercentage basis (i.e.,

one percent ofNOx emissions reductions for one percent ofVOC emissions reductions) and does not require additional analysis ofwhether the ozone reduced from the NOx emission reductions is equivalent tothat which would result from the foregone VOC emission reductions.

It should be noted also thatEPA's "Guidance forImproving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions. Not Modeled",17 references EPA's NOx substitution guidance forpurposes of substitution ofNOx reduction for additional VOC emission reductions identified as needed for attainment.

2.Technical and Practical Reasons for
NOxSubstitution Guidance

The modeling performed for attainment demonstration basically establishes the relationship between emission reductions-either ofVOC, NOx, orboth-and ozone reductions. Thisrelationship is established for the attainment year. As noted above, the modeled attainment demonstration establishes the overall VOC and/or NOx emission targets that are consistent with attainment ofthe standard at the attainment year. When EPA determines that an attainment demonstration is approvable, i.e., will likely demonstrate attainment for the relevant areas, itis making an implicit corollary conclusion thatthe mix ofVOC and/orNOx control

measures included in the area's attainment demonstration is adequate.

The ROP plan is thenused to phase in emission reductions between the time ofplan adoption andthe attainment date. EPA does not require modeling of interimyears for the purpose oftrying
to update the NOx/VOC/ozone relationship for a number ofreasons, including the following that are provided in the 1993 NOx substitution guidance:

a. The strong likelihood that optimum "exchange" rates vary from year toyear and across ageographic area as an area's emissions distribution and atmospheric chemistry change over time;

b. Uncertainty in modeling analyses, particularly when attempting to ascertain responses from small percentage perturbations in emissions; and

c. Resource limitations associated with modeling specific control measures during interimyears before attainment dates.

The EPAbelieves these are adequate

reasons for maintaining this guidance for purposes ofNOx substitution under the ROP plan requirements.

In addition, the "Major Modeling/Air Quality Conclusions" from the Ozone Transport and Assessment Group (OTAG) effort,based on extensive photochemical grid modeling ofthe EasternU.S. stated thatregional NOx reductions are effective in producing

ozone benefits, and thatthe more NOx

17

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Emissions, Monitoring, and AnalysisDivision AirQuality Modeling Group Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Available athttp://www.epa.gov/ /tnn.scram/. 

### 616

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 616 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 617

reduced, the greater the benefit. [From: "Summary ofOzone Transport Assessment Group Recommendations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as ofJune 20, 1997." Found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/otag/ finalrpt/.]

Recognizing that regional NOx reductions are effective in producing

ozone benefits, EPAfurther encouraged
NOx reductions by allowing States to credit certain regional NOx emission reductions outside the nonattainment

area for purposes ofthe ROP plan. See EPA's Interim Implementation Guidance. [Memorandum ofDecember 29, 1997, from Richard D. Wilson re: "Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS."]

3.Legal Rationale for EPA NOx Substitution Guidance

In addition,EPA still stands behind its legal rationale underlying the interpretation of"equivalency" that
appears in the 1993 NOxsubstitution guidance (see section 4 ofthat guidance). In that guidance, the basis for equivalency isthe ability ofa given control strategy (i.e., any particular mix ofNOx andVOC emission reductions)
to effect attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by the designated attainment year (NOxsubstitution guidance atpage 2)." Further, the NOx emission reductions credited toward ROP maybe limited to the amount ofNOx reductions required in the attainment demonstration; see the discussion and example above on this matter.

In allowing a combination ofNOx and VOC controls or the substitution ofNOx emissions reductions for VOC emissions reductions, Section 182(c)(2)(C) ofthe
statute states thatthe resulting reductions "in ozone concentrations"
must be "at least equivalent" to that which would result from the 3% VOC reductions required as a demonstration ofRFP under Section 182(c)(2)(B). The

18This incidently is consistent with the intended

outcome ofthe NOx substitution guidance document,which requires that substitution be done

onthe basis ofpercentage-a 1 percent reduction in NOx from the 1990 ROP baseline adjusted to 1999 of667.3 tons/day (6.67tons/day) will thus likely produce a greater reduction in ozone than a 1 percent reduction in VOC from the 1990 ROP baseline adjusted to 1999 of435.7 tons a day (4.36 tons/day). [Baseline emissions taken from memoranda ofAugust 24, 2000, from Christopher Cripps,re: "Technical SupportDocument for the Approval ofthe Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan for the District ofColumbia portion ofthe Metropolitan Washington, DC Nonattainment Area (DC035- 2015,DC 044-2015)." and ofOctober 13, 2000, from Janice Lewis, re: "Technical Support Document for Approval andPromulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland, and Virginia; Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan for the Metropolitan Washington, DC Area (MD 058-3036 and VA 083-5038)."] second sentence ofSection 182(c)(2)(C) requires EPA to issue guidance "concerning the conditions under which NOx controlmay be substituted for [or combined with] VOC control." In particular, the Agency is authorized to address in the guidance the appropriate
amounts ofVOC control and NOx control needed, in combination, "in order to maximize the reduction in

ozone air pollution." Further, the Act explicitly provides thatthe guidance
may permit RFP demonstrations that allow a lower percentage ofVOC emission reductions aslong as compensating NOx reductions are achieved. In light ofthe entire set of language andCongress's evident intent under this subsection to maximize the opportunity for ozone reductions, EPA believes that Section 182(c)(2)(C) confers on the Agency the discretion to select, for purposes ofdetermining equivalent reductions, apercentage of NOx emission reductions thatis reasonably calculated to achieve both the ozone reduction and attainment
progress goals intended by Congress.

As noted above, when EPA determines that an attainment demonstration is approvable, it is making an implicit corollary conclusion that the mix ofVOC and/or NOx control

measures included in the area's attainment demonstration is adequate.

EPA disagrees with the comments that EPA's Guidanceon thePost-1996Rateof-Progress PlanandAttainment Demonstration(corrected version as of 2/18/94) requires a different test than EPA's December 15, 1993 NOx Substitution Guidance. In section4.1 of the Guidanceon thePost-1996Rate-ofProgress PlanandAttainment Demonstration,EPArestated the equivalency test set forth in sections 2 and 3ofour December 1993 NOx Substitution Guidance. With regard to the photochemical grid modeling. section4.1 ofthe Guidanceon thePost1996Rate-of-Progress Planand AttainmentDemonstrationreads:
Section 182(c)(2)(C) states that actual NOx emission reductions which occur after 1990 can be used to meet post-1996 emission reduction requirements, provided that such reductions meet the criteria outlined in EPA's December 15, 1993 NOx Substitution Guidance. The condition for meeting the rate-ofprogress requirement is thatthe sum of all creditable VOC and NOx emission reductions must equal 3percent per year averaged over each applicable milestone period. The percent VOC reduction is determined from the VOC rate-of-progress inventory andthe percent NOxreduction is determined fromthe NOx rate-of-progress inventory. In addition,the overall VOC and NOx reductions must be consistent with the area's modeled attainment demonstration. In other words, the NOx emission reductions creditable toward the rate-of-progress plan cannot be greater than the cumulative reductions dictatedby the modeled attainment demonstration.

This portion ofthe 1994 guidance merely summarizes the guidance provided in our December 1993 NOx Substitution Guidance. With regard to the photochemical grid modeling. section 2ofour December 1993 NOx Substitution Guidance reads:

Theprovision for NOx substitution recognizes that aVOC-only control pathway maynotbe the most effective approach for effecting attainment in allareas. Consequently, NOx reductions are placed on anear equal footing withVOC through substitution. This document establishes two conditions pursuant toboth the substitution andRFP provisions in theAct. Thefirst condition requires that control strategies incorporating Nox emission reduction

measures must demonstrate thatthe ozone NAAQSwill be attained within timeperiods mandated bythe Act. This condition reflects theTitle I provisionforgridded photochemical model demonstrations (Section 182(c)).

The second condition, addressed below in Section 3,maintains therequirement for periodic emissionreductions in orderto realize progress toward attainment. Flexibilityisintroduced byallowing VOC andNOx reductions rather than VOC reductions alone. A thirdcondition exists in which the periodic emissionreductions must be consistent withthe model attainment demonstration.

In both cases, the guidance refers to the photochemical grid modeling thatis
necessary for the modeled attainment demonstration and that establishes the NOx/VOC/ozone relationship at the attainment date. The NOx substitution guidance does not require a modeled demonstration ofequivalence for interimperiod for the reasons discussed above.

4.January 10, 2000, Guidance on Conformity Budgets in Out-Years

The January 10, 2000 guidance (Memorandum from G.T.Helms to Marcia Spinkre: "Substitution of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emission Reduction in Out-Year Conformity Budgets") was developed to address a question relatedto development ofan emissions budget for conformity
purposes well beyond the attainment date ofan area. Transportation planning cycles generally run beyond the attainment year, and a State may establish abudget for conformity

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 617 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

purposes in those out yearsbeyond the attainment year ifitdesires and may substitute NOx for VOC reductions in that out-year budget. The January 10, 2000 guidance refers to the methodology contained in "Guidance for Improving Weight ofEvidence Through Identification ofAdditional Emissions Reductions, NotModeled" (EPA, November 1999) and was not intended for use in ROP demonstrations; the methodology was developed for use in strengthening weight ofevidence arguments for attainment demonstrations. The January 10, 2000 guidance contemplates use ofthis methodology for establishing conformity budgets for the out-years ofan attainment demonstration, i.e., the years after the attainment date for which there

are no ROP requirements unless the area fails to attain as determined by the relevant air quality monitoring data. The guidance may result in NOx substitution ratios ofother than one-to-one, since it isbased on theresults ofthe modeled attainment demonstration. EPA's methodology for use in strengthening weight ofevidence arguments for attainment demonstrations was intended tobe used for calculating small amounts ofemission reductions suchthat the overall NOx/VOC/ozone relationship ofthe modeling used in the attainment demonstration would notbe significantly altered. Likewise, the substitution ofNOx for VOC reductions for purposes ofsetting an emissions budget for conformity in the out-years beyond the attainment date would likely involve relatively small tons/day shifts in the ratio ofNOx to VOC. Thus EPA's methodology would be appropriate to

use for this purpose. It shouldbe noted that this methodology provides most reliable results when used with thebest and most recent data.

Of course, any future emissions budget for a period years after the projected attainment year has uncertainty. IfEPA subsequently finds that an area is not making sufficient
progress toward attainment and its SIP is inadequate, or ifultimately the area does not attain the standard by its attainment date, the area willbe required to revise its SIP. Atthat time,

anew modeled attainment demonstration would be required, together with updated modeling that would re-establish anew NOx/VOC/

ozone relationship.

Furthermore, once an area attains the standard, the State may request redesignation to attainment. To obtain that redesignation, one requirement is that the State must submitan approvable air quality maintenance plan
to ensure thatthe standard will be maintained for at least a 10-year period. The maintenance plan will establish an out-year emission budget for conformity based on conditions at the time of attainment.

5.NOx Substitution in Metropolitan Washington

Based on ourreview of all the information submitted in the attainment demonstration, itis the Agency's belief that the ozone reduction benefits achieved by application ofNOx controls is at least equivalent asthat achieved by application ofVOC controls.

The modeled attainment demonstration for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area calls for more NOx and VOC emissions controlthan the 9 percent post-1996 ROP plan.The ROP plan relies onNOx substitution, but the substitution rate is consistent with the attainment demonstration in that it does not provide any more NOx reductions than called for in the attainment demonstration. The state's attainment demonstration isbased upon local-scale photochemical grid modeling performed on the Baltimore-Washington Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM) domain andupon EPA's Regional Oxidant Modeling (ROM)results. Both EPA's ROM results andthe photochemical grid modeling submitted with the attainment plan show that significant NOx reductions will contribute to attainment in the area. The local UAM modeling also shows thatNOx reductions beyond those contained in the Post-1996 plan continue to provide reductions in ozone concentrations. The local photochemical grid modeling submitted with the attainment demonstration contains modeling results that further support the conclusion that on a ton for
ton basis, NOxreductions achieve at least equivalent changes in ozone concentrations as an equivalent reduction in VOC emissions. 18

18This incidently is consistent with the intended

outcome ofthe NOx substitution guidance document,which requires that substitution be done

on thebasis ofpercentage-a 1 percentreduction in NOx from the 1990 ROP baseline adjusted to 1999 of667.3 tons/day (6.67tons/day) willthus likely produce a greater reduction in ozone than a 1 percent reduction in VOC from the 1990 ROP baseline adjusted to 1999 of435.7 tons a day (4.36 tons/day). [Baseline emissions taken from memoranda ofAugust 24, 2000, from Christopher Cripps,re: "Technical SupportDocument forthe Approval ofthe Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan for the District of Columbia portion ofthe Metropolitan Washington, DC Nonattainment Area (DC 035- 2015, DC 044-2015)." and ofOctober 13, 2000, from Janice Lewis, re: "Technical SupportDocument for Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland, and Virginia; Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan for the Metropolitan Washington, DC Area (MD 058-3036 and VA 083-5038)."] Also, model sensitivity analysis demonstrates thatthe Metropolitan Washington portion ofthe BaltimoreWashington modeling domain benefits

more from NOx reductions than VOC reductions. See Attachment 4 ("Model Sensitivity Study forMetropolitan Washington Area") ofthe EPA document, "RACM Analysis for Four Serious Areas Designated Nonattainment for 1-hr Ozone NAAQS." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; and Office ofTransportation and Air Quality,Ann Arbor, MI 48105. October 12, 2000. An electronic version ofEPA's RACM analysis cited above can be downloaded atwww.epa.gov/ttn/rto under "What's New." This analysis does
not contradict EPA's determination that

a one percentage reduction ofNOx emissions will likely produce agreater reduction ofozone than a one percent reduction ofVOC emissions.

EPA is determining thatthe attainment demonstration is approvable, i.e., will likely demonstrate attainment for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

area. Implicit in making this determination, is a corollary conclusion thatthe mix ofVOC and/orNOx control

measures included in the area's attainment demonstrations is adequate. Based onreview of allthe information submitted in support ofthe attainment demonstration, itis the Agency's belief thatthe percentage ofozone reduction benefits achieved by application ofNOx controls, for both ozone reduction and attainment progress goals, is "at least equivalent" as that achieved by application ofVOC controls. Both the NOx and VOC controls are necessary if the area is to realize ozone reduction benefits and attain the NAAQS.

The commenter submitted a memorandum, dated January 13, 2000, fromJoan Rohlfs, ChiefAir Quality Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council ofGovernments, to the Technical Advisory Committee, Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee, entitled "Calculating the NOx Substitution Ratio for Out-Year Conformity Budget in the Washington Nonattainment Area", in which a 1.64
to 1 ratio was calculated forthe Washington, D.C. area based upon the January 10, 2000 guidance. OnMarch 22, 31, and 31, 2000, respectively, the District, Maryland and Virginia submitted a SIP revision with budgets foryears after 2005 thatused substitution at the 1.64:1 ratio. EPA has
notyet taken rulemaking action on the portion ofthat submittal that deals with the out-year budgets. As noted above, the use ofthis 1.64:1 ratio, calculated 

### 618

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 618 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

from the January 2000 guidance, isnot applicable for purposes ofthe ROP plan.

6. Assertion ofMetropolitan Washington Plan Fails To Demonstrate Attainment

EPA disagrees with the assertion that the attainment plan does not demonstrate attainment. The TSD and other documents in the docket support the conclusion thatthe area will attain. Further reasoning is also set forth in responses to other comments elsewhere in this notice.

N. NOx Reduction Credits
Comment:We received comments that both the attainment and rate-ofprogress (ROP) demonstrations are further flawed because theyrely on emission reductions from control

measures that have not been fully approved byEPA as part ofthe SIP. These measures include NOx RACT rules for allthree Metropolitan Washington, DC area states. The EPA
cannot credit the SIP with NOx reductions until the state adopts source specific RACT limits.

Response:The EPArecently signed a final action approving Maryland's, Virginia's and the District's RACT regulations all sources subject toRACT in the Metropolitan Washington, DC

area. The action hasbeen or will be published shortly in the Federal Register.

0. AttainmentDemonstrationandRate ofProgress

Comment 1: We received comments that assert thatboth the attainment demonstration and rate ofprogress plan for the Washington DC nonattainment

area rely onemission reductions from control measures that have notbeen fully approved by EPA as part ofthe SIP.

Response 1: The EPA recently signed

afinal action fully approving the District's, Maryland's and Virginia's post-1996 ROP plan. These plans were credited with reductions from only those measures thathave been fully approved into the SIP.

The EPArecently approved the District's, Maryland's and Virginia's NOx RACTrules. Maryland's NOx RACT rule hasbeen amended since 1999. The District's final rule was amended since 1999. The EPA recently approved source specific emission limits for the major sources ofNOx in the Virginia portion ofthe Metropolitan Washington, DC area. The EPA recently signed a final action approving these rules. The action hasbeen or willbe published shortly in the Federal Register. The EPArecently approved the District's and Maryland's NOxreduction

measures thatrequire NOxreductions from stationary sources beyond those required under RACT. The EPA recently signed a final action approving these rules. The action has been or willbe published shortly in the Federal Register.

For purposes ofthe Metropolitan Washington, DC attainment demonstration, the EPAhas not granted any reduction credits from Virginia's non-CTG VOC RACT rule except to the
extent source-specific RACT limits or in the case oflithographic printing operations a category-specific RACT limits have been approved by EPA. [See 40 CFR 52.2520 (c)(128), and (c)(113)]. In addition,EPA recently approved a

source specific RACT determination for another source subject to the 50 TPY non-CTG RACT for which Virginia takes

no credit. Comment2:We received comments that state there are significant disparities between the projections of1999 regional emissions found in the most recent 9% ROP plan for the Metropolitan DC area andthe EPA's Technical Support Document for the attainment demonstrations. The commenter claims that lower emissions in the TSD for the December 16, 1999 NPR, should not be used unless EPA provides an adequate technical basis.

Response2:Alarge part ofthe disparity isthat the ROP plan does not take credit for all the measures implemented by 1999. However, those

measures canbe credited for attainment. Specifically, the ROP demonstration onlyrequires the area to achieve a NOx emissions level of614.7 tons per day whereas attainment requires an emissions level of538 tons per day.The States andthe District have specifically identified beyond the RACT reductions
atlarge point sources ofNOx thathave
not been countedtowards the ROP demonstration. These reductions are quantified at 93 tons per day. Other control programs such asthe surface cleaning and degreasing rules in Virginia andthe Stage I reductions in Loudoun County, Virginia, resulted in emission reductions by 1999. However, Virginia elected not to claim credit for the surface cleaning rule in the final version ofthe Post-1996 plan (which EPA is approving), andthe Stage I reductions are not creditable towards the 9% reduction requirement (because it is a RACT correction subject to the restrictions ofsection 182(b)(1)(D)). However, these measures are creditable for purposes ofthe attainment demonstration. EPA's approval ofthe attainment demonstration isbased upon the February 2000 amendments to the SIP. The SIP amendments show thatin 2005, the area can achieve the emission levels less than the levels in the modeled demonstration ofattainment. The SIP amendments account for growth in emissions from 1990 through 2005, as well as more recent planning assumptions and modeling assumptions usedin the development ofthe mobile

source emissions budgets. They also provide a reevaluation ofthe control

measures.
P.ModelingAssumptions

Comment 1:We received comments saying thatthe (Transportation) model does not incorporate adequate assumptions about the effects ofland development and new road projections

on the growth ofvehicle travel and citing to an EPAletter from Judith Katz, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA Region IIIto James Cheatham, Divisional Administrator, Federal Highway Administration dated August 27, 1998, in which the commenters assert thatEPA stated thatthe plans did
notinclude any information onthe rate ofland development in the Washington Region and the effect this development will have on the transportation system. The comments discuss the transportation model's landuse assumptions, andimply thatthe Metropolitan Planning Organization (the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, MWCOG) (hereafter, "the MPO") has notincluded the effects of landuse in the model and thatEPA has known about this issue since 1998.

Response 1:This August 27, 1998, EPAletter to the MPO concerned EPA's review ofthe conformity determination

on the FY99-04 Transportation Improvement program (TIP) aswell as the Long Range Transportation Plan. Planning assumptions in aTIP must be derived from the estimates ofcurrent and future population, employment, travel, and congestion most recently developed bythe MPO or other agency authorized to make such estimates and approved by the MPO. Likewise, the conformity rule, 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), requires SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets to be developed in consultation with federal, state and local agencies such asthe MPO in order tobe adequate and approvable. Based on EPAreviews ofthe mostrecently approved Transportation Improvement programs (TIPs) as well as the Long Range Transportation Plans inthe Washington, DC area, EPAis satisfied thatthe MPO through its land activity forecasts, provides timely information on growth and landuse, through consultation with all ofitsregional county planners. 

### 619

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 619 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

These same forecasts are used for both the development ofSIP motor vehicle emissions budget aswell as the determination that a TIP conforms. Therefore, while the estimates ofland

use activity are not done by modeling, their process ofestimating land use activity does not violate the requirements ofthe conformity rule which was the context in which this August 27, 1998 letter was sent, and therefore EPA can find no reason to agree with any assertion or implication that the transportation model, used by the MPO to develop any SIP budgets in 1999 or 2005, is deficient. Furthermore, this August 27, 1998, EPA letter to the MPO does not have any relevance in this instance because the letter targets the lack of any clear graphic display of information in the transportation plans rather than the absence ofinformation for the transportation model to use. Comment2:We have received
comments saying that the temperature assumed in the mobile source modeling inputs was 93 degrees (Fahrenheit), yet the maximum recorded temperatures for those days during which peak ozone values in the 1999 ozone season were recorded were higher (96 to 98 degrees).

Response2:EPA disagrees with the
comment that this is a reason to determine thatthe budgets are not approvable. EPA guidance on projecting allfuture mobile source emissions inventories requires the States to use the temperatures representative of a "typical ozone season day". See section 3.3.5.2 ofProcedures forEmission InventoryPreparation Volume IV: MobileSources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised), 1992 which also sets the procedure for determining the temperature for the 1990 base year and all subsequent projection inventories. The typical ozone season day conditions

are those used when determining the typical daily emissions for the 1990 base year emissions inventory. For 1990 inventories, theperiod to be used for temperature determination was 1988- 1990. The same typical season day is alsoused when setting target levels of emissions in ROP plans and all future year projection inventories in ROP plans and attainment demonstrations. EPA believes it is reasonable touse these typical ozone season day temperatures rather than actual future year temperatures in projecting future emissions since these projections are made in advance when actual temperatures cannot be known.
Q.NOx RACT Size Cutoff

Comment:All ofthe States should extend NOx RACT to 25 ton per year

sources. In addition, the SIP must require Virginia to extend VOC RACT to 25 ton per year sources, like Maryland.

Response:The Clean Air Act does not require that serious areas extend NOx or VOC RACT to 25 tons peryear sources within serious classifications. Virginia's approved SIP has extended VOC RACT
to 25 ton per year sources in the Washington, DC area. In addition, in sectionII. E. discussing RACM, EPA has determined that Maryland, Virginia and the District have met the RACM requirements.

R. NOx Reduction Credits
Comment:We received comments that both the attainment and rate-ofprogress (ROP) demonstrations are further flawed because theyrely on emission reductions from control

measures thathave not been fully approved byEPA as part ofthe SIP. These measures include NOx RACT rules for allthree Metropolitan Washington, DC area states.EPA cannot credit the SIP with NOx reductions until the state adopts source specific RACT limits.

Response:EPA has approved SIP revisions for all sources subject to RACT in the Metropolitan Washington, DC

area subject to Maryland's, Virginia's andthe District's RACT regulations. On December 14, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed a final action approving the District's NOx RACT rule. That action hasbeen orwill be published shortly in the Federal Register. OnDecember 15, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed final actions approving Maryland's and Virginia's NOx RACT rules. The Virginia final approval also included RACT determinations for Non-CTG major VOC sources. These actions have been orwill be published shortly in the Federal Register.

S. ControlMeasures

Comment 1:We received comments claiming thatthe states have failed to submitlists ofpotential control

measures by December 31, 1999 as required byEPA's condition. The
comments state thatthe states submitted commitments to adopt additional control measures ifneeded, but did not provide listsfrom which those measures would be chosen and further state that because the states have failed to meet a condition thatEPA itselfset as a prerequisite for plan approval, EPA
must disapprove the Washington area SIP.

Response 1:The list ofcontrol

measures is related only tothe adequacy determination ofthe attainment year budgets. The States have now adopted allregulations on which they rely for attainment. In section I.C.5 ofthe proposed rulemaking we stated:

"For purposes ofconformity,ifthe states submitted acommitment, whichhas been subjectto public hearing, to adopt the control

measures necessary forattainment and ROP through thearea's attainment datein conformance withthe December 1997 Wilson policy,the State will notneed an additional commitment atthis time. However, the states will need to amend its commitment byletter toprovide two things concerningthe additionalmeasures.

First,the State will need toidentify alist ofpotential control measures (fromwhich a set ofmeasures could be selected)thatwhen implemented, wouldbe expectedto provide sufficient additional emissionreductions to meet thelevel ofreductions thatEPA has identified as necessary for attainment. States need notcommit to adopt any specific

measures on theirlist at this time,but ifthey do not do so, they mustidentify sufficient additional emissionreductions to attain the standardwith the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget. These measures may not involve additional limits on highway construction beyond those that couldbe imposedunder the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget." (64 FRat 70467, December 16, 1999).

Likewise in Table 2of sectionI.D. the list ofmeasures was tied to the making ofa finding ofadequacy that the motor vehicle emissions budgets are consistent with attainment.

Elsewhere, in section I.C.3 the December 16, 1999 NPR we spelled out the importance ofmaking an adequacy finding byMay 31, 2000:

Therefore,EPA isproposing, inthe alternative, to disapprove theattainment demonstration SIPs for those nineareas ifthe States do not submit motor vehicle emissions budgets thatEPA can find adequate by May 31, 2000.11 In order forEPA to complete the adequacy process by the end ofMay, States should submit a budget nolater than December 31, 1999.12 Ifan area does not have

a motor vehicle emissions budget that EPA

can determine adequate for conformity
purposes byMay 31, 2000, EPA plans to take final action atthat time disapproving in full

orin part the area's attainment demonstration. (64 FR at 70465, December 16, 1999.) (Footnote 11 read as follows: For

severe areas, EPA will determine the adequacy ofthe emissions budgets associated with thepost-1999 ROPplans once the States submit the target calculations, which are due

no later than December 2000. Footnote 12 read as follows: A finalbudget ispreferred; but, ifthe State public hearing process is not yet complete, then the draft budget for public hearing may be submitted. The adequacy
process generally takes at least 90 days. Therefore, in orderforEPA to complete the adequacy process no laterthan the end of May, EPA must have byFebruary 15, 2000, the final budget ora draft that is substantially similarto what the final budget will be. The State must submit the final budget by April 15, 2000.) 620

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 620 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 621

Through the adequacy process the public had an opportunity to comment

onthe lists ofpotential control

measures. The states identified all the potential control measures in Tables A, 6-1 and 6-2 ofthe SIP revision submittals ofthe plan document entitled "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Phase II Attainment Plan for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area"--dated February 3, 2000, by which the budgets were submittedby the District, Maryland and Virginia onFebruary 16, 2000, February 14, 2000, and February 9, 2000, respectively. These tables identified a number ofcontrol measures most of which hadbeen either promulgated by EPA, or adopted and submitted by the
states as SIP revisions on February 3, 2000. Not all ofthe remaining measures

are necessary to make the motor vehicle emissions budgets consistent with attainment. EPAmade the requisite findings ofadequacy (65 FR 36439, June 8, 2000).

Disapproving the SIP for the sole

reason thatthe lists were not submitted by December 31, 1999, would place the
states in a situation where the states would have no ability to remedy the disapproval because the States have adopted andEPA has approved all

measures needed to make the motor vehicle emissions budgets approvable. EPA disagrees that the attainment demonstration SIPs should be disapproved because the states have failed to submit lists ofpotential control

measures by December 31, 1999. Comment2:We received Comments that assert thatboth the attainment demonstration and rate ofprogress plan for the Washington D.C. nonattainment

area rely onemission reductions from control measures that have notbeen fully approved by EPA as part ofthe SIP.

Response2:Today, EPAis fully approving the District's, Maryland's and Virginia's post-1996 ROP plan. These plans were credited with reductions from only those measures thathave been fully approved into the SIP.

In recent Federal Register notices, EPA has fully approved the District's, Maryland's and Virginia's NOx RACT rules. Maryland's NOx RACT rule has been amended since 1999. The District's final rule was amended since 1999. The EPA has approved source specific emission limits for the major sources of NOx in the Virginia portion ofthe Metropolitan Washington, DC area.

In recent Federal Register notices, EPA has approved the District's and Maryland's NOx reduction measures that require NOxreductions from stationary sources beyond those required under RACT.

For purposes ofthe Washington, DC attainment demonstration, the EPAhas
not granted any reduction credits from Virginia's non-CTG VOC RACT rule except to the extent source-specific RACT limits orin the case of lithographic printing operations a category-specific RACT limits have been approved byEPA. [See 40 CFR 52.2520(c)(128), and (c)(113)]. In addition,in arecent Federal Register notice, EPAhas approved a source specific RACT determination for another source subject to the 50 TPY non-CTG RACT for which Virginia takes

no credit. OnDecember 15, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed final actions approving RACT for this source along with Virginia's NOx RACT rules. This actionhas been or will be published shortly in the Federal Register. (The Virginia attainment plan also includes credits from a source that would havebeen subject to the 50 TPY non-CTG VOC RACT requirement but that shut-down in 1991.)

T.MOBILE6 andtheMotorVehicle EmissionsBudgets(MVEBs)

Comment 1:One Commenter generally supports apolicy ofrequiring
motor vehicle emissions budgets tobe recalculated when revised MOBILE models are released.

Response2:The Phase II attainment demonstrations thatrely on Tier 2 emission reduction credit contain commitments to revise the motor vehicle emissions budgets after MOBILE6 is released. Comment3:The revised budgets calculated using MOBILE6 will likely be submitted afterthe MOBILE5 budgets have already been approved. EPA's policy isthat submitted SIPs may not replace approved SIPs.

Response3:This isthe reason that EPA proposed in the SNPR (65 FR 46383) thatthe approval ofthe MOBILE5 budgets for conformity
purposes would last onlyuntil MOBILE6 budgets had been submitted and found adequate. In this way, the MOBILE6 budgets can apply for conformity purposes as soon as they are found adequate. Comment4:Ifa State submits additional controlmeasures that affect the motor vehicle emissions budgetbut does not submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget, EPA shouldnot approve the attainment demonstration.

Response4:EPA agrees. The motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area attainment demonstration reflect the motorvehicle control measures in the attainment demonstration.

Comment5:EPA shouldmake it clear thatthe motor vehicle emissions budgets to be used for conformity
purposes will be determined fromthe totalmotor vehicle emissions reductions required in the SIP, evenifthe SIP does
not explicitly quantify a revised motor vehicle emissions budget.

Response5:EPAwill not approve SIPs without motor vehicle emissions budgets that are explicitly quantified for conformity purposes. The Metropolitan Washington, DC area attainment demonstration contains explicitly quantified motor vehicle emissions budgets which EPA has found adequate (64 FR 62196).

Comment6:Ifa state fails to follow through on its commitment to submit the revised motorvehicle emissions budgets using MOBILE6, EPA could make a finding offailure to submit a portion ofa SIP, which wouldtrigger a sanctions clock under section 179.

Response6:Ifa state fails to meet its commitment, EPA could make a finding offailure to implement the SIP, which would start a sanctions clock under section 179 ofthe Clean Air Act.

Comment7:Ifthe budgets recalculated using MOBILE6 are larger thanthe MOBILE5 budgets, then attainment shouldbe demonstrated again.

Response 7:As EPAproposed in its December 16, 1999 notices, we will workwith States on a case-by-case basis ifthe new emissions estimates raise issues about the sufficiency ofthe attainment demonstration.

Comment8:Ifthe MOBILE6 budgets

are smaller thanthe MOBILE5 budgets, the difference between the budgets should notbe available for reallocation
to other sources unless air quality data show that the area is attaining, and a revised attainment demonstration is submitted that demonstrates thatthe increased emissions are consistent with attainment and maintenance. Similarly, the MOBILE5 budgets shouldnot be retained (whileMOBILE6 isbeing used for conformity demonstrations) unless the above conditions are met.

Response8:EPA agrees thatif recalculation using MOBILE6 shows lower motorvehicle emissions than MOBILE5, then these motor vehicle emission reductions cannot be reallocated to other sources or assigned
to the motorvehicle emissions budget as

a safety margin unless the area

reassesses the analysis in its attainment demonstration and shows that itwill still attain. In other words, the area must

assess how its original attainment demonstration is impacted by using

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 621 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

MOBILE6 vs. MOBILE5 before it reallocates any apparent motor vehicle emission reductions resulting from the

use ofMOBILE6. However, ifthe state is not required to remodel with MOBILE6 because the attainment demonstration does not rely on TierII reductions, the conformity rules do require the use ofMOBILE6 for conformity after any established grace period even ifthe SIP isbased on MOBILE5. The state is not required to revise the SIP merely because a new mobile model becomes available.

U.MOBILE6 GracePeriod

Comment1:We received aComment

onwhether the grace period before MOBILE6 is required in conformity determinations will be consistent with the schedules for revising SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets ("budgets") within 1or 2years ofMOBILE6's release. This Commenter was concerned that MOBILE6 couldbe required for conformity before new budgets were submittedbased on MOBILE6.

Response1:The MOBILE6 grace period for conformity determinations is

a separate requirement that is not explicitly tied to EPA's SIP policy and approvals. However, itis important to note thatthe transportation conformity rule requires EPA to consider many factors in establishing the length ofthe
grace period before MOBILE6 is required in conformity, including the degree ofchange in emissions models and scope ofre-planning likely tobe necessary bytransportation agencies (40 CFR 93.111). The grace period mustbe between 3-24 months, and EPA understands that a longer grace period would allow some areas tobetter transition to new MOBILE6 budgets. EPA willbe taking the 1-2year period provided for in the SIP approvals into
account in establishing an appropriate grace period for conformity. Comment2:One Commenter asked EPA to clarify in the final rule whether MOBILE6 will be required for conformity determinations once new MOBILE6 budgets are submitted and found adequate. The Commenter wanted clarification on the case where the MOBILE6 conformity grace period ends before new budgets are submitted based onMOBILE6. The Commenter thought thatthis situation could necessitate the use ofthe emission reduction tests (e.g., build/no-build test) for conformity analyses, instead ofusing the budgets based on MOBILE5b. The Commenter stated thatusing the build/ no-build test instead ofexisting budgets that are based on MOBILE5b isless appropriate for air quality planning
purposes. Response2:The transportation conformity rule requires adequate budgets tobe used in regional emissions analysis, when they exist, regardless of what emissions model was used to establish the budgets. In the example highlighted by the Commenter, the MOBILE5b budgets would be required for conformity purposes ifthey were the only applicable budgets atthe end ofthe MOBILE6 grace period. Thus, the conformity analysis would compare future reductions under aproposed transportation plan orTIP calculated with MOBILE6 against the SIP budgets developed withMOBILE5. This has always been required bythe conformity rule once the grace period for anew model has passed. Once budgets have been established, the build/no-build test is no longer applicable. See40 CFR 93.111 ofthe transportation conformity rule. During the grace period, areas shoulduse the consultation process to address any future conformity impacts ofusing the new emissions model.

V. Two-Year Option To Revise the MVEBs
Comment:One Commenter did not prefer the additional option for asecond year before the state has torevise the conformity budgets withMOBILE6, due
to several concerns. The Commenter cited that the air agency did not select this option and had already submitted a commitment to revise the conformity budgets withMOBILE6.

Response:EPA proposed the additional option toprovide further flexibility in managing MOBILE6 budget revisions. The supplemental proposal did not change the original option to revise budgets within one year of MOBILE6's release. State andlocal governments can continue touse the 1- year option,ifdesired, or submita new commitment consistent withthe alternative 2-year option.

W.RACM

Comment:The Phase II NOxlimits agreed to by OTC are also clearly RACM.

Response:Withrespect to the OTC MOU Phase IINOx limits in the Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area, Maryland and the District have adopted programs to implement the Phase II NOx reduction in the OTC memorandum of understanding. EPA has approved these programs intoMaryland's andthe District's SIPs. Virginia was not a party to the OTC MOU. However, in permits approved into the Virginia SIP, Virginia has imposed beyond RACT requirements ontwo large point sources ofNOxin the Virginia portion ofthe Metropolitan Washington nonattainment area. These permits impose limits of0.15 pounds ofNOx permillion BTU heat input on these two

sources. Such limits gobeyond the OTC Phase II limits. An analysis ofwhether these SIP approved measures is RACM for the area is moot, since the States and the District have adopted the Phase II
NOxlimits (inthe case ofMaryland and the District ofColumbia) or measures consistent with these limits (inthe case ofVirginia). There is additional discussion elsewhere ofthe RACM requirement inrelationship to electric generating units.

X. AdditionalCommentson theRate of Progress Plan
Comment 1:We received Comments that asserted EPA cannot act onthe District's, Maryland's and Virginia's Post-1996 ROPplan in isolation because the Post-1996 ROP plan for the Washington area was developed using a regional approach. EPA cannot know whether these requirements are met unless it acts on allthree plans simultaneously.

Response 1:The Comment is moot because EPA is concurrently approving the District's, Maryland's and Virginia's submittals the Post-1996 planfor the Metropolitan Washington, DC serious nonattainment area in one final action published in the Federal Register.

Comment2:We received Comments that certain modeling citedby EPA's proposed approval donot show that a 1% reduction inNOx emissions provides the same ozone reduction benefit as a 1% reduction in VOC emissions, andthat these results address post-1999 conditions-not 1996-99 conditions, and that one cannot reliably extrapolate backfrom the modeled results to the reductions at issue in the 9% plan. The Comments also assert there must be photochemical grid modeling ofthe actual substitution being proposed "to determine the extent to which NOx can be substituted for VOC. These Comments also note these model results themselves show that
NOxreductions sometimes actually lead
to an increase in the number ofcells exceeding the ozone standard.

Response2:EPAproposed approval ofthe District's, Maryland's and Virginia's Post-1996 ROP plan for the Metropolitan Washington, DC area based upon the modeling results from the attainment demonstration and conformance ofthe NOx substitution to EPA'sDecember 1993 " NOx Substitution Guidance" which was issued pursuant to section 182(c) ofthe Act. In the notice ofproposed rulemakings EPA stated: 

### 622

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 622 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

"EPA's guidance requires that the amount ofsubstituted NOx reductions in the Post1996 plan be less thanor equal to theamount ofNOx reductions needed to attain the national ozone standard. The amount ofNOx reductions neededfor attainment mustbe demonstratedby photochemical grid modeling. The District's demonstration that the NOx substitution isbased upon local scale modelingperformed on theBaltimoreWashington Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM) domain andupon EPA's Regional Oxidant Modeling (ROM)results. BothEPA's ROM results and the photochemical gridmodeling submittedwiththe attainment plan show that significant NOx reductions will contribute to attainmentin the area."

[and,
"Post1996 plan substitutes fewer NOx reductions thanassumed in the attainment plan modeling." (See 65 FR at 58245 to 58246, September 28, 2000, and see 65 FR 62660 to 62661, October 19, 2000.)

In the TSDs for the proposed rulemaking actions, EPA compared the NOx substitution in the Post-1996 plan
to the NOx reductions assumed in the attainment demonstration. EPA noted that the Post-1996 plan assumed less NOx reduction than the photochemical grid modeling supporting the attainment demonstration or, when stated another way, the target level (i.e.,ROP allowable) ofNOx emissions is higher than the NOx emissions allowed by the attainment demonstration modeling. See sectionIII.C.3.b and 3.c ofthe TSDs for the proposed actions.

EPA does not believe that the
presence of an ozone increase in four modeling grid cells on one episode day is sufficient cause to disapprove the Post-1996 plan on the grounds thatNOx reductions do not provide equivalent

ozone concentration benefits. Under EPA's December 1993 NOx Substitution Guidance, which is thebasis for approving the Post-1996 plan, itis only necessary to show equivalency for one ofthe episodes selected for the attainment demonstration. This follows because the attainment strategy ultimately selected must show predicted

ozone to be less than or equal to the standard for all selected episodes.

Comment3:We received comments that assert that although the plan cites various rules andprograms that have been adopted to reduce emissions, it does not demonstrate that actual compliance with the rules and implementation ofnecessary programs will be achieved by the deadline or that claimed emission reductions will be fully realized by that date. We received
comments that assert thatEPA can only credit these plans with reductions actually achieved by November 15, 1999. We alsoreceived general
comments that the ROP plan cannot be approved because programs on which the area relies for ROP credit were not approved byEPA until after November 15, 1999, thus the programs were not federally enforceable during the 1996- 99 ROP period. Comments concerning specific measures and EPA's responses

are summarized separately. Finally, the
commenters suggest that certain programs maynot have achieved the level ofreductions for which credit was taken in the ROP plan.

Response3:An ROP SIP is a projection thatthe State has a SIP to achieve an emissions target based upon projections offuture year activity. In other words, the ROP analysis is forward-looking. The CAA has other provisions that require a backward look
atwhat were the actual emissions in an

area during a milestone year and whether a milestone was met ornot. Determination ofactual emissions for a milestone year is the subject ofthe periodic inventory requirement of section 182(a)(3) andthe requirements ofsection 182(g) concerns milestone compliance.

For approving ROP plans, EPAviews implementation dates as the date

sources are required to comply with rule. In general, when reviewing a SIP submission with enforceable regulations, EPA does not separately analyze whether sources are in fact complying withthe adopted regulations. The Act provides relief against sources that fail to comply, such as enforcement action andpenalties. See CAA 304. In addition,ifEPA determines that a State is failing to require sources to comply with an approved plan, EPA may make

afinding offailure to implement under section 179(a), which would trigger the possible imposition ofsanctions.

Preparation ofthe Post-1996 ROP SIP for the Metropolitan Washington, DC

area commenced prior to the start of calendar year 1999 and was formally adopted in April and submitted in May 1999. Thus, the ROP SIP prepared for the area was a forward-looking projection thatthe 9% ROP requirement for the three year period from November 1996 toNovember 1999 would occur. The rules relied onin the plan were required to be implemented prior to November 15, 1999.

EPA is not required to disapprove an area's SIP simply because EPA did not act on the SIP revision prior to the statutory timeframe for the reductions. If EPA disapproves a SIP, the area is subject to sanctions and EPAis required
to promulgate aFIP. Sanctions will not be imposed (orwill be lifted) and EPA will not be required topromulgate a FIP (or the FIP canbe replaced) ifthe State(s) submit a SIP that corrects the deficiency thatwas thebasis forthe disapproval and EPA approves the SIP. Itwould be impossible for a State to

ever correct a disapproval based on EPA's failure to approve the SIP by an earlier date. Moreover, ifEPAwere to thenpromulgate a FIP, the FIP would
notbe federally enforceable duringthe compliance timeframe contemplated by the statute. For these reasons, EPA does
notbelieve that itis precluded from approving the SIP simply because November 1999 has passed.

As provided below, EPAbelieves that the measures on which the Metropolitan Washington, DC area relied for credit in the post-1996 plan were scheduled to achieve the necessary reductions prior
to November 1999. However, EPA notes that even ifithad found thatthere was

a shortfall in the plan, the bestremedy
atthisjuncture would be to allow credit for other measures that were not relied
upon,but that achieved reductions prior
to 1999. If sufficient actual reductions occurring by the milestone date did not exist, then Maryland, Virginia or the District could only getreductions after the milestone deadline because, at this point,the States do not have the ability
to require additional reductions for a period that has already passed. The passing ofthe deadline would not relieve Maryland, Virginia or the Districtfrom the requirement to achieve the 9% reduction in emissions, but the 9% reduction needs to be achieved as expeditiously aspracticable after November 15, 1999. Measures such as enhanced inspection and maintenance and National LowEmission Vehicle that

accrue additional benefits over time as

newervehicles replace oldervehicles or

as additional vehicles are required to obtain repairs will generate additional reductions more expeditiously than new
measures which must undergo adoption
processes that must include public notice and commentperiods and any required legislative review processes prior to SIP approval.19

Comment4:We received comments that said reductions from the National LowEmission Vehicle (NLEV) program

are not creditable because the District did not submit a SIP revision for the NLEVprogram andbecause the NLEV SIPs for Maryland andVirginia were not approved until after the November 15, 1999 milestone date. The comments also
assert that emission reductions are

19Or inthe case ofthe Metropolitan Washington, DC area, the three-state opt-in into the reformulated gasoline program would also quickly produce emission reduction benefits from the
commencement ofthe secondphase ofthe program inJanuary 1, 2000 without further rule adoption. 

### 623

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 623 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

creditable toward the ROP requirement onlyto the extent that they have actually occurred bythe November 15, 1999 milestone date. The comments state that ifthe ROP plan does not get sufficient creditable reductions then the plan cannot be approved.

Response4:As provided above, EPA does not believe that it cannot approve ROP credit for the NLEV program simplybecause the NLEV program was not approved prior to November 1999. In addition, EPA disagrees with the
comment that the NLEV program does
not get sufficient creditable reductions.

The NLEV program is a federallyenforceable program. Unlike other federally enforced motor vehicle control programs, however, the NLEV program required an agreement from nine northeastern states and 23 manufacturers prior to itsbecoming enforceable. On March 9, 1998, EPA made afinding thatthe NLEV program

was in effect. Nine northeastern states and 23 manufacturers had opted into this "voluntary" 20 clean carprogram andthe opt-ins met the criteria set forth by EPAin its NLEV regulations (63 FR 926, January 7, 1998). As a result, starting in the northeastern states in model year 1999 and nationally in model year 2001, new cars and smaller light-duty trucks had to meet tailpipe standards that are more stringent than EPA could mandate prior to model year 2004. The phase-in ofthe NLEV vehicles began in the District, Maryland and Virginia (andthe other northeastern
states covered under the rule) commencing with the introduction of the model year 1999 vehicles during the fall of 1998.

The NLEV program required certain northeast states and the District to adopt certain regulations into their SIP. The
scope ofthese regulations can be found in the NLEV final rule and associated docket. See 63 FR 926, January 7, 1998. EPA would concede that ifthe Maryland, Virginia or the District did
not have aSIP-approved NLEV rule at this time then crediting ofthe reductions from the measure would require adefinitive determination whether the NLEV reductions resulted from a rule promulgated by EPA or from

arule adopted into the SIP. However, the NLEV rule has been approved into the SIPs for the District, Maryland and Virginia thus negating any need for such

a determination. The reductions from

2 0 The NLEV program was "voluntary" inthat it
could only come into effect ifagreed uponby the northeastern states andthe auto manufacturers. As ofMarch 2, 1998, the NLEV standards were enforceable in the same manner as any other federal

new motor vehicle program (63 FR at 11375, March 9, 1998). this program that are relied on in the Metropolitan Washington, DC post-1996 ROP plan occurred prior to November 15, 1999, in accordance with the approved SIPs and, therefore, are creditable.

Comment5:We received comments that EPA shouldnot credit reductions from the District's NOx RACT rule because (1)EPAhas not yet approved the District's NOx RACTrule and, therefore, it will not become federally enforceable until long after 11/15/99, and (2)the District has not shown actual implementation ofNOx RACT before 11/15/99 bymajor NOx sources within the District.

Response5:As provided above, EPA believes that there is no point in disapproving the Metropolitan Washington DC area Post-1996 ROP SIPs at this time on the basis that the District's NOxRACT regulation was approved after November 15, 1999. Moreover, as provided above, itis sufficient thatthe District's NOx RACT rule requires sources to comply prior to the November 15, 1999 date by which ROP must be achieved. The District does not need to demonstrate that

sources have actually complied with its regulations. Affected sources were required to comply with the applicable emissions standards andrequirements contained in the District's NOx RACT regulation (20 DCMR Section 805) by May 31, 1995. On December 14, 2000, the Regional Administrator signed a final action approving the District's NOx RACT rule. That action hasbeen orwill be published shortly. Comment6:The comments assertthe NOx RACTrules include inadequate emission control requirements for various source categories. With respect to Maryland andVirginia NOx RACT rules, the commenter referenced
comments submitted in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking actions on those SIPs. With respect tothe District's NOx RACTrule, the commenter says the District proposed to amend its rule to eliminate deficiencies precluding EPA approval.

Response6:With respect to Maryland and Virginia NOx RACTrules, EPAhas provided responses to comments in the final rulemaking action onthose SIPs. With respect to the District's NOxRACT rule, the District did make several amendments to address several provisions regarding monitoring, operating practice standards for smaller emission units, and applicability provisions that would only increase the number of sources and hence reductions available after 1999.

Comment7:We received comments that assert thatEPA cannot credit reductions because the Districthas not implemented its NOx RACT rules. Specifically, the comments cite thatthe District's proposed title V permit for the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant contains no NOx RACT requirements (either as federal or state-only requirements), even though the District has identified the Plant as amajor NOx

source.

Response 7:As an initial matter, EPA
notes that the District has not taken credit in its ROPplan forNOx RACT reductions attributable to the Blue PlainsWastewater Treatment Plant and,

as providedbelow, believes that this

source is not subject to the NOx RACT requirement. (EPA notes that no comments regarding the Blue Plains Plant were received during the comment period on EPA's proposed full approval ofthe District's NOxRACT rule.) Sources subject to the District's NOx RACT rule were required to comply with the applicable emissions standards and requirements contained in the District's NOx RACT regulation (20 DCMR Section 805) by May 31, 1995. Over the past several years, the District hasbeen incorporating source-specific NOx RACT requirements inTitle V permits for many sources.

EPA has reviewed a draft operating permit for the Blue Plains Plant. The Blue Plains Plant has twenty-nine combustion sources. This includes five digester gas/number two fuel oil-fired boilers between ten andthirteen and one-halfmillion BTU perhour heat input,nine natural gas/number 2 fuel oil-fired boilers between five and ten millionBTU per hour heat input, seven distillate/natural gas fired boilers less thanfive million BTU per hour heat input,two oil-fired generators and six flares. The requirements in the permit limitthe hours ofoperation ofthe emergency generators to less than 500 hours peryear consistent with section 805.1(c) ofthe District's NOx RACT rule, thus excluding the generators from coverage bythe NOx RACT rule.

The District's NOx RACT rule sets differing level ofcontrol onboilers through emission limitations or good operating practices, depending upon the rated capacity and fuel type ofthe boiler. A source generally consists of several units which emit pollutants to the atmosphere. The sum ofemissions from allunits at a facility determines if

a unitismajor and, thus, subject to the RACT requirements. However, certain units at a facility may be so small that itis clear that no controls arereasonably available for those units, although RACT might apply at the otherunits within the facility. Regulatory agencies have typicallyincluded exemptions for very 624

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 624 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 625

small emission units in their VOC RACT rules. The reason for the exemptions is that control requirements atvery small units are generally not reasonable, considering technological and economic feasibility. As a result ofthe new NOx RACT requirements in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, regulatory agencies are required to develop and adopt NOx RACT rules. In the process ofdrafting these rules, many agencies have included exemptions for very small NOx emission sources for the

same reason noted above for VOC rules. Unlike the VOC rules, however, there is

no well-established precedent with respect to NOx.

The District's NOx RACT was approved without emission limits for de minimis sources. In the case ofthe boilers at the Blue Plains Plant,EPA concludes these 29 units wouldbe de minimis because the units are distillateoil or digester/natural-gas fired and thus the emission reduction potential is small, control isnot cost effective, and the actual emissions reported in the draft operating permit from the plant are small andthus the potential emission reductions are negligible. Most ofthe combustion units, such as the sixteen boiler units below ten-million BTU per hour, are below the threshold at which controls are cost effective, andthose at

orjust over ten-million BTU per hour

are on the threshold ofcost effectiveness. See the memorandum entitled "De Minimis Values for NOx RACT" G. T. Helms, Group Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group (MD-15), to the Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, dated January 1, 1995. Comment8:We received comments that assert thatEPA should not credit reductions from Maryland's or Virginia's NOx RACT rules for the following reasons: (1)EPAhas notyet

even approved these NOx RACT rules; (2)even ifthe rules are approved prior
to final action on the ROP plan,the approvals will not become federally enforceable until long after 11/15/99; and (3)Maryland and Virginia have not shown actual implementation of all RACT requirements before 11/15/99.

Response8:As provided above, EPA believes that there is no point in disapproving the Metropolitan Washington DC Post-1996 ROP SIPs at this time on the basis that Virginia's and Maryland's NOx RACT regulations were approved after November 15, 1999. Moreover, as provided above, itis sufficient thatthe States' NOx RACT rules require sources to comply prior to the November 15, 1999 date by which ROP must be achieved. The States do
not need to demonstrate that sources have actually complied with its regulations.

The Commonwealth's EPA-approved RACT regulations, found at 9 VAC 5- 40-300 and 310, require all sources for which the CAA requires RACT to be in compliance bythe May 31, 1995 deadline specified in the CAA. 21 Virginia has not extended the Act's compliance date for those major sources mandated to comply byMay 31, 1995, andby approving the Commonwealth's case-by-case SIP revisions, EPAis not approving an extension ofthis deadline. To the extentthat Virginia's consent agreements andpermits require additional reductions beyond the mandated compliance deadline for meeting RACT, these requirements are not considered to be part ofthe RACT determinations.

EPA disagrees with the commenter that there are no compliance dates established for the RACT requirements. As explained previously, onJuly 11, 1995, the MDE submitted a revision to its SIP for the control ofNOx emissions from major sources. This submittal included revisions to regulation COMAR 26.11.09.01 and 26.11.09.08 which pertained to definitions and a generic NOx RACT rule which required affected sources to either meet a presumptive NOx emissions standard or to submit a case-by-case RACT proposal for approval by MDE. In all cases, under this regulation, RACT requirements

were tohave been met by no later than May 31, 1995. On June 22, 1999 (64 FR 33197), EPA granted conditional limited approval ofthis SIP revision. The condition imposed required that all case-by-case RACT determination be submitted as SIP revisions. On September 8, 2000, Maryland submitted

a SIP revision. It consisted ofa revised version ofCOMAR 26.11.09.08 which removed the generic RACT provisions andreplaced them with source category specific RACT emission limitations. Maryland chose to dothis to avoid the undue burden ofsubmitting all the caseby-case RACT determinations as sourcespecific SIP revisions. The submittal of the September 8, 2000, SIP revision satisfies the conditions ofEPA's June 22, 1999 conditional limited approval. Maryland first revised COMAR

21Consistent with the Act, the Commonwealth's
RACT regulations require facilities inthe Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area which have a theoretical potential to emit of50 tonsper year (TPY)or greater ofNOx or VOCs to comply by May 31, 1995. To obtain additional emission reductions beyond those mandated by the Act, the Commonwealth also required VOC sources with a theoretical potential to emit 25 TPY orgreater, but less than 50 TPY, to apply RACT. The Commonwealth set a compliance deadline for these

sources ofMay 31, 1996. 26.11.09.08 on September 22, 1999 and further revised it on August 30, 2000. These revisions to COMAR 26.11.09.08 became effective inthe State of Maryland on October 18, 1999, and September 18, 2000, respectively. Its provisions are to be complied with at all times and itprovides no extension of the CAA mandated RACT compliance date ofMay 31, 1995.

EPA has fully approved Maryland's and Virginia's NOx RACT rules. On December 15, 2000, the regional Administrator signed final actions approving the Maryland and Virginia NOx RACT rules. These actions have been orwill be published shortly. Comment9:We received comments that asserted that EPA can only credit those reductions thatthe District actually achieved as aresult of enhanced vehicle inspection between April 1999 andNovember 15 1999. The
comments state that only afraction of the fleet was tested between the April 1999 commencement ofthe enhanced I/Mprogram and November 15, 1999.

Other comments likewise questioned whether full emission reductions credited from the Maryland and Virginia I/Mprograms actually occurred by 11/15/99. The latter comments assert that states must demonstrate full implementation including enhanced testing ofthe entire fleet. These
comments also questioned whether the full emission reductions were credited
to the enhanced I/M programs in Maryland and Virginia given that final SIP approval did not occur until late 1999.

All comments state ifthe ROPplan does not get sufficient creditable reductions by November 15, 1999, then the plan cannot be approved.

Response9:EPA disagrees that the full fleet must be tested for a state to get the credit thatthey claim. I/Mprogram benefits were determined using EPA's MOBILE5b emission factor model. The MOBILE5b emission factor model was designed to evaluate program benefits from annual andbienniel programs and is quite capable ofevaluating program benefits for a specified year that is yearone ofabienniel program. The MOBILE5b model has inherent limitations in thatit can only assume an I/M start date ofJanuary 1 and can only provide output for July 1 orJanuary 1 for the year ofevaluation. The States modeled an enhanced I/M start date of January 1ofthe following years: 1998 for Maryland and Virginia and 1999 for the District. The Maryland enhanced program commenced in October 1997, the Virginia program commenced during May of 1998 and the District on April 26, 1999. All the programs have

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 625 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

now tested the amount ofthe fleet specified in the post-1996 ROP plan. EPA believes the estimated reductions from I/M needed for the post-96 ROP plans were achieved and surpassed by the end ofMay 2000, prior to the beginning ofthe ozone season. EPA believes that these reductions were achieved as expeditiously as practicable andthat no other reasonable emissions control strategy would have allowed the District or Virginia orEPA to achieve these reductions sooner.

EPA believes thatthere isno point to disapprove Maryland's, Virginia's or the District's Post-1996 plan SIP at this time because ofthe date Maryland's, Virginia's or the District's I/M SIP regulation was approved. First the reductions claimed by Maryland, Virginia andthe District have now occurred. Second, Maryland, Virginia or the District would have to remedy the deficiencies that lead tothe disapproval. The comments suggest that the deficiency could arise from one oftwo deficiencies: first, the reductions did not

occur bythe required deadline or, two, the reductions did not arise from either

ameasure approved into the District's SIP or from a measure promulgated by EPA. In either case, a shortfall of creditable reductions would occur. Now that the milestone deadline has passed, Maryland's, Virginia's or the District's has limited abilityto effectuate a remedy to ashortfall ofcreditable reductions thatmust occur by a date past. The passing ofthe deadline does
not relieve Maryland, Virginia or the District from the requirement to achieve the 9% reduction in emissions, but the 9% reduction needs to be achieved as expeditiously as practicable after November 15, 1999. Maryland, Virginia

orthe District can only getcreditable reductions from reductions that actually occurred by the milestone deadlineby making such reductions, ifany exist, creditable byincorporating such reductions into a SIP regulation that EPA approves. In such a situation, the SIP approval would occur after the deadline. Ifsufficient actual reductions occurring by the milestone date did not existthen Maryland, Virginia or the District could only get reductions after the milestone deadline. The Post-1996 ROP requirement would onlybe fulfilled if such additional reductions occurred as expeditiously aspracticable. Measures such as I/M andNLEV that

accrue additional benefits over time as

newer vehicles replace oldervehicles or

as additional vehicles are required to obtain repairs will generate additional reductions more expeditiously than new

measures which must undergo adoption processes that must include public notice and commentperiods and any required legislative review processes prior to SIP approval. Comment 10:We received comments that assert because the final national rules for autobody refinishing, surface coatings and consumer products allow for exemptions or variances, EPA cannot grant any emission reduction credit at allbecause the Clean Air Act does not allow EPAto credit state or national

measures with emission reductions when emission limits are subject to waiver at any time. The comments further assertthat because the tonnage exceptions and exceedance fee provisions orvariance provisions in the rules arenot limited to a specific tonnage figure at all therules place no cap onthe use ofthese provisions and thus assert in the absence of such caps, EPA cannot rationally or lawfully grant emission reduction credit for these rules.

Response 10:The AIM rule (40 CFR 594.404) sets caps onthe amount ofthe tonnage exemptions. The Economic Impact Analysis for the final rule evaluated the magnitude oflost emission reductions in considering the fee provision and found thatthe fee would resultin a relatively minor adjustment in emission reductions, while providing considerable flexibility in the marketplace, thus reducing the number ofproducts that withdraw from the market. The effect ofthe tonnage exemption and the exceedance fee on the estimated emission reduction was considered in derivation ofthe estimated emission reduction. The estimated reduction for the final rule

was reduced by 2,350 tons to account for the exceedance and tonnage exemptions in the rule.

Not all variance requests were related
to time extensions to reformulate products but also included time extensions toupdate product literature

orlabeling or date coding equipment. See 64 FR 16447, April 5, 1999. Most variances were submitted immediately after the rules became effective and the time extension requested have now run out. Region IIIhas not received a variance request in over ayear. Comment 11:We received comments that assert thatthe proposed rulemakings used estimates from the proposed rulemaking for autobody refinishing, consumer products, and architectural andindustrial maintenance coatings as abasis for approving the States' reduction claims.

Response 11:As statedin the TSDs for the proposed approvals of Maryland's, Virginia's andthe District's post-1996 ROP plan, the 36% reduction for autobody refinish coatings isbased upon the final rule, and as stated in the preambles and associated dockets for the consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings final rules, these final rules are estimated to achieve a 20% reduction in affected source categories.

EPA's March 22, 1995 memorandum 22 allowed states to claim

a 20% reduction in VOC emissions from the AIM coatings category in ROP and attainment plansbased onthe anticipated promulgation ofanational AIM coatings rule. In developing the attainment and ROP SIPs for their nonattainment areas, States relied on this memorandum to estimate emission reductions from the anticipated national AIMrule. EPApromulgated the final AIMrule in September 1998, codified at 40 CFR part 59 subpart D. Inthe preamble to EPA's final AIM coatings regulation, EPA estimated thatthe regulation will result in 20% reduction ofnationwide VOC emissions from AIM coatings categories (63 FR 48855). The estimated VOC reductions from the final AIMrule resulted in the same level as those estimated in the March 1995 EPA policy memorandum. In accordance with EPA's final regulation, States have assumed a 20% reduction from AIM coatings source categories in its attainment and ROP plans.

Consistent with a November 27, 1994 EPApolicy,23 many States have claimed

a 37% reduction from the autobody refinishing source category based on a proposed rule. However, EPA's final rule, "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings," published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48806), did not regulate lacquer topcoats and will resultin a smaller emission reduction ofaround 33% overall nationwide. The 37% emission reduction from EPA's proposed rule was

an estimate ofthe total nationwide emission reduction. Since this number is an overall national average, the actual reduction achieved in any particular

area could vary depending on the level ofcontrol which already existedin the

area. For example, in California the reduction from the national rule is zero because California's rules are more

22"Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress
Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rules," March 22, 1995, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofair Quality Planning and Standards to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X

23"Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress
Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and the AutobodyRefinishing Rule," November 27, 1994, John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X. 

### 626

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 626 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 627

stringent than the national rule. In the proposed rule, the estimated percentage reduction for areas that were unregulated before the national rule was about 40%. However as a result ofthe lacquer topcoat exemption added between proposal and final rule, the reduction is now estimated tobe 36% for previously unregulated areas. Both the District and Virginia claimed 35.7% credit in their attainment and ROP plans while Maryland claimed 45%. EPA's best estimate ofthereduction potential ofthe final rule was spelled out in a September 19, 1996 memorandum entitled "Emissions Calculations for the Automobile Refinish Coatings Final Rule" from Mark Morris to Docket No. A-95-18.

The basis for approving Maryland's reductions is dealtwith in a response to

a separate comment consistent with a June 22, 1995 EPA guidance,24 States have claimed a 20% reduction from the

consumer products source category based onEPA's proposed rule. The final rule, "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products," (63 FR 48819), published onSeptember 11, 1998, has resulted in a 20% reduction after the December 10, 1998 compliance date. Therefore the reductions obtained by States for their attainment and ROP plans from the final national rule are consistent with credit which was claimed.

Comment12:We received comments that state for the architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings rule, the limits on a number ofcoatings

were changed between the proposal and final rule either directly, orby establishing new subcategories with higher VOC limits. The comments assert that the effects ofthese changes and other changes isnot documented precisely how those changes justifythe claimed emission reduction credit. The
comments further state thatEPA does
not show howthe effects ofthese were reflected in the final percentage reduction estimate EPAis allowing
states to claim from therule.

Response12:The basis for the 20% reductions achieved by the final rule is documented in the rulemaking docket for the AIM coatings final rule in docket A-92-18, item number IV-B-2 as stated in appendix C to the TSDs for the rulemakings on Maryland's, Virginia's andthe District's P attainment and Post1996 ROP plans. The emission reduction and the baseline emissions

24"Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and
Commercial Products under Section 183(e) ofthe Clean Air Act", June 22, 1995, John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to AirDivision Directors, Regions I-X. estimate for the final rule reflect changes due to new information as well

asthe decisions on some categories. These changes included: (a)Addition ofinformation on concrete curing and sealing compounds.

(b)Removal ofacetone emissions from the inventory for industrial maintenance coatings andfor traffic coatings and zone marking coatings.

(c) Adjustments to account for creation ofnew categories where EPA had the necessary information on coating volume and VOC content and

we could determine ifthe category was included in the NPCA survey.

After all ofthe revisions were made, the revised estimate ofbaseline emissions was 6 percent higher than the estimate atproposal and the revised estimate ofthe emission reduction was 7percent higher. Thus, itis not possible
to assess the validity ofthe emission reduction estimate by a simple comparison ofthe VOC content limits for afew products.

EPA believes the 20% reduction identified in the final AIM rule was reasonable and EPAtook final action on the attainment and Post-1996 ROP plans

onthat basis.

Comment 13:We received comments that assert the estimate ofemission reductions from the autobody refinishing rule does not account for establishment ofa separate category for multi-colored topcoats in the final rule-a category thathas weaker limits than would have applied to the same topcoats under the proposed rule, and the comments assert EPAthat has no data onthe usage ofmulti-colored topcoats-data thatis required in order
to rationally estimate the expected emission reductions from the rule.

Response 13:EPA's best estimate of the reduction potential ofthe final rule

was spelled outin a September 19, 1996 memorandum entitled "Emissions Calculations for the Automobile Refinish Coatings Final Rule" from Mark Morris to Docket No. A-95-18.

The basis for approving Maryland's reductions is dealtwith in a response to

a separate comment below.

Comment 14:We received comments that assert there is insufficientbasis for granting full credit for AIM rule as of November 15, 1999 because EPAhas failed to offer any facts or analyses showing that only compliant products

were in use asof 11/15/99, and the late implementation deadline ofSeptember 12, 1999 virtually assures that this was not the case.

Response 14:As discussed in
response to other comments, the estimated VOC reductions from the final AIM rule resulted in the same level as those estimated in the March 1995 EPA policy memorandum. In accordance with EPA's final regulation, States have assumed a 20% reduction from AIM coatings source categories in its attainment and ROP plans. AIM coatings manufacturers were required to be in compliance with the final regulation within one year of promulgation, except for certain pesticide formulations which were given an additional year to comply. Thus all manufacturers were required to comply, atthe latest, by September 2000.

EPA believes that there isno point to disapprove the Post-1996 plan SIPs at this timebecause the States have limited ability to effectuate a remedy to

a shortfall ofcreditable reductions that
must occur by a date past. The passing ofthe deadline does notrelieve the States from the requirement to achieve the 9% reduction in emissions, but the 9% reduction needs to be achieved as expeditiously aspracticable after November 15, 1999. The States can only get creditable reductions from permanent reductions that actually occurred by the milestone deadline by making such reductions, ifany exist, creditable by incorporating such reductions into a SIP regulation that EPA approves. In such a situation, the SIP approval would occur after the deadline. Ifsufficient actual reductions occurring by the milestone date did not existthen the States could only get reductions after the milestone deadline. The Post-1996 ROP requirement would onlybe fulfilled ifsuch additional reductions occurred as expeditiously as practicable. Measures such as AIM rule which are already promulgated would generate reductions more expeditiously thannew measures which must undergo adoption processes thatmust include public notice and comment periods and any required legislative review
processes prior to SIP approval.

In promulgating the final AIMrule in 1998, EPA considered the impact ofthe

new rule onthe affected industry and inventory. Industry confirmed in
comments onthe proposed AIM rule that 12 months between the issuance of the final rule and the compliance deadline would be sufficient to "use up existing label stock" and "adjust inventories" to conform to the rule (63 FR at 48867, September 11, 2000).

EPA believes the estimated reductions fromAIM needed for the Post-96 ROP plans were achieved already. EPA believes thatthese reductions were achieved as expeditiously as practicable and that no other reasonable emissions control strategy would have allowed the

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 627 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

States or EPA to achieve these reductions sooner. Comment15:We received comments claiming that one EPA analysis indicates some reductions from the AIM rule couldbe deferred to as late as 2002. The comments cite a Memorandum dated May 30, 2000 from Paul T. Wentworth, EPA, to Administrative Record on the Adequacy findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Revised Phase II Ozone Attainment Plans for the Metropolitan Washington, DC Ozone Nonattainment Area.

Response15:The budgets at issue in the Memorandum dated May 30, 2000 from Paul T. Wentworth, EPA, to Administrative Record on the Adequacy findings for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Revised Phase II Ozone Attainment Plans for the Metropolitan Washington, DC Ozone Nonattainment Area were the 2005 budgets. The statement made in this document statedthat thereductions from the AIM rule "* * *will occur by 2002 * * *".The statement does not state EPA's position that the reductions would not occur any sooner. Forthe

reasons outlined in the TSDs for the proposed rulemaking actions, EPA believes the AIM reductions occurred by November 15, 1999. Comment16:We have received
comments saying that the (Transportation)model does not incorporate adequate assumptions about the effects ofland development and new road projections on the growth of vehicle travel and cites an EPA letter from Judith Katz, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA Region IIIto James Cheatham, Divisional Administrator, Federal Highway Administration dated August 27, 1998, in which the commenters assert that EPA stated thatthe plans did not include any information onthe rate of land development in theWashington Region andthe effect ofthis development will have on the transportation system. The comments discuss the transportation model's land

use assumptions, and imply thatthe Metropolitan Planning Organization (the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, MWCOG) (hereafter, "the MPO") has not included the effects of land use in the model and thatEPA has known about this issue since 1998.

Response16:This August 27, 1998, EPA letter to the MPO concerned EPA's review ofthe conformity determination FY99-04 Transportation Improvement program (TIP) as well as the Long Range Transportation Plan. Planning assumptions in a TIP mustbe derived from the estimates ofcurrent and future population, employment, travel, and congestion most recently developed by the MPO or other agency authorized to make such estimates and approved by the MPO. Likewise, the conformity rule, 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), requires SIP
motor vehicle emissions budgets tobe developed in consultation with federal,
state and local agencies such as the MPO in order to be adequate and approvable. Based onEPA reviews of the mostrecently approved Transportation Improvement programs (TIPs) aswell as the Long Range Transportation Plans in the Washington, DC area, EPA is satisfied that the MPO through its land activity forecasts, provides timely information ongrowth and land use, through consultation with all ofitsregional county planners. These same forecasts areused for both the development ofSIP motor vehicle emissions budget andthe determination ofconformity TIP. Therefore, while the estimates ofland use activity are not done by modeling, their process of estimating land use activity does not violate the requirements ofthe conformity rule which was the context in which the cited 1998 letter was sent, andtherefore EPA can find no reason to agree with any assertion or implication that the transportation model, used by the MPO to develop any SIP budgets in 1999 or 2000, is deficient. Furthermore, this August 27, 1998, EPA letter to the MPO does not have any relevance in this instance because the letter targets the lack ofany clear graphic display of information in the transportation plans rather than the absence ofinformation for the transportation model to use. Comment 17:We received comments that assert thatEPA cannot credit the Post-1996 plan submittedby Virginia andMaryland with reductions from

measures credited in the 15% plan and
cannot count emission reductions to both the 15% and 9% reduction requirements, thatis reductions from

some measures arebeing counted towards both the 50%and 90%reduction requirements.

Response 17:EPA disagrees with this
comment. Under EPA's interpretation of the reasonable further progress (also called rate-of-progress (ROP)) requirements under section 182 ofthe CAA, the 15% reduction requirement andpost-1996 reduction requirement (e.g., 9% by 1999) are not separate tabulations but rather the post-1996 requirement is in addition to the 15% requirement.

EPA has always interpreted the ROP requirement to be a requirement to lower an area's emissions below a target level ofemissions. See 57 FR at 13506, April 16, 1992. The 9% per post-1996 requirement (over the three year period 1996 to 1999) is in addition to 15% by 1996 requirement. See 57 FR at 13516. EPA continued this approach in guidance documents issued subsequent
to April 16, 1992.

The target level for any milestone year is always calculated relative to the 1990 base year emissions inthe area and results in alower target level for each milestone year. The 15% target level of VOC emissions is the 1990 base year inventory adjusted to account for the effects onbase year emissions ofcertain noncreditable programs under Clean Air Act section 182(b): (1)Certain mandated RACT and I/Mrule corrections, ifany; (2)certain mandated reductions in gasoline Reid vapor pressure (the so called "Phase II RVP" program) to occur in 1992; and (3)the federal motor vehicle control program in place as of 1990 (the so-called "Tier 0 FMVCP"). This adjusted VOC emissions inventory is reduced by 15% to arrive at the 15% plantarget level.

Calculation ofthe VOCtarget level for the 1999 milestone year starts withthe 15% plan target level and applies further decremental reductions. Part of the decrement is dueto effects on base year emissions due to the Tier 0 FMVCP between 1996 and 1999 (whichisnot creditable towards the 9% per year post1996 ROP requirement under the Act) and part due to application ofthepost1996 9% requirement. Substituting NOx reductions for VOC reductions only lessens the additional 9% VOC reduction requirement by 1999 to some lesser percentage, which is 1%in the

case ofthe plan subject to this rulemaking action.

Under section 182(b) ofthe CAA, the ROPrequirements are to be met accounting for growth in the area.

An emission reduction is the difference between two emission projections that differ onlyin the
presence ofthe effects ofa control strategy in one case andthe absence in the other (often referred to the "uncontrolled" projected emissions). Forthe 15% ROP plan, the projection
year is 1996 whereas for the Post-1996 ROPplan the year is 1999.

A demonstration ofROP for the 15% planrequires that the planhave enough reductions to reduce the 1996 projected uncontrolled emissions to less or equal
to the 1996 target level.The Post-1996 ROPplan has tohave enough VOC reductions to account forgrowth in VOC emissions between 1996 and 1999 and
to make the VOC portion (when NOx is substituted) of the 1996 to 1999 3% per year reduction requirement.

The Post-1996 plan for the Washington area projects all emissions in all categories to 1999 without new 

### 628

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 628 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

controls from the 1990 base year level andthen applies controls to determine 1999 reductions. (Any growth projections in uncontrolled emissions for 1996 to 1999 or any changes in reductions for 1996 to 1999 in the plan

were the difference between the 1990 to 1999 projections and the 1990 to 1996 projections (from the 15% plan)). The Post-1996 ROP plans evaluate the effects ofthe various creditable control strategies in the plan on these uncontrolled emissions levels to determine the reductions in 1999 from the Post-1996 ROP plan. EPA is approving the Post-1996 ROP plans on the basis thatthere were sufficient projected reductions toreduce the 1999 projected uncontrolled emissions to less than or equal to the target level.

Some measures used for the 15% ROP demonstration may produce more reductions relative to projected 1999 uncontrolled emissions for thepost1996 plan than for thereductions relative toprojected 1996 uncontrolled emissions the 15% planbecause the

source categories affected by the

measures have higher uncontrolled emissions in the post-1996 period due
to growth in emissions related activity. (Othermeasures produce the same reductions because the underlying emissions related activity are projected
to remain steady.) Some measures namely the additional rules under the FMVCP promulgated since 1990 (i.e., "Tier 1") produce greater reductions for

apost-1996 plan than for the 15% plan for an additional reason thanjust growth in underlying emissions related activity: the post-1996 fleet contains a higher percentage ofvehicles meeting the newer standards than the fleet assumed in the 15% plan.

Suppose a measure (implemented after 1990 butbefore 11/15/96) can reduce emissions in a sector (orat a source) by 20%. Suppose the 1990 base line emissions for that sector (or source)

were 10.0 tons per day. Suppose the emissions in the category were projected
to grow 1%per year or 6.2% between 1990 and 1996 and 9.4% between 1990 and 1999. The uncontrolled emissions would be 10.62 (10 x 1.062) tons per day for 1996 and 10.94 (10 x 1.094) tons per day for 1999. The 1996 reductions would be 2.12 tons per day (0.20 x 10.62)
,and the 1999 reductions would be 2.19 (0.20x 10.94) tons per day.

A demonstration ofROP for thepost1996 plan requires thatthe plan have enough VOC reductions toreduce the 1999 projected uncontrolled emissions
to less than or equal tothe relevant post1996 VOC target level.

In the Post-1996 ROP plan the

measures used in the 15% plan are evaluated as tohow well these measures reduce projected uncontrolled 1999 emissions. These 1999 reductions were added up withthe 1999 reductions from additional measures implemented after 11/15/96 to get the total emission reductions in 1999 (relative to the 1999 uncontrolled levels).

Thus although some measures may be included in both the 15% and 9% plans, onlythe reductions between 1990 and 1996 from those measures are counted towards the 15% plan, while those from 1996 to 1999 are counted in the 9% plan.

The comments do not offer any substantive alternative interpretation regarding the demonstration ofROP to that which EPA has issued in guidance

onthe subject except to claim once a

measure has been used towards the 15% requirement itcannot be used towards the 9% requirement. Nor do the
commenters comment adversely on EPA's interpretation regarding demonstration ofROP through calculation oftarget levels andthrough

a showing that milestone year projected emission inventories with all controls

are less than the target levels. As explained above, the measures used to achieve the 15% reduction requirement by 1996 were evaluated for the effect on uncontrolled 1999 emissions (thatwere projected from 1990). In the case ofthe Metropolitan Washington, D.C. nonattainment area additional measures
are needed in thepost-1996 plan to achieve additional reductions needed to offset growth in emissions after 1996 andto achieve the VOC portion ofthe 9% reduction requirement.

Comment 18:We received comments that assert thatEPA must document its

reasons for accepting Maryland's and Virginia's emission reduction claims. The comments cite the example ofthe reductions from Maryland's and Virginia's open burning program and the 45% reduction claimed by Maryland for the Maryland rules applicable to autobody refinishing. The comments state thatthe States assume an 80% compliance with the open burning regulations without documenting the basis for this assertion. The comments claim thatthe 80% compliance assertion isvoid in the absence ofplans

or commitments needed for local enforcement.

Response 18:In the case of Maryland's autobodyrefinishing rule, Maryland's rule requires coating limits equivalent to those required under EPA's proposed autobodyrefinishing rule. Maryland's rule also establishes VOC content requirements for surface preparation cleaners, equipment cleaning, andfor application equipment. The effect from the coating limits, surface preparation cleaners, and equipment cleaning would be a reduction of42.5% based upon the analysis inEPA's Alternative Control Techniques: Auto Body Refinishing (EPA453/R-94-031, April 1994). Maryland's rule alsorequires the use of either low-volume, high-pressure or high-volume, low-pressure application equipment. STAPPA reports thatthe Bay AreaAir Quality Management District conservatively estimates that

use ofHVLP equipment canreduce coatings usage by 20 to 40% (STAPPA/ ALAPCO, "Meeting the 15% Rate of Progress-A Menu of Options", pages 91-99 (Sept. 1993)). A20% reduction in coatings usage would resultin afurther 12% reduction in coating emissions which equate to a further 10% reduction in overall emissions. Based upon this EPAbelieves the 45% reduction credit assumed byMaryland is appropriate and maybe conservative.

Regarding openburning, 80% compliance is reasonable as a default compliance rate. This default 80% compliance assertion isbased upon EPA's guidance forrule effectiveness. This guidance was among that listed in appendix Ato the TSD for the proposed action (such asitem numbers 4, 5,6, 24, 27, 30, 35, 36, and 38 among others). EPA's guidance allows States to assume 80% compliance rate as a default.EPA views the fact that Statestake the default 80% rule effectiveness as a defacto commitment to invest enforcement resources to ensure this level ofcompliance.

Comment 19:We received comments that claimed openburning emissions

were not in the 1990 base year emissions inventory forMaryland and Virginia. The comments assert thatEPA
cannot credit reductions from emissions that were not included in the 1990 base year emissions inventory.

Response 19:The emissions from the
openburning category were documented in the 1990 base year emissions inventory. These were documented in Chapter 3.0, section 3.4.4.5.2 on pages 3-65 and 3-66, and

on page III-32 ofAppendix 3.0 ofthe "1990 Base YearEmissions Inventory for Stationary Anthropogenic, Biogenic and Highway Vehicle Emissions of Ozone Precursors in the Washington, DC-MD-VA Metropolitan Statistical Nonattainment Area", dated September 22, 1993, that was submittedby Maryland and Virginia as part oftheir 1990 base year emissions inventory SIP.

Comment20:We received comments asserting that the Maryland and Virginia attainment and Post-1996 ROPplans are flawed because they assume afleet mix 

### 629

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 629 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

that does not accurately reflect the growing proportion of sport utility vehicles and gasoline trucks. The
comments cite data from the Maryland Department ofthe Environment for 1996 and 1999. The comments further assert that EPA and the states have not followed a consistent practice in updating SIP modeling to account for changes invehicle fleets. The comments also assertthat EPA cannot rationally
approve SIPs that are based on such materially inaccurate assumptions. The
comments also assert continued use of out-dated assumptions is inconsistent with the duty imposedby Clean Air Act section 182(a)(3) to triennially update the emission inventory. The comments also assertthat ifthe motorvehicle inventory has not been updated to prepare the current SIP submission, it shouldbe disapproved.

Response20:All ofthe SIPs on which

we are taking final action are based on the mostrecent vehicle registration data available at the time the SIP was prepared. The SIPs use the same vehicle fleet characteristics that were used in the mostrecent periodic inventory update. The Metropolitan Washington D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area SIP is based onvehicle registration data from 1996, which isthe mostrecent data available at the time the SIP was prepared and submitted. Clearly the 1999 data could not havebeen used in
motor vehicle emissions projections prepared in the fall of 1998 as documented in Appendix D ofthe SIP. EPA requires the most recent available datato be used,but we do not require it to be updated on a specific schedule. Therefore, different SIPs base their fleet mix on different years ofdata. Our guidance does not suggest that SIPs shouldbe disapproved onthis basis. Further, EPA does not require states to go back and reanalyze SIP submissions ifnew databecomes available shortly before EPA takes final action on the SIP. Nevertheless, we do expect that revisions to these SIPs that are submitted using MOBILE6 (as required in those cases where the SIP is relying

on emissions reductions from the Tier 2 standards) will use updated vehicle registration data appropriate for use with MOBILE6, whether itis updated local data or the updated national default data that will be part of MOBILE6. EPAis requiring the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area states to revise the attainment budgets using MOBILE6. Comment21:We received comments that assert thatthe Post-1996 ROP plan andthe attainment plan fail to include

aprogram to provide for the enforcement ofthe adopted control measures asrequired by section 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe CAA. The comments assertthat these plans must contain a legally enforceable SIP commitment to enforce the various control strategies relied upon for emission reduction credit. The comments assert thatEPA review of state enforcement programs in connection with federal grantmaking does not satisfy EPA's duty to ensure that the SIP itselfcontains the legally required enforcement and funding commitments.

Response21:EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that states must provide such information with each SIP revision. Although Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(a)(2)(C) do contain these provisions cited bythe commenter, section 110(a)(2)(H) isthe statutory provision which governs requirements for individual plan revisions which States may be required
to submit from time totime. There are

no cross-references in section 7410(a)(2)(H) to either 7410(a)(2)(E) or 7410(a)(2)(C). Therefore, EPA concludes that Congress did not intend to require States to submit an analysis ofadequate funding and enforcement with each subsequent andindividual SIP revision submitted under the authority ofsection 110(a)(2)(H).

Once EPA approves a State's SIP as meeting section 110(a)(2), EPA isnot required to reevaluate that SIP for each

new revision to the plan to meet additional requirements in later sections ofthe Act. The Metropolitan Washington D.C. area States had previously received approval oftheir section 110(a)(2) SIPs.

In afinal rulemaking action published

onFebruary 25, 1984 (49 FR 3063), EPA approved Virginia's financial and
manpower resource commitments, after having proposed approval ofthese commitments onFebruary 3, 1983 (48 FR 5124 at 5127).

In afinal rulemaking action published

onMarch 8, 1984 (49 FR 8610), EPA approved Maryland's financial and manpower resource commitments, after having proposed approval ofthese commitments onFebruary 3, 1983 (48 FR 5048 at 5052).

In afinal rulemaking action published

on October 3, 1984 (49 FR 39059 at 39060), EPA approved the District's financial andmanpower resource commitments, after having proposed approval ofthese commitments on December 17, 1983 (48 FR 54833 at 54836).

Neither this commenter or any other
person has submitted substantive
comments that would lead EPAto separately analyze whether it should call on the states torevise their section 110(a)(2) SIPs regarding enforcement and funding.

III.FinalAction

A. TheDistrictofColumbia

1.Post-1996 ROP Plan

EPA is approving the District of Columbia's post-1996 (ROP) plan SIP revision for the Washington area which

was submitted on November 3, 1997, and supplemented on May 25, 1999.

2.Attainment Demonstration

EPA is approving the District of Columbia's attainment demonstration SIP revision for the Washington area which was submitted on April 24, 1998, and supplemented on October 27, 1998, and on February 16, 2000, and section 9.1.1.2 ofthe March 22, 2000 SIP supplement dealing with a commitment
to revise the 2005 attainment motor vehicle emissions budgets within oneyear ofthe EPA's release ofthe MOBILE6 model.

3.Attainment Date Extension

EPA is approving the District of Columbia's request for an attainment date extension from November 15, 1999
to November 15, 2005, for the Washington area.

B. Stateof Maiyland

1.Post-1996 Plan

EPA is approving the State of Maryland's post-1996 (ROP) plan SIP revision for the Washington area which

was submitted on December 24, 1997, and supplemented on May 20, 1999, and the transportation control measures in Appendix H ofthe May 20, 1999 submittal.

2.Attainment Demonstration

EPA is approving the State of Maryland's attainment demonstration SIP revision for the Washington area which was submitted on April 29, 1998 and supplemented on August 17, 1998 and February 14, 2000, and only section 9.1.1.2 ofthe March 31, 2000 SIP supplement dealing with a commitment
to revise the 2005 attainment motor vehicle emissions budgets within oneyear ofthe EPA's release ofthe MOBILE6 model.

3.Attainment Date Extension

EPA is approving the State of Maryland's request for an attainment date extension from November 15, 1999
to November 15, 2005, for the Washington area. 

### 630

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 630 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations 631

C. CommonwealthofVirginia

1.Post -1996 Plan

EPA is approving the Commonwealth ofVirginia's post-1996 (ROP)plan SIP revision for the Washington area which

was submitted on December 19, 1997, and supplemented on May 25, 1999, andthe transportation control measures in Appendix H ofthe May 25, 1999 submittal.

2.Attainment Demonstration

EPA is approving the Commonwealth ofVirginia's attainment demonstration SIP revision for theWashington area which was submitted onApril 29, 1998 and supplemented on August 18, 1998, andFebruary 9, 2000, and only section 9.1.1.2 ofthe March 31, 2000 SIP supplement dealing with a commitment
to revise the 2005 attainment motor vehicle emissions budgets within oneyear ofthe EPA's release ofthe MOBILE6 model.

3.Attainment Date Extension

EPA is approving the Commonwealth ofVirginia's request for an attainment date extension for theWashington area from November 15, 1999 to November 15, 2005.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. GeneralRequirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore isnot subject toreviewby the Office ofManagement and Budget. This action merely approves state lawas meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposedby state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601
etseq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable dutybeyond thatrequired by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly oruniquely affect the communities oftribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or

onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely
approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower andresponsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also isnot subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that theymeet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the State touse voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for 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 of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) donot apply. As required by section 3ofExecutive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPAhas taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, andprovide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPAhas complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications ofthe rule in accordance with the "Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation ofRisk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings" issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submissionto Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and tothe Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2). C.Petitions for JudicialReview
Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by March 5,2001. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affectthe finality ofthis rule for the
purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action to approve the Post-1996 ROP plan, the

ozone attainment demonstration and the attainment date extension SIP revisions submittedby the District, Maryland and Virginia may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce itsrequirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated:December 15, 2000. Thomas C.Voltaggio, ActingRegional Administrator,RegionIlL
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Subpart J-DC

2. Section 52.475 is added to read as follows:
§52.475 Extensions.

The Administrator hereby approves a request to extend the attainment date for the national ambient air quality standards for ozone to November 15, 2005 for the Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone nonattainment area.

3. Section 52.476 is amended by designating the existing text as paragraph (a) andby adding paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
§52.476 Controlstrategy and rate-ofprogress plan: ozone.

(b)EPA is approving the District of Columbia's post-1996 (ROP) plan SIP revision for the Washington area which

was submitted on November 3, 1997, and supplemented on May 25, 1999.

(c) EPA approves the revisionsto the State Implementation Plan submitted by the District ofColumbia Department of

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 631 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 2/Wednesday, January 3, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Health onApril 24, 1998, October 27, 1998, andFebruary 16, 2000, and only section 9.1.1.2 ofthe March 22, 2000 SIP supplement dealing with a commitment to revise the 2005 attainment motor vehicle emissions budgets within one-year ofthe EPA's release ofthe MOBILE6 model. The revisions are for the purpose of satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act for the Metropolitan Washington, DC serious ozone nonattainment area. The revision establishes an attainment date of November 15, 2005 for the Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone nonattainment

area. This revision establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2005 of 101.4 tons per day ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC) and 166.7 tons per day ofnitrogen oxides (NOx)to be used in transportation conformity in the Metropolitan Washington, DC. Serious

ozone nonattainment area until revised budgets based upon the MOBILE6 model are submitted and found adequate. In the revision, the District of Columbia commits torevise their VOC andNOx transportation conformity budgets within one year ofthe release ofthe MOBILE6 model. The District of Columbia also commits to conduct a mid-course review to assess modeling and monitoring progress achieved towards the goal ofattainment by 2007, and submitthe results to EPAby December 31, 2003.
Subpart V-MD

4. Section 52.1078 is added to read as follows:
§52.1078 Extensions.

The Administrator hearby approves a request to extend the attainment date for the national ambient air quality standards for ozone toNovember 15, 2005 for the Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone nonattainment area. 5. Section 52.1076 is amendedby addingparagraphs (d)and (g)to read as follows: 

### §52.1076 Control strategyand rate-ofprogress plan: ozone.

(d)EPA is approving the State of Maryland's post-1996 (ROP)plan SIP revision for the Washington area which was submitted on December 24, 1997, and supplemented on May 20, 1999, andthe transportation control measures in Appendix H ofthe May 20, 1999 submittal.

(g) EPA approves therevisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Maryland Department ofthe Environment on April 29, 1998, August 17, 1998, andFebruary 14, 2000, and only section 9.1.1.2 ofthe March 31, 2000 SIP supplement dealing with a commitment to revise the 2005 attainment motorvehicle emissions budgets within one-year ofthe EPA's release ofthe MOBILE6 model. The revisions arefor the purpose of satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act for the Metropolitan Washington, DC serious ozone nonattainment area. The revision establishes an attainment date of November 15, 2005 for the Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone nonattainment

area. This revision establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2005 of 101.4 tons per day ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC) and 166.7 tons per day ofnitrogen oxides (NOx)to be used in transportation conformity in the Metropolitan Washington, DC. Serious

ozone nonattainment area until revised budgets based upon the MOBILE6 model are submitted and found adequate. In the revision, Maryland commits to revise their VOC and NOx transportation conformity budgets within one year ofthe release ofthe MOBILE6 model. Maryland also commits to conduct a mid-course review to assess modeling and monitoring progress achieved towards the goal ofattainment by 2007, and submitthe results toEPA byDecember 31, 2003.
Subpart VV-VA

6. Section 52.2429 is added to read as follows:
§52.2429 Extensions.

The Administrator hearby approves a request to extend the attainment date for the national ambient air quality standards for ozone toNovember 15, 2005 for the Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone nonattainment area. 7. Section 52.2428 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) and (d)to read as follows:

§52.2428 Control strategy and rate-ofprogress plans: ozone.

(c) EPA is approving the Commonwealth ofVirginia's post-1996 (ROP)plan SIP revision for the Washington area which was submitted

on December 19, 1997, and supplemented on May 25, 1999, andthe transportation controlmeasures in Appendix H ofthe May 25, 1999 submittal.

(d) EPA approves the revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on April 29, 1998, August 18, 1998, and February 9, 2000, and only section 9.1.1.2 ofthe March 31, 2000 SIP supplement dealing with a commitment to revise the 2005 attainment motorvehicle emissions budgets within one-year ofthe EPA's release ofthe MOBILE6 model. The revisions are forthe purpose of satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act for the Metropolitan Washington, DC serious ozone nonattainment area. The revision establishes an attainment date of November 15, 2005 for the Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone nonattainment

area. This revision establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2005 of 101.4 tonsper day ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC) and 166.7 tonsper day ofnitrogen oxides (NOx) to be used in transportation conformity inthe Metropolitan Washington, DC. Serious

ozone nonattainment area until revised budgets based upon the MOBILE6 model are submitted and found adequate. In the revision, Virginia commits torevise their VOC and NOx transportation conformity budgets within one year ofthe release ofthe MOBILE6 model. Virginia also commits
to conduct a mid-course review to

assess modeling andmonitoring progress achieved towards the goal of attainment by 2007, and submit the results to EPAby December 31, 2003.
[FR Doc. 01-61 Filed 1-2-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U 

### 632

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 632 2001