Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 42479

SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is

proposing regulations to establish a

Danger Zone at Glenn L. Martin State

Airport in the waters of Frog Mortar

Creek located in Middle River,

Maryland. These regulations will enable

the Maryland Air National Guard

(MdANG) to ensure the safety of

watermen and mariners in the vicinity

of an existing munitions depot located

at Glenn L. Martin State Airport

adjacent to Frog Mortar Creek. The

regulations are necessary to protect the

watermen and mariners from potentially

hazardous conditions which may exist

as a result of MdANG’s use of the area.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before September 12,

2001.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, ATTN: CECW–OR, 441 G

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20314–

1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Frank Torbett, Headquarters Regulatory

Branch, Washington, DC at (202) 761–

4618, or Mr. Steve Elinsky, Corps of

Engineers, Baltimore District,

Regulatory Branch, at (410) 962–4503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to its authorities in § 7 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33

U.S.C.1) and Chapter XIX, of the Army

Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat.

892; 33 U.S.C.3) the Corps proposes to

amend the restricted area regulations in

33 CFR part 334 by adding § 334.145

which establishes a danger zone in Frog

Mortar Creek adjacent to Glenn L.

Martin State Airport in Middle River,

Maryland. The public currently has

unrestricted access to the waters of Frog

Mortar Creek in close proximity to

MdANG’s munitions depot. To better

protect watermen and mariners, the

MdANG has requested the Corps of

Engineers establish a Danger Zone that

will enable the MdANG to implement a

zone of safety that is currently not

available at the facility.

Procedural Requirements

a. Review Under Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is issued with

respect to a military function of the

Defense Department and the provisions

of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.

b. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

These proposed rules have been

reviewed under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Public Law 96–354)

which requires the preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis for any

regulation that will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities (i.e., small

businesses and small Governments).

The Corps expects that the economic

impact of the establishment of this

danger zone would have practically no

impact on the public, no anticipated

navigational hazard or interference with

existing waterway traffic and

accordingly, certifies that this proposal

if adopted, will have no significant

economic impact on small entities.

c. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment has

been prepared for this action. We have

concluded, based on the minor nature of

the proposed additional danger zone

regulations, that this action, if adopted,

will not have a significant impact to the

quality of the human environment, and

preparation of an environmental impact

statement is not required. The

environmental assessment may be

reviewed at the District office listed at

the end of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, see paragraph 4 of this notice.

d. Unfunded Mandates Act

This proposed rule does not impose

an enforceable duty among the private

sector and, therefore, is not a Federal

private sector mandate and is not

subject to the requirements of Section

202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Act. We have also found under Section

203 of the Act, that small Governments

will not be significantly and uniquely

affected by this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

Danger Zones, Marine Safety,

Restricted Areas, Waterways.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Corps proposes to amend

33 CFR 334, as follows:

PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND

RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for 33 CFR

334 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (30 U.S.C. 1) and

40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).

2. Section 334.145 is added to read as

follows:

§ 334.145 Frog Mortar Creek, west side,

adjacent to Maryland Air National Guard

munitions depot located at Glenn L. Martin

State Airport, Middle River, Maryland;

Danger Zone.

(a) The area. (1) The waters within an

area beginning at a point on the shore

at latitude 39°19′35.8′′ N, longitude

76°24′28.7′′ W; thence northeasterly to

latitude 39°19′36.8′′ N, longitude

76°24′26′′ W; thence northwesterly to

latitude 39°19′40.7′′ N, longitude

76°24′29.6′′ W; thence southwesterly to

latitude 39°19′40.2′′ N, longitude

76°24′31.5′′ W; thence southeasterly

along the shoreline to the point of

beginning.

(b) The regulation. (1) All vessels

entering the danger zone shall proceed

across the area by the most direct route

and without unnecessary delay.

(2) No vessel or craft of any size shall

lie-to or anchor in the danger zone at

any time other than a vessel operated by

or for the U.S. Coast Guard, local, State,

or Federal law enforcement agencies.

(c) Enforcement. The regulation in

this section shall be enforced by the

Commanding Officer, Maryland Air

National Guard, and/or persons or

agencies as he/she may designate.

Dated: July 30, 2001.

Charles M. Hess,

Chief, Operations Division Directorate of Civil

Works.

[FR Doc. 01–20232 Filed 8–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NY49–223, FRL–7032–

3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; New York

Reasonable Further Progress Plans

and Transportation Conformity

Budgets for 2002, 2005 and 2007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency is proposing to approve a New

York State Implementation Plan

revision involving the 1-hour Ozone

Plan which is intended to meet several

Clean Air Act requirements, including

the separate requirement for enforceable

commitments for the 1-hour ozone

attainment demonstration. Specifically,

EPA is proposing approval of the: 2002,

2005 and 2007 ozone projection

emission inventories; Reasonable

Further Progress Plans for milestone

years 2002, 2005 and 2007;

transportation conformity budgets for

2002, 2005 and 2007; and contingency

measures. The intended effect of this

action is to approve programs required

by the Clean Air Act which will result

in emission reductions that will help

achieve attainment of the 1-hour

national ambient air quality standard for

ozone.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 12, 2001.

42480 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866.

Copies of the New York submittals

and EPA’s Technical Support Document

(TSD) are available at the following

addresses for inspection during normal

business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, 2nd

floor, Albany, New York 12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk

J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3381.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

What are the Clean Air Act requirements and

how do they apply to New York?

What was included in New York’s submittal?

How were New York’s 2002, 2005 and 2007

ozone projection emission inventories

developed and what were the results?

What are the Clean Air Act requirements for

an approvable Reasonable Further Progress

Plan?

What measures are being implemented in

New York to achieve RFP?

What is EPA’s assessment of New York’s

control measures and the emission

reductions credits?

Does New York achieve the RFP target level

of emissions for milestone years 2002, 2005

and 2007?

How did New York provide for the

contingency measure requirement?

Are New York’s RFP reductions consistent

with EPA’s proposal of the 1-hour ozone

attainment demonstration?

Are New York’s transportation conformity

budgets approvable?

What are EPA’s Conclusions?

Administrative Requirements

What Are the Clean Air Act

Requirements and How Do They Apply

to New York?

Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (Act)

specifies the required State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions

and requirements for areas designated

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone

standard as well as timeframes for when

these submissions and requirements are

to be submitted to EPA by the states.

EPA has issued the ‘‘General Preamble

for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’

(General Preamble) describing in detail

EPA’s preliminary views on how EPA

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under Title I of the Act, (see

generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)

and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)).

Because EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms,

the reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations of Title I advanced

in today’s proposal and the supporting

rationale.

New York has six ozone

nonattainment areas. These areas are the

Albany-Schenectady-Troy Area, BuffaloNiagara Falls Area, Essex County Area,

Jefferson County Area, Poughkeepsie

Area and the New York-Northern New

Jersey-Long Island Area. The AlbanySchenectady-Troy, Buffalo-Niagara

Falls, Essex County, Jefferson County

and the Poughkeepsie Areas are

considered ‘‘clean data’’ areas which

essentially means that the three most

recent years of air monitoring data

demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard. As for the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island Area,

which is classified as a severe ozone

nonattainment area, the most recent

three years of data continue to

demonstrate nonattainment. The New

York portion of the New York-Northern

New Jersey-Long Island Area is

composed of New York City and the

counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester

and Rockland, and seven municipalities

in Orange County-Blooming Grove,

Chester, Highlands, Monroe, Tuxedo,

Warwick and Woodbury. The focus of

this Federal Register action is the New

York portion of the New York-Northern

New Jersey-Long Island Area (referred to

as the New York Metro Area).

What Was Included in New York’s

Submittal?

On November 27, 1998, Deputy

Commissioner Carl Johnson of the New

York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

submitted to EPA a revision to the SIP

to meet requirements related to

attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.

This revision is intended to fulfill the

requirement in the Act for 3 percent perannum Reasonable Further Progress

(RFP) including contingency measures,

and includes the following: the 2002,

2005 and 2007 ozone projection

emission inventories; RFP Plan for

milestone years 2002, 2005 and 2007;

contingency measures and

transportation conformity budgets for

2002, 2005 and 2007.

How Were New York’s 2002, 2005 and

2007 Ozone Projection Emission

Inventories Developed and What Were

the Results?

A projection of 1990 volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and oxides of

nitrogen ( NOX) anthropogenic

emissions to 2002, 2005 and 2007 in the

New York Metro Area is required to

determine the reductions needed for the

RFP plans with NOX substitution. The

2002, 2005 and 2007 projection year

emission inventories are calculated by

multiplying the 1990 base year

inventory by factors which estimate

growth from 1990 to 2002, 2005 and

2007, respectively. A specific growth

factor for each source type in the

inventory is required since sources

typically grow at different rates.

The difference between the 1990 base

year inventory and the 2002, 2005 and

2007 projection inventories are the

emissions growth estimates. Based on

the difference between the 1990 base

year inventory and the 2002, 2005 and

2007 projection year inventories, the

total 1990 to 2002, 2005 and 2007

growth, for the four anthropogenic VOC

source categories (stationary point, area,

non-road and on-road mobile), is

estimated at 121.8, 160.6 and 186.6 tons

per day (tpd), respectively, in the New

York Metro Area. The total growth, for

all the NOX source categories, from 1990

to 2002, 2005 and 2007 growth is

estimated at 226, 276.2 and 307.9 tpd,

respectively, in the New York Metro

Area.

1990 Base Year Inventory

On May 10, 2001 (66 FR 23849) EPA

approved the 1990 base year inventory

(for all ozone nonattainment areas in

New York State). Based on EPA’s

review, New York satisfied all of EPA’s

requirements for purposes of providing

a comprehensive and accurate 1990

inventory of actual emissions in the

ozone nonattainment areas. Details of

EPA’s evaluation of the 1990 Base year

inventory will not be discussed in this

rulemaking. The reader is referred to

EPA’s November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59706)

proposed approval and ‘‘New York State

1990 Base Year Inventory SIP Technical

Support Document,’’ for details on the

approval of New York’s 1990 base year

ozone season emission inventory. Table

1 below shows the federally-approved

1990 base year VOC and NOX emission

inventories for the New York Metro

Area.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 42481

TABLE 1.—NEW YORK METRO AREA 1990 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY OZONE SEASON EMISSIONS (TPD)

Pollutant Area source

emissions

Point source

emissions

On-road

mobile

emissions

Non-road

mobile

emissions

Biogenic Total

emissions

VOC ................................................................................. 381 103 484 167 103 1,238

NOX .................................................................................. 59 286 400 178 N/A 923

2002, 2005, 2007 Projection Year

Inventory Methodology Major Point

Sources

For the major point source category,

New York projected 1990 base year

emissions to 2002, 2005 and 2007 for

each facility using Bureau of Economic

Analysis (BEA) growth indicators

available from New York State at the

two-digit Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Code level. BEA

growth indicators are one of the

preferred growth indicators to use, as

outlined in ‘‘Procedures for Preparing

Emissions Projections,’’ July 1991.

Area Sources

For the area source category, New

York projected emissions from 1990 to

2002, 2005 and 2007 using population

and BEA growth rates where applicable.

This is in accordance with EPA’s

recommended growth indicators for

projecting emissions for area source

categories outlined in ‘‘Procedures for

Preparing Emissions Projections,’’ July

1991.

Non-Road Mobile Sources

Non-road vehicle equipment

emissions were projected from 1990 to

2002, 2005 and 2007 using population

growth forecast or BEA industrial

indicators where applicable. This is in

accordance with EPA’s recommended

growth indicators for projecting

emissions for non-road mobile source

categories outlined in ‘‘Procedures for

Preparing Emissions Projections,’’ July

1991.

Highway Mobile Sources

For the on-road mobile source

category, the primary indicator and tool

for developing on-road mobile growth

and expected emissions are vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) and EPA’s mobile

emissions model Mobile 5b. 2002, 2005

and 2007 VOC and NOX emission

factors were generated by Mobile 5b and

applied to the New York State

Department of Transportation

(NYSDOT) VMT projections.

NYSDOT projected VMT by county

and functional roadway classification

based upon linear regression of

historical Highway Performance

Monitoring System (HPMS) VMT data.

This is in accordance with EPA’s

recommended growth indicators for

projecting emissions for on-road mobile

source categories outlined in

‘‘Procedures for Preparing Emissions

Projections,’’ July 1991.

Table 2 shows 2002, 2005 and 2007

VOC and NOX projection emission

inventories (controlled after 1990) using

the aforementioned growth indicators/

methodologies.

TABLE 2.—NEW YORK METRO AREA 2002, 2005 AND 2007 PROJECTION YEAR INVENTORIES (CONTROLLED) OZONE

SEASON VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD)

Pollutant Point sources Area sources

Non-Road

mobile

sources

On-road

mobile

sources

Total

2002:

VOC ........................................................................................ 85.2 352.1 142 179.1 758.4

NOX ........................................................................................ 180.8 63.5 173.9 265.9 684.1

2005:

VOC ........................................................................................ 87 356.8 127 166.9 737.7

NOX ........................................................................................ 147.9 64.7 166.3 253.8 632.7

2007:

VOC ........................................................................................ 87.5 357.9 115 162.4 722.8

NOX ........................................................................................ 148.3 65.4 161.3 244 619

Based on EPA guidance, the 2002,

2005 and 2007 inventories are complete

and approvable. A more detailed

discussion of how the emission

inventories were reviewed and the

results are presented in the supporting

Technical Support Document (TSD).

What are the Clean Air Act

Requirements for an Approvable

Reasonable Further Progress Plan?

Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act

requires ozone nonattainment areas

with classifications of serious and above

to develop plans to reduce area-wide

VOC emissions by 3 percent per year

averaged over each consecutive threeyear period beginning 6 years after

enactment of the Act (1996) until the

area attains the 1-hour ozone standard

(2007 for the New York Metro Severe

Ozone nonattainment area). EPA

previously approved the 15 and 9

percent Rate of Progress (ROP) Plans for

the New York Metro Area (66 FR

23849). Those plans identify the control

measures and the VOC and NOX

emission reduction credits associated

with those measures that would be

achieved from 1990 through 1999. This

notice refers to the New York Metro

Area RFP plans for milestone years

2002, 2005 and 2007.

Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act allows

NOX reductions to be substituted for

VOC reductions for RFP demonstrations

in accordance with EPA guidance. New

York has shown that NOX reductions

may appropriately be counted toward

the RFP requirements. A full

explanation of how New York’s SIP

fulfills EPA’s guidance concerning NOX

substitution is included in the TSD.

What Measures are Being Implemented

in New York To Achieve RFP?

New York provided a plan which

commits to implement a list of measures

to achieve the RFP reductions required

for the New York Metro Area. Table 3

identifies the reductions associated with

each individual control strategy which

occurs between 1990–2007. Some of

those credits where utilized in the

42482 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

federally approved 15 and 9 percent

ROP plans for the New York Metro

Area, however, due to the nature of the

control measures/programs these

measures achieve additional emission

reduction credits beyond those used in

the 15 and 9 percent ROP plans. These

unused reductions are being claimed in

these recent RFP plans. For a concise

description of those control measures

and emission reduction credits used in

the 15 and 9 percent plans, the reader

is referred to EPA’s proposed

rulemaking action on the New York 15

and 9 percent ROP plans, published in

the Federal Register on November 3,

1999 (64 FR 59706). All of the measures

identified in table 3 have either been

adopted by New York and submitted to

EPA as SIP revisions or are promulgated

federal measures. Following table 3 is a

concise description of those new

measures that were not previously

included in New York’s 15 and 9

percent plans.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF RFP CONTROL MEASURES AND EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS (TPD)

Control measures VOC NOX

Non-road mobile source:

Reformulated Gasoline (Phases I & II) ................................................................................................................................ 9.0

New Engine Standards ......................................................................................................................................................... 60.0 40.0

On-road mobile source:

Reformulated Gasoline (Phases I & II) ................................................................................................................................ 167.2 22.9

Tier I—New Vehicle Standards ............................................................................................................................................ 59.5 87.1

Low Emission Vehicle .......................................................................................................................................................... 24.2 24.3

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance ............................................................................................................................... 77.6 58.2

2004 NOX Emission Standards ............................................................................................................................................ — 15.0

Stationary source control measures:

Parts 212, 228, 229—VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) ................................................................ 21.6 —

MACT (Federal Air Toxics Measures) .................................................................................................................................. 7.9 —

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Phase II Baseline (Part 227–3 and Part 204) ......................................................... — 194.4

Part 227–2 ............................................................................................................................................................................ — 7.5

40 CFR Subpart Cb (Large Municipal Waste Combustors) ................................................................................................ — 2.5

Capped ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.7 3.3

Area source control measures:

Auto Body Refinishing .......................................................................................................................................................... 5.8 —

Commercial Bakeries ........................................................................................................................................................... 2.1 —

Consumer Products .............................................................................................................................................................. 12.5 —

Graphic Art Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.8 —

Hospital Sterilizers ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.1 —

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ............................................................................................................................................ 5.1 —

Stage II gasoline vapor recovery ......................................................................................................................................... 2.1 —

Transit/Loading Losses ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.7 —

Surface Cleaning .................................................................................................................................................................. 19.4

Total emission reduction credits ................................................................................................................................... 478.3 455.2

New Control Measures not included in New York’s 15 and 9 percent ROP plans: Reformulated Gasoline Phase II—On-Road; 2004 NOX Emission Standard; Reformulated Gasoline Phase II—Non-Road; OTC Phase II Baseline (Part 227–3)—NOX MOU; NOX SIP Call (Part 204); Capped/

shutdown emissions.

Reformulated Gasoline Phase II—OnRoad

The second phase of the federal

reformulated gasoline program (RFG

Phase 2) began on January 1, 2000 in

New York’s portion of the New York

Metro Area. RFG Phase 2 reduces

emissions further than the first phase of

the program, requiring minimum ozone

season VOC reductions of 27 percent

from average 1990 gasoline levels. The

second phase of the program also

requires that refiners reduce NOX levels

by a minimum of 7 percent from average

1990 levels. New York has accounted

for the emissions reduction effects of

RFG Phase 2 in its most recent ROP

plans.

2004 NOX Emission Standard

EPA finalized new engine emission

standards which will require reduced

emissions of NOX beginning with model

year 2004. To model the effects of the

new heavy duty engine standards, EPA

released MOBILE5 Information Sheet

#5, ‘‘Inclusion of New 2004 NOX

Standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines

in MOBILE5a and MOBILE5b

Modeling,’’ January 30, 1998. New York

has accounted for the effects of the new

standard in its modeling based on this

EPA guidance.

Reformulated Gasoline Phase II—NonRoad

New York based its assumptions

regarding expected emissions

reductions from use of RFG Phase 2 in

nonroad vehicles and engines on

expected gasoline Reid vapor pressure

(RVP) reductions associated with this

gasoline and theoretical vapor-liquid

relationships. New York verified its

predictions using EPA’s draft

NONROAD computer model. EPA has

determined that New York’s methods

for predicting emissions benefits from

this source category are approvable.

However, once EPA’s NONROAD model

becomes final, New York will be

expected to reexamine and consider

recalculation of the emission

reductions, if at that time, there is

reason to believe that results predicted

by the final NONROAD model will vary

significantly from those predicted by the

draft model. This is because EPA

guidance recommends against use of

draft models for SIP purposes.

OTC Phase II Baseline (Part 227–3)—

NOX MOU

On January 12, 1999, New York

adopted revisions to Part 227–3 ‘‘Pre

2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget

and Allocation Program,’’ which

incorporate the NOX Memoranda of

Understanding (MOU) requirements.

The Ozone Transport Commission

(OTC) NOX MOU calls for states to

reduce NOX emissions from boilers and

indirect heat exchangers with heat

inputs greater than 250 million British

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 42483

1Alabama, Connecticut, District of Columbia,

Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,

Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,

North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. 2On May 25, 1999, the D.C. Circuit issued a stay

of the submission requirement of the SIP Call

pending further order of the court. Michigan v.

EPA, No. 98–1497 (D.C. Cir. May 25, 1999) (order

granting stay in part). On April 3rd and 18th, 2000,

New York voluntarily submitted this revision to

EPA for approval notwithstanding the court’s stay

of the SIP submission deadline. On March 3, 2000,

the D.C. Circuit ruled on Michigan v. EPA,

affirming most aspects of the SIP Call and

remanding limited portions to the Agency. On June

22, 2000, the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay of the SIP

submission obligations and provided states until

October 30, 2000.

Thermal Unit (Btu) per hour. These

emission reductions will be realized in

two phases, first in 1999 and again in

2003. Part 227–3 became effective on

March 5, 1999 and sources are required

to be in compliance with the first phase

by May 1, 1999. On April 29, 1999,

NYSDEC submitted to EPA a SIP

revision which included the revisions to

Part 227–3. On April 19, 2000, 65 FR

20905, EPA approved the revisions to

Part 227–3.

NOX SIP Call (Part 204)

On October 27, 1998, EPA published

a final rule entitled, ‘‘Finding of

Significant Contribution and

Rulemaking for Certain States in the

Ozone Transport Assessment Group

Region for Purposes of Reducing

Regional Transport of Ozone,’’

otherwise known as the ‘‘ NOX SIP

Call.’’ See 63 FR 57356. At that time, the

NOX SIP Call required 22 states and the

District of Columbia 1 to meet statewide

NOX emission budgets during the five

month period from May 1 through

September 30 in order to reduce the

amount of ground level ozone that is

transported across the eastern United

States. The NOX SIP Call set out a

schedule that required the affected

states, including New York, to adopt

regulations by September 30, 1999, and

to implement control strategies by May

1, 2003 2.

The NOX SIP Call allowed states the

flexibility to decide which source

categories to regulate in order to meet

the statewide budgets. However, the SIP

Call notice suggested that imposing

statewide NOX emissions caps on large

fossil-fuel fired industrial boilers and

electricity generators would provide a

highly cost-effective means for states to

meet their NOX budgets.

On November 15, 1999, New York

adopted Part 204, ‘‘ NOX Budget Trading

Program,’’ in order to strengthen its onehour ozone SIP and to comply with the

NOX SIP Call during each ozone season,

i.e., May 1 through September 30,

beginning in 2003. On May 22, 2001 (66

FR 28059) EPA approved New York’s

regulations to comply with the NOX SIP

Call.

Capped/Shutdown Emissions

Certain facilities chose permit limits

on their hours of operation to ‘‘cap’’

their facilities potential emissions below

an annual level which reflected their

actual hours of operation and emissions.

These ‘‘capping out’’ provisions are

included in a number of New York VOC

and NOX RACT regulations. The

‘‘capping out’’ provision exempts the

facility from RACT requirements and/or

Title V permitting requirements. In the

projection inventory, New York

adjusted emissions to account for those

facilities that have ‘‘capped out.’’ In

addition, New York adjusted emissions

to account for those facilities that have

ceased or shutdown operations since the

1990 base year emissions inventory was

compiled.

What is EPA’s Assessment of New

York’s Control Measures and the

Emission Reductions Credits?

New York has identified the control

measures necessary for achieving the

required emission reductions and all the

measures have been adopted and

implemented. EPA is proposing to find

that the 2002, 2005 and 2007 RFP Plans

contain the necessary measures as

identified in Table 3 to achieve the

required emission reductions.

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the

emission reduction credits associated

with the control measures identified in

New York’s 2002, 2005 and 2007 RFP

plans.

Does New York Achieve the RFP Target

Level of Emissions for Milestone Years

2002, 2005 and 2007?

New York identified the control

measures necessary for achieving the

required emission reductions and all the

measures have been adopted and are

implemented or scheduled to be

implemented. New York’s November 27,

1998 submittal included a cumulative

summary of the VOC and NOX emission

reduction credits associated with the

control measures identified in Table 3,

i.e., credits between 1990–2002, 1990–

2005 and 1990–2007. To verify whether

the emission reduction credits

identified in New York’s plan meet the

3 percent per year RFP requirement for

milestone years 2002, 2005 and 2007,

EPA recalculated New York’s emission

reduction credits such that the emission

reduction credits represent the

incremental credits achieved between

each milestone year, i.e., 1999–2002,

2002–2005 and 2005–2007. Detailed

tables are contained in the TSD which

include among other data, columns

showing the target level VOC and NOX

emissions and the total emission

reduction credits for the source

categories for each milestone year.

Based on EPA’s calculation of the

incremental emission reduction credits

associated with New York’s submittal,

EPA has determined that New York has

achieved the RFP required reductions

for milestone years 2002, 2005 and

2007.

Figure 1 depicts the required 2002,

2005 and 2007 RFP VOC target level

emissions, the estimated VOC emissions

based solely on implementing all of the

VOC control strategies and the

estimated VOC equivalent emissions

with NOX substitution based on

implementing all of the control

strategies identified in table 3. The RFP

target levels for milestone years 2002,

2005 and 2007 are 684.07 tpd, 589.86

tpd and 528.32 tpd, respectively. The

projected controlled level of emissions

in milestone years 2002, 2005 and 2007

are 622.65 tpd, 548.83 tpd and 526.9

tpd, respectively. As can be seen from

Figure 1, the VOC equivalent emissions

(with substituting NOX for VOC) fall

below the RFP target levels, therefore,

New York has demonstrated that the

RFP requirements have been met.

42484 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 42485

EPA is proposing to find that New

York’s RFP Plans contain the necessary

measures as identified in Table 3 to

achieve the required emission

reductions.

How Did New York Provide for the

Contingency Measure Requirement?

Contingency Measures

In addition to the 2002, 2005 and

2007 RFP Plans, the New York submittal

also addresses contingency measures

required under the Act. Section

172(c)(9) of the Act requires states with

ozone nonattainment areas classified as

moderate and above to adopt

contingency measures by November 15,

1993. Such measures must provide for

the implementation of specific emission

control measures if an ozone

nonattainment area fails to achieve RFP

or to attain the NAAQS within the timeframes specified under the Act. Section

182(c)(9) of the Act requires that, in

addition to the contingency measures

required under section 172(c)(9), the

contingency measure SIP revision for

serious and above ozone nonattainment

areas must also provide for the

implementation of specific measures if

the area fails to meet any applicable

milestone in the Act. As provided by

these sections of the Act, the

contingency measures must take effect

without further action by the state or by

the EPA Administrator upon failure by

the state to: meet RFP emission

reduction milestones; attainment of the

NAAQS by the required deadline; or

other applicable milestones of the Act.

EPA’s policy, as provided in the April

16, 1992, ‘‘General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (General

Preamble) (57 FR 13498), states that the

contingency measures, in total, must

generally be able to provide for 3

percent reduction of adjusted 1990

baseline emissions beyond the

reduction required for a particular

milestone year. While all contingency

measures must be fully adopted rules or

measures, states can use the measures in

two different ways. A state can choose

to implement contingency measures

before the milestone deadline.

Alternatively, a state may decide not to

implement a contingency measure until

an area has actually failed to achieve a

RFP or attainment milestone. In the

latter situation, the contingency

measure emission reduction must be

achieved within one year following

identification of a milestone failure. The

General Preamble indicates that the 3

percent reduction ‘‘buffer’’ must be

maintained through each RFP

milestone. Therefore, New York must

demonstrate that the New York Metro

Area has enough contingency measure

reductions in addition to the reductions

claimed for the 2002, 2005 and 2007

RFP Plans. Because of this requirement,

New York’s 2002, 2005 and 2007 RFP

Plans identify, for contingency

purposes, a 3 percent emission

reduction beyond the reduction

required for RFP.

Consistent with guidance provided in

the General Preamble, New York

determined the needed contingency

measure reduction by multiplying 3

percent of the 1990 adjusted base year

emissions. Based on this calculation, the

needed contingency measure reduction

for the New York Metro Area is 34 TPD

of VOC.

Consistent with the December 29,

1997 EPA memorandum from Richard

D. Wilson, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation

‘‘Guidance for the Implementing the 1-

hour Ozone and the Pre-existing PM10

NAAQS,’’ states may take credit for NOX

emissions reductions obtained from

sources outside the designated

nonattainment area for the post-1999

RFP requirement. New York substituted

creditable NOX reductions from outside

the New York Metro Area, specifically

from the Roseton Generating Station

located in Newburgh (Northern Orange

County, NY). This facility is affected by

Subpart 227–3, NOX Budget program

and will provide creditable NOX

emission reductions for the contingency

requirement. These emission reductions

will be realized in two phases, first in

1999 and again in 2003. Part 227–3

became effective on March 5, 1999 and

sources are required to be in compliance

with the first phase by May 1, 1999. On

April 19, 2000, 65 FR 20905, EPA

approved the revisions to Part 227–3.

New York’s use of these reductions is

consistent with the criteria outlined in

EPA’s guidance. EPA believes that this

additional flexibility for states in their

RFP SIP’s is consistent with the Act,

since reductions from outside a

nonattainment area within certain limits

contribute to progress toward

attainment within the area.

The New York RFP Plans achieve an

additional 34 tpd reduction in VOC

equivalent emissions with NOX

substitution beyond the 3 percent per

year RFP ozone precursor reduction,

through creditable control measures. For

this reason, the contingency measure

portion of the 2002, 2005 and 2007 RFP

Plans satisfy the contingency measure

requirements of the Act. Therefore, EPA

proposes to approve the contingency

measure portion of the plan.

Are New York’s RFP Reductions

Consistent With EPA’s Proposal of the

1-Hour Ozone Attainment

Demonstration?

On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70364),

EPA proposed that in order for New

York to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard, additional emission

reductions beyond those contained in

the RFP plan and attainment

demonstration submitted by New York

were needed. In that same rulemaking,

EPA also proposed approval of the New

York 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration SIP provided New York

submits various enforceable

commitments. On April 18, 2000 New

York submitted to EPA the necessary

enforceable commitments including a

commitment to participate in the

development of regional measures

through the OTC process and to adopt

these measures by October 31, 2001.

New York has been an active participant

in the OTC process of identifying and

developing regional control strategies

that would achieve the necessary

additional reductions to attain the 1-

hour ozone standard in the New York

Metro Area. EPA proposes to find that

with the inclusion of the enforceable

commitments as submitted by New York

on April 18, 2000, New York has met

the conditions for an approvable

attainment demonstration and RFP Plan.

EPA proposes to approve the

enforceable commitments.

Are New York’s Transportation

Conformity Budgets Approvable?

By virtue of proposing approval of the

2002, 2005 and 2007 RFP Plan, EPA is

also proposing approval of the motor

vehicle conformity emissions budgets

for VOC and NOX. On November 16,

1999 (64 FR 62194) EPA found the 2002

and 2005 budgets adequate for

conformity purposes. These budgets are

consistent with the measures in New

York’s RFP plan. On April 18, 2000,

New York revised the 2007 budgets to

reflect the 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration for the New York Metro

Area and committed to revise its motor

vehicle emissions budget within one

year of the official issuance of the

MOBILE6 motor vehicles emissions

model for regulatory purposes. On June

9, 2000 (65 FR 36690), EPA found the

2007 budget to be adequate for

conformity purposes. Since New York

has committed to revise the 2007

emissions budget that EPA is proposing

to approve, EPA wants its approval of

the 2007 emissions budget to last only

until an adequate revised budget is

submitted pursuant to the commitment.

EPA believes the revised 2007 budget

42486 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

should apply as soon as it is found

adequate. EPA does not believe it is

necessary to wait until it has been

approved as a revision to the respective

plan. This is because EPA recognizes

that the revised budget will be based on

a more advanced technical

understanding of motor vehicle

emissions and control programs.

Accordingly, once the revised budget is

found adequate, it will be more

appropriate to use for conformity

purposes than the originally approved

budget.

TABLE 4.—EMISSION BUDGETS FOR CONFORMITY (TPD)

County

2002 2005 2007

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Bronx ................................................................................................................................ 11 17 10 16 9 12

Kings ................................................................................................................................ 17 22 16 21 15 17

Nassau ............................................................................................................................. 38 50 36 48 36 44

New York ......................................................................................................................... 15 15 13 14 12 11

Orange (LOCMA) ............................................................................................................. 4 8 4 8 3 6

Queens ............................................................................................................................. 23 31 21 29 19 23

Richmond ......................................................................................................................... 7 10 6 10 7 9

Rockland .......................................................................................................................... 9 15 8 15 7 11

Suffolk .............................................................................................................................. 35 56 33 55 34 51

Westchester ..................................................................................................................... 22 41 20 39 21 37

Total .......................................................................................................................... * 179 * 266 * 167 * 254 * 161 *221

* The totals represent the actual motor vehicle conformity emissions budgets for VOC and NOX. New York subdivided the county budget numbers from the totals and rounded off to the nearest whole number, therefore, a sum of the county budget numbers identified in Table 4 may be

slighty different from the total budget numbers identified in Table 4.

EPA is proposing to approve New

York’s 2002, 2005 and 2007 emission

budgets.

What Are EPA’s Conclusions?

EPA has evaluated these submittals

for consistency with the Act, applicable

EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA

is proposing approval of New York’s:

2002, 2005 and 2007 ozone projection

emission inventories; 2002, 2005 and

2007 RFP Plans; transportation

conformity budgets; contingency

measures; and the enforceable

commitments for the 1-hour ozone

attainment demonstration.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4). For the same

reason, this proposed rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

rule will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Act.

This proposed rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Act. In this context, in the absence

of a prior existing requirement for the

State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not

apply. As required by section 3 of

Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,

February 7, 1996), in issuing this

proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: August 3, 2001.

Kathleen C. Callahan,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 01–20263 Filed 8–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P