Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079-1009
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-03-28T05:00Z

1
6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
51
[
OAR
2003­
0079;
FRL­
]

RIN
2060­

Implementation
of
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
B
Phase
1:
Reconsideration
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
notice
of
public
hearing;
reopening
comment
period.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
requesting
comment
on
the
overwhelming
transport
classification
for
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
as
requested
in
a
petition
for
reconsideration
of
EPA's
final
rule
to
implement
the
8­
hour
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
(
NAAQS
or
standard).
We
are
requesting
comment
on
the
draft
overwhelming
transport
guidance
and
we
are
reopening
the
comment
period
on
our
proposed
rule
regarding
how
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
section
172
requirements
would
apply
to
an
area
that
might
receive
an
overwhelming
transport
classification.

DATES:
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
insert
date
45
days
from
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].
2
A
public
hearing
will
be
held
in
Research
Triangle
Park,

North
Carolina,
on
xxx________________,
and
will
convene
at
10:
00
a.
m.
and
will
end
when
those
preregistered
to
provide
testimony
have
done
so
and
when
others
in
attendance
at
that
time
have
had
an
opportunity
to
do
so.
Because
of
the
need
to
resolve
the
issues
in
this
document
in
a
timely
manner,
EPA
will
not
grant
requests
for
extensions
of
the
public
comment
period.
For
additional
information
on
the
public
hearing,
see
the
ADDRESSEES
section
of
this
preamble.

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0079,
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

C
www.
regulations.
gov:
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

C
E­
mail:
A­
and­
R­
Docket@
epa.
gov.
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0079.

C
Fax:
The
fax
number
of
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­

1741.
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0079.

C
Mail:
EPA
Docket
Center,
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),

Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0079,

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mail
Code:
6102T,

1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
3
C
Hand
Delivery:
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),

Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2003­
0079,

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
N.
W.,
Room
B102,
Washington,
D.
C.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket=
s
normal
hours
of
operation,
and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.

EPAHQ
OAR­
2003­
0079.
The
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
on­
line
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected
through
www.
regulations.
gov,
or
e­
mail.

The
Federal
www.
regulations.
gov
website
is
an
Aanonymous
access@
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
www.
regulations.
gov,
your
e­
mail
4
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
Internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
and
with
any
disk
or
CD­
ROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,
and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.
For
additional
information
about
EPA=
s
public
docket,
visit
the
EPA
Docket
Center
homepage
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epahome/
dockets.
htm.

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
www.
regulations.
govindex.
Although
listed
in
the
index,

some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
www.
regulations.
gov
or
in
hard
copy
at
5
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,

Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­

1744
and
the
fax
number
is
(
202)
566­
1749.

Public
Hearing.
A
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
xxx
__________________
from
10:
00
a.
m.
and
end
when
those
preregistered
to
provide
testimony
have
done
so
and
when
others
in
attendance
at
that
time
have
had
an
opportunity
to
do
so.
The
public
hearing
will
be
held
at
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Building
C,
xxx
____________
109
T.
W.
Alexander
Drive,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27709.
Persons
wishing
to
speak
at
the
public
hearing
need
to
contact:
Ms.
Denise
Gerth,
at
telephone
number
(
919)
541­
5550
or
by
e­
mail
at
gerth.
denise@
epa.
gov.
Oral
testimony
may
be
limited
to
3
to
5
minutes
depending
on
the
number
of
people
who
sign
up
to
speak.
Commenters
may
also
supplement
their
oral
testimony
with
written
comments.
The
hearing
will
be
limited
to
the
subject
matter
of
this
document.
The
public
hearing
schedule,
including
the
list
of
speakers,
will
be
6
posted
on
EPA's
website
at:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
naaqs/
ozone/
o3imp8hr.
A
verbatim
transcript
of
the
hearing
and
written
statements
will
be
made
available
for
copying
during
normal
working
hours
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket)
at
the
address
listed
above
for
inspection
of
documents.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information:

Mr.
John
Silvasi,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mail
Code
C539­
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
phone
number
(
919)
54l­
5666,
fax
number
(
919)
54l­
0824
or
by
e­
mail
at
silvasi.
john@
epa.
gov
or
Ms.
Denise
Gerth,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mail
Code
C539­
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
phone
number
(
919)
54l­
5550,
fax
number
(
919)
54l­
0824
or
by
e­
mail
at
gerth.
denise@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
GENERAL
INFORMATION
1.
Tips
for
Preparing
Your
Comments.
When
submitting
comments,
remember
to:
7
a.
Identify
the
rulemaking
by
docket
number
and
other
identifying
information
(
subject
heading,
Federal
Register
date
and
page
number).

b.
Follow
directions
­
The
agency
may
ask
you
to
respond
to
specific
questions
or
organize
comments
by
referencing
a
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
part
or
section
number.

c.
Explain
why
you
agree
or
disagree;
suggest
alternatives
and
substitute
language
for
your
requested
changes.

d.
Describe
any
assumptions
and
provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
that
you
used.

e.
If
you
estimate
potential
costs
or
burdens,

explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate
in
sufficient
detail
to
allow
for
it
to
be
reproduced.

f.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns,
and
suggest
alternatives.

g.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible,

avoiding
the
use
of
profanity
or
personal
threats.

h.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

Outline
8
Supplementary
Information
I.
General
Information
II.
Background
III.
Today's
Action
A.
Invitation
for
Comment
on
Draft
Guidance
on
Criteria
for
Assessing
Whether
an
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
is
Affected
by
Overwhelming
Transport
1.
Criteria
for
Determining
Overwhelming
Transport
B.
Proposed
Requirements
that
Apply
to
Subpart
1
Ozone
Areas
that
Receive
the
Overwhelming
Transport
Classification
1.
General
Background
2.
Requirements
for
RACT/
RACM
3.
Attainment
Demonstration
4.
Reasonable
Further
Progress
5.
Contingency
Measures
IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
9
J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
II.
BACKGROUND
In
the
Final
Rule
to
Implement
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS
or
standard)
B
Phase
1
Rule
B
(
April
30,
2004;
69
FR
23951),
we
established
an
Aoverwhelming
transport
area@
(
OTA)
classification
for
certain
areas
that
were
not
subject
to
classification
under
subpart
2
of
part
D
of
the
CAA
and
were
thus
subject
only
to
subpart
1
(
subpart
1
ozone
areas).
We
established
three
criteria
that
subpart
1
ozone
areas
must
meet
to
receive
the
overwhelming
transport
classification:

C
The
area
meets
the
criteria
as
specified
for
rural
transport
areas
under
section
182(
h)
of
the
CAA;

C
Transport
of
ozone
and/
or
precursors
into
the
area
is
so
overwhelming
that
the
contribution
of
local
emissions
to
observed
8­
hour
ozone
concentration
above
the
level
of
the
NAAQS
is
relatively
minor;
and
C
The
Administrator
finds
that
sources
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
and,
where
the
Administrator
determines
relevant,
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
emissions
10
within
the
area
do
not
make
a
significant
contribution
to
the
ozone
concentrations
measured
in
other
areas.

In
the
preamble
of
the
Phase
1
Rule,
we
explained
that
an
area
will
be
classified
as
an
OTA
upon
full
approval
of
an
analysis
that
demonstrates
that
the
nonattainment
problem
in
the
area
is
due
to
"
overwhelming
transport."
We
indicated
that
we
would
issue
guidance
more
fully
explaining
how
to
assess
whether
an
area
was
affected
by
overwhelming
transport.
We
indicated
that
the
existing
guidance
on
overwhelming
transport
needed
to
be
updated
and
that
we
were
retracting
that
guidance.

On
June
29,
2004,
Earthjustice
filed
a
Petition
for
Reconsideration
(
Petition)
on
behalf
of
several
environmental
organizations,
seeking
reconsideration
of
certain
specified
aspects
of
the
Phase
1
Rule.
We
responded
to
the
Petition
in
letters
dated
September
23,

2004
and
January
10,
2005
granting
some
aspects
of
their
Petition
and
denying
others.
In
the
January
10,
2005
letter,
we
granted
reconsideration
of
the
overwhelming
transport
classification
because
the
overwhelming
transport
guidance
was
not
publicly
available
during
the
comment
period
on
the
Phase
1
Rule.
We
also
stated
that
we
would
11
request
public
comments
on
our
draft
revision
of
the
overwhelming
transport
guidance
and
simultaneously
reopen
the
comment
period
on
the
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
provisions
that
would
apply
to
such
areas.

Today,
we
are
providing
additional
information
and
soliciting
comment
on
issues
related
to
the
overwhelming
transport
classification.
We
are
soliciting
comment
on
the
following
three
issues,
which
are
described
in
more
detail
in
section
III
of
the
Supplementary
Information
section
of
this
preamble:
(
1)
overwhelming
transport
classification;

(
2)
the
overwhelming
transport
guidance,
which
provides
more
detail
on
the
analyses
that
can
be
used
to
show
whether
an
area
meets
the
second
and
third
eligibility
criteria;
and
(
3)
the
control
requirements
that
apply
under
subpart
1
to
an
area
that
receives
the
OTA
classification.

III.
TODAY=
S
ACTION
A.
Invitation
for
Comment
on
Draft
Guidance
on
Criteria
for
Assessing
Whether
an
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
is
Affected
by
Overwhelming
Transport
12
1.
Criteria
for
Determining
Overwhelming
Transport
a.
Background.
The
Phase
1
Rule
established
'
51.904(
a),
in
which
we
created
an
overwhelming
transport
classification
that
would
be
available
to
subpart
1
ozone
areas
that
demonstrate:
(
1)
they
meet
the
definition
of
a
rural
transport
area
in
section
182(
h);
(
2)
they
are
significantly
affected
by
overwhelming
transport
from
one
or
more
upwind
areas;
and
(
3)
their
emissions
do
not
significantly
affect
a
downwind
area.

Qualifying
areas
under
the
current
rule
are
those
that
meet
that
part
of
the
definition
of
a
rural
transport
area
in
section
182(
h)
that
requires
that
an
area
not
be
in
or
adjacent
to
a
C/
MSA.
2
We
are
aware
of
only
seven
subpart
1
ozone
areas
that
could
potentially
qualify
under
the
portion
of
'
51.904(
a)(
1)
which
requires
that
the
area
not
be
in
or
adjacent
to
a
C/
MSA:

1.
Hancock,
Knox,
Lincoln
and
Waldo
Counties,
Maine,

2.
Essex
County,
New
York
(
Whiteface
Mountain),

3.
Murray
County,
Georgia
(
Chattahoochee
National
Forest),

2CSMA
means
either
Consolidated
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
or
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
as
defined
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
in
1999
(
June
30,
1999;
64
FR
35548).
13
4.
Benzie
County,
Michigan,

5.
Door
County,
Wisconsin,

6.
Huron
County,
Michigan,
and
7.
Mason
County,
Michigan.

The
EPA=
s
June
2,
2003
proposal
referenced
an
EPA
guidance
document
that
States
should
use
when
developing
their
demonstration
that
contribution
of
sources
in
one
or
more
other
areas
are
an
overwhelming
cause
of
air
quality
violations
in
the
area
relating
to
the
overwhelming
transport
classification.
However,
at
the
time
we
issued
the
final
Phase
1
Rule,
we
noted
that
the
guidance
needed
to
be
updated.
Thus,
we
retracted
our
guidance
and
indicated
in
the
Phase
2
Rule
(
November
29,
2005;
70
FR
71612)
that
we
would
issue
revised
guidance.
In
addition,

in
the
Phase
2
Rule,
we
stated
that
we
planned
to
take
final
action
on
the
control
requirements
applicable
to
these
areas.
As
noted
above,
the
Petition
stated
that
the
provision
for
an
overwhelming
transport
classification
in
the
Phase
1
Rule
relies
on
guidance
that
was
not
publicly
available
during
the
comment
period
and
that
the
guidance
was
still
unavailable
at
the
time
the
Petition
was
submitted.
14
b.
Request
for
Comment.
On
January
10,
2005,
we
granted
the
Petition
on
this
issue
and
are
now
soliciting
comment
on
the
overwhelming
transport
classification
as
well
as
the
draft
guidance
document,
ACriteria
For
Assessing
Whether
an
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
is
Affected
by
Overwhelming
Transport,@
which
is
found
at
the
following
internet
website:
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
scram/.
This
draft
guidance
outlines
EPA's
recommended
approach
for
demonstrating
that
an
area
should
receive
the
OTA
classification.

As
described
in
the
draft
guidance,
the
Phase
1
Rule
established
three
criteria
an
area
must
meet
for
the
area
to
be
classified
as
an
OTA
['
51.904(
a)].
Two
of
these
criteria
are
the
focus
of
the
overwhelming
transport
guidance.
The
two
criteria
concern:
(
1)
whether
an
area
is
being
affected
by
overwhelming
transport;
and
(
2)

whether
the
area
is
significantly
contributing
to
another
nonattainment
area.
Analyses
for
both
of
these
criteria
will
involve
assembling
emissions,
air
quality,

meteorological,
and/
or
photochemical
grid
modeling
data;

and
making
an
informed
decision
regarding
contribution
based
on
the
results
of
the
composite
set
of
analyses.

This
aggregation
of
data
is
generally
referred
to
as
Aweight
15
of
evidence@
and
is
discussed
in
detail
in
EPA
modeling
guidance
on
8­
hour
ozone
attainment
demonstrations.
3
The
end
product
of
this
weight
of
evidence
determination
is
a
document
which
describes
analyses
performed,
data
bases
used,
key
assumptions
and
outcomes
of
each
analysis,
and
why
a
State
believes
that
the
evidence,
viewed
as
a
whole,

supports
a
conclusion
that
the
area
is
overwhelmingly
affected
by
transport
and
does
not
significantly
contribute
to
downwind
problems.

It
is
expected
that
an
area
petitioning
for
an
OTA
classification
would
complete
a
full
analysis
consisting
of
evidence
from
multiple
forms
of
weight
of
evidence
analyses
as
described
within
this
guidance.
For
an
area
to
be
classified
as
an
OTA,
the
large
majority
of
the
tests
identified
in
the
"
Criteria
for
Assessing
Whether
an
Ozone
Nonattainment
Area
is
Affected
by
Overwhelming
Transport"

would
have
to
meet
the
criteria
of
'
51.904(
a)(
2)
and
(
3).

3Guidance
on
the
Use
of
Models
and
Other
Analyses
in
Attainment
Demonstrations
for
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(
EPA­
454­
05­
002,
October
2005)
www.
epa.
gov/
scram001/
guidance/
guide/
8­
hour­
o3­
guidancefinal
version[
1]
pdf.
16
B.
Proposed
Requirements
that
Apply
to
Subpart
1
Ozone
Areas
that
Receive
the
Overwhelming
Transport
Classification
1.
General
Background
Subpart
1
ozone
areas
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
172(
c)
of
the
CAA.
The
plan
provisions
required
to
be
submitted
under
section
172(
c)
include
reasonably
available
control
technology
(
RACT)
and
reasonably
available
control
measure
(
RACM)
plans,
attainment
demonstrations,
reasonable
further
progress
(
RFP)
plans,

emission
inventories,
new
source
review
(
NSR)
plans,
and
contingency
measures.
In
the
June
2,
2003
proposal
(
68
FR
32814),
we
proposed
that
a
subpart
1
ozone
area
classified
as
an
OTA
would
be
treated
similar
to
an
area
classified
as
marginal
under
subpart
2
for
purposes
of
emission
control
requirements.
We
are
reopening
the
comment
period
on
a
number
of
these
proposed
requirements,
as
described
below,

and
we
are
also
providing
additional
detail
regarding
these
requirements.
17
We
are
not
proposing
that
areas
classified
as
overwhelming
transport
be
treated
differently
than
other
subpart
1
areas
for
purposes
of
NSR,
conformity
and
emissions
inventory
requirements.
Thus,
this
proposal
does
not
address
these
requirements.

2.
Requirements
for
RACT/
RACM
a.
Background.
Section
172(
c)(
1)
of
the
CAA
requires
implementation
of
all
RACT/
RACM
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
For
subpart
1
ozone
areas,
we
proposed
on
June
2,
2003
an
option
interpreting
RACT
for
ozone
nonattainment
areas
for
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
similar
to
the
Agency=
s
interpretation
for
pollutants
other
than
ozone
(
68
FR
32838).
Under
this
option,
the
State
would
be
considered
to
meet
the
RACT/
RACM
requirements
by
submitting
an
attainment
demonstration
State
implementation
plan
(
SIP)

demonstrating
that
the
area
will
attain
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.

b.
Request
for
Comment.
We
are
reopening
the
comment
period,
with
respect
to
OTAs
only,
on
the
proposed
approach
described
above
for
the
RACT/
RACM
requirements.
Section
172(
c)(
1)
establishes
the
requirements
for
subpart
1
and
RACT
is
included
as
a
subset
of
RACM.
Our
long­
standing
18
interpretation
of
the
RACM
provision
is
that
areas
need
only
submit
such
RACM
as
will
contribute
to
timely
attainment
and
meet
RFP,
and
that
measures
which
might
be
available
but
would
not
advance
attainment
or
contribute
to
RFP
need
not
be
considered
RACM.
This
interpretation
has
been
upheld
in
several
recent
court
cases.
See
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
294
F.
39
155,
162
(
D.
C.
Cir.,
2002)
(
concerning
the
Metropolitan
Washington,
D.
C.,
attainment
demonstration)

and
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
No.
01­
60537
(
5th
Cir.,
2002)

(
concerning
the
Beaumont
attainment
demonstration).
Since
subpart
1
RACT
is
a
subset
of
RACM,
these
cases
also
support
a
conclusion
that,
where
we
are
dealing
only
with
section
172
RACT,
it
is
reasonable
to
require
only
such
RACT
as
will
meet
RFP
and
advance
attainment.
Consistent
with
our
interpretation
of
RACM,
EPA
believes
RACT
would
be
met
by
control
measures
in
a
SIP
demonstrating
attainment
of
the
standard
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
and
meeting
RFP.
Additionally,
this
approach
has
the
benefit
of
providing
States
with
flexibility
to
determine
which
control
strategies
are
the
most
effective
in
reaching
attainment
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
Specifically,

we
propose
a
State
would
be
considered
to
meet
the
19
RACT/
RACM
requirements
for
an
OTA
by
submitting
an
attainment
demonstration
SIP
demonstrating
that
the
area
will
attain
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.

3.
Attainment
Demonstration
a.
Background.
Section
172(
c)(
1)
of
the
CAA
requires
subpart
1
ozone
areas
to
submit
plan
provisions
that
provide
for
attainment
of
the
NAAQS.
General
requirements
for
an
attainment
demonstration
are
contained
in
40
CFR
'
51.112.
The
June
2,
2003
proposal
did
not
elaborate
on
the
attainment
demonstration
for
OTAs.

b.
Request
for
Comment.
The
proposal
noted
that
regional
scale
modeling
for
national
rules,
such
as
the
NOx
SIP
Call
and
Tier
II
motor
vehicle
tailpipe
standards,
projects
major
ozone
benefits
for
the
3­
year
period
of
2004­
2006.

In
addition,
subsequent
modeling
used
to
support
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR)
indicates
that
regional
control
measures
will
be
sufficient
to
bring
many
areas
into
attainment
no
later
than
2010.
As
described
in
section
VI.
B.
1,
of
the
Air
Quality
Modeling
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
final
CAIR,
we
project
that
all
of
the
potential
OTAs
would
be
attainment
for
8­
hour
ozone
under
the
assumptions
in
the
2010
base
case.
Thus,
we
anticipate
20
all
OTAs
will
be
in
attainment
by
2010
without
adopting
additional
local
controls.

We
believe
that
an
OTA
should
not
be
required
to
perform
the
detailed
photochemical
grid
modeling
needed
to
develop
an
attainment
demonstration
where
there
is
existing
modeling
that
shows
that
the
area
will
attain
in
the
short
term.
It
would
not
be
reasonable
to
require
these
areas
to
expend
the
amount
of
resources
needed
to
perform
a
complex
modeling
analysis.
Since
attainment
in
the
OTA
is
dependent
on
control
measures
chosen
and
adopted
by
the
upwind
nonattainment
areas,
an
attainment
demonstration
specific
to
an
OTA
would
be
redundant.
We
anticipate
that
OTAs
will
be
included
in
State,
regional
or
national
modeling
analyses
conducted
by
other,
upwind
nonattainment
areas
or
by
EPA.
Where
such
modeling
exists,
it
could
be
used
to
demonstrate
attainment
of
an
OTA.
The
demonstration
must
include
modeling
results
and
analyses
that
the
State
is
relying
on
to
support
its
claim.
Such
modeling
should
be
consistent
with
EPA
guidance
and
should
be
applicable
and
appropriate
for
the
area.
5
Because
it
is
5If
an
assessment
indicates
that
a
regional
modeling
analysis
is
not
applicable
to
a
particular
nonattainment
area,
additional
local
modeling
would
be
required.
21
impossible
for
an
OTA
to
demonstrate
attainment
on
its
own
due
to
their
nature,
the
attainment
demonstration
for
the
area
must
rely,
to
a
significant
extent,
on
control
of
sources
outside
the
OTA.
Consequently,
as
noted
in
the
Phase
2
ozone
implementation
rule,
we
intend
to
determine
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
whether
the
area
submitting
an
attainment
demonstration
that
is
upwind
of
an
OTA
needs
to
commit
to
submit
a
mid­
course
review
(
MCR).
Such
a
MCR
would
serve
the
purpose
of
determining
whether
the
OTA
area
is
on
track
to
attain
the
8­
hour
standard
by
its
attainment
date
as
well
as
whether
the
upwind
area
is
on
track.

Therefore,
we
propose
that
no
additional
modeled
attainment
demonstration
would
be
required
for
OTAs
where
(
1)
upwind
areas
complete
attainment
demonstrations
with
modeling
domains
including
the
OTA
or
(
2)
regional
or
national
modeling
exists
that
is
appropriate
for
use
in
the
area.
In
either
case,
the
submitted
attainment
demonstration
must
demonstrate
the
area
will
attain
the
8­

hour
standard
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
If
acceptable
available
modeling
does
not
demonstrate
attainment,
the
area
would
need
to
submit
a
local
modeled
attainment
demonstration.
22
In
the
Phase
1
Rule,
we
provided
that
we
would
approve
an
attainment
date
consistent
with
the
attainment
date
timing
provision
of
section
172(
a)(
2)(
A)
at
the
time
we
approve
an
attainment
demonstration
for
the
area
['
51.904(
b)].
We
believe
the
section
172(
a)(
2)(
A)

provisions
that
allow
an
area
to
have
an
attainment
date
up
to
10
years
following
designation
(
based
on
the
severity
of
the
nonattainment
and
the
availability
and
feasibility
of
controls)
would
allow
consideration
for
OTAs
of
the
attainment
dates
of
upwind
nonattainment
areas
that
contribute
to
the
downwind
area=
s
problem,
and
the
implementation
schedules
for
controls
in
upwind
areas
that
contribute.

4.
Reasonable
Further
Progress
a.
Background.
Section
172(
c)(
2)
of
the
CAA
requires
subpart
1
ozone
areas
to
submit
plan
provisions
which
require
RFP.
The
June
2,
2003
proposal
did
not
discuss
the
requirement
for
RFP
specifically
for
OTAs.
However,
we
did
propose
that,
generally,
OTAs
would
be
treated
similar
to
areas
classified
as
marginal
under
subpart
2
for
purposes
23
of
emission
control
requirements.
5
We
also
proposed
several
options
for
RFP
for
subpart
1
ozone
areas
in
general.
One
of
the
options
provided
that
an
area
with
an
attainment
date
within
3
to
6
years
after
designation
could
meet
the
RFP
requirement
with
a
SIP
that
provided
for
all
emission
reductions
needed
for
attainment
be
implemented
by
the
beginning
of
the
ozone
season
immediately
preceding
the
area's
attainment
date.
In
the
final
phase
2
rule
for
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
however,
we
adopted
a
somewhat
different
approach.
Instead
of
an
option
for
areas
with
attainment
dates
within
3
to
6
years
after
designation,
the
rule
addresses
areas
with
attainment
dates
5
years
or
less
after
designation
(
i.
e.,
on
or
before
June
15,
2009
for
areas
designated
June
15,
2004).
The
final
phase
2
rule
provides
that
RFP
for
these
areas
would
be
met
by
ensuring
emissions
reductions
needed
for
attainment
are
implemented
as
noted
above
by
the
beginning
of
the
ozone
season
prior
to
the
attainment
date.

5
Areas
classified
marginal
under
subpart
2
are
not
subject
to
RFP
requirements.
24
b.
Request
for
comment.
Similar
to
what
we
proposed
for
subpart
1
areas
with
attainment
dates
between
3
and
6
years
after
designation,
and
similar
to
the
approach
followed
in
the
final
phase
2
implementation
rule
for
subpart
1
areas
with
attainment
dates
within
5
years
after
designation,
we
propose
that
an
OTA
with
an
approved
attainment
demonstration
would
be
considered
to
have
met
the
RFP
obligation
with
the
measures
that
will
bring
the
area
into
attainment
by
the
area's
attainment
date.
That
is,
RFP
is
met
by
demonstrating
the
area
could
attain
the
standard
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
However,
an
OTA's
attainment
date
will
depend
on
when
controls
in
upwind
areas
will
be
implemented.
Thus,
an
OTA
may
have
an
attainment
date
that
is
later
than
6
years
after
designation.
Because
an
OTA
will
have
little
control
over
the
emission
reductions
needed
for
attainment,
we
are
proposing
that
regardless
of
the
OTA's
attainment
date,
RFP
will
be
met
so
long
as
the
area
demonstrates
attainment
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
We
request
additional
comment
on
this
position.

5.
Contingency
Measures
25
a.
Background.
Under
the
CAA,
subpart
1
ozone
areas
must
include
in
their
SIPs
contingency
measures
consistent
with
section
172(
c)(
9).
The
general
requirements
for
nonattainment
plans
under
section
172(
c)(
9)
specify
that
each
plan
must
contain
additional
measures
that
will
take
effect
without
further
action
by
the
State
or
EPA
if
an
area
either
fails
to
meet
a
RFP
milestone
or
to
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
by
the
applicable
date.
Contingency
measures
must
accompany
the
attainment
demonstration
SIP.

All
subpart
1
ozone
areas
and
subpart
2
areas
other
than
marginal
areas
need
contingency
measures.
The
June
2,
2003
proposal
did
not
discuss
the
requirement
for
contingency
measures
specifically
for
OTAs.
However,
we
did
propose
that
for
areas
covered
under
subpart
1,
we
would
provide
additional
guidance
on
the
contingency
measure
requirement,

but
that
it
is
likely
that
it
would
be
patterned
after
the
subpart
2
requirement.
Although
OTAs
by
their
very
nature
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
their
own
problem
but
must
rely
on
controls
from
upwind
areas,
such
areas
are
still
subject
to
the
contingency
measure
requirements.

b.
Request
for
Comment.
By
definition
['
51.904(
a)(
2)],
the
contribution
of
local
emissions
to
observed
ozone
26
concentrations
in
the
OTA
is
relatively
minor.
Thus,
the
effect
of
local
control
measures,
including
contingency
measures,
would
also
be
minor.
The
EPA
believes
more
effective
contingency
measures
will
be
contained
in
the
upwind
areas=
SIPs.
Because
upwind
areas
contribute
overwhelmingly
to
nonattainment
in
the
downwind
OTA,
we
believe
that
OTAs
may
rely
on
contingency
measures
adopted
by
the
upwind
contributing
areas.

IV.
STATUTORY
AND
EXECUTIVE
ORDER
REVIEWS
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,

1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
Asignificant@
and,
therefore,
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
Asignificant
regulatory
action@
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:

(
1)
have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,

competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
Tribal
governments
or
communities;
27
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President=
s
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
is
a
Asignificant
regulatory
action@
because
it
raises
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates.
As
such
this
action
will
be
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
rule
will
be
addressed
along
with
those
covering
the
Phase
1
Rule
(
April
30,
2004;
69
FR
23951)
and
the
Phase
2
Rule
(
November
29,
2005;
70
FR
71612)
which
will
be
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
information
collection
28
requirements
are
not
enforceable
until
OMB
approves
them
other
than
to
the
extent
required
by
statute.

This
rule
provides
an
optional
framework
for
the
States
to
develop
SIPs
for
certain
areas
(
viz.,
those
affected
by
overwhelming
transport
of
ozone
and
its
precursors)
to
achieve
a
new
or
revised
NAAQS.
This
framework
reflects
the
requirements
prescribed
in
CAA
sections
110
and
part
D,
subpart
1
of
title
I.
In
that
sense,
the
present
final
rule
does
not
establish
any
new
information
collection
burden
on
States.
Had
this
rule
not
been
developed,
States
would
still
have
the
legal
obligation
under
law
to
submit
nonattainment
area
SIPs
under
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
CAA
within
specified
periods
after
their
nonattainment
designation
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
and
the
SIPs
would
have
to
meet
the
requirements
of
part
D;
however,
without
this
rule,
a
few
States
would
have
less
flexibility
in
planning
for
the
areas
noted
above.

This
rule
does
not
establish
requirements
that
directly
affect
the
general
public
and
the
public
and
private
sectors,
but,
rather,
interprets
the
statutory
requirements
that
apply
to
States
in
preparing
their
SIPs.
29
The
SIPs
themselves
will
likely
establish
requirements
that
directly
affect
the
general
public,
and
the
public
and
private
sectors.

The
EPA
has
not
yet
projected
cost
and
hour
burden
for
the
statutory
SIP
development
obligation
but
has
started
that
effort
and
will
shortly
prepare
an
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
request.
However,
EPA
did
estimate
administrative
costs
at
the
time
of
promulgation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
in
1997.
See
Chapter
10
of
U.
S.
EPA
1997,
Regulatory
Impact
Analyses
for
the
Particulate
Matter
and
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards,
Innovative
Strategies
and
Economics
Group,

Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Research
Triangle
Park,
N.
C.,
July
16,
1997.
Assessments
of
some
of
the
administrative
cost
categories
identified
as
a
part
of
the
SIP
for
an
8­
hour
standard
are
already
conducted
as
a
result
of
other
provisions
of
the
CAA
and
associated
ICRs
(
e.
g.
emission
inventory
preparation,
air
quality
monitoring
program,
conformity
assessments,
NSR,
I/
M
program).

The
burden
estimates
in
the
ICR
for
this
rule
are
incremental
to
what
is
required
under
other
provisions
of
30
the
CAA
and
what
would
be
required
under
a
1­
hour
standard.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.

This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;

develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;

adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;

search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.

The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
in
40
CFR
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.
When
this
ICR
is
approved
by
OMB,

the
Agency
will
publish
a
technical
amendment
to
40
CFR
part
9
in
the
Federal
Register
to
display
the
OMB
control
31
number
for
the
approved
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
final
rule.
However,
the
failure
to
have
an
approved
ICR
for
this
rule
does
not
affect
the
statutory
obligation
for
the
States
to
submit
SIPs
as
required
under
part
D
of
the
CAA.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
generally
requires
an
Agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
Agency
certifies
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,

small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today=
s
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
that
is
a
small
industrial
entity
as
defined
in
the
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)

size
standards
(
See
13
CFR
12.201);
(
2)
a
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,

school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
32
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

In
promulgating
the
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
Rules,
we
concluded
that
those
actions
did
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

For
those
same
reasons,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
proposed
rule
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
our
proposed
rules
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
AFederal
mandates@
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,

local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
33
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.

Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,

including
Tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.

The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
34
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

The
EPA
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
In
promulgating
the
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
Rules,
we
concluded
that
it
was
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
For
those
same
reasons,
our
reconsideration
and
reopening
of
the
comment
period
on
the
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
UMRA.

The
EPA
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
Tribal
governments.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
AFederalism@
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
Ameaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.@
35
APolicies
that
have
federalism
implications@
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
Asubstantial
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.@

This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
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.
This
proposed
reconsideration
requests
comment
on
a
broader
applicability
of
the
overwhelming
transport
classification
and
reopens
the
public
comment
period
on
the
proposed
rule
on
how
the
CAA
section
172
requirements
would
apply.
For
the
same
reasons
stated
in
the
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
Rules,

Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
36
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
AConsultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments@
(
65
FR
67249,

November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
Ameaningful
and
timely
input
by
Tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
Tribal
implications.@
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
ATribal
implications@
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.

The
purpose
of
this
proposed
rule
is
to
reopen
the
comment
period
on
the
proposed
rule
on
how
the
CAA
section
172
requirements
would
apply
to
such
areas.
These
issues
concern
the
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
in
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
that
standard.
The
CAA
provides
for
States
and
Tribes
to
develop
plans
to
regulate
emissions
of
air
pollutants
within
their
jurisdictions.

The
Tribal
Authority
Rule
(
TAR)
gives
Tribes
the
opportunity
to
develop
and
implement
CAA
programs
such
as
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
but
it
leaves
to
the
discretion
of
the
Tribes
whether
to
develop
these
programs
and
which
37
programs,
or
appropriate
elements
of
a
program,
they
will
adopt.

For
the
same
reasons
stated
in
the
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
Rules,
this
proposed
rule
does
not
have
Tribal
implications
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
13175.
It
does
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
one
or
more
Indian
Tribes,

since
no
Tribe
has
implemented
a
CAA
program
to
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
at
this
time.
Furthermore,
this
proposed
rule
does
not
affect
the
relationship
or
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
Tribes.
The
CAA
and
the
TAR
establish
the
relationship
of
the
Federal
government
and
Tribes
in
developing
plans
to
attain
the
NAAQS,
and
this
proposed
rule
does
nothing
to
modify
that
relationship.

Because
this
proposed
rule
does
not
have
Tribal
implications,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply.

While
the
proposed
rule
would
have
Tribal
implications
upon
a
Tribe
that
is
implementing
such
a
plan,
it
would
not
impose
substantial
direct
costs
upon
it
nor
would
it
preempt
Tribal
law.

Although
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
contacted
Tribal
environmental
38
professionals
about
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule
on
the
"
Tribal
Designations
and
Implementation
Work
Group"

conference
call;
a
subsequent
meeting
summary
was
sent
to
over
50
Tribes.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045:
AProtection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks@
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
Aeconomically
significant@
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

This
proposed
rule
addresses
one
aspect
of
the
Phase
1
Rule
that
the
Agency
was
requested
to
reconsider
and
reopens
the
comment
period
on
the
proposed
rule
on
how
the
CAA
section
172
requirements
would
apply
to
such
areas.
39
The
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
risks
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.

Nonetheless,
we
have
evaluated
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
on
children.
The
results
of
this
evaluation
are
contained
in
40
CFR
part
50,

National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Ozone,
Final
Rule
(
July
18,
1997;
62
FR
38855­
38896,
specifically,
62
FR
38860
and
62
FR
38865).

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
proposed
rule
is
not
a
Asignificant
energy
action@

as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
AActions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use,@

(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,

distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
This
proposed
rule
affects
only
a
small
number
of
relatively
rural
areas
by
its
very
nature.
Recent
EPA
modeling
projects
that
all
of
these
areas
will
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
by
2010
without
any
40
additional
local
emission
controls.
7
It
does
not
require
States
or
sources
to
take
any
particular
actions,
but
merely
provides
an
alternate
mechanism
for
States
to
plan
for
attainment
of
such
areas.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
No.
104­
113,

section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
(
VCS)
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,

materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
VCS
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
VCS.

7Technical
Support
Document
for
the
Final
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
Air
Quality
Modeling,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711.
March
2005.
Appendix
E.
Average
Ambient
and
Projected
2010
and
2015
Base
and
CAIR
Control
8­
hour
Ozone
Concentrations.
Available
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
cair/
pdfs/
finaltech02.
pdf.
41
This
proposed
rulemaking
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
VCS.

The
EPA
will
encourage
the
States
and
Tribes
to
consider
the
use
of
such
standards,
where
appropriate,
in
the
development
of
the
implementation
plans.

J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­

Income
Populations
Executive
Order
12898
requires
that
each
Federal
agency
make
achieving
environmental
justice
part
of
its
mission
by
identifying
and
addressing,
as
appropriate,

disproportionate
high
and
adverse
human
health
or
environmental
effects
of
its
programs,
policies,
and
activities
on
minorities
and
low­
income
populations.

The
EPA
concluded
that
the
Phase
1
and
Phase
2
Rules
should
not
raise
any
environmental
justice
issues;
for
the
same
reasons,
this
proposal
should
not
raise
any
environmental
justice
issues.
The
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
with
ozone
were
considered
in
the
establishment
of
the
8­
hour,
0.08
ppm
ozone
NAAQS.
The
level
is
designed
to
be
protective
with
an
adequate
margin
42
of
safety.
The
proposed
rule
provides
a
framework
for
improving
environmental
quality
and
reducing
health
risks
for
areas
that
may
be
designated
nonattainment.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
51
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,

Carbon
monoxide,
Lead,
Nitrogen
dioxide,
Ozone,
Particulate
matter,
Sulfur
oxides.

_______________________________

Dated:

________________________________

William
L.
Wehrum,
Acting
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation
43
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
Title
40,

Chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations,
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
51
B
AMENDED
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
51
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
23
U.
S.
C.
101;
42
U.
S.
C.
7401­
7671q
Subpart
X
B
Provisions
for
Implementation
of
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
2.
'
51.917
is
proposed
to
be
added
as
follows:

'
51.917
What
requirements
apply
to
overwhelming
transport
areas
for
modeling
and
attainment
demonstration,
reasonable
further
progress,
and
reasonably
available
control
technology?

(
a)
Attainment
demonstration.

(
1)
An
area
classified
as
an
overwhelming
transport
area
under
'
51.904
must
submit
an
attainment
demonstration
meeting
the
requirements
of
'
51.112,
which
may
be
based
on:

(
i)
photochemical
grid
modeling
conducted
for
the
OTA;

(
ii)
attainment
demonstrations
completed
by
areas
upwind
of
the
OTA,
where
the
modeling
domains
include
the
OTA;
or
44
(
iii)
regional
or
national
modeling
that
demonstrates
the
area
will
attain
the
8­
hour
standard.

(
2)
A
mid­
course
review
(
MCR)
is
not
required
for
an
area
classified
as
an
overwhelming
transport
area
under
'
51.904.

(
b)
Reasonable
further
progress
(
RFP).
An
area
classified
as
an
overwhelming
transport
area
under
'
51.904
with
an
approved
attainment
demonstration
is
considered
to
have
met
the
RFP
obligation
under
section
172(
c)(
2)
of
the
CAA
with
the
measures
that
will
bring
the
area
into
attainment
by
the
attainment
date.

(
c)
Reasonably
available
control
technology
(
RACT)
and
reasonably
available
control
measures
(
RACM).
For
an
area
classified
as
an
overwhelming
transport
area
under
'
51.904,

the
State
shall
meet
the
RACT
and
RACM
requirements
of
section
172(
c)(
1)
by
submitting
an
attainment
demonstration
SIP
showing
that
the
area
will
attain
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
taking
into
consideration
emissions
reductions
in
upwind
nonattainment
areas
that
contribute
to
the
overwhelming
transport
area's
air
quality.

(
d)
Contingency
measures.
Contingency
measures
must
accompany
the
attainment
demonstration
SIP.
All
subpart
1
45
ozone
areas
and
subpart
2
areas
other
than
marginal
areas
need
contingency
measures.

*
*
*
*
*