Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053-2014
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-03-10T05:00Z

Ol=
FI°'
l°
OI=
°
N°
ORMA°
ON
AND
R°
GU°
ATORY
OFFICE
OF
°
AN°
G°
ME°
AN°
BUDG°
NATURAL
RESOURCES,
ENERGY
AN°
°
GRI°
L°
RE
BRANCH
725
t7th
Str°
¢
t,
NW,
Room
Office:
202=
395=
3084/
Fax:
202­
395­
7285
Fax#:.
Pages:
°,[°'
including
this
cov°
r
sheet,

Commetrl'(
s):
John
Asalone
Keith
B
¢
ltan
Amy
Flynn
Art
Fraas
Jim
Laity
Amanda
L
¢
°

Margie
h°
aJanoski
David
Rostker
Rut"
h
Solomon
Rich
Theroux
Edmond
Toy
and
analY°
ical.
tools
to
ide°
tify
a
significant
contribution
from
upwind
statesto°
owngi°
d
States..
areavailable,
the
State's
SIP
submissionmdst
addre.
Ss
the
existence.,
of
.
the
Contribution
and
the
emission
red°
cti0ns
.
necessary
to
eliminate
the
Significant
contrib%
ti0n..:.
In
.
other­.
cirgumsta°
ceS,
.
however,
the
tools
and
informa°.
i0n°>.
n°.
y
nOt"
b°
­
available['.
rn
such
circumstances,
the
sec°:
i0n."
ii0
(
iaiiI2)..(
D)
S°
P
[.
submission
should
indicate
that
the
necessary/
infO°
mat/
ion
.
is
"
hot­
a°
ai°
able
at
the
time
the
submission
±
S
made
°
h°°
2.
a°
°

°­°"°",,'°'
''­':
'­­
­"­­­­'
1
­'

at.
a:
­
l,°
ez":
time
after
i.
he
i#,_.
it
±
al
section
3;
10
(
a)
(°.)
(
D)

°
u.
bm
±
ssions
to
±
ssue
a
SZ°
aal..
l..
L.
mder
secb:
l_
on
'
tlO.(
k.)(
5)
to
States
to
satisfy
the
section
ll0(
a).(
2).(
D)
obligations
if
s°_°
ch
°°:.:
arr°
n°
c°
based
upon
s°
bseque°
tly­
available
data
analyses.
This
is
precisely
the
circt°
mstance
that
was
presented
at
the
time
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
in
1998
when
EPA
issued
a
section
ll0(
k)
(
5)
SIP
call
to
states
re°
arding
their
section
ll0
(
a)
(
2)
(
D)

obligations
on
the
basis
of
new..
information
that
was
deve!
oped
years
after
the
States.'
S!
Ps
had
been
previously,
approved
as
satisfying
section
ll0(
a)(
2)(
D)
without
providing
for
additional
controls
since
the
information
available
at
=
he
earlier
poin°
in
time
did
not
indicate
tAe
need
for
such
additional
controls.

Not
only
is
this
sequencing
consistent
with
the
CAA,
it
is
=°;°=
consistent
with
sound
policy
considerations.
The
upwind
reductions
required
by
today's
action
will
facilitate
attainment
planning
by
the
States
affected
by
°
ransport
do.
wind.
°
ather
than
being
"
premature"
as
some
co­­
enters
suggested,
°
Abeliev4
that
re°
iring
the
States
to
address
the
upwimd
transport
contr&
bution
to
do.
wind
nonattainment
earlier
in
the
process
as
a
first
step
is
°

°

reasonable
approach
and
is
fully
consistent
w°
th
the
statutory
structure.
This
approach
will
allow
do.
wind
S°
ates
to
develop
SIPs
that
address
their
share
of
emissions
with
knowledge
of
what
measures
upwind
States
will
have
adopted.°
°

addition,
most
of
the
downwind
States
that
will
benefit
by
today's
rulemaki°
g
are
themselves
significant
contributors
to
violations
of
the
standards
further
do.
wind
and,
,
thus,
are
subject
to
the
same
retirements
as
the
StaLes
further
upwind.
The
red°
ct°
ons
these
do.
wind
States
must
implement
due
to
their
additional
role
as
upwind
States
will
help
red°
ce
their
o°
PM2.5
and
8­
ho°
r
ozone
problems
on
the
same
schedule
as
emissions
reductions
for
the
4
obligations
imposed
upon
designated
nonattainment
areas.
As
formal
des
±
gnation
unde°
the
generally
applicable
provisions
of
section
i07
(
d)
could
take
up
to
3
years
following
promulgation
of
a
new
or
revised
NAAQS,
and
section
172(
b)
allows
up
to
3
additional
years
for
Stat.
e
submission
of
nonattainment
area
SIPs,

the
conumenters
concluded
that
States
could
not
meet
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)(
I)
on
°
he
schedule
of
section
ll0(
a)(
1).
From
the
fact
that
States
could
not
meet
all
of
the
elements
of
the
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
requirement
within
3
years,
the
commenters
inferred
that
EPA
cannot
require
States
to
meet
any
of
the
requirements
±
n
section
1.10(
a)
(
9.),
including
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
D).

°
not
;
b.°_
G°.°__
The
EPA
agrees
that
there
are
certain
provisions
of
section
ll0(
a)(
2)
that
are
gover°]
ed
not
by
the
schedule
of
section
ll0(
a)(!),
but
instead
by
the
timing
requirement
of
section
172(
b),
e.
g.,
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
I).
Other
items
in
section
ll0(
a)(
2),
however,
do
not
depend
upon
pr
±
or
designations
in
order
for
States
to
develop
a
SIP
to
begin
to
comply
w
±
°
h
°
hem,
e.
g.,
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
B)
(
pertaining
to
monitoring);
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
E)
(
stipulatin°
that
States
must
p°
ovide
for
adequate
resources);
and
section
l!
0(
a)

(
pertaining
to
modeling).
"
applicable,
not
each
requirement
regardless
of
applicability.

In
the
current
situation,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
to
view
the
CAA
as
requiring
States
to
make
a
submission
to
meet
the
requirement
of
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
D)
in
accordance
with
the
schedule
of
section
ll0(
a)
(
i),
rather
than
under
the
schedule
for
nonattainment
S!
Ps
in
section
172(°).
°

b.
EPA's
Authority
to
Require
Section
ll0(
a)(
2)(
D)
Submissions
Prior
to
Formal
Designation
of
Nonattainn°
nt
Areas
under
Section
107.

A
number
of
commenters
argued
that
EPA
has
no
authority
to
require
States
tO
comply
with
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
D)
until
after
EPA
formally
designates
nonattainment
areas
for
the
PM2.5
and.
8­

hour
ozone
NAAQS.
7
These
commenters
claimed
that
section
107(
d)

As
noted
earller,
what.°­­
a°
­°
:°.°
to
meet
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
°
vary,
depending
upon
the
specific
facts
and
circumstances
surroundin°
a
new
or
revised
NAAQS.
See,
e.
g.,
°
rQDgsed
Kecr°
irement°.
for
°
Dlementation
Plans
and
Ambient
Air
Quality
Surveillance
for
SuI.$
Dr
Ox
±
des
(
Sulfur
Dioxide)
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Stan.
da.
rd,
60
FR
12492,
12505
(
March
7,
1995).
In
the
context
of
a
proposed
5­
minute
NAAQS
for
SO2,
EPA
°'
tentatively
concluded
that
existing
S°
P
provisions
£
or
the
24­
boutand
annual
S02
N°
QS
were
probably
sufficient
to
°'
i
°
meet
many
elements
of
section
ll0(
a)(
2).
The
EPA
did
not
°
explicitly
discuss
State
obligations
under
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)(
D)
for
the
5­
minute
N°
QS
in
the
proposal°
buu
th°­

°'°
Anature
of
the
pollutant,
the
sources,
and
the
p.
r°
vc°
d
N°.
AQC°

a
crltlCal
reglonwlde
concern
that
lJ
is
for
the
PM2.5
nd
8­
hour
ozone
N°
QS
°

<­
(,°
­
r.°

The
EPA
notes
that
the
8­
hour
ozon°
°
esignati°
ns/
became
effective
on
June
15,
2004,
and
that
the
PM2.5
designations
w°
ll
become
°
ff°
ctive
on
April
5,
2005.
The
EPA
believes
13
"
nonattainment
areas,"
EPA
concludes
that
the
section
does
not
presuppose
the
existence
of
formally
designated
nonattainment
areas,
but
rather
to
arnb
±
ent
air
quality
that
does
not
attain
the
NAAQS.

The
EPA
believes
that
this
plain
reading
of
the
provisions
is
also
the
most
logical
approach.
A
reading
that
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
D)
means
that
Stateshave
no
obligation
°°
r°'°
e°
to
address
interstate
tzanspozt
unless
and
until
there
are
formally
designated
nonattain°
ent
areas
pursuant
to
section
107
would
be
inconsistent
with
the
larger
goal
of
the
CAA
to.
encourage
expeditious
attainment
of
the
NAAQS.
F­°°
A
it
ic
from
currently
available
air
quality
monitoring
data
and
modeling
°°

that
many
areas
of
the
eastern
portion
of
the
country
are
in
violation
of
both
the
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozo°
p
NAAQ,
S°.
,,°
e°°

.°
v=
ii°
m°
eAir
eD/
ality
modeling
studi°
s°
demonstra°.°
hat
NOx
emissions
from
sources
in
upwind
States
a°
e
contributing
°
o
violations
of
the
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
in
downwind
States
°
Following
the
example
of
the
NOx
S!
P
Call,
°
PA
has
an
effective
analytical
approach
to
determine
whether
that
interstate
contribution
is
significant,
in
accordance
wi°
h
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
D)°
Thus,
EPA
currently
has
the
°
nformat
±
on
and
tools
that
it
needs
to
determine
what
the
initial
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone
S!
Ps
from
upwind
States
should
include
as
appropriate
NOx
and
emissions
seductions
in
order
to
prevent
emissions
that
significantly
contribute
to
nonat°
ainrnent
in
downwind
States.

°

kh:
r
°:°.°,:.
d.
n,
d:_
SLa°
Je°,
°.°
L
u,
both
PM2
.5
and
ozone
are
egzonal
phenomena,°
znforma°
ion°
the
9recise
boundaries
of
°
a°
t°
ng
until°
completion
of.
formal
designau°
on
o[

nonattai°
ent
area
boundaries°
°,°­
t­;
he
c°.
n_°
r°,,
°
2A
be°
i°
ve°

°

The
EPK
believes°
at
the
co.
enters'
.
v&
ew
of
°
e
down
°

whether°°°
°

si°°°
As
extensive
network
of
air
quality
monitors
to
identify
which
States
have
monitors
that
are
currently
showing
violations
of
the
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone
N°
QS.
°
°

the
NP°,
EPA
stated
that
based
upon
data
for
the
3­
year
period
from
2000
2002,
"
120
counties
with
monitors
exceed
the
annual
PM2,5
N°_
QS
and
297
counties
with
mo'ni.°
or
z'eadings
exceed
the
8­
hour
ozone
N°_
QS"
(
69
FR
4566,
458!;

18
ST/&
0"
a
£
Z:
OT
S00°­°
0­°
6N
January
30,
2004)
(
emphasis
added).
The
geographic
distribution
of
monitors
with
data
registering
current
violations
indicated
that
there
is
nonattainment
of
both
the
PM205
and
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
throughout
the
eastern
United
States
and
±
n
other
portions
of
the
country
including
California.
For
analyses
of
future
ambient
conditions,
EPA
used
various
modeling
tools
to
predict
that,
in
the
absence
of
the
CA!
R,
there
would
be
counties
withmonitors
that
would
continue
to
show
violations
of
the
PM2.5
and
8
hour
ozone
N°
QS
in
2010
and
2015,
In
subsequent
steps,
°
PA
analyzed
whether
the
e°
ssions
from
upwind
States
contributed
to
the
a°
ien%
conditions
at
the
monitors
registering
N°
QS
violations
in
do,
wind
States,
and
thereafter
determined
whether
that
contribution
would
be
significant
pursuant
to
section
llo(
a)
(
2)
(
D).

In
°

of
th°
se
stresS,
however,
did
to
kn<
the
pre
s°°
boundar
±
e°°
he°
n°
nattai°
°
areas
th:
ma'

'°
u
mat
y
d°°
status
'_
Im°
a
give°
countY/
s
I
°
d
°
r°­
up°
to°
ed°°
t
°
ea°
urem°°
°
he.
°

°
th%.°/
p°
i°
vs
that
°
the
appropriae°
zinformation
°
EPA
to
at
\<""%
ar°
e
ultlma°
e<°
ze
.°'
aring
on
"
Th%
s°
z°
f
such
in
nonatta°
inment
ii
of
S
sn
¢
areas,
is
not
°
te
transport
another
:
ing
mo;
whether
e
or
tl
cont°
nonat
that
th
State
or
es
shoulc
with
s°
(
a)
(
2)
(°.

°
e
significant
'
ibution
­
sis
upon
with
tots
t
re,

wi°
out
regard
°/_

to
precise
of
the
}
airument
are°
that
may
/

ult
Z
result
°

formal°
°
tion
p°
cess
under
°.­..­
A..,
ile..
r°.°
s°.,
EPA
l°
e°­
disagrees
with
the
commenters'
assertion
that
the
provisions
of
TEA­
2°
preclude
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
timing
requirements
of
sections
ll0(
a)
(
i)

and
ll0(
a)
(°).
However,
TEA­°
I
did
address
the
need
to
create
a.

new
network
of
monitors
to
assess
the
geographic
scope
and
location
of
PH2.5
nonattainment..
Also,
TEA­
21
did
provide
that
such
a
network
should
be
up
and
running
by
December
31,
1999.

TEA­
21
did
lay
out
a
schedule
for
the
collection
of
data
over
a
period
of
3
years
in
order
to
make
subsequent
regulatory
decisions.
From
these
facts,
the
commenters
concluded
that
TEA­
21
necessarily
contradicts
EPA's
position
that
States
must
now
take
2O
action
to
address
significant
contribution
to
downwind
nonattainment
in
their
initial
section
ll0(
a)
(
I)
SIPs,
merely
because
the
initial
three­
yea9
period
following
the
promulgation
of
a
new
or
revised
NAAQS
specified
in
section
ll0(
a)
(
i)
has
expired.

The
EPA
believes
that
nothing
in
TEA­
21
explicitly
or
implicitly
altere
the
timin°
recluirem%°
ts,
of;
s°
ion
°
10°
a)(
1)

for
compliance
with
section
If0
(
a)(
2)(
D)]
The
provisions
of
TEA­

21
pertained
to
the
installatlon
of
°
network
of
monitors
for
PM2.5,
and
to
the
timing
of
designatlon
decisions
for
PM2.5
and
8­

hour
ozone.
To
be
specific,
TEA­
2$
had
two
primary
purpose°
fo°
Y°°
the
new
NAAQS:
(
i)
to
gathe°
information
"
for
use
in
the
°.°
D°
n°'°

determination
of
area
attainment
or
nonattainment
designations"

°'
for
the
PM2.5
NAAQS;
and
(
2)
°
o
ensure
that
States
had
adequate
time
to
consider
guidance
from
EPA
concern
±
ng
"
drawing
area
boundaries
prior
to
submlttin°
area
designations"
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
TEA­°
I
sections
6101(
b)
(
1)
and
(
2).
The
EPA
interprets
the
third
stated
purpose
of
T°
A­
21
to
refe°
to
ensuring
consistency
of
timinQ
between
the
Regional
Haze
program
requirements
and
nhe
PM2.5
NAAQS
requirements.
With
respect
to
timing,
TEA­
21
similarly
on!
y
referred
to
the
dates
by
which
States
and
°
PA
should
take
their
respective
actions
concerning
designations.
For
PM2.5,
TEA­
21
provided
that
States
were
required
"
 o
submit
designations
referred
to
in
section
2],
iiO(
a)
(
2)(
D).

The
co°
menters
suggested
that
because
Congress
provided
more
time
for
making
forma!
designations
pursuant
to
section
107,
it
necessarily
follows
that
States
should
not
have
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
D)
on
the
schedule
o°
section
ll0(
a)
(
i).
The
EPA
believes
that
Congress
did
not,
through
TEA­
21
or
other
actions,
alter
the
existing
submission
schedule
for
SIPs
to
address
interstate
transport.
By
contrast,
Congress
did
explicitly
alter
the
schedule
for
submission
of
plan
revisions
to
address
Regional
Haze.
From
this,
EPA
infers
that
Congress
did
not
intend
ZPA
to
delay
action
to
address
the
issue
of
interstate
transport
for
the
8­
hour
or
PM
2.5
NAAQS.
Thus,
EPA
must
still
ensure
that
States
submit
SiPs
in
accordance,
with
the
substantive
requirements
of
section
ll0(
a)(
2)(
D).
!°
ecause
EPA
and
the
States
now
have
the
data
an°
analyses
t,
o
e°
tablish
the
pre°
ence
and
magnitude
of
interstate
transport,
Athe
Agency
believes
that
it
is
now
appropriate
to
require
the
Act
xeq°
i°
States
to
address
interstate
transport
at
this
time
in
the
manner
set
forth
in
today's
rule.

c.
EPA's
Authority
to
Require
Section
llO(
a)(
2)(
D)
Submissions
Prior
to
Sta°
e
Submission
of
Nonat°
ainment
A°
ea
Plans
Under
Section
172.

Some
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
cannot
determine
the
existence
of
a
significan5
contribution
from
upwind
States
to
downwind
States
until
EPA
actually
receives
the
nonattainment
area
SIPs
from
each
State
and
evaluates
how
much
"
residual"

°

oa°_°.)
.................

°­
equim­
e­
dow°
wind
States
.°,°
.
E.,­.,_,
c.°­
m,..°,
s.­,.*.°­
,,..,..­,

°°

have
to
cons°
ruc.
t
SIPs
to
attain
°
he
N°
QS
without
firs°

knowing
what
upwind
States
might
ultimately
do
to
reduce
interstate
transport.
Presumablyj
t
_
t°_°
o_°]­_
°.°­
Z.
amh
the
°
downwind
States
may
choose
to
control
their
ow°
local
emissions
sources
more
aggressively°
inAupwind
States
installation
of
highly
cost­
effective
emission
controls,

notwithstanding
the
continued
slgnmfzca
t
impacts
of
emissions:
r
from
upwind
sources
on
downwind
States.
Alternatively,
the
tq°
mmr°!­

may
be
that
EpA
a°
wa
±
t
until
submiss
£
on
of
upwind
State
nonattainment
area
SZPs
to
discover
whether
and
to
what
degree
the
SIPs
address
intersta
£
e
tramsport
to
downwind
States.

For
reasons
already
d°
scussed
more
fully
above,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
statute
requires
=.­=,?
A
t°­°°°­°
a
"
wait
and
see"

approach
to
discover
what,
if
anything,
States
may
ultimately
do
to
address
the
problem
of
regional
£
nterstate
transport.
Sect
±
on
ll0(
a)
(
i)
requires
"
each"
StaLe
to
submit
a
SIP
within
3
years
after
a
new
or
revised
N°:
AQS
addressing
the
requirements
section
ll0
(
a)
(
2)
(
D)
L
°

°,
°=°
°­°
ave­­
the
data
and
the
analyses
needed
to
establish
the
existence
of
interstate
transport
of
pollutants
and
to
determine
whether
there
is
a
significant
contribution
to
nonattainment
or
interference
with
maintenance
by
one
.
State
in
another
State
are
available,°
EPA
believes
°[
hat
°
t°
°
ay
°
r=
a°
i°:­°

°­
°°
n
Lo
act
upon
that
information
prior
to
State
SIP
submissions
to
ensure
that
States
address
such
contribution
e°
editiously,
as
it
is
doin°
in
this
rul°
akin°.

°
gency/
d
wo°
ld
r)
s°
it
i°
°
n°
e°
essary/
and
avo°
i°?
ays/
in
,.

°

addres°
he
regional
°

to
assist
the
States
°

comDonen°
of
the
nonattai°
ent
problem
in
a
way
that
is
e°
itable,

timely,
cost
effective,
and
certain.

The
EPA
acknowledges
tha°
historically,
especially
zn
the
case
of
1­
hour
ozone,
the
Agency
.
has
nou
had
the
data
and
the
analytical
tools
to
help
upwind
States
to
address
interstate
transport
as
early
in
the
S!
P
process
as
it
is
doing
today
for
PM2.5
and
0­
hour
ozone.
The
C°
k
has
required
States
to
regulate
25
EZ:
OT
Given
that
EPA
and
the
States°
equisite
information
to
identify
interstate
transport
at
this°
stage
of
SIP
development,
,
EPA
believes,
based
upon
its
experience
in
implementing
the
l­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
that
it
is
preferable
to
take
°
action
to
address
the
regional
transport
component
of
the
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone
nonattairnaent
problem.
States,
both
upwind
and
downwind,
will
still
have
an
obligation
to
control
emissions
from
sources
within
their
boundaries
for
the
purposes
of
local
area
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS.
The
EPA
does
not
believe,
however,
that
it
is
either
requi°
ed
by
the
statute,
or
in
accordance
with
sound
policy,
for
the
Agenc°
to
wait
until
submission
of
the
nonattainme°
t,
area
S°
Ps
of
downwind
States
to
discover
whether
or
not
those
SIPs
will
control
local
sources
sufficiently
to
provide
for
eventual
attainment
regardless
of
continued
significant
contribution
through
interstate
transport
from
upwind
States.
To
the
contrary,
past
experience
with
the
1­

hour
ozone
NAAQS
has
demonstrated
that
delayed
action
to
address
the
interstate
component
of
nona°
tairn°
ent
will
potentially
lead
to
delays­
in
attainment
as
downwind
areas
str°
ggle
to
overcome
the
impacts
of
transport.
°

a
number
of
scientific
and
technical
assessments
of
ozone
and
.
PM2.5
by
the
NKC
and
the
Ozone
Transport
Assessment
Group
l°­°­
x°
m°°

°

interstate
transport
°

a
crit
£
cal°
°
n
developing
SIPs,

27
°$'
d
7U
±
O
±
The
EPA
has
concluded
that
the
proposed
18­
month
schedule
is
reasonable
°
iven
the
circumstances
and
given
the
scope
of
the
actions
that
we
are
requiring
States
to
take.
We
issued
the
and
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
revisions
in
July
1997.
More
than
3
years
have
already
elapsed
since
promulgation
of
the
NAAQS,
and
States
have
not
submitted
S!
Ps
to
address
their
section
ll0(
a)
(
2)
(
D)

obligations
under
the
new
NAAQS0
We
recognize
that
litigation
"
over
the
new
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
created
substantial
uncertainty
.......
u^.°

°­°
°
n_°.­°
u°
d°
p°
7°
l°
the
new
NAAQS,

and
that
this
°
certaint°
Q°
ac.­
az°
rendered
it
difficult
for
States
to
develop
S°
Ps.
Moreover,
in
the
case
of
PM2.5,
additional
time
was
needed
°°
of
an
ade°
ate
monitoring
network,
collect°
at
least°
yea°
s,
of
data
from
)°),°)
....
°__°

I°°°
in
°
he
NP°,
the
SNPR,
and
today's
action,

°
provided
States
with
a
great
deal
of
data
and
analysis
concerning
air
quality
and
control
costs,
as
well
as
policy
'
n
judgments
from
EPA
concernl
g
the
appropriate
cxiter
£
a
for
determinin°
whether
upwind
sources
contribute
s
£
gn°
ficantly
to
do°
wind
nonatta
£
nment
under
section
ll0(
a)
(
Z)
{
D)
We
recognize
31