Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079-0889
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-11-08T05:00Z

REVISIONS
TO
8­
HR
OZONE
NAAQS
IMPLEMENTATION
RULE
PHASE
2
ADDRESSING
OMB
COMMENTS
TO
LYDIA
WEGMAN
COMPARISON
TO
2/
6/
05
VERSION
*
*
*
*
*
I.
SECTION
ON
LONG­
RANGE
TRANSPORT
(
ADDRESSING
FINAL
CAIR)

 
FROM
SUMMARY
SECTION:

B.
How
will
we
address
long­
range
transport
of
ground­
level
ozone
and
its
precursors
when
implementing
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard?
We
are
addressing
the
long­
range
transport
of
ozone
and
its
precursors
through
a
separate
rulemaking.
Based
on
a
reassessment
ofEPA
has
issued
two
major
rules
to
address
interstate
transport
for
the
8­
hour
standard,
we
proposed
the
"
Rule
to
Reduce
Interstate
Transport
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter
and
Ozone,"
now
known
as
the
proposedof
ozone
pollution.
On
May
12,
2005,
EPA
published
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR)
on
January
30,
2004
(
69
FR
4566).
This
action
proposed
statewiderule
in
the
Federal
Register
(
70
FR
25162).
It
establishes
statewide
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
budgets
for
upwind
States
that
significantly
contribute
to
nonattainmen
or
interfere
with
maintenance
of
the
fine
particle
or
8­
hour
ozone
air
quality
standards
in
downwind
States.
For
ozone,
this
action
established
summertime
NOx
budgets
for
25
States
and
the
District
of
Columbia.
These
budgets
are
based
on
a
proposed
determination
that
emissions
from
these
26
jurisdictions
are
significantly
contributing
to
8­
hour
ozone
(
and
fine
particulate
matter)
problems
in
downwind
States.
On
June
10,
2004
(
69
FR
32684),
we
issued
a
supplemental
proposal
for
the
CAIR,
which
included
a
proposed
model
cap­
and­
trade
program
that
States
could
use
to
meet
the
NOx
budgets
and
25
States
in
the
eastern
half
of
the
country,
with
reductions
to
be
achieved
by
2009
and
2015.
The
1998
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule
already
is
achieving
significant
reductions
in
NOx
emissions
that
contribute
to
interstate
ozone
pollution
in
the
eastern
U.
S.
Nineteen
States
were
required
to
achieve
reductions
by
May
2004,
and
additional
reductions
are
required
by
May
2007.
CAIR
goes
beyond
the
SIP
call
by
requiring
reductions
from
additional
States
and
by
requiring
further
emissions
reductions
in
SIP
call
States.

*
*
*
*
*

 
FROM
MAIN
LONG­
RANGE
TRANSPORT
SECTION:

B.
How
will
we
address
long­
range
transport
of
ground­
level
ozone
and
its
precursors
when
implementing
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard?
­
2­
[
Section
VI.
F.
of
June
2,
2003
proposed
rule
(
68
FR
32827);
no
draft
or
final
regulatory
text.]
1.
Background
Interstate
transport
can
make
it
difficult
or
impossible
for
some
States
to
meet
their
attainment
deadlines
for
areas
within
their
boundaries
solely
by
regulating
sources
within
their
ownState
boundaries.
Section
110(
a)(
2)(
D)
of
the
ActCAA
provides
an
important
tool
for
addressing
the
problem
of
interstate
transport.
It
provides
that
a
State
must
include
adequate
provisions
in
its
SIP
to
prohibit
sources
within
the
State
from
emitting
air
pollutants
in
amounts
that
contribute
significantly
to
nonattainment,
or
interfere
with
maintenance,
in
one
or
more
downwind
States.
Section
110(
k)(
5)
of
the
ActCAA
authorizes
EPA
to
find
that
a
SIP
is
substantially
inadequate
to
meet
any
CAA
requirement,
including
the
requirements
of
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D)
of
the
ActCAA.
If
we
make
such
a
finding,
we
must
require
the
State
to
submit,
within
a
specified
period,
a
SIP
revision
to
correct
the
inadequacy.
The
CAA
further
addresses
interstate
transport
of
pollution
in
section
126,
which
authorizes
any
State
to
petition
EPA
for
a
finding
designed
to
protect
the
State
from
transport
of
emissions
from
significant
upwind
sources
of
air
pollutants
from
other
States.
In
1998,
we
issuedin
other
States.
In
addition
to
requiring
states
to
control
interstate
air
pollution
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D),
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
states
with
nonattainment
areas
to
develop
state
plans
under
Part
D
that
provide
for
meeting
the
NAAQS
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
and
for
maintaining
healthy
air
quality
in
those
areas
over
time.
Together,
the
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D)
and
Part
D
provisions
provide
for
upwind
state
and
in­
state
controls
to
ensure
that
national
health­
based
air
quality
standards
are
met
and
maintained.
Current
approach
On
May
12,
2005,
EPA
published
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
in
the
Federal
Register
(
Vol.
70.
No.
91,
p.
25162).
EPA
determined
that
28
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
contribute
significantly
to
downwind
nonattainment,
or
interfere
with
maintenance,
of
the
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
in
other
states.
The
rule
requires
these
states
to
submit
SIP
revisions
to
reduce
SO2
and/
or
NOx
emissions.
To
reduce
interstate
ozone
transport,
the
rule
established
statewide
ozone­
season
NOx
budgets
for
25
States
and
the
District
of
Columbia.
The
budgets
are
based
on
the
level
of
emissions
that
can
be
achieved
through
highly
cost
effective
controls
that
EPA
determined
are
available
from
electrical
generating
units;
however,
states
have
flexibility
to
choose
the
measures
they
will
use
to
achieve
the
necessary
emissions
reductions.
Due
to
feasibility
constraints,
EPA
is
requiring
the
CAIR
budgets
to
be
1The
CAIR
first
phase
also
provides
an
annual
NOx
budget,
which
also
starts
in
2009.

2CAIR
requires
summertime
NOx
reductions
in
the
following
states
not
covered
by
the
NOx
SIP
call:
Arkansas,
Florida,
Iowa,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
and
Wisconsin.
The
NOx
SIP
call
has
requirements
for
two
states
not
covered
by
CAIR
ozone
requirements:
Rhode
Island
and
Georgia.
EPA
has
proposed
a
stay
of
applicability
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
to
Georgia
as
an
initial
response
to
a
petition
for
reconsideration
on
whether
Georgia
should
be
covered.
(
70
FR
9897,
March
1,
2005)

­
3­
achieved
in
two
phases.
For
summertime
NOx,
the
first
phase
starts
in
2009
(
covering
2009­
2014)
1;
the
second
phase
starts
in
2015
(
covering
2015
and
thereafter).
The
25
states
that
are
required
to
meet
a
summertime
NOx
cap
for
ozone
purposes,
along
with
the
District
of
Columbia,
are
Alabama,
Arkansas,
Connecticut,
Delaware,
Florida,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Iowa,
Kentucky,
Louisiana,
Maryland,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Mississippi,
Missouri,
New
Jersey,
New
York,
North
Carolina,
Ohio,
Pennsylvania,
South
Carolina,
Tennessee,
Virginia,
West
Virginia,
and
Wisconsin.
CAIR
is
geographically
broader
and
more
stringent
than
EPA's
previous
ozone
interstate
transport
rule,
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
adopted
in
1998.2
CAIR's
ozone
requirements
are
based
on
updated
analyses
of
the
impacts
of
pollution
transported
across
state
borders,
and
of
highly
cost­
effective
control
opportunities
for
NOx.
In
the
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule,
whichEPA
found
the
SIPs
for
certain
States
in
the
eastern
U.
S.
to
be
substantially
inadequate
to
address
emissions
transported
to
downwind
States
and
required
those
States
to
select
and
adopt
control
measures
to
meet
statewide
ozone­
season
NOx
emissions
budgets
based
on
highly
cost
effective
NOx
emissions
reductions
(
63
FR
57356,
October
27,
1998.)
In
that
rule,
we
determined
that
the
same
level
of
emissions
reductions
was
needed
to
address
transport
for
both
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards.
The
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule
is
achieving
substantial
emissions
reductions
and
air
quality
improvement
well
in
advance
of
the
attainment
dates
of
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas.
In
the
eastern
United
States,
monitoring
data
shows
a
10
percent
improvement
between
2002
and
2004
in
the
seasonal
(
May­
September)
average
of
daily
maximum
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations,
after
adjustment
for
meteorological
differences.
EPA
believes
that
the
NOx
reductions
achieved
as
a
result
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
are
an
important
factor
in
this
improvement.
The
compliance
date
for
achieving
the
required
NOx
reductions
under
phase
I
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
was
May
31,
2004.
All
of
the
19
affected
States
and
the
District
of
­
4­
Columbia
submitted
complete
and
approvable
Phase
I
SIPs
in
response
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call
and
are
implementing
their
NOx
control
programs.
State
programs
to
implement
the
rule
have
focused
on
reducing
emissions
from
electric
power
generators
and
large
industrial
emitters.
In
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
we
made
determinations
of
whether
emissions
from
sources
in
upwind
States
are
significantly
contributing
to
downwind
nonattainment
problems
under
both
the
1­
hour
and/
orThe
phase
II
SIP
call
rule,
which
responds
to
court
decisions
on
issues
from
the
original
SIP
call
rule
involving
certain
types
of
sources
and
geographic
coverage,
requires
additional
emissions
reductions
by
May
1,
2007.
EPA's
modeling
for
the
CAIR
indicates
that
ozone
levels
across
the
eastern
half
of
the
country
will
improve
substantially
by
2010
because
of
existing
requirements
 
including
the
NOx
SIP
call,
federal
motor
vehicle
and
nonroad
engine
regulations,
and
other
existing
state
and
federal
rules.
Last
year,
EPA
designated
more
than
100
areas
in
that
region
as
having
ozone
levels
not
meeting
the
8­
hour
ozone
standards.
In
the
final
SIP
Call
rule,
we
determined
that
the
same
level
of
reductions
was
needed
to
address
transport
for
both
the
1­
hour
andstandard,
based
on
2002­
2004
data.
Air
quality
improvements
due
to
existing
requirements
(
i.
e.,
without
state
measures
required
for
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
standards.
The
compliance
date
for
achieving
the
required
NOx
reductions
under
the
NOx
SIP
Call
was
May
31,
2004.
All
of
the
affected
States
submitted
approvable
SIPs
in
response
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call
and
are
implementing
their
NOx
control
programs.
The
NOx
SIP
Call
is
ensuring
substantialstandard)
are
projected
to
leave
only
16
of
these
areas
in
nonattainment
in
2010.
This
estimate
is
derived
from
base
case
CAIR
modeling
results
shown
in
the
final
notice
for
CAIR
(
70
FR
25254,
Table
VI
 
12).
As
detailed
in
the
final
CAIR
notice,
the
CAIR
rule
will
further
reduce
ozone
transport
to
assist
states
in
their
efforts
to
bring
ozone
nonattainment
areas
into
attainment
or
­­
in
the
case
of
downwind
receptor
areas
that
attain
prior
to
some
or
all
CAIR
reductions
­­
maintain
air
quality
meeting
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
In
the
CAIR
rulemaking,
EPA
projected
that
39
counties
in
the
16
nonattainment
areas
referenced
above
would
have
ozone
levels
exceeding
the
standard
in
2010
in
the
absence
of
further
control
requirements
(
i.
e.,
the
base
case
without
CAIR).
Most
of
these
counties
were
projected
to
be
within
a
few
ppb
of
the
standard.
For
the
39
counties,
the
average
reduction
in
ozone
levels
estimated
from
2009
CAIR
NOx
controls
is
0.4
ppb,
and
the
maximum
improvement
is
1.4
ppb.
(
70
FR
25254,
Table
VI
 
12.)
The
2009
CAIR
NOx
requirements
will
achieve
reductions
prior
to
the
maximum
attainment
date
for
downwind
8­
hour
ozone
areas
classified
as
moderate.
3For
the
22
counties
projected
to
be
in
nonattainment
in
2015
in
the
absence
of
further
control
requirements
(
i.
e.,
the
CAIR
base
case),
the
average
ozone
reduction
in
2015
from
CAIR
is
1.1
ppb,
and
the
maximum
improvement
is
1.6
ppb.
(
70
FR
25254­
25455,
Table
VI
 
13.)

­
5­
We
believe
that
states
will
be
able
to
demonstrate
timely
attainment
for
most
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
with
the
help
of
emissions
reductions
from
sources
in
upwind
States,
and
thesefederal
rules.
However,
we
also
believe
that
a
limited
number
of
downwind
areas,
while
showing
improvement,
are
likely
to
remain
in
nonattainment
after
2009.
This
is
due
to
the
severity
of
projected
ozone
levels
in
certain
areas,
uncertainties
about
the
levels
of
emissions
reductions
that
will
actually
occur,
and
persistence
of
historical
difficulties
with
attaining
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
EPA
determined
in
the
CAIR
rule
that
even
if
all
downwind
receptor
areas
attained
on
time,
many
areas
will
remain
close
enough
to
the
standard
to
be
at
risk
of
falling
back
into
nonattainment.
EPA
concluded
that
the
2015
summertime
NOx
reductions
will
significantly
improve
the
boundary
conditions
that
downwind
States
must
consider
as
they
work
to
identify
how
areas
within
the
State
will
attain
and
maintain
the
NAAQS.
By
reducing
the
level
of
transported
emissions
at
the
boundaries
of
the
States,
there
will
be
less
burden
to
achieve
additional
emission
reductions
from
areas
within
the
State.
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
said
that
unlike
in
the
past,
States
affected
by
transport
can
develop
their
local
ozone
implementation
plans
with
the
knowledge
that
the
issue
of
interstate
transport
has
already
been
addressed
"
up
front."
However,
in
the
8­
hour
implementation
proposal,
we
also
indicated
that
we
intended
to
investigate
the
extent,
severity,
and
sources
of
interstate
ozone
transport
that
will
exist
after
implementation
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
2.
Current
Approach.
Since
the
8­
hour
implementation
proposal,
we
have
conducted
a
reassessment
of
interstate
transport
forassist
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
Based
on
these
analyses,
on
January
30,
2004
(
69
FR
4566),
we
proposed
the
"
Rule
to
Reduce
Interstate
Transport
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter
and
Ozone,"
now
known
as
the
proposed
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR).
This
action
proposed
statewide
NOx
budgets
for
25
States
and
the
District
of
Columbia.
These
budgets
are
based
on
a
proposed
determination
that
emissions
from
these
26
jurisdictions3
In
addition
to
controlling
interstate
air
pollution
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D),
EPA
and
state
rules
for
controlling
local
source
of
emissions
are
significantly
contributingreducing,
and
in
the
future
will
further
reduce,
the
amount
of
pollution
transported
to
8­
hour
ozone
(
and
fine
particulate
matter)
4Many
types
of
sources
contribute
to
ozone
transport.
CAIR
reduction
requirements
were
developed
based
solely
upon
potential
reductions
from
EGUs;
EPA
did
not
find
other
source
types
highly
cost
effective
to
control.

­
6­
problems
in
downwind
States.
On
June
10,
2004
(
69
FR
32684),
we
issued
a
supplemental
proposal
for
the
CAIR,
which
included
a
proposed
model
cap­
and­
trade
program
that
States
could
use
to
meet
the
NOx
budgets.
nonattainment
areas
in
downwind
states.
Downwind
states,
in
devising
their
attainment
and
maintenance
plans,
will
be
able
to
take
required
upwind
reductions
into
account.
Depending
on
the
particular
area,
the
upwind
reductions
will
help
to
hasten
attainment
of
the
NAAQS,
make
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS
less
difficult
and
costly,
or
both.
EPA
notes
that
interstate
pollution
transport
will
be
further
reduced
through
cost­
effective
measures
that
individual
states
adopt
for
purposes
of
bringing
their
ozone
nonattainment
areas
into
attainment.
4
Given
the
potential
for
measures
adopted
by
one
state
to
improve
air
quality
downwind,
EPA
is
supportive
of
multi­
state
cooperation
on
strategies
for
attaining
the
8­
hour
standard.
3.
Comments
and
Rresponses
This
section
addresses
more
significant
comments
received;
the
response
to
comment
document
addresses
other
comments
also.
Comment:
Several
commenters
thought
the
June
2,
2003,
8­
hour
implementation
proposal
failed
to
adequately
address
transport
and
disagreed
with
our
statement
that
8­
hour
transport
has
been
addressed
up
front
by
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
Some
added
that
this
puts
northeastern
States
located
in
the
Ozone
Transport
Region
(
OTR)
in
a
situation
where
their
citizens
and
businesses
are
bearing
a
disproportionate
burden
of
health
and
economic
impacts
compared
to
upwind
States
that
have
fewer
control
requirements
than
OTR
States.
Some
OTR
State
commenters
said
that
the
rule
should
address
this
inequity.
One
said
we
cannot
assume
that
transport
has
been
addressed
until
after
the
NOx
SIP
Call
is
implemented
and
has
been
evaluated.
Response:
The
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
rule
is
not
intended
as
a
rule
to
address
interstate
transport
of
pollution
and
to
achieve
emissions
reductions
from
upwind
sources.
Rather,
its
purpose
is
to
explain
how
the
provisions
ofinterpret
nonattainment
area
requirements
(
in
subparts
1
and
2
of
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
CAA
apply)
for
purposes
ofstate
plans
to
implement
the
8­
hour
NAAQS.
We
continue
to
believe
that
the
NOx
SIP
call
provides
substantial
benefit
for
areas
that
are
affected
by
the
significanthave
addressed
the
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D)
obligation
through
the
NOx
SIP
Call
and
CAIR,
which
provide
substantial
air
quality
benefit
for
downwind
areas
significantly
affected
by
­
7­
transport
of
pollution
from
other
States
and
will
ease
the
planning
burden
for
those
areas.
Under
the
CAIR,
we
have
proposed
to
find
that
there
is
a
need
for
NOx
reductions
beyond
those
required
by
the
NOx
SIP
Call
to
further
reduce
the
interstate
transport
of
ozone
and
the
precursor
NOx
for
purposes
of
addressing
significant
contribution
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Comment:
Two
commenters
recommended
a
regional
approach
among
States
to
address
transport.
One
commenter
thought
that
Clear
Skies
is
the
best
way
to
address
transport,
but
absent
that,
would
support
a
regional
approach.
Some
commenters
thought
the
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
proposal
ignored
the
issue
that
ozone
is
a
regional
problem
that
can
only
be
solved
through
regional
planning.
These
commenters
added
that
instead
of
incentives
for
regional
planning
there
were
disincentives.
Another
commenter
thought
that
EPA
unrealistically
expects
States
to
be
able
to
resolve
all
potential
conflicts
between
the
States
by
working
together
in
a
collaborative
process
to
identify
and
adopt
appropriate
controls
that
provide
for
attainment.
The
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
oversight
may
be
necessary
in
these
situations.
One
commenter
thought
the
development
of
multiple
ozone
transport
regionsOTRs
for
regional
planning
and
coordination
may
be
highly
desirable
to
bring
States
with
a
common
problem
together
to
coordinate
efforts
with
the
strength
of
several
States
rather
than
to
go­
it
alone.
Another
suggested
some
criteria
for
EPA
to
use
if
we
were
to
choose
to
establish
OTRs.
Response:
We
believe
that
addressing
interstate
transport
requires
regional
cooperation.
Theapproaches
and
regional
cooperation.
EPA
has
ensured
regional
action
to
reduce
interstate
ozone
transport
through
the
NOx
SIP
Call
is
providing
significant
benefit
to
areas
affected
by
transported
pollutionRule
and
CAIR.
In
addition,
we
have
proposed
to
require
additional
NOx
emissions
reductions
from
a
number
of
States
covered
by
the
NOx
SIP
call
and
to
required
several
other
States
to
reduce
NOx
emissions.
We
note
that
groups
of
States
have
worked
effectively
together
in
the
past
to
address
regional
ozone
problems.
For
example,
the
Lake
Michigan
Air
Directors
Consortium
(
LADCO)
was
established
in
1990
by
the
States
of
Illinois,
Indiana,
Michigan,
and
Wisconsin.
The
main
purpose
of
LADCO
is
to
provide
technical
assessments
for
and
assistance
to
its
member
States
on
problems
of
ozone
air
quality
and
to
provide
a
forum
for
its
member
States
to
discuss
air
quality
issues.
We
will
continue
to
encourage
these
multi­
State
efforts
to
assess
and
address
ozone
nonattainment
and
will
work
with
these
States
as
needed
to
provide
support
and
ensure
progress.
­
8­
We
believe
these
federal
rules
in
conjunction
with
voluntary
cooperation
between
States
will
be
effective
in
addressing
the
8­
hour
ozone
problem.
At
this
time,
agree
with
other
commenters
that
States
should
work
together
in
the
SIP
development
process
to
ensure
localized
transport
is
addressed.
States
that
share
an
interstate
nonattainment
area
are
expected
to
work
together
in
developing
the
nonattainment
SIP
for
that
area
and
in
reducing
emissions
that
contribute
to
local­
scale
interstate
transport
problems.
We
would
also
encourage
collaborative
efforts
even
in
cases
where
there
is
not
a
multi­
State
nonattainment
area
but
where
significant
emissions
sources
in
one
State
might
affect
air
quality
in
a
nonattainment
area
in
an
adjacent
State.
In
response
to
comments
suggesting
that
EPA
establish
additional
transport
regions,
at
this
time
we
do
not
anticipate
formalizing
any
additional
transport
regions.
Thus,
it
would
not
only
be
premature
but
would
also
be
an
inefficient
use
of
resources
to
develop
criteria
that
we
would
apply
in
establishing
additionalWe
believe
that
the
NOx
SIP
Call
and
CAIR
rules
go
far
to
effectively
address
the
kind
of
transport
that
establishment
of
a
transport
regions.
Comment:
Many
commenters
supported
our
intention
to
investigate
the
extent,
severity,
and
sources
of
interstate
transport
that
will
exist
after
the
NOx
SIP
Call
is
implemented
in
2004.
Two
commenters
said
this
investigation
should
be
preceded
by
rigorous,
peer­
reviewed
modeling
and
observation
analyses
in
an
open
public
process.
One
commenter
thought
we
should
conduct
modeling
similar
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call
modeling
and
assignregion
would
be
intended
to
address,
without
the
costs
of
setting
up
a
commission
to
oversee
the
transport
responsibility
to
States.
Another
recommended
that
the
States
be
involved
from
the
beginning.
Several
urged
us
to
issue
a
transport
rule
as
soon
as
possible.
Several
State
commenters
claimed
that
the
air
coming
into
their
States
is
often
at
or
above
the
level
of
the
8­
hour
standard
and
thus
it
would
not
be
possible
to
solve
nonattainment
within
their
boundaries
without
reducing
the
amount
of
ozone
and
its
precursors
being
transported
into
the
State.
Others
said
our
preliminary
modeling
indicates
that
ozone
concentrations
in
air
being
transported
to
the
Northeast
will
be
at
levels
near
or
above
the
8­
hour
standard,
even
after
the
implementation
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
One
commenter
said
upwind
States
are
not
reducing
emissions
sufficiently
to
ensure
a
downwind
State
can
meet
its
legal
obligations.
Several
commenters
thought
upwind
areas
should
be
held
accountable
for
their
impacts
by
implementing
controls
similar
to
those
required
in
the
downwind
areas
they
impact.
One
commenter
believes
that
the
same
type
of
control
measures
already
in
place
throughout
the
OTR
should
be
applied
in
­
9­
upwind
areas
affecting
the
air
quality
in
the
OTR.
One
suggested
that
as
a
starting
point
upwind
areas
should
be
required
to
implement
requirements
such
as
RACT,
I/
M,
and
NSR.
Several
commenters
stated
that
all
types
of
industrial
facilities
should
be
controlled
to
prevent
transport.
Another
urged
us
to
do
our
part
to
adopt
national
controls
on
fuels
and
mobile
sources.
One
commenter
said
that
we
have
not
demonstrated
that
the
existing
and
anticipated
control
programs
in
upwind
States
will
solve
the
transport
problem
for
northeastern
States
despite
our
assertion
that
interstate
transport
has
already
been
addressed.
Response:
In
certain
cases,
for
the
States
to
be
successful
in
developing
local
plans
demonstrating
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard,
we
agree
that
upwind
sources
of
emissions
must
be
effectively
and
efficiently
controlled.
These
emission
reductions
may
be
achieved
through
federal
rules
(
such
as
those
regulating
engines
and
vehicles)
or
through
rules
requiring
upwind
States
to
address
the
interstate
transport
of
pollutants
through
SIP
revisions.
However,
in
any
rule
issued
by
EPA
under
sections
110(
a)(
2)(
D)
and
(
k)(
3),
EPA
cannot
mandate
the
specific
controls
the
State
must
adopt
 
such
as
RACT,
I/
M
and
NSR
 
as
suggested
by
the
commenters.
We
may
identify
the
level
of
contribution
that
needs
to
be
addressed,
but
the
State
has
the
responsibility
to
identify
the
controls
to
achieve
those
reductions.
For
the
proposed
CAIR,
we
conducted
new
analyses
of
the
degree
of
transport
that
will
remain
after
implementation
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
In
assessing
whether
emissions
from
upwind
States
significantly
contribute
to
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
in
downwind
States,
we
followed
the
general
approach
used
in
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
However,
we
used
an
updated
model
and
updated
inputs
that
reflect
current
requirements
(
including
the
NOx
SIP
Call
itself).
We
proposed
to
conclude
that
certain
States
and
the
District
of
Columbia
are
significantly
contributing
to
8­
hour
ozone
problems
in
downwind
States
and
proposed
statewide
NOx
budgets
for
these
jurisdictions.
In
the
rulemaking
process,
we
have
made
all
of
the
transport
analyses
available
for
public
comment
and
review.
Comment:
Two
commenters
thought
that
we
should
not
evaluate
what
actions
are
needed
to
address
transport
beyond
the
existing
NOx
SIP
Call
until
after
States
have
had
a
chance
to
address
the
new
standard
with
SIPs.
The
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
SIP
Call
reductions
will
just
be
implemented
in
2004.
One
pointed
out
that
the
NOx
SIP
Call
was
designed
to
address
both
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
transport.
Several
commenters
thought
that
because
the
existing
NOx
SIP
Call
eliminates
significant
contribution
from
other
States,
under
that
rule
there
is
no
basis
for
any
further
requirements
to
reduce
NOx
for
the
purpose
of
addressing
long
range
transport
issues.
Another
stated
that
any
changes
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call
should
be
limited
to
expanding
the
geographic
­
10­
coverage
of
the
requirements.
The
commenter
said
we
should
not,
and
have
not,
justified
modifying
the
NOx
SIP
call
for
States
that
have
fully
controlled
under
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
Response:
As
discussed
above,
we
are
addressing
the
issue
of
transport
in
CAIR,
and
the
sufficiency
of
the
analysis
in
that
rule
or
the
legal
authority
of
such
action
is
not
an
issue
for
this
rulemaking.
We
agree
that
States
should
work
together
in
the
SIP
development
process
to
ensure
localized
transport
is
addressed.
States
that
share
an
interstate
nonattainment
area
are
expected
to
work
together
in
developing
the
nonattainment
SIP
for
that
area
and
in
reducing
emissions
that
contribute
to
local­
scale
interstate
transport
problems.
We
would
also
encourage
collaborative
efforts
even
in
cases
where
there
is
not
a
multi­
State
nonattainment
area
but
where
significant
emissions
sources
in
one
State
might
affect
air
quality
in
a
nonattainment
area
in
an
adjacent
State.
Comment:
One
commenter
said
that
in
order
for
areas
to
attain
the
8­
hour
standard
by
the
applicable
attainment
date,
a
regional
strategy
with
deeper
and
quicker
(
i.
e.,
by
the
end
of
this
decade)
reductions
than
has
been
offered
to
date
is
needed.
The
commenter
urged
us
to
reconsider
the
options
submitted
in
April
2002,
through
the
Ozone
Transport
Commission,
regarding
transport
and
ozone
implementation.
Another
commenter
agreed
that
significant
regional
or
national
reductions
that
coincide
with
attainment
dates
are
essential.
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
Clear
Skies
and
Tier
IV
nonroad
engine
standards
are
not
yet
in
place
and
in
any
event
would
not
bring
timely
relief
from
transport.
One
State
commenter
urged
us
to
quickly
promulgate
a
transport
rule
to
address
8­
hour
ozone
problems
in
a
time
frame
to
help
areas
attain
the
standards.
Several
commenters
thought
that
any
results
from
EPA's
investigation
of
interstate
transport
that
will
exist
after
the
NOx
SIP
Call
will
likely
come
too
late
to
help
downwind
8­
hour
areas
meet
their
attainment
dates.
Response:
As
noted
above,
the
issues
raised
by
these
commenters
are
being
considered
separately
in
the
CAIR
and
are
not
part
of
this
rulemaking.
In
both
the
January
2004
proposal
and
the
June
2004
supplemental
proposal
for
the
CAIR,
we
solicited
comment
on
the
proposed
compliance
deadlines
for
Phase
I
(
2010)
and
Phase
II
(
2015)
reductions.
In
that
rulemaking,
we
are
evaluating
the
balance
between
the
need
for
near­
term
reductions
to
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM2.5
standards,
the
ability
of
States
to
develop
firm
plans
for
achieving
the
required
reductions,
and
the
ability
of
affected
emissions
sources
to
install
pollution
controls
in
a
fashion
that
is
least
disruptive
to
the
economy.
We
are
currently
reviewing
the
comments
we
have
received
and
will
make
final
decisions
on
the
timing
for
compliance
with
the
CAIR
after
we
have
carefully
considered
all
relevant
policy
issues.
xxx
may
need
to
be
­
11­
revised
and
updated
based
on
what
we
say
in
the
CAIR]
Comment:
Two
commenters
expressed
concern
that
if
upwind
emissions
are
not
controlled,
downwind
local
areas
will
be
driven
to
adopt
more
costly
(
and
less
cost
effective)
measures.
One
added
that
this
would
exacerbate
the
existing
inequity
between
upwind
sources
and
the
OTR
States.
Another
thought
that
areas
affected
by
transport
should
not
be
required
to
achieve
all
reductions
from
local
controls
even
if
local
control
would
achieve
attainment,
since
local
measures
may
be
extremely
expensive
when
compared
either
to
control
measures
that
could
be
implemented
in
upwind
areas
or
compared
to
regional
measures.
Two
commenters
stated
that
the
cost
and
benefit
of
controls
to
address
transported
emissions
should
be
carefully
evaluated
and
compared
to
the
cost
and
benefits
of
downwind
local
control
measures.
Response:
We
agree
that
upwind
States
have
the
responsibility
to
control
emissions
that
are
significantly
contributing
to
downwind
nonattainment
problems.
Although
numerous
areas
will
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
in
the
near
term
with
existing
controls,
we
believe
that
other
areas
will
need
further
emissions
reductions
(
in
some
cases,
large
reductions)
to
attain
the
8­
hour
standard.
Many
of
these
areas
have
already
adopted
significant
local
control
measures
to
reduce
1­
hour
ozone
levels.
As
discussed
in
the
proposed
CAIR,
we
conducted
an
analysis
to
evaluate
the
effect
of
local
measures
on
8­
hour
ozone
attainment.
In
this
analysis,
hypothetical
total
NOx
and
VOC
emissions
reductions
of
25
percent
were
applied
in
all
projected
nonattainment
areas
east
of
the
continental
divide
in
2010.
Despite
these
substantial
reductions,
approximately
eight
areas
were
projected
to
have
ozone
levels
exceeding
the
8­
hour
standard
in
2010.
We
believe
that
this
hypothetical
local
control
scenario
is
an
indication
that
attaining
the
8­
hour
standard
will
entail
substantial
cost
in
a
number
of
areas,
and
that
further
regional
reductions
are
warranted.
The
NOx
reductions
proposed
under
the
CAIR
would
greatly
assist
the
downwind
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
in
achieving
the
8­
hour
NAAQS.
Moreover,
as
we
stated
in
the
proposed
CAIR,
addressing
upwind
emissions
would
help
ensure
that
attainment
would
be
achieved
in
a
more
equitable,
cost­
effective
manner
than
if
each
nonattainment
area
attempted
to
achieve
attainment
by
implementing
local
emissions
reductions
without
the
benefit
of
these
upwind
emission
reductions.
[
xxx
NEED
TO
CONTINUE
TO
CONSIDER
THIS
RESPONSE
IN
LIGHT
OF
HOW
WE
ULTIMATELY
ADDRESS
THE
NPRA
&
API
PETITIONS
FOR
RECONSIDERATION.
MAYBE
MOVE
THIS
COMMENT/
RESPONSE
TO
RTC
DOC?]
Comment:
Three
commenters
thought
the
NOx
SIP
Call
was
not
designed
to
address
the
8­
hour
standard.
One
said
that
the
NOx
SIP
Call
was
based
largely
on
the
work
of
the
Ozone
Transport
Assessment
Group
(
OTAG),
which
was
established
to
address
transport
under
the
1­
hour
standard.
Two
­
12­
stated
that
even
with
the
NOx
SIP
Call's
significant
emission
reductions,
our
preliminary
modeling
indicates
that
air
being
transported
to
the
Northeast
will
be
at
levels
above
the
8­
hour
health
standard.
Response:
Although
the
NOx
SIP
Call
relies
in
part
on
the
OTAG
analyses,
we
conducted
additional
analyses
of
interstate
transport
with
respect
to
both
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards
and
promulgated
the
NOx
SIP
Call
to
address
transport
for
both
standards
(
see
62
FR
60318;
November
7,
1997
and
63
FR
57356;
October
27,
1998).
Several
years
have
passed
since
promulgation
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
and
updated
data
are
available.
Therefore,
we
are
reassessing
the
degree
to
which
ozone
transport
will
remain
a
problem
under
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
after
full
implementation
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
Based
on
new
analyses,
we
proposed
in
CAIR
to
conclude
that
additional
reductions
are
needed
to
address
the
significant
transport
of
emissions
and
to
ensure
progress
toward
attainment
in
downwind
areas
affected
by
those
transported
emissions.
Therefore,
we
proposed
the
CAIR,
which
would
require
additional
NOx
emissions
reductions
requirements
for
25
States
and
the
District
of
Columbia
to
address
the
interstate
transport
problem.
We
are
continuing
to
evaluate
the
issue
of
transport
and
plan
to
take
final
action
on
the
CAIR
no
later
than
xxx
[
date??].
region.
Comment:
Some
commenters
stated
that
we
should
not
rely
on
the
proposed
Clear
Skies
legislation
to
reduce
emissions
transport
because
there
is
no
guarantee
that
the
legislation
will
be
enacted.
Several
State
commenters
added
that
Clear
Skies
would
not
provide
adequate
or
timely
emissions
reductions.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
we
work
with
Congress
to
enact
legislation
to
allow
for
the
development
and
use
of
a
transport
argument
in
attainment
demonstrations.
Response:
While
we
still
hope
that
Congress
will
adopt
the
Administration's
Clear
Skies
multi­
pollutant
legislation,
we
acknowledge
that
the
outcome
of
that
process
is
uncertain.
Therefore,
relying
onTo
ensure
that
regional
transport
is
addressed
in
a
timely
manner,
EPA
finalized
the
CAIR
in
May
2005
based
on
our
existing
regulatory
authorities,
we
proposed
the
CAIR,
which
would
require
upwind
States
to
address
any
transported
NOx
emissions
reductions
as
expeditiously
as
possible.
Commentauthority.
Comment:
One
commenter
proposed
that
rather
than
addressing
transport
through
national
measures,
we
could
include
transport
as
one
of
the
criteria
for
determining
the
adequacy
of
a
SIP.
This
commenter
supported
the
multi­
State
collaborative
effort
mentioned
in
the
proposed
rule,
so
that
areas
work
together
to
address
transport
as
their
SIPs
are
being
developed.
The
commenter
asserted
that
our
proposed
early,
top­
down
approach
could
significantly
hinder
SIP
planning
for
local
areas
considering
the
complex
chemistry
of
ozone
and
PM2.5
formation.
Response:
We
believe
that
the
ActNOx
SIP
call
and
CAIR
help,
rather
than
hinder,
SIP
planning
for
nonattainment
areas.
We
agree
that
the
CAA
does
allow
the
States
to
work
together
in
a
collaborative
fashion
to
assess
regional
or
sub­
national
transport.
The
EPA
worked
with
a
State­
led
effort
in
the
mid
­
to
late
­
1990'
s
(
the
OTAG
process)
to
perform
such
an
assessment,
which
documented
the
magnitude
and
extent
of
long­
range
transport
of
ozone
and
its
precursors.
At
that
time,
EPA
concluded
that
without
some
certainty
of
what
levels
of
emission
controls
would
be
required
in
the
larger
region,
it
was
impossible
for
States
to
assume
realisticfaced
great
uncertainty
regarding
the
amounts
of
ozone
and
precursor
concentrations
being
transported
into
the
modeling
domain
of
the
nonattainment
area
for
which
they
were
required
to
develop
their
attainment
demonstrations.
Therefore,
EPA
issued
the
NOx
SIP
cCall
that
required
affected
States
to
cap
NOx
emissions
 
and
more
recently,
CAIR
­­
to
establish
the
emission
reduction
responsibilities
of
upwind
states
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D).
In
this
way,
eastern
US
States
could
then
have
a
fair
degree
of
certainty
regarding
required
upwind
reductions
and
the
amount
of
transporttransported
emissions
to
be
assumed
in
their
1­
hour
ozone
attainment
demonstrations
for
individual
nonattainment
areas.
Based
on
thisthe
OTAG
experience,
we
believe
it
would
likely
taked
that
there
was
high
risk
that
States
working
together
in
a
collaborative
fashion
towould
not
agree
on
a
regional
control
strategy
much
morewithin
the
time
than
the
ActCAA
provides
for
States
to
develop
8­
hour
attainment
demonstrations.
Therefore,
we
believe
the
commenter
is
incorrect
that
the
"
top­
down"
approach
wouldwill
significantly
hinder
SIP
planning
for
the
individual
areas,
and
on
the
contrary,
if
done
expeditiously,
wouldwill
provide
the
certainty
needed
to
complete
the
attainment
demonstrations
in
a
timely
manner.